Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238

Website from IITG/RCILTS

  1. Source: [1]
  2. Article: Kamrupi dialect
  3. Content: [2], [3]

The above changes are challenged by @Bhaskarbhagawati: and so I would like to solicit opinions on the reliability of the source listed above. The website claims that Kamrupi is not one but a group of dialects. The exact quote is follows:

Several regional dialects are typically recognized. These dialects vary primarily with respect to phonology and morphology. A high degree of mutual intelligibility is enjoyed among the dialects. Banikanta Kakati has divided the Assamese dialects into two major groups. They are:

However, recent studies have shown that there are four dialect groups, listed below from east to west:

  1. Eastern group spoken in and other districts around Sibsagar district.
  2. Central group spoken in present Nagaon district and adjoining areas.
  3. Kamrupi group spoken in undivided Kamrup, Nalbari, Barpeta, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon.
  4. Goalparia group spoken in Goalpara, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts

This website and the text itself is quoted/referenced in a conference proceeding&mdhas;Nath et. al. "A Preliminary Study on the VOT Patterns of the Assamese Language and Its Nalbaria Variety", p543. The senior author of this article is a lead researcher in a different institute (Tezpur University). Some of the recent research has been on a number of Kamrupi dialects: Barpetia dialect, Nalbariya dialect, etc. For example, the PhD thesis on Barpetia dialect—[4]—was submitted to the Gauhati University. Some more discussion is listed here: Talk:Kamrupi dialect#Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects

I believe it is fairly established that Kamrupi is a group of dialects, and not a single dialect all by itself as it has been accepted by the linguistic community. I seek the help of this noticeboard in establishing the reliability of the source, or failing which the recommendation of any other source. Thanks.

Chaipau (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The source mentioned above was written as tourist brochure many years ago.[citation needed] The references it provided itself are less reliable, none was written by any noted linguist or deals primarily on subject. Dr.Upendranath Goswami, a pioneer linguist wrote various works on 'Kamrupi language' including his Phd thesis which later published as book in 1970 as 'A Study on Kamrupi', besides he wrote dedicated works on Assamese language, Deori language etc. Nonetheless, his prime focus was Kamrupi language, ascertained by numbers of works, listed in the 'Kamrupi dialect' article. So, i believe this article should follow works of experts rather than lax sources, when there is content dispute.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe argument to authority applies in Linguistics. Goswami's work, published in 1970, is 48 years old, and much work has happened since then. If Goswami's work can extend Kakati's work (Kakati identified two Assamese dialects - Western and Eastern), then later Linguists can extend Goswami's work as well. Chaipau (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You have misrepresented a few things above.
  • U N Goswami did not work on a 'Kamrupi language' but on the Kamrupi dialect. The title of his thesis (1958) was A Study on Kamrupi, a Dialect of Assamese. [5]
  • Goswami himself pointed out the three different varieties of Kamrupi. In page xxv he writes: "These dialectical varieties can be grouped into three divisions..." [6] Thus, the RCILTS website restates Goswami.
Therefore, the RCILTS and the recent works on dialects are extensions of Goswami's work.
Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


I would like to invite some editors who have participated in Assamese language and Kamrupi dialect article and talk pages to this discussion: @SameerKhan:, @Tuncrypt:, @Aeusoes1:, kindly contribute to this thread. Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for finding more recent research, but I don't think this particular source does a good job of establishing the authority needed. It's a tertiary source and, although it's missing inline citations, presumably the sources it cites can be used to confirm the results of more recent research (and, if needed, any sources the source's sources cite). Someone's got to do the hard work of finding where the above source got its information and then we can use that to back up our edits.
That said, I don't see much reason to doubt the source's information. Bhaskarbhagawati says that the sources cited aren't by "noted" linguists, which is so completely arbitrary and subjective a measure as to be meaningless. If the sources are linguistic ones, we can use them. If the sources are sufficiently academic and back up linguistic claims with linguistic sources, we can use them. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This is precisely my problem—and the reason for the request for RS comments on the website. We know who delineated the Eastern and Western dialects of the Assamese language (Kakati); who divided the Eastern dialect into Eastern and Central (G C Goswami); and who defined the Kamrupi dialect and thus divided the Western dialect (U N Goswami). But I see no single work that states that Kamrupi is actually a group of similar dialects. Instead I see many works (PhD thesis, conference papers, posters, journal papers etc.) on individual dialects of Kamrupi: Barpetia dialect, Nalbaria, South Kamrupi etc. All these works implicitly assume that Kamrupi is indeed a group of different dialects. The only reference I have seen that states this situation explicitly is the RCILTS website, which in fact, gets cited in academic papers as well (link above).
Chaipau (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a case of WP:WEIGHT, there is no serious research done on the subject after Goswami (1970), we can find few casual references here and there.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
That is a remarkable statement. Though Goswami published his thesis in 1970, he had submitted it in 1958. The claim that no serious work has happened in this area in the last 60 years is untrue. Chaipau (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I accept aeusoes1 (talk · contribs)'s comment that the website's information is correct (that the Kamrupi dialect is a group of dialects), but that we need better sourced references. Chaipau (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, aeusoes1 is party in various disputes on the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It is OK for you to not agree with others. But that does not mean you have veto powers on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

News24 and Nairobi News – Elizabeth Michael

Elizabeth Michael is an actress who has been convicted of manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, actor Steven Kanumba. I've been debating with several users over the last few weeks over an assertion I added to the article that Michael admitted during her testimony in court that she did push him during an argument. (Two of them tried to remove any mention of the conviction from the article altogether! So I didn't grant them much credence, as they were clearly working to an outrageous extreme to keep negative material out of the article. My current correspondent hasn't done that.)

