User talk:Saqib/WikiProject Pakistan/Pakistani sources

Pakistan NA‑class

	Pakistan portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pakistani sources[edit]

Share your opinions about the Pakistani sources here. While judging sources, please keep in view the policy guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Insight 3 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FUCHSIA Magazine[edit]

FUCHSIA Magazine I believe is a reliable source. They take interviews of actors and director which are avaliable on Youtube.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

@BeauSuzanne Thanks for your contribution and input. I just gave my opinion to start the discussion, lets see what other editors say about FUCHSIA Magazine. We will reach to a conclusion through a thorough discussion here on each and every source. Feel free to disagree and give your opinions.

Here we will only discuss Pakistani sources. While The Independent, BBC, and others have Urdu editions, they are not Pakistan-based sources. Likewise, Urdu News is a Saudi Arabian source.

Please add names alphabetically in the list to make it easy to look. Also do not include defunct sources like Herald. Insight 3 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown Identity[edit]

In my view, this source is clearly unreliable. As its about us page says "The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes". This means anyone can publish anything here without any editorial check. The guideline says, Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Insight 3 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable sources[edit]

@User:Ngrewal1 I think under "Generally Reliable Sources", we should only include sites that have their own Wikipedia articles. Also I have moved the note about government websites to "specific sources". Insight 3 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masala![edit]

@User:BeauSuzanne Is not Masala an Indian site? Insight 3 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was Indian Site. I removed it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Daily Ummat[edit]

Hi. Can we move Daily Ummat to generally unreliable section. It is a biased source (fails to comply with WP:NPOV as noted by multiple publications (already noted on their Wikipedia page) and by Media Ownership Monitor's report in 2018. Just wanted to note that this concept is wrong that if a source has a Wikipedia page then it is a "reliable" source, e.g. OpIndia and The Epoch Times, both are notable but are completely unreliable sources. Few reliable sources pages are still missing, like Youlin Magazine ([1], [2]), so it is not a good idea to assume their reliablity based on the fact that there is no Wikipedia page about them yet. Feedback appreciated. 203.101.187.154 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Yes, having a Wiki page doesn't guarantee reliability for a source, but we have taken this as an adhoc rule for the initial sorting of the sources and just to start the discussion. If consensus reaches out, then Daily Ummat can be moved to "borderline" or "unreliable" categories. YOULIN Mag is placed in the borderline sources for now. Insight 3 (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muneebll Thanks for your input. Please leave your opinion here before making any change to the page so that it can be a community consensus. Daily Ummat is moved to "Generally Unreliable sources" as per you and other editor. Thanks again and keep sharing your views. Insight 3 (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Daily Ummat from the list rather than moving below to unreliable category because it's mainly a print newspaper and haven't seen its use as source on Wikipedia. Muneebll (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has an online website. Insight 3 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Pakistan[edit]

Daily Pakistan is another gossip-type newspaper that is based on sensationalism. It is the WP:DAILYMAIL of Pakistan. We should move it to unreliable sources section. 203.101.187.154 (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what other editors say about Daily Pakistan. Though I think it is a reliable source with standards not much different than Ausaf, Khabrein, Asaas, etc. Insight 3 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MixPlate Magazine[edit]

Another newly established gossip magazine [3]. Never used on Wikipedia, so we are not obliged to discuss its reliability. I believe this section would be enough for future reference. Removing it fromt the list. 72.255.33.55 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Insight 3 (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Azb[edit]

The about us of this English language online newspaper shows that the newspaper has an editorial check, making it a reliable source.223.123.15.68 (talk) 223.123.15.68 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]