Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • 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: [].
  • 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 MiszaBot II.
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

Are they reliable sources[edit] I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Questionable sources in Operation Keelhaul[edit]

Sources in question

[2] Hornberger, Jacob (April 1995). "Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on August 11, 2007.

[3]Skousen, Joel. "Historical Deceptions: Operation Keelhaul". World Affairs Brief. Archived from the original on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 2014-07-04


Operation Keelhaul


The term [Operation Keelhaul] has been later applied – specifically after the publication of Julius Epstein's eponymous book – to other Allied acts of often forced repatriation of former residents of the USSR after the ending of World War II that sealed the fate of millions[2] unwilling to return to the Soviet Union.[3]

I would like to remove these two sources as fringey - for example, the article Future of Freedom Foundation refers to the forced repatriation as "one of the worst holocausts in history" and "Allied holocaust." The word holocaust appears 7 times on this page.

Instead, I'd like to use a reference from Nikolai Tolstoy (1977). The Secret Betrayal. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-15635-0., along the lines of what's used in the Victims of Yalta Wikipedia entry:

Tolstoy estimates that overall two or more millions Soviet nationals were repatriated.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Feel free to remove those sources; this kind of article should be using books by reputable historians, not pressure groups. I'm not familiar with Tolstoy's work and cannot comment on his reliability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I removed both sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not archive this just yet. An editor recently reinstated these sources and related content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe Tolstoy is a perfectly good source here. I remember the media controversy when Tolstoy published, which re-opened the entire debate. However, Tolstoy as a reputable source was never criticised, it was the painful subject itself which caused something of a storm Irondome (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Irondome: Thank you for your comment. I was looking for opinions on Hornberger (The Future of Freedom Foundation) and Scousen (World Affairs Brief) - the ones that are linked above. Any thoughts on these? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with your assessment and that of Qwertyus. An historical work is better than what appears to be advocacy/pressure group websites. WP:RS wise, I don't think they would pass muster. Irondome (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I will alert the editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System[edit]

Comments are requested at Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System#FAR? as to whether documents uploaded to by the main author of the article constitute reliable sources. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Documents at are self-published and therefore unreliable. They would only be valid to use if the author is an established expert. As the author is a Wikipedia editor, answering that question would be outing. The claims these documents are used to support would probably be better spun out to Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyway, looking at the broader context of improving to FA. The documents could also be used as external links per WP:ELYES #3 or WP:ELMAYBE #4 Rhoark (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Five Gospels, Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar[edit]

The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?
Robert W Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar
HarperSanFrancisco, 1993

Topic: Historical Jesus, especially on the Jesus page

Funk was a noted expert on Jesus' parables. John Dominic Crossan (one of the top names in contemporary historical Jesus research) was the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar includes other "name" scholars in the field and dozens of experts from various fields. The books that the seminar created include thorough reviews of the gospels, including summaries of scholarly thinking on many issues. Given the controversy around applying critical scholarship to Jesus as a historical figure, it's no surprise that editors object to books from the Jesus Seminar. Given that the Seminar represents many experts and several top thinkers in the field, I'd like it to be considered an RS. Given its breadth, I'd consider it a tertiary source. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what it could be considered a reliable source about, other than a primary source for the outcome of the Jesus Seminar. The length of the criticism section in the latter's article (which if anything is abbreviated) should be a clue: it represents one minority, popularized opinion. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Mangoe. Do you have any evidence for your opinion? WP pages are not RSs, and using the Jesus Seminar WP page to assess their reliability is circular. Opponents of the historical view of Jesus hate the JS, but maybe that's just because the JS does such a good job of summarizing the historical view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It is unquestionably a reliable source for the perspective it represents. The perspective it represents is unquestionably a significant one that is owed due weight. That means describing its conclusions as well as putting it in context as to how well accepted those conclusions are. Rhoark (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhoark. They are a significant minority opinion in terms of whether Jesus was apocalyptic. Other than that, they seem to be mainstream. But citing them as representing the most significant minority view seems fine by me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is a government site a reliable source for non-controversial claims about its actions?[edit]

The section Israel#International humanitarian efforts was largely supported by this. Recently some editors began tagging the section as WP:SELFPUBLISH. There are no sources contradicting the claims and it's possible to find independent sources supporting each of the claims, but perhaps this is a wasted effort.