I sourced this claim to two apparently reliable sources. Those who've taken issue with this are insisting that these sources aren't reliable. I don't think any of them has provided alternative sources that explicitly say Michael didn't admit, during her testimony, to pushing Kanumba, only sources that don't mention her saying anything about it at all. (For what it's worth, in her statement at the time of her arrest several years before the trial, it does appear that she denied having pushed him.)

It may be that three different people just don't want to believe what these two sources wrote, or it may be that the sources are generally known to be unreliable, or it may be that they happen to be wrong in this case. I don't know, but I thought I'd present the situation for consideration here to get more opinions.

See my latest discussion about this on my talk page, User talk:Largoplazo#Wrong source. Largoplazo (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I see my inquiry has gotten no traction. In case it helps, the sources attesting her admission to having pushed him are:

Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

And the following are the sources from Tanzania where she is from ,that show she didn't admit to push him but rather she was convicted because she was the last person to be with him
Candy78
Does either of these articles say "Michael never admitted to having pushed Kanumba"? By the way, the second link is broken. Largoplazo (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand swahili?!! Why do they have to say that"Michael admitted to having pushing Kanumba" and Michael herself didn't admit in the court ,they have reported what Michael said in the court and not what they think or guess as the source you use which are outside Tanzania that were definitely not in the court .I'll repeat this the source you use show she won ZIFF award for Foolish Age which is not true she won for Woman of Principles.It's clear they know nothing about Michael Candy78 (talk)

Do I need to explain the difference between a source saying "X didn't do Y" and a source not mentioning whether or not X did Y? The former contradicts the statement "X did Y". The latter doesn't. Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank God it has reached here!. I also tried to edit by removing those sources as I know they have reported it wrong ,no where she has ever admitted to have pushed him,but when I tried to put it clear Largoplazo threatened to block me from editing so I Stopped but the truth is she has never said in the court that she pushed him

Allen Terry

  • You tried to keep mention of the manslaughter out of the article altogether. Largoplazo (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop lying,I removed that reference after seeing it has lied ,it say things that she hasn't said in the court ,she has never admitted such thing and one of the user have submitted some sources from her country Tanzania that shows she has never admitted . And why don't you want to accept opinions from other ,You have said three people have made doubt on that source why are you still referencing it ??!
Can I ask you?? The references you use said Michael won best actress by Foolish Age but it's wrong she won by Woman of principles the official website of ZIFF (http://www.ziff.or.tz/2013/07/07/ziff-2013-the-awards/) Do we still have to believe that source??? Allen Terry
Where did I lie? Are you claiming that someone other than you made this pair of edits completely removing any mention of her manslaughter trial from the article?
"... she has never admitted such thing and one of the user have submitted some sources from her country Tanzania that shows she has never admitted" Are you psychic?
"... one of the user have submitted some sources from her country Tanzania that shows she has never admitted": I already responded to that, and the answer is still the same: The one article doesn't show that she didn't admit to it, it only doesn't say that she did admit to it. The other article doesn't exist at the address that she provided. Further, if those articles actually said "she didn't admit to it", why would I choose to believe them instead of the sources I provided? Why would you? As for sources being from Tanzania: Is there something magical about Tanzania that makes information reported by sources in that country automatically true while information reported by sources in other countries is automatically false? Whether sources are or aren't Tanzanian sources carries no weight in this discussion.
Meanwhile, I'm seriously hoping for people who weren't involved in this discussion in the first place to participate, because getting fresh perspectives was the entire reason I posted this here. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I come here from WP:Africa where comments were requested. I am not familiar with the sources from before, but from what I can assess News24 appear to be an acceptable source, and the particular article appears to be a AFP source which is clearly RS. Yet, not every information in a reliable source is alway accurate and relevant context may be lacking, but as a starting point information in this article should be considered reliable. But great care is always needed when writing on criminal matters concerning living persons. Iselilja (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to believe them,and you want to believe your own sources that everyone is against them why can't you let us edit that article??Because everytime one try to remove that source and write the truth you are going to undo them.I wonder what kind of person you are.. with so much hate !.and you have been provided with some evidences to show that they have mistaken it but you don't want to accept..and no where I said Tanzania sources have to be believed,what I said she was convicted in Tanzania and many sources here in Tanzania were in court compare to those sources you're using that have translated it wrong and they obviously not in the court By the way you haven't answered my question

