Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC questions

Shortcut

Adding an FAQ to the noticeboard

[edit]

I think there might be value in adding an FAQ to the noticeboard to answer frequently-asked questions such as "Does a publication being too (political position) make it inherently unreliable?" or "Is (this random blog) reliable no I won't say why I want to know." Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a header (copied below) that addresses both of the issues you just raised. I don't know that a FAQ would be more effective. Maybe we just need to be more consistent about saying "did you read the header?" It might help a bit to number those issues, so we can say "that's addressed by #x."

The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions.

Certain types of sources have specific guidelines:

FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FactOrOpinion that the current header more or less accomplishes what a FAQ would... That being said it could work better as a longer FAQ, but off the top of my head I'm not sure what else we would want to say that isn't basically duplicating WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. The trouble is that nobody who you'd want to read it would read it and take heed. Adding more instructions against wrong behaviour basically doesn't work - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one reads the header or edit notice, both of which attempt to point people in the right direction. But would a FAQ on a separate page, with just a link from the header, be worthwhile? It could cover the most basic points in simple language (bias, opinion, user generated content, self published sources, etc) with links to the relevant guideline and policy sections. Include anchor points and new editors could be pointed to the relevant sections. A kind of a 'RSN for dummies' guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "Option 4" in RfCs

[edit]

The typical four option RfC on this page goes:

  1. Generally reliable
  2. Additional considerations apply
  3. Generally unreliable
  4. Deprecation

This inaccurately implies that deprecation is another level of unreliability beyond WP:GUNREL, which is a common misconception for those !voting. Specifically, WP:DEPRECATION says deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. Deprecation is more accurately described as a system to warn editors and autorevert editors when they use a generally unreliable source. It would be more accurate if our RfCs had the following set of options:

  1. Generally reliable
  2. Additional considerations apply
  3. Generally unreliable
  4. Generally unreliable, with deprecation

I think the above wording would be better going forwards. I got it from a previous discussion held on this page a long time ago, and I thought we might as well start trying to use it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing away with Option 4 altogether is another thought, with a requirement that before a source is subject to Gunrel/Dep, Gunrel first is a requirement (so then RFCs for that are a straight yes/no for already Gunrel sources). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and sourcing in Education section

[edit]

The current version contains several claims needing review:

Disputed Claims

[edit]
  • "Rejected by Kinnaird College..." - Lacks reliable sourcing
  • "Scandal with Capt. Safdar..." - Pejorative framing

Proposed Changes

[edit]

Replace with neutral phrasing supported by:

  • GEO TV ([1]) confirming her Master's degree
  • Pakistan Times ([2]) noting KEMC attendance

Requesting consensus on these improvements per WP:NPOV. Dg creative (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be referring to an issue with a specific article (Maryam Nawaz I assume). This should be discussed on the article talk page, and then possibly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if the matter cannot be resolved after discussion. This page is intended for discussing changes to the reliable sources noticeboard itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have already raised this on the noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#Neutral Sourcing for Maryam Nawaz's Education Section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this discussion belongs in the talk page of the article, not this noticeboard. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkvilla has an RfC

[edit]

Pinkvilla has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite ActivelyDisinterested TurboSuperA+
Do you mind adding your comments and thoughts from previous discussions to the RfC ? 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
. 2405:6E00:2821:4650:E855:93FF:FE85:CAA2 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Next to noone watches this page, and you're notifying the talk page of the page where the RFC is happening so anyone who would ever watch this page has already seen the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions to the publicize the RfC more ? 2405:6E00:2223:8E51:ECE9:FF:FE32:D62 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan news references

[edit]

(Originally posted by me at Wikipedia:Help desk#Pakistan news references)

Hi all.

Some Pakistani newspapers / TV channels are considered as WP:RS, while others may not. Names like are Dawn (English) / Dawn News (Urdu language), The Express Tribune (en) / Express.pk (ur), Geo News, ARY News, and etc., have been frequently used as citations to support the articles on Wikipedia.

Recently, my attention was brought to WP:RSP and WP:NEWSORGINDIA policies. While the latter is for Indian based websites, it may give a general rule that unbylined websites may not qualify RS and NPOV. Similary, at RSP, I saw Forbes website being listed as well, which some may find unreliable due to various reasons given there.

Notably, during recent 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, we saw a number of fabricated news reports as well, and therefore the government / armed forces officials from both sides announced to only follow the news presented by them and not others. Plus, involvement of international media was also seen to present the reports without being biased.

A number of news journalists in Pakistan have also become independent YouTube personalities now, but then the problem is subtitles/transcripts, and one may also assume that the channel/video is not notable due to the subscriber or view count. Few notable names:

Ruling by that, how we may use Pakistani citations if writing for articles under WP:PAK abiding Wikipedia policies? I am open to have creative discussion because I have many other points in my mind as well, and may consider involvement of other senior/established editors based in Pakistan, probably by taking this to the WikiProject's talk. Thank you! M. Billoo 19:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]