Can the section be considered properly supported just by MFA's site ? WarKosign 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE can be used as long as the "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." The content about Israel's international humanitarian efforts is clearly self-serving if not an exceptional claim as well. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
No, governments are not reliable sources for their own actions and intents. They're in the business of defending policy with all the spin it takes.
Remember WP:42. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the possibility of spin, this sort of source could be used, although third party sources are preferred. In this case it appears to be WP:UNDUE for the page about the country.Martinlc (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Intents - probably not. Verifiable facts - I believe they usually are. Discovering government lies is a good subject for journalists and historical/political researchers, so as long as nobody disputes a fact I think it's reasonable to accept it. For example, large parts of NASA's New Horizons mission are supported by and nobody seems to object. WarKosign 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
They are easily reliable, but also primary and biased. Their uses and contexts have to be scrutinized. Rhoark (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Journalists and historical/political researchers not objecting to the content is a poor argument for a source being reliable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with those adding or restoring material, not the other way round.
Regarding the NASA example, it depends on the particular case in question and its context. As Qwertyus has stated, government websites are not reliable sources for their own actions and intentions as they operate to defend their policy.
In addition, this particular subject is not included within articles of other nations. The section appears to give an editorial POV to the article, and in absence of independent, reliable, third-party sources it is self-serving, disproportionate coverage therefore WP:UNDUE. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to dissent here and say that this is probably fine as a source for straightforward, factual details, particularly when those details appear to square with accounts in independent RS, as is the case here. The Israeli government website puts a political spin on this that would obviously be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but there is no compelling reason to doubt the facts themselves. The WP:DUE question is a separate matter that I won't venture an opinion on.TheBlueCanoe 04:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because the content is presented as factual doesn't make it factual. The impartiality of the source itself makes it doubtful and we don't just blindly AGF with such sources. The content could be partially correct but the claims could be exaggerated. For example, here it states about the Haiti earthquake that "Israel was the first country to set up a field hospital" but this isn't supported by the corresponding sources, I presume this is originally from the MFA website. This could also possibly be the case of the claims regarding the tsunami in Japan.
To assume that because some of the content appears to be accurate then all of the content is accurate appears to be WP:SYNTH. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You're misreading the source. The Argentinian field hospital was already deployed in Haiti. The Israeli field hospital was the first one to be deployed after the quake. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are authoritative sources on 'International humanitarian efforts', World Food Programme, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, International Organization for Migration, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, ... these are infinitely preferred to WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. If the authoritative sources are silent, it's a hint to me that the WP:SELFPUBLISH are WP:POV (except for breaking news, since many of those orgs aren't exactly nimble). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway the point is moot now, several editors found independent sources for every single statement that was originally supported by the governmental site. IMO this effort could be spent doing something more useful. WarKosign 15:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The section header is misleading. The claim specifically about 'first field hospital', later tweaked 'capable of complex surgery' is a complex claim, and looks wobbly. I believe government sources must be avoided for reasons mentioned above by Qwertyus and others. Most of the facts are simply picked up in scholarly works on each country, and they are the secondary sources we should be using. I would note however that there is a danger here. One cannot just single out Israel's mfa in this regard - I note that no one is challenging the articles on Canada, the United States, Great Britain, etc., which use a few government sources. The extreme caution about using government sources should be applied across the board. To have to raise this only with regard to Israel leaves, in my mouth, a sense of distaste for obvious reasons. But the argument against mfa citations is, for all that, sound. Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Canada was actually citing that country's military for its peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia. Replaced that with a critical scholarly piece. More work needed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Thanks for avoiding double standard and for finding better sources. Regarding "First field hospital" there is no contradiction between sources, but they have to be read carefully. Argentine Air Force Mobile Field Hospital happened to be already deployed before the earthquake, while Israeli field hospital was the first one deployed after the earthquake, and the first one capable of (complex) surgery. WarKosign 07:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You have 1 source for a contested claim. Israel’s hospital was operative by the 16th. 4 days later the IDF announced the situation was so serious that the IDF was preparing for ‘the long haul’ and that Israeli medics would stay on for at least another month, and then a week later, closed down its hospital and withdrew its medical staff, a mere 11 days after it was set up. (Marcy Oster, Israeli delegation leaves Haiti Jewish Telegraphic Agency January 27 2010). Unfortunately, as is common in many international relief operations by first world nations, it looks like a media stunt. Mind you, Cuba's huge investment of resources in international relief gets the same accusation, as if it were a sort of Trojan horse of Cuban ideology. Perhaps, but the sheer scale since 1963 of its humanitarian assistance shames the big name blatherers of international relief solidarity, who likewise get into these things with the usual mainstream reporter entourage praising them.
As many sources now state, there was a huge media touting of U.S. relief efforts: in 700al hundred of these mainstream reports, Cuba was mentioned 18 times in passing, and the profile given Médecins Sans Frontières was equally low. Lost in the media shuffle was the fact that, for the first 72 hours following the earthquake, Cuban doctors were in fact the main medical support for the country. Within the first 24 hours, they had completed 1,000 emergency surgeries, turned their living quarters into clinics, and were running the only medical centers in the country, including 5 comprehensive diagnostic centers (small hospitals) which they had previously built. In addition another 5 in various stages of construction were also used, and they turned their ophthalmology center into a field hospital-which treated 605 patients within the first 12 hours following the earthquake. Israel's contribution got widespread praise and coverage. All this runs in the face of the fact that MSD and Cuba were (a) on the scene first; (b) had improvised surgical wards set up in tents first (c)were the major bearers of the burden of medical relief, and did several thousand surgical operations (MSF surgeons performed 5,707 major surgical procedures in the Ist 3 months, Cuba over 6,000), whereas the US did 800 (Israel 319). The IDF spoke of Israel's long term commitment, which however, like that of the US withered rapidly, whereas MSF treated more than 358,000 people, performed more than 16,570 surgeries, and delivered more than 15,100 babies.
That said, Israel does frequently in humanitarian relief operations, and it is well documented. Trying, however, to tweak that, using just one promotional source, as a 'first', and somehow unique, looks to me, contextually, in poor taste. The source itself mentions what was being done in Port-au-Prince, and we have no idea of what Cuban doctors were doing all over the island in improvised situations of surgical emergency. Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Media-Vision magazine (a Russian publication) as a reliable source[edit]