Can I ask you?? The references you use said Michael won best actress by Foolish Age but it's wrong she won by Woman of principles the official website of ZIFF (http://www.ziff.or.tz/2013/07/07/ziff-2013-the-awards/) Do we still have to believe that source??? Allen Terry (Allen Terry)
That same article also says that Michael was "sentenced to two years in prison for involuntary manslaughter" and that "Kanumba was buried in Dar es Salaam" and that "Her lawyers have vowed to appeal the sentence." Are these statements also false just because of the misstatement about which film she won the award for at ZIFF? Further, I've supplied two sources supporting this assertion. Largoplazo (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, I object to you saying "I wonder what kind of person you are.. with so much hate !" Really? Everybody in the world who disagrees with you about something has "so much hate"? Because no one without hate would ever disagree with you? Or do you mean that I must be filled with hate because I have the nerve to have written what I found in two reliable sources and to contest its removable by people who have presented no objective, verifiable evidence that it isn't true. I strongly recommend you read WP:AGF before you again accuse anybody here of hate or anything else you have no basis for accusing them of. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Bates New York Jets Quarterbacks Coach

The page for Jeremy Bates incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator for the New York Jets. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted.

Fox News reliability RfC

withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (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.

Following on the discussion above (permalink), the following is proposed, as the community stance on Fox News as a source, generally. Within this, as always, each specific use to support specific content must be evaluated in light of the content policies.

Fox News is generally as reliable as CNN, NBC, and ABC for mundane facts unrelated to politics, but is deprecated for political subjects. Therefore it should be used with caution regarding politics and its opinions clearly attributed.

--Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC !votes

  • Strong oppose this was already discussed ad nauseum above. Fox News is as reliable as CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. And don't waste your time badgering/bludgeoning me with the "false equivalence" assertions already made the above thread. I have no interest in such wikilawyering. Lepricavark (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support Fox News is a right-wing outlet, proudly so, and this affects not only its commentary but its news programming, in terms of selectively self-censoring news for political reasons. See, for example, "'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment'", by Oliver Darcy, CNN, October 31, 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per previous discussion on this Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I agree that Fox News should be used with caution regarding political topics and opinion, the same could be said for many other media outlets. Fox shouldn't be singled out this way. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support Fox is equivalent to RT. Treating it like legitimate sources is corrosive. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Terrible idea. Deprecate all right-leaning news outlets AND all left-leaning news outlets, or deprecate none of them. TimBuck2 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support But with the caveat (as I have said more then once) that in truth this should be applied to all news outlets that allow opinion to masquerade as news. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to be Fox is as good a place to start. I really think it is time to stop using scandal rags and political mouthpieces as sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously, but in the certain knowledge that in the current partisan environment this will probably not achieve consensus, because for some, to say that Fox is not RS is tantamount to saying that right-wing opinion is de facto incorrect - that's not at all what we're saying, but it's how the tribal media have led people to see it. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose. This is a remarkably simple-minded approach to a complex problem. News sources of every type should be thoughtfully evaluated on a case by case basis. Deli nk (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The caveat likely should apply to every remotely controversial topic by any source, in fact. That some editors might loathe a source is insufficient for supporting this RfC, alas. Collect (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jytdog summarized the evidence against Fox below. It's not very conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Oppose Fox isn't much worse than other mainstream sources, and certainly not on the level of the DM and other prohibited sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC discussion

  • I don't have time to read through previous discussions. Can someone(s) who supports the proposal please put forward their best, most concise explanation for it? I'm particularly interested in links to reliable, fairly recent analyses that evaluate Fox News' reliability for themselves, perhaps discussing recent mistakes and how the newsroom responded to them. The ideal source would be something from Columbia Journalism Review or similar caliber. I'm not interested in learning more about the bias of Fox News' opinion programming, of its news headlines, of its website layout, or of its coverage decisions. News reporting content only. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure "mistakes" is the issue; all sources occasionally make mistakes, and even The New York Times runs corrections often (usually of very small stuff such a name spelling). The issue is bias in the news reporting, as I mention (with a link) above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes (and thank you for the link, btw) but you see, the complaints in that article were about opinion programming and news coverage, not about news content. If anything the article suggests that Fox News reporters are getting it right, but that their stories are getting demoted and ignored by the talking heads and headline writers. The article is also only about coverage of the Mueller investigation, which is much narrower than the proposal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman,
I would offer you the obituary of Roger Ailes who established the fundamental "messaging" of Fox News: "'If we look conservative,' he said, 'it’s because the other guys are so far to the left.' In his mordant humor, CNN stood for Clinton News Network and CBS for Communist Broadcasting System. What Fox News did, he said, was apply a necessary corrective." This is, by all reasonable accounts, a huge lie and a corrosive poison injected into the body politic of America, that rendered the world "truthy". And this NYT profile, "He implicitly injected the news with politics — and set Fox to the right of its rivals — even as he professed to be doing the opposite."
User:BullRangifer had posted the following above:
  1. Their American politics reporting is very GOP biased.

    They aren't quite as close to center as CNN is on the left, but more like MSNBC is to the left. Pew Research Center is good on this. (Play with this.) They often literally won't mention basic political facts and news stories which are counter to their own GOP POV, and when they are finally forced to do it, it's with very heavy spin.

    My wife, who isn't political at all, will sometimes switch back and forth between CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and Fox, just to see how all MSM are discussing stories, but Fox is discussing some minor event of no significance, and often it's a distraction. She points it out.

