Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

The Pakistan Military Monitor[edit]

@Saqib: Your reversal lacks justification, especially considering that two other editors have clearly stated that the source in question does not meet the criteria of being a reliable source as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, additional editors at WP:RSN and WP:ANI have advised exercising caution when using it in a BLP article, if not avoiding it altogether. There is essentially a consensus against using this source. Regarding initiating an RSN discussion, the responsibility lies with you, as you are in the minority on this issue. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've provided my rationale here. And I don't see @ARoseWolf and ActivelyDisinterested: explicitly opposed using this source; in fact, they mentioned that we could use it with attribution and suggested further discussion. If they have differing views, they are welcome to comment here for clarification. Additionally, I believe the responsibility for initiating an RSN discussion lies with you, not me, as you are the one contesting the reliability of this source. You're labeling it as a blog post and an Indian propaganda website when it's not. The website is run by a former noted journalist of the Hindustan Times, who began their career in 1985 and has authored several critical books on both the Indian and Pakistani armed forces. Perhaps the editor also deserves a BLP page if not his website. Just because this is an Indian website, let's not dismiss it as propaganda. I suggest you take the time to review the site and the stories they've reported. In Pakistan, we may perceive them as propaganda because we dislike criticism of our armed forces, but that doesn't make them unreliable. --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not my only objection. He's merely an individual operating a website of his own creation. Unlike major news outlets like The New York Times, neither the author nor the website itself holds notable status. Reliable sources lack substantial information about them, and there's no editorial oversight from a professional editorial board. There's nothing that qualifies it as a reliable source. Your sole criterion seems to be that the material highlights negative aspects of the Pakistan Military. However, there are no restrictions against using sources like The Friday Times, nor are international media outlets pressured to refrain from publishing critical content about the Pakistan Military. So, why resort to a questionable propaganda website hosted by an unknown individual based in New Delhi? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that to meet WP RS criteria, you must have a WP article? If it's a policy, I believe the editor John Wilson, if not the website The Pakistan Military Monitor itself, can pass WP:N as he has authored several books in addition to being a career journalist. RS may lack substantial information about the website, but the editor John Wilson may meet WP:N for being a notable author. As I explained below [see For context]], there's nothing extraordinary Pakistan Military Monitor has reported. Wajahat Saeed Khan reported it first, and Pakistan Military Monitor reported later. You keep calling it a propaganda website, but so far, you have failed to provide me with a single news report from this website that demonstrates they engage in propaganda. Have you gone through the website? If yes, have you found any news reports? If not, why do you keep calling it a propaganda website? This is quite funny, by the way. If it brings you some peace, I'm fine with it as well. --Saqib (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the information has been reported by others, why do you persist in relying on this website? Is it a matter of ego for you? Stick to established, trustworthy sources instead of questionable ones like this for a BLP article. My attribution edit accurately describes him based on the absence of reliable sources about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that we cite Wajahat's Twitter and YouTube? While Wajahat maybe notable, however, his social media platforms are not considered RS and therefore cannot be used as citations. But, If you're referring to The Friday Times, it has only published only one news story so far, which may not be sufficient. However, given the John Wilson's expertise in writing about the Pakistan military, he conducted his own investigations, resulting in more comprehensive and detailed news coverage which cannot be ignored. This isn't about ego; it's unfortunate that Pakistani news sources are compromised, perhaps out of fear of military repercussions. While I don't blame them, but if we find a usable news site, even if it's Indian, why dismiss it as a propaganda outlet and not utilize it as it helps us provide unbiased coverage on a subject. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't propose using anyone's Twitter handle as a source. What I meant was to seek out other reliable sources if they are available. However, the absence of such sources doesn't justify resorting to questionable ones just to tarnish an individual's reputation. It's best to refrain from making any judgments until the matter is reported in a reliable source. Additionally, regarding the TPMM individual's name, it's important to clarify that his name is Wilson John, not John Wilson, to avoid confusion with another individual.

However, given the John Wilson's expertise in writing about the Pakistan military, he conducted his own investigations, resulting in more comprehensive and detailed news coverage which cannot be ignored.