Is the Russian publication MediaVision magazine a reliable source? An article from the magazine can be found here: This article states that Robinzon Kruzo (1947) being filmed in color is just a myth. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Malini Agarwal[edit]

Her personal website is being used by experienced users in Bollywood articles. How much reliable is a personal website. --The Avengers (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A person's personal website may be used to cite uncontroversial facts about that person (though even with uncontroversial facts, it's better to seek a secondary source) but is not considered reliable for anything else. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In particularly, for performers ofany sort, some basic factsabout their earlier work, their birthplace, and their date of birth, are particularlikely to have some degree of inaccuracy,and even these should have third party cofirmation. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input about the inclusion of a high school in a political biography article[edit]

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place to post this. An editor and I are having a disagreement on the article Ted Deutch about whether the article subject's high school should be included. I've added a half-sentence reference to the "Early life and education" section, as well as a category identifying him as Liberty High School alumni, but the editor has repeatedly reverted it ([1] [2] [3] [4]). In the talk page, he says that it's "silly trivia of no importance" and "not important enough to include in his article", with which I obviously disagree. I'd like to gather more input to determine a WP:CONSENSUS as to whether this information should be included, so any feedback at Talk:Ted Deutch#Inclusion of high school would be appreciated. I was hoping to keep the conversation there, not here on this noticeboard, so it's all in one place. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's the reliable source that is needed to meet WP:V and WP:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC) take your pick. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sourcing looks fine. You might want to look at WP:GA articles for similar people to decide on if it is worth including, but that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wired re: time travel[edit]

Wired (magazine) is a generally a reliable source, but a generally-reliable source is not always a reliable source. In the case of the article List of films featuring time loops‎, this diff uses a rather poorly-researched article that makes a contradictory claim: the film Looper features a time loop and a grandfather paradox. Unfortunately, these two options are mutually exclusive. Either the character keeps reexperiencing the same events and time "resets" with each subsequent pass (Groundhog Day), or the characters can change time. In Looper there is no repetition, there is a grandfather paradox. The claims made in the previous sentence can be cited.

Many Wired articles are reliable, but this particular blurb in this particularly poorly-researched article is not. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not ones that don't make mistakes (all sources make mistakes), but ones that correct them when they do. Report the error to the editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
As the article doesn't seem to touch on distinguishing between the types of time loops, which to me is a vague-enough term that an average person would readily use to group both causal loops and grandfather paradoxes, I would agree for the purpose here that it's not a usable source. Particular when other RS articles go into depth on describing the exact nature of time travel in the film. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
BrightRoundCircle are you suggesting that the film Looper does not have reliable sources, because it is not a time loop film? Have you tried looking for sources or is your intent to have your version of the article retained so that your view prevails? The time it took to set up that chart on the talk page could have been used sourcing those films if you disagree with its status. What about Primer and 12 Monkeys which were sourced and removed. I agree with MASEM we need to specify the types of loops if sources can be found. Deleting content instead of tagging for improvement is not the way to go. Valoem talk contrib 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I remember commenting on this list before (AFD?) where I did suggest that because of the common use of what a "time loop" means by the population at large, which includes strictly repeating time loops (Groundhog Day) as well as casual loops and grandfather paradoxes, even though "time loop" more precisely means the Groundhog Day-type scenario, that it seems perfectly reasonable to add one column on this list to explain the type of time loop , and/or separate into different tables on the same page, as long as one has a source to indicate the proper time loop type, as above with the Atlantic article on the Looper. Otherwise, you are going to have people continually adding films they think have a time loop (which I would include 12 Monkeys and Primer in) even if they are not meeting the exact definition of a time loop. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting the claim "Looper features a time loop" is not cited in reliable sources, and the current proposed source making this claim is generally reliable but not so in this particular case. Further, I suggest that all sources that merely mention this in passing are not reliable (in those particular cases) because it's more of an offhand comment than an actual analysis or serious consideration. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, different sources may have different criteria used to define some pop culture trope, such as time loops in films. Just because one source doesn't agree with another source (or sources) doesn't suddenly make it unusable. It means that the definition may not be as stringent as some purists might like it to be. When someone disagrees with another source, it doesn't make their opinion "poorly researched". It means they have a different opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The article is poorly researched because it features a small one-paragraph blurb in a list of "N best X". Regardless, you raise the point of the meaning of "time loop", which I have raised before (which has no bearing to the quality of the Wired article, which is poor, because it only involves a one-paragraph blurb among ten other blurbs about other films, and doesn't analyze the time loop in the film to any sort of extent).
I raised this issue in the AfD process and it didn't get any consideration, so I guess I'll try again here:
In fact I have argued the latter previously, and merged the articles, but the merge was reverted. Now I'm trying to clean up the list to comply with the former.
So please decide what you want time loop to mean (by citing reliable sources of course) so this disagreement can be settled. "It means what the Wired article (or any other citation) says it means" opens the door for any time travel movie to be called a "time loop" movie, and so the list should be merged. Otherwise, the list should be kept to the cited standard. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
People could say "time loop" while meaning causal loop, because it also involves a loop and involves time travel. Most time travel films feature causal loops, for example Terminator: While Skynet attempts to prevent John Connor's birth (grandfather paradox) it actually causing his birth (causal loop). Back to the Future) involves "ruining" the future (grandfather paradox) and "correcting" it (causal loop with a twist).
Time loop of the kind of Groundhog Day is an entirely different thing, not always related to time travel. Perhaps it's best to add a disambiguation notice on top of Time loop article. WarKosign 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want the list to be strict time loops you definitely need to qualify that in the lead and say this does not include casual loops, grandfather paradoxes, and the like. Mind you, I think BrightRoundCircle's point about this being part of a larger time travel aspect in films so that we don't keep on running into the problem of the "loose" vs "strict" definition of a time loop, but that's beyond the RS here: there is nothing wrong with Wired's take outside of not being very exact and using the "loose" definition. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation for reliable sources[edit]