    They refuse to cover stories against their POV, and then only with spin that turns it into actual falsehood and propaganda. Sins of omission have consequences. Good propaganda is often without direct lies, but by omitting certain information the effect is very deceptive.

  2. Their fact checking is weak, and correction of publicly noted errors is slow, and usually without apology. There are many well-known examples of this. Seth Rich is one we have mentioned. Another one that's current is related to Peter Strzok#Fox News coverage.

    This means they are literally fact checked by other MSM, which forces them to finally make a correction as the caboose, way behind on the train of facts.

    When they have a GOP talking point or POV to push, they are like a bulldog that won't let go. It blinds them so their bias is very obvious to anyone who compares news coverage, and they have occasionally repeated fake news from the extreme right.

    The pathway from Russia to Fox News has been described by Paul Wood:

    "This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls." Source

    Note that Fox picks up a few of the fake news stories, but by that time the MSM is aware not to do it.

  3. Fact checkers have rated their accuracy last among the major MSM.

    This is directly related to this RS policy. It has to be weighted heavily against them.

    1. Fox's file at PolitiFact

    2. Comparison of MSM at PolitiFact.

    3. Snopes

    4. Fox least trusted in 2014. Pew Research Center

    5. Fox News Pounded In Ratings As Truth Mounts a Surprising Comeback, Newsweek

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Jytdog, they quantify what the issues actually are, beyond the rhetoric. Unfortunately, the Newsweek article is strictly an opinion piece, no facts. The Snopes link isn't actually to an article? The Pew and PolitiFact links are actually useful, but don't show a clear line between Fox and the others. Pew says Fox is trusted by 44% of respondents and CBS by 46%, I'd hate to rule we don't trust Fox over such a small difference. While PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox are Mostly False or worse, which is terrible, but it also says NBC's statements are 44% Mostly False or worse, which isn't much better - I wouldn't consider treating a source which gets 44% of its statements wrong as a reliable source. I can only assume that means PolitiFact aren't differentiating between news and opinion statements, surely 44% of the news reported on NBC isn't wrong. But in this case it may well just mean that Fox has more opinion commentators, not that its news coverage is inherently less trustworthy. I don't watch a lot of TV, but understand Fox is actually famous for having lots of shows dedicated to commentators, correct? So if this is the best evidence against Fox being like most of the other American mainstream media outlets, it's not conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As I already pointed out above in the discussion, 'Politifact' is not useful as a comparison to other sources or even representative of the true distribution for any one source (it is actually useless as a judge of anything but each individual claim itself). It is not random sourced, but rather a representation of submitted inquiries that they then look into. No system like this can ever result in a representation of the true picture. Saying "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox are Mostly False or worse" is complete BS, because you should be saying is: "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox selected for investigation by our viewers and that we bothered to looked into are Mostly False or worse". If most of those statements it checks are stuff that people flagged because they thought it was false (a very safe bet), then the statement is actually closer to "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox that people thought were false were Mostly False or worse" which of course is meaningless to judge the actual reliability of all statements from Fox. Could I skew the numbers by requesting them to look into 100 random statements that appeared very true? Sure, but would they bother reporting on the truth of obviously true statements? Probably not, which is another clear reason why bias shows up in this kind of system. Politifact is USELESS for the purpose you are trying to put it to. Please stop. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This RfC is getting ambiguous responses because it raises two separate issues with one yes or no question. We need to solicit editor opinions separately on political and non-political content. From the comments it appears that editors are Opposing this not because they feel Fox is RS for politics but because they feel it is not RS for anything at all. It's a nuisance, but I suggest restarting this with two separate questions. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I pulled this. Somebody else can pose something else if they like. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI... I would oppose on any RFC that singled Fox out... but I would support a statement cautioning readers about political coverage on ALL media outlets. We can set harsher reliability criteria if we want... but we have to be even handed about it, and apply whatever criteria we come up with to all news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That is a rather foolish position. You would put the political coverage of Fox on a par with the Washington Post? Fox was founded by a Nixon adviser who thought the real problem with Watergate was the Washington Post. The two are very much not equivalent. Obviously all media has an editorial line, but the problem with fox is that the editorial line interferes with news reporting (as it does witht he Daily Mail, for example), in a way that reputable news organisations try to avoid. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, no one has provided the type of source I requested. All of the sources provided fail in one way or another to address the central issue of whether Fox News' news reporting is reliable. I am not saying that Fox News is reliable. I am saying that editors are talking past each other, and since the "unreliable" camp has a very heavy burden here, unless editors start listening to and responding to the other side, there is virtually zero chance we will see any sort of blanket ban, even a partial one. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is seeking "any sort of blanket ban, even a partial one." Deprecation is not a blanket ban, but a limitation, in this case regarding "politics" and "use with caution". That's it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If we've discussed this before...and the discussion was closed, then had the RFC withdrawn, what exactly do we think will change in this discussion? Shouldn't this have closed with the RFC? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As this has now been withdrawn why is it still being argued over?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. Hat or archive it. Whatever works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