Regarding the quoted statement about Wilson John's expertise in writing about the Pakistan military, how did you arrive at that conclusion? These are his own claims, which lack verification from an independent third-party reliable source. While your concerns about compromised Pakistani sources may have merit, it's worth noting that other reputable international media outlets are not compromised. If other sources are reporting on the matter, why not utilize them instead of insisting on using this particular source? Why rely on the personal website of an editor based in New Delhi, dedicated to exposing negativity about the Pakistan Military? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, it was a Pakistani journalist Wajahat Saeed Khan, whose reporting primarily focused on the Pakistani military, initially reported about the corruption allegations against the subject of this BLP on his personal social media channels. Subsequently, The Pakistan Military Monitor reported on it after these initial reports. And In February 2024, when he reported about the court martial of PAF officers who published the white paper on corruption, the Pakistan Military Monitor covered the news afterwards. Since Wajahat reported on his social media sites, we cannot cite them as references. (It's worth noting that he moved to the US because of his critical reporting) However, this is enough to demonstrate that Pakistan Military Monitor is not reporting on its own and is not a propaganda website as User:SheriffIsInTown labels it.--Saqib (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and reply more later today, as I'm a bit busy. I agree this isn't a propaganda site and the other editors credentials are promising. I do still have misgivings about it's use in this article (in the way it's currently used), more later. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This 100%. My concern is the way it is used in the article as a source for a BLP, not necessarily the reliability of the source. --ARoseWolf 14:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, why can’t we use social media sites "because there is no editorial oversight", anyone can post or assert anything. This platform is no different from a social media website; it's owned and managed by one individual without any established sources or reporters on the ground in Pakistan. He's essentially publishing whatever he pleases from his desk. If he's relying on unverified social media reports without editorial oversight, that's even more concerning. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not examine the sources the New York Times uses to make sure they are using reliable sources by our standards. If this reporting source (In this case the Pakistan Military Monitor) is neutral, verifiable and independent of the subject we usually deem it reliable content. But this is why it is important, in the case of BLP's, to attribute within the article and not simply cite. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one conduct a Google search ""Pak Military Monitor"", they will find that several credible sources cite them. --Saqib (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted my search, no reliable sources are citing them. Care to provide some links of those several credible sources? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you ascertain their reliability as a source? While they may operate independently, they are simply one non-notable individual managing a website that lacks notability and is not referenced in any reliable sources. Therefore, why should Wikipedia regard them as reliable and cite them in a BLP article? While it's true that we don't question the New York Times about their reporting sources, TPMM is not on par with the NYT; we can't compare apples to oranges. If we deem TPMM to be reliable, what distinguishes it from any other website run by another individual? TPMM is managed by a single individual without editorial oversight, and as such, cannot be considered reliable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you that our sources do not have to be notable and have an article themselves. We do not choose only notable sources to reference and notability does not equal reliability. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that but I need to also understand why do you regard this single person hosted website a reliable source. How does it meet the WP:RS criteria in your opinion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say you understand but that is not what you said. Two or three times now you have said that sources either need to have an article themselves or be notable to be considered reliable. It is quite a different thing if we are going to require sources meet WP:N vs. WP:RS. As far as RS is concerned I'm not here to determine if the source is reliable. I simply offered the opinion that we do not exclude sources for being biased, in fact many biased sources are where we get opposing viewpoints from. Our sources neither need be unbiased or neutral. We are simply to present a neutral tone when editing. Neutrality is more about the way editors edit than the source of the edits. --ARoseWolf 19:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion here was about reliability of that source. Since we are trying to determine the reliability, I just used an example of the source not being notable because I did not personally come across another reliable source in my editing experience which was not notable, either publisher or author are always notable by Wikipedia standards. Pick any example, The New York Times (USA), Geo News (Pakistan), NDTV (India), we are here discussing an anonymous source which nobody else have cited or know off so I just gave an example of it not being notable as well. Although not written in policy but I have never come across a non-notable reliable source. I know the policy but there is no such example, if you have one then please provide. Neutrality is secondary issue, reliability is the primary issue. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves me right, you've been recently flagged for using some dubious sources for Pakistani pages, some of which didn't even have their own WP articles as well. I couldn't locate the discussion, it seems to have been removed from your user talk pages. Nonetheless, there are several RS currently being used in articles, including BLPs, many of which don't have a WP page yet. Having said that, please familiar yourself with WP:SOURCES which states that the work, its creator, and its publisher must be reliable enough to verify the facts asserted. WP's notability criteria is used to determine whether a topic should have a standalone article, not whether it is a reliable source. --Saqib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib It is not about me or you, it is about saving this BLP article from information which is not coming from a reliable source. WP:IDHT behavior is coming from you, the logics I am using to prove my point might not be perfect but not a single editor so far stated with certainty that the source is reliable. Highly sensitive content sourced to a dubious source is still in this BLP article despite WP:RSSELF and WP:BLP advising against that. Why wouldn't you let the unreliable source tag stay? Can you name one editor here except yourself who said that they are certain that the source is reliable? War Wounded was the one who removed that source first, then it was me, then ActivelyDisinterested stated at WP:RSN to use caution while using the source, they were not certain that it is reliable. ARoseWolf stated in their last comment As far as RS is concerned I'm not here to determine if the source is reliable. This shows WP:IDHT behavior is coming from you by declaring the source reliable while no other editor stated as such. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following this, I've decided to step back, not because I lack reasons to defend the credibility of this source, but because the discussion seems to be veering off course. I'm hopeful that others will chime in with their perspectives so we can bring this discussion to a resolution. Once again, I apologize if my actions have caused any upset.--Saqib (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:RSSELF sums it up:

    Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

    Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTDROPIT --Saqib (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that the matter is resolved here is incorrect. ARoseWolf was primarily addressing the aspects of notability and neutrality, while ActivelyDisinterested deferred the matter for later discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the reliability of that source has not been established, and until we do so, its status remains unreliable, thus we should not be using it in this BLP article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this we agree, the edit warring must stop though. The information content should not be reinstated but if it is then it should not be removed. Re-adding it or Re-removing it constitutes edit warring and I have seen editors blocked for doing so, even when they claimed to be right. Stop edit warring. --ARoseWolf 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated on the ANI thread, this website is not reliable for use at all or if to be used with extreme caution, consensus among other editors is required as per WP:ONUS. Therefore, this content should be removed due to its unreliability. War Wounded (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, care to provide diffs please which says this website is not reliable? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RSSELF and WP:BLP, read the above quoted lines from WP:RSSELF. If you are certain that this self hosted and self published website is reliable, provide the diffs which says so, moreover even if it is reliable WP:RSSELF still advises not to use it for other living people. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being self-published is a concern but almost all news sources are self-published by their organizations. Where we are most concerned is when self-published sources are discussing themselves. That would make them primary. I'll delve more into the website later and determine myself if it is written like a blog. I do have concerns about editing oversight. --ARoseWolf 17:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the source and I'm inclined to agree with Sheriffsintown and War Wounded. The editor, John Wilson, looks credible and very well may be correct in his investigations. But we have no way to verify and PMM is clearly self-published by John Wilson so that would make him a primary source of his own investigations. We can't use that to source controversial content on a BLP. If we had a third independent source that reported on John's investigations then maybe we could use that source. --ARoseWolf 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But If a third source is reliable on its own, we can utilize it regardless of whether its reports are based on The Pakistan Military Monitor or not. So whats the point of saying If we had a third independent source that reported on John's investigations then maybe we could use that source If I'm missing something, please elaborate. Furthermore, can we use this source in articles that are not BLPs? --Saqib (talk · contribs) 15:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To your question, not when the subject is a living person. It is still considered a BLP violation. The importance of having a third independent reliable source discuss John's investigations is that the source would be secondary. The secondary source need not be neutral itself because we use biased sources all the time. But it would not be John describing his own finding's but an independent source that was not involved in the investigation. --ARoseWolf 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find your reasoning confusing. It's either a matter of using this source or not. Saying we can use third independent source based on the reporting of The Pakistan Military Monitor adds unnecessary complexity. (If there's any policy on this, please refer) However, I understand your point. You consider it unreliable for biographies, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. For clarity, I hope it's suitable for use on non-biographical pages or you've objections ? --Saqib (talk · contribs) 16:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:RSSELF, this source cannot be acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, the following is the direct quote from WP:RSSELF:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to consistently rely on WP:RSSELF for your arguments. This marks the ninth or tenth time you've cited WP:RSSELF. I believe we should avoid rehashing the same points. Have you not observed that, WP:RSSELF also mention that

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

and as @ARoseWolf mentioned John Wilson, looks credible which means his self-published may be considered reliable. And that's precisely the point I've been trying to convey for the past two days, but it seems you're overlooking it. Instead, you're dismissing that reputable journalist as insignificant, which is quite upsetting. But anyway, since @ARoseWolf has expressed his views that he deems this unreliable, I'll step back. As I've mentioned, I'm open to third-party opinions. This isn't a matter of personal bias.- --Saqib (talk · contribs) 17:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He may be credible but it is a self-published source and is primary. I question the editorial process for PMM's site. It appears to only be the writer. WP:BLP tells us to never use self-published sources for this kind of content. I wouldn't use this source for this content anywhere on Wikipedia nor would I support its use. I think I've made it clear I see it as a violation of WP:BLP. --ARoseWolf 18:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

There may an edit war developing over the inclusion of his signature, which doesn't appear to be sourced. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons and then discuss here rather than continuing to revert each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib Do you have a source for these signatures which you are restoring repeatedly? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaheer_Ahmad_Babar