I am on of the regular editors of article Diyar-e-Dil and have started this discussion for confirmation of few websites which are considered to be acceptable by me and few other users. However, one of the user has started removing them by declaring them non-reliable, the article is in serious consideration and by this moment we need a confirmation if these sites should be used or not. As It is a Pakistani TV Series, our region has few sites available with such information, we are are not in Hollywood where printed media such as Hollywood reporter, variety, Guardian, New York Times, TV Guide, LA Times or all other acclaim mediums who released entertainment news on major level, our media industry mainly confined to TV medium and to us they are proper sources, howevernewspaper such as Aaaj News, Dawn News, Express Tribune release news regarding showbiz of television or their details and production but very often, so in that case we have to use references like that. But they are not poor, where as user RedPenOfDoom removes them. I have added few examples for you so you can see if these sites are acceptable in such cases.

Lastly should also be noted that due to limited web information, any user generated material was never or would never be added to the article e.g promotional material, false information, fan's information or user's personal opinion regarding the characters or the series itself , only important material such as release dates, production information, cast information etc. will be extracted.



Article: Diyar-e-Dil



Previously it was announced that the show will air during Fridays replacing channel's Sadqay Tumhare

. [11]


"Cast selection was a mutual understanding between Momina, Haseeb, and me. Everything in this script was done with mutual agreement of all of us and I am very satisfied with the cast and very happy. There are many details in the characters and really this was a dream cast." Farhat Ishtiaq and Haseeb Hassan talking about Diyar-e-Dil cast and writing.



Sheeba Khan of HIP states the serial is, "As great as the script was, the direction was equally fantastic. Haseeb Hassan took the script and visualized it for us with absolute perfection. The cinematography and presentation was beautiful and it was nice to see the beauty of Pakistan.



Commenting on the leads of serial Sheeba Khan of HIP said, " We got to see more of Wali and Faara along with the dining table in the haveli. It was nice to see the lead pair's banter. With all the hatred Wali says he has of Faara, you can see how completely he is in love with her. In their last scene together, you could see how the hurt in his eyes when Faara tells him off, again!"



Writer/reviewer Ghazal Sulaiman at BrandSynario, praises the chemistry between Sanam Saeed and Meekal Zulfiqar saying, "All praises for Diyar-e-Dil, this drama seems to have all the elements to be HUM TV’s next hit. With an outstanding entry in the season, the drama is pacing fast and is successfully keeping the viewers hooked. Moreover, the drama’s crisp editing and exceptional direction will make you head over heels in love with the natural scenic beauty of Baltistan."



Filming of the series was extensively done in hills areas of Pakistan, production house choose Khaplu Palace for main shooting location, in Skardo, Gilgit–Baltistan.