comment Honestly, as I was trying to suggest before, the reliability of a source (like fox) that is generally reliable should be reviewed case by case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • i left this open to see if there were ideas about how to reframe the RfC. I don't agree that any of the opposes were because people were saying Fox is unreliable for anything -- all of them are clearly opposing the deprecation. I still kinda think a multi-option RfC would provide a better sense of the community consensus.... Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I was looking for the chart of common media sources byy bias and found it again today: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg Guy (Help!) 20:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well that seems super-well researched and reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
      • ...but even if you accept that "mediabiaschart gmail.com" is a reliable source, it only lists one particular Fox News show. There is more to Fox News than just The Daily Wire program. It is not unreasonable to think that Fox News could be reliable for "Olympic snowboarder breaks neck after fall in competition" but not as desirable a source for "ABC News, Joy Behar slammed for Mike Pence joke" (both current headlines for Fox News, according to my search engine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it as an article source, but the woman who runs that site analyses massive quantities of claims line by line. It's written by a practising attorney, and she publishes her methodology: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/methodology-posts/. And anyone who doesn't think Fox News is biased is frankly delusional - even if it is presenting a neutral depiction of a kitten being rescued from a tree, the chiron will be telling you about how the Florida shooter was a communist who followed ISIS. CNN is biased too, but their balance of news to punditry is better and they seem to at least care about factual accuracy rather than ideological truth. Gotta feel for Shep Smith though - his segments are starting to look like hostage videos. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I knew I'd read this, so went back and dredged it up. CJR describes perfectly the specific and unique problem with Fox.

Stewart suggested that Fox’s tendency to mislabel opinion as news is what differentiates the network from other, more traditional news sources. But that’s the least of it. The more important distinction is the conservative slant and essential inaccuracy of much of Fox’s news reporting itself. Stewart conceded Baier’s premise that because Fox has reporters stationed in Middle Eastern hot spots their reporting on world affairs is above reproach. It is not.

Emphasis mine, to distinguish CJR's view from Stewart's. This isn't FAIR or some other politically activist media watchdog, CJR is a serious source. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not likely to use any television program as a source (since I have no television and therefore never see their promotional ticker stream), but I don't think we can or should ban it. For one thing, WP:BIASED sources are explicitly permitted: e.g., "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context". For another thing, when it is inaccurate, it should be possible to exclude it on grounds of WP:DUE. This would be the case, e.g., when most sources say X and a Fox News program says Y. I don't see it as being fundamentally different from any other news source, except that we are much more likely, upon close examination, to reject the source because an alleged news article is partly an opinion piece masquerading as news and/or doesn't represent a mainstream/consensus position on the facts in question. I see it as a problem of degree, not of type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Cross-post of WP:EFN discussion

A year ago, this noticeboard resolved that links to the Daily Mail would generally be banned on this project. The ban has never been technically implemented, however. A discussion was started at EFN last month to finally set the Mail filter to warn, but it fell off of the noticeboard due to lack of participation. I just rescued the discussion from the archives, and I thought that this time around I'd cross-post here, since the discussion is arguably more relevant to this board than to that one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Make it so. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Support No reason to not have this in my view. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Support - This would be help a lot. We should also do this for Breitbart, and possibly others.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
what picard said. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Unnecesary vanity tags that just waste volunteer time. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Eh? This does the exact opposite, warning users of inappropriate citations before they commit, saving reversions. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Banglapedia

This has been discussed twice before with no real decision being made as to its reliability. Per http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Special:ListGroupRights it is a mediawiki powered site whose registered edits can edit pages. Pages such as http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Soil_Resources_Development_Institute have absolutely no references on them. By clicking on "Random page" a few times this seems to be a common theme. Now on the other hand, there is http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Online_Edition which claims that the material is edited by professors and there is some oversight to it and there is a print version under the same name. There is no link that I can find between the print version and this website. The fact that this is a mediawiki powered site with a user group that can edit pages seems to indicate that this is not a reliable source. But it continues to be used on 50 pages. --Majora (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Those pages do have the name of the writer/researcher. Banglapedia is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh and its current president is Amirul Islam Chowdhury, Vice-Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University. Here is a link to the book volume one. Both the book and the websites are published by Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. There is no evidence to suggest that anonymous editors can create accounts or edit the encyclopedia.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
After trying other content management systems over the years, the society settled on MediaWiki for its web version. Unlike Wikipedia and many other wikis, however, their content is not user-generated (you may have noted that their wiki has one user, one administrator, and one bureaucrat - you and I can't join and edit). Banglapedia follows the old-fashioned encyclopedia model of the chief editor inviting a subject matter expert to write each article. Authors of important topics are often preeminent in their fields and have written multiple books on the subject - Anupam Hayat for many cinema topics, Sirajul Islam for history, and Harun-or-Rashid for politics come to mind.
Banglapedia is a tertiary source rather than a secondary one. Some articles cite sources, some do not, making it like many other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be nice if all their articles cited sources, but as a practical matter many of those sources would be in Bengali, published in Dhaka, and virtually unobtainable outside of a good research library in Bangladesh, so of limited practical use to most editors and readers of the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources does not require that a reliable source cite its sources.
The bottom line is that Banglapedia is a reliable source. There's a good reason it is cited in over 2,800 articles, and has been for over a decade. Bangladeshi academics are no more or less susceptible to taking a local view of subjects than are academics from any other part of the world. Sensible editors look for a variety of sources published in a range of countries. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As this seems to be in response, at least partially, to my comment on the talk page that started all of this I guess I'll just copy and paste my post for reference sake. I am fully capable of admitting if I am wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize. I'm just not fully convinced of that fact. Yet. The lack of any sources on the majority of article is concerning. Britannica tends to include references to other sources in their articles. I would expect other tertiary sources to have references to secondary sources. Banglapedia doesn't appear to do that. Which, again, is concerning. Britannica does include references in most of their articles. Not just to other Britannica entries but to external sources for verification purposes. Any referencing at all at Banglapedia appears to be a rarity. At least from clicking the random page button a few times. --Majora (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What if the particular information, using Banglapedia as a source, has been disputed by a scholarly source available on Google Books? Would you still consider using Banglapedia? How will you attribute Banglapedia? I don't agree that one has to provide references for their information. Excelse (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
When Reliable sources disagree, present the disagreement and attribute who says what. See: WP:Neutral point of view Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a good reason it is cited in over 2,800 articles is not a valid argument. We've had plenty of works cited in those sort of volumes that have nonetheless been determined to be unreliable. onefivenine.com is a recent example, as are wikimapia and Google maps, and many British Raj era authors. Dare I add the Daily Mail? For what it is worth, I've long held doubts about Banglapedia, too. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The sentence you quoted is not the argument, but part of the summation of the three paragraphs that come above it. The "good reason" it refers to is that Banglapedia is written by scholars who are authorities on the subjects, under the editorial control of other academics, and published by a respected scholarly society. The sentence mentions the number of citations only to correct the OP's error above, and mentions how long they have been cited only to emphasize that their use as a reliable source predates their current WikiMedia-powered web presentation (which seemed to bother the OP even though the content is not user-generated). --Worldbruce (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
      • OK. One of the problems with Banglapedia is that it has been heavily politicised as part of the Muslim/Hindu thing that still goes on today. It is entirely possible for a group of academics to create a walled garden (think Mises Institute?) and I would much prefer to see secondary sources over something like this, regardless of which article it is being proposed for. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Absolutely, bias is something to beware of with any source, but per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, only Wikipedia articles are. Also agree that Banglapedia is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia articles should be based more on secondary sources than tertiary ones, per WP:PSTS. Fortunately for us, the more controversial the topic, the more likely it is that quality secondary sources are readily available representing a diversity of viewpoints.
  • Banglapedia has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Like any reliable source, they aren't always correct, but they published corrections in their second edition, and encourage readers to contact them if they notice something they believe is an error.
According to WorldCat, Banglapedia is moderately widely-held by major research libraries, which suggests that they value it as a resource. Libraries in South Asia are not well represented in WorldCat, so its view may understate global holdings. Another objective measure is that according to Google Scholar, Banglapedia articles have been cited in other reliable sources. Exactly how often is a little difficult to tell, as Google Scholar seems to treat each encyclopedia article as a separate source, but a few examples:
In short, Banglapedia is generally reliable for what encyclopedias are generally reliable for. If the OP wishes to follow the instructions on this page and identify specific content in a specific Wikipedia article for which Banglapedia would not be a reliable source, then particulars can be discussed. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand that you may be upset but you are being a tad over the top here. I wasn't talking about specific examples but general reliability of the source. "The OP" followed the instructions which have a pretty clear "if available" qualifier on them. Having outside opinions from editors who are not part of the pretty insular WP:WikiProject Bangladesh can only help. --Majora (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Insular:ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience. Tad bit insulting is it not? You are assuming plenty here and not in good faith. Was this comment necessary?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Insular has more than one definition. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insular --Majora (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

European Journal of American Studies

Is this [7] open access journal RS? Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's peer-reviewed [8]; the "official journal" of the very legit-looking European Association for American Studies [9]; has an editorial board of established scholars [10]; doesn't appear on Beall's list [11]; and is published by OpenEdition.org. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason why not, as well. DOAJ says it's double-blind peer reviewed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Checked against my lists and sources, seem to be OK to me as well. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

AV productions

Is this [[12]] RS for information about the said artist, or in general. I can find nothing about who writes for it or its editorial policy.?Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to ask someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If it has staff writers surely we can see that (or an editorial board)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It has an about page in English[13]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I know, that is why I am asking here, I can see nothing about who writes for them, who edits for them or inclusion criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources aren't required to publish such information. I don't ever recall seeing "inclusion criteria" for a newspaper or news magazine, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
True, but thy do have a named editorial staff, and most articles have a byline. Moreover we know that most would not accept information from Joe public. The point is can see nothing which indicates they are not user generated content (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Most newspapers do accept information from Joe Public. Here are the standard terms for Joe Public (and Fred Freelancer) to submit articles to a local daily in your area. At a quick glance, the terms are that you keep the copyright, and they get to use it (or not) for free, unless you've convinced them to pay you before you submit it.
It's true that newspapers generally name their editorial staff, and that most feature-length articles have a byline. (By sheer volume, most articles don't have bylines, as most articles are just two or three sentences that tell you that a local business has changed hands, or that there will be a meeting of the Ladies' Auxiliary on Tuesday, or things like that.) However, naming the editors and authors isn't a requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say this does not pass the sniff test. It looks more like a blog than a news site. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?