Sammy.joseph (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Michigan Daily — a reliable source or not?[edit]

I'm looking for consensus as to whether The Michigan Daily newspaper can usually be considered a reliable source which can be used to establish notability, as with most independent newspapers with editorial control and presumed fact-checking, or whether it should instead be considered, like most other college newspapers, not to be of sufficient reliability for establishing notability. The paper is published daily (M-F) during the school year and weekly during the summer; unlike most school newspapers it offers subscriptions rather than being a free paper.

I'm inquiring about this newspaper in an attempt to assist a visitor to the Teahouse (where I volunteer) who has been working on this draft article and is having difficulty establishing the notability of the draft's subject, Mike Green, a motivational speaker. While other sources are sparse, there are a number of articles in The Michigan Daily which are substantial enough to establish notability... if the paper is reliable enough to be used for that purpose.

Here are the most germane of the Michigan Daily articles I've found:

If these Michigan Daily sources can be used, Green's notability will easily be established; if not, someone will have to go hunting through library archives for other articles. Thanks in advance to all who respond. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The aper is a reliable sources for the facts about something o the university campus or relating to the university. it is not, nor is any campus paper, a reliable source for notability, any more than any other local paper is for local figures. The may be accurate, but they are not sufficient discriminating. More precisely, they coverall college events and speakers. Further, reports of a speaker's talks on college campusesor anywhere else will normally be considered mere notices, and will not establish notability in any event. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No. (See how easy that was, DGG?) DreamGuy (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources found on the article Bulgars[edit]


Reading the article "Bulgars", which topic is history, I found that there are cited two books written by amateurs:

1. Encyclopedia of European Peoples, written/compiled by the musician Carl Waldman; here is how describes him:

 "A musician as well as a writer, he has also delved into the lives of Sinatra and Elvis. And he writes fiction."

The book is cited 7 times in the introduction of the article Bulgars :

2. The Jews of Khazaria, is written by the business administrator Kevin Alan Brook:

The author of the article refused to remove them - as you can read on the talk page of the article "Bulgars":

Citing such unreliable sources (written by amateur enthusiasts) multiple times on important article as "Bulgars" doesn't help to improve WP.

Thank you NewZealot (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

They are professional. They wrote the books. That's not unusual. People can have multiple interests. Do you have other problems with the sources, or better ones? DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The salary of a public figure[edit]

The job held by the current governor general of Canada, prior to his appointment by the queen, was as the president of a university in the Canadian province of Ontario. The province has made the salary of most high-grossing "civil servant", which is what this is as the school is funded primarily with public funds, public. At least two reliable sources have published and commented on the salaries:, with the latter directly related to the subject. It was removed. It was restored. It was removed again. A discussion was opened Talk:David Johnston#In response to "trivia" or "smear". It's claimed that it's a violation of BLP. I don't think it is. Comment here or in the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the CTV News Toronto source is reliable for the information on his salary. Looking at the edit on the page concerned, the text may be slightly WP:UNDUE in reporting details of his salary, but an abbreviated comment ("In 2010, he earned over 1 million") would not be undue, IMO. I don't see a BLP issue here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ship on a banknote[edit]

Based on this source there is an editor asserting that the ship on the 500,000 Rubles and 500 New Rubles note is the Argentine sailing ship ARA Libertad (Q-2). The source itself doesn't make that claim it states:

Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.
By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries.

i.e. the article is repeating Internet rumours this is the case. I'd appreciate some third party input on whether this is a reliable source to make that claim. The relevant edit is [17]. According to the Russian Ruble article it is the STS Sedov. See File:Banknote 500 rubles 2010 front.jpg and File:Banknote 500000 rubles (1995) front.jpg. WCMemail 08:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Other sources confirm Sedov [18],[19],[20],[21]. WCMemail 09:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources say it, then cite those sources. If it's just rumor then remove it. You know what to do here. 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)