Hello in the actual Wikipedia article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)

If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Wikipedia articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.

Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references of fact?

Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It has multiple editorial staff [14] as well as a dedicated corrections page [15]. I have not fully looked into the dichotomy of the two sections though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Maryanne881, some of their articles are news stories, and some of them are opinion pieces. You may cite the news articles for facts (just like you would cite your local newspaper, which also contains opinion pieces), and you may cite the opinion pieces for facts about the opinion being presented (e.g., "Rita Reviewer wrote that the movie was fantastic"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's very context dependent. Salon has a pronounced leftward editorial bias, but its reporting of science can be very good indeed. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Profiles of historical personnel from Kasetsart University website

Hi. I'd like to ask about the following source, which was added to Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit as a general reference and removed by User:Chris troutman (Note that I've added some details to the citation):

It's a website published by the Kasetsart University Archives, a department of the Office of the President, Kasetsart University. The site provides profiles of some of the university's distinguished personnel, as part of celebrations of the university's sixtieth anniversary. According to the introduction page, some of the material was taken from the following book:

  • ปวิณ ปุณศรี; บุญธรรม จิตต์อนันต์; สมเพียร เกษมทรัพย์; วิทวัส บัวจันทร์; สุราษฎร์ กุฎอินทร์ (2003). เกษตรปูชนีย์ 60 ปี มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ (2 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2486-2 กุมภาพันธ์ 2546) [Kaset Puchani: 60th Anniversary, Kasetsart University (2 February 1943 - 2 February 2003)]. Bangkok: Kasetsart University. ISBN 974-537-419-9. 

And some original material was added to make the website. (The subject was a former President of the University Council, in case you're wondering.)

I have tried to explain some of this, and asked why Chris troutman thinks the site is not a reliable source at Talk:Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit#archives.psd.ku.ac.th, but we've so far failed to come to a conclusion. His arguments from the talk page and in edit summaries are:

  • "source fails WP:SPS; this looks like private work hosted on a university server, there's no editorial review"
  • "... it fails WP:RS. It's not published. I don't see any signs of editorial review. This isn't an academic paper; it's just junk hosted on a university server." (To which I pointed out that no one claimed it to be an academic paper.)
  • "It's online. I don't think it passes RS. Just because someone is hosting content online (especially some web archive) does not mean that the information contained therein is reliable or correct." And
  • "It's not that the university as an institution is a problem. The webpage you want to use looks like some student's writings being hosted on the university server."

I don't know if he reads Thai, but I do and can provide further info and/or translations if needed. We'd like some third opinions on this. Thanks in advance. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) is we do not know who write this (or how much of it is sourced). I agree this does look like just some material hosted on the university site.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The authorship credit here would of course be institutional, i.e. the Kasetsart University Archives. (I've modified the above citation accordingly.) For comparison, White House briefings such as this don't appear with a byline either. Yet I'm sure we won't have problems citing such material as coming from the White House. So what exactly is the problem here? I realise the website's appearance does appear quite dated (which is to be expected, given that it's probably over a decade old), but I don't think there's any valid basis to dismiss the content as "just some material hosted on the university site." At least not when the above detailed explanation to the contrary had been provided, unless you're implying that I'm lying? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that it was not an official communique from the university, but an archive of a page whose provenance we are not aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I did not explain this clearly enough. This is not an archival website. That is not an archive of a webpage. The entire site is an official publication by an institution which is named the "Kasetsart University Archive", which is the department of the university that works with documenting the history of the university itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
To start with the most obviously wrong objection, this material is certainly WP:Published. The definition for that word, given at WP:V itself, is: Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". If it's on a website, and if such members of the general public as Wikipedia editors can see it there, then it is definitely "published" as far as we're concerned.
User:Slatersteven, please go to the webpage and find the yellow box at the bottom, so you can see that there is actually a specific source named for the content. Make sure that you have Javascript enabled if you want to see the photo; you can use machine translation to get a rough idea of what แหล่งข้อมูล means, but I'll give you a hint: the word appears 73 times in the Thai Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, 38 times in their version of WP:CITE, and is a section heading in tens of thousands of articles there. So even if it were a rule that reliable sources have to list their sources – and it's not – this one actually is listing its main source for that biographical sketch.
User:Chris troutman, can you explain what made you think that this part of the website for the university's archives department "looks like some student's writings"? There are about 100 such bios on that site (see the dropdown menu on the left), and it seems to me rather unlikely that "just some student's writings" would encompass writing a hundred biographies of notable alumni, some with historical photographs and all with a source.
IMO this is a reliable source, especially for such limited use as a Wikipedia:General references. (@Bearcat:, I see that you are the most recent editor to comment at the AFD for this article, and you have some experience with these things. Do you have any views on this particular source?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, that site is a little bit difficult for me to really evaluate all that well. Because I can't read Thai, all I can really do is a sloppy machine translation via Google Translate — so I can extract the basic gist of what it's trying to say, but can't really give an honest evaluation of whether it was well written Thai or not. That said, I don't really see any obvious red flags that would exclude it from being used as a reference. Technically speaking it's a primary source rather than a fully independent one, so it wouldn't be a source that could carry him over GNG if his association with the university were itself the crux of the notability claim — but his main notability claim is actually the already-verified fact that he served as a cabinet minister in the government, so this source is perfectly fine for some verification of facts as long as nobody thinks it's the only new source we need to find. We are allowed to use primary and affiliated sources for some verification of facts, as long as the article isn't relying exclusively on primary and affiliated sources. So basically, I don't see a reason to nuke it — as long as there are some more book and media sources forthcoming, it looks fine to me. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. I think you meant that it's an affiliated source. (It's not likely to be a primary source, strictly defined, because it's based on some other work – it looks like a military-related source in this case.) I agree that it's not an obvious indicator of notability on its own, although its existence and cited source does suggest that such sources are likely to exist elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the critical question is whether we can be confident that the web page in question can be shown to be the official university website for the department. So if you can show that, for example, the main uni website links to the website, that would show that they are aware of it and endorse it. Similarly if it can be shown that the webpage is considered by the department as part of its corporate content, that's fine. Incidentally, being mentioend as an alumnus or ex-employee by a university does not contribute to GNG.Martinlc (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: First, the machine translation may not do the source material justice, so I can't comment on that aspect. My concern is that it remains unclear who did this work, why, and what sort of publication process happened. The website generally appears to be the work of university librarians archiving old web material, so I don't know who wrote this stuff or from what department it came. The design of the website does look years old so it's possible no one knows. It's unclear what the source material is because, again, the machine translation doesn't explicate that. Paul's misleading argument is that because the material is on the university's website then it must be an official publication, but he forgets that universities (especially in the past) made available server space for professors and students. While some busybody librarians have sucked this material into their archives there's no provenance and I doubt there was ever any serious fact-checking or editorial review. If anything, Paul would do well to cite the book or other offline document this write-up was based upon. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I have found the link to the "first page" (home page) in the upper left: http://archives.psd.ku.ac.th/kuout/p001.html It appears to explain the provenance quite well. The author's name appears to have be given along with the year of 1944 (2487 in the local calendar). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(E/C) Martinlc, That is easy to demonstrate. Visit the university website at http://www.ku.ac.th , and wait for the splash page to redirect to the main menu. Click the Union Flag at the top right corner to change the language. Locate the "About KU" Menu, and click "History". Now change the language back to Thai, as the link isn't included in the English version. Scroll down, and you'll find three rectangular banner links. The top-right one links directly to the site we're discussing. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Chris troutman, regarding citing the original source, that would of course be the optimal solution, but since we don't have access to the book we can only cite what we can access. I understand your reservations about the nature of the site, since you don't read the language. But I have repeatedly tried to explain that the site does explicitly say that it is the original work of the librarians, not information copied from some other site. I am familiar with the university's domain hosting personal space, and have confirmed that this is not such a case. (In fact, for Kasetsart University, such hosting happens on the subdomain pirun.ku.ac.th .) Since you clearly don't belief what I'm saying, though, I don't know what else there is I can do. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: You are mistaken. The name and date refer to the poet that wrote those lines at the top. 1944 cannot be the year the material is written because the subject of the webpage in question wasn't president of the university council until 1951. The page you're pointing to indicates that this material was written up for the celebration of the ag school's 60th anniversary (in around our year 2003). We still have no definite author and no proof there was any fact-checking done, although it appears it was done at the university's behest. I'm not giving any authority to this amateurish effort. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say that it was the date of the work. I assume that it's either the author's birthdate, in which case she would have been 59 when the book was written, or the year that she graduated from the university, in which case she would have been quite elderly.
But if you read the text below her name, it says that the material came from a book published by the university in 2003. We do not need the actual name of the individual human(s) who wrote it to know that a book published by the university for its 60th anniversary was not "just some student's work".
I'm still trying to figure out what your basis is for declaring this to be the work of amateurs. Are you reacting to the halo effect of the simple web page formatting? I gather that you don't read Thai, so you can't be commenting on the writing style. So what is your basis for declaring it to be an amateur's work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Clarification: ท่านผู้หญิงดุษฎีมาลา มาลากุล isn't the author of the website. She's just being attributed for the quoted poem at the beginning. The site is attributed to the University Archives itself, with no individual authors named. I have given the names of the authors of the book in the {{cite book}} template in the second bullet point of my initial post. But it's unclear how much further editing had taken place in transferring the contents of the book to the website. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

USA Today article on a book

I'd like to know if this news article is reliable to determine notability of the article The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius specifically with the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Weddle, Eric (April 8, 2013). "Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal". USA Today.  --Prisencolin (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions above: "please be sure to include the following information, if available: Links, Source. Article, Content." Certainly USA Today is a reliable source for what is published in USA Today. It may also be reliable for other things, but you have to specify what. TFD (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: the edit warning box suggests using a particular format but I've revised the first post to be more understandable.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This isn’t the place for this question, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius is. --Calton | Talk 09:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources are needed for notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Now that you have changed your post, it is not, as Calton says, an issue for this notice board. But to answer your question, the Emir is right that multiple sources are required to estaablish notability. Whether or not this article helps to establish notability is best discussed in the AfD. TFD (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)