Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271

David Irving -- The Mare's Nest
I recently cited David Irving's book The Mare's Nest on Ebensee concentration camp. I used it as a source for this information: "The main purpose of Ebensee was to provide slave labor for the construction of enormous underground tunnels in which armament works were to be housed, safe from bombing. These tunnels were planned for the evacuated Peenemünde V-2 rocket development but, on July 6, 1944, Hitler ordered the complex converted to a tank-gear factory." Another editor believes that Irving should not be cited at all, since he is a Holocaust denier. The Mare's Nest could be a reliable source on German intelligence in the last two years of WWII. I haven't been able to find all of the information about Ebensee from any other source. Is there consensus about whether or not The Mare's Nest qualifies as a reliable source? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think (as this is an early work) it seems to be more highly regarded then what came latter. But my gut reaction is still to not wholly trust anything by Irving.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Are there any recent reviews of this book (after Irving's exposure as a Holocaust denier)? I would not label his entire body of work as unreliable only because his later reputation is so bad, but caution is certainly justified. Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Other historians (even ones that don't deny the holocaust) continue to cite The Mare's Nest to this day, though I can't find anyone who really "reviewed" the book recently. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not call anyone denying the Holocaust as a historian. Dumb and foolish would be much better description. Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, but I do know that at one time his work about the bombing of Dresden held a similar status, until it was revealed how shody some of his research had been.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At a bare minimum I'd think anything cited to him needs to be caveated with "according to David Irving" rather than in Wikipedia's voice. Slatersteven is correct in that it's now come to light that The Destruction of Dresden, written at about the same time, was subsequently demonstrated to be seriously problematic. With the exception of Apollo, Peenemünde is probably the best-known rocketry program in history; I find it extremely hard to believe that no actually reliable source is available for the information in question. &#8209; Iridescent 08:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that if Irving is the sole source for something then it should be excluded, and if there is any other source, it should be used instead. Remember the burden in Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. Lipstadt and Penguin were assessed as claiming the following:
 * that Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose of exonerating Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews;
 * that Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial, who has on numerous occasions denied that the Nazis embarked upon the deliberate planned extermination of Jews and has alleged that it is a Jewish deception that gas chambers were used by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a means of carrying out such extermination;
 * that Irving, in denying that the Holocaust happened, has misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs;
 * that Irving has allied himself with representatives of a variety of extremist and anti-Semitic groups and individuals and on one occasion agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak;
 * that Irving, in breach of an agreement which he had made and without permission, removed and transported abroad certain microfiches of Goebbels's diaries, thereby exposing them to a real risk of damage;
 * that Irving is discredited as an historian
 * They prevailed. Under the old English libel law, which essentially had a reversed burden of proof.
 * Irving's work is systematically biased and should not be cited. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to be working in the subject area of the various Nazi camps, I strongly suggest getting the first two volumes of the USHMM's Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos - which can be acquired for free here. Ebensee is covered in Volume 1: Part B on pages 911-914. I'll note that Irving's work is NOT listed as a source for the entries for Ebensee and Ebensee/Wels II. For information on Irving's trial and much background on his discrediting as a historian - see Richard J. Evans' Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not reliable. While the book was published by a reputable publisher, it was not an academic publisher and therefore we need to look at the reputation of the author. Irving is not a trained historian and problems have been found in his writing, such as his overstatement of civilian deaths during the Dresden bombing. His notability came from finding original sources, which is why historians continue to cite his research. But historians are able to apply judgment when using books by flawed researchers. Furthermore, since historians continue to research Nazi Germany, subsequent research can make even the best sources out of date more than half a century after they were written. Current historians are aware of what is still considered valid and what isn't when using these sources. Wikipedia editors cannot do this. TFD (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not reliable, as Irving is notorious for not having a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Mare's Nest might be Ok on some stuff, it might not, however the red flags with Irving are such we should avoid using his early publications directly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is probably RS for a detail like that, - no reason to think that Irving would invent that kind of stuff, as opposed to using solid documents, regardless of his later (public) obscene turn. Even in that early period what he can be charged with is underplaying or ignoring part of the documentary record he is familiar with. At the time of publication, it was hailed as an important work, and even later historians like Michael J. Neufeld, as The Mare's Nest page notes, writing in 2009, evaluated as such. By the way Neufeld's paper should be linked on that page, thus
 * Neufeld, Michael J,  'Creating a Memory of the German Rocket Program for the Cold War.' in Dick, Steven J (ed.). Remembering the Space Age, Government Printing Office. Washington, DC: NASA, pp.71-87. On p.81 we read:-
 * "David Irving’s The Mare’s Nest (1965). Irving, who was already noticeably pro-German but not yet infamous as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier, provided the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war, but it is noteworthy that, although he did much more original research than the others, he minimized the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more."
 * As to Ebensee, some similar material can be found in Nikolaus Wachsmann, KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps, Hachette UK  2015    ISBN 978-1-408-70556-8. I.e.
 * "In Ebensee a huge fuel refinery was set up in the tunnels originally intended for V2 development works. p.451"
 * "In addition to Dora, more than five hundred prisoners were held in the Mauthausen satellite camp Ebensee (code-named Kalk, later Zement) The prisoners slept inside a former factory building, before moving to a barrack camp, and had to dig two huge underground tunnels for the Peenemünde rocket development works.p.446 Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)"


 * Comment: If one has to ask whether the world's most notorious Holocaust denier is an authority on World War II history, then one should probably steer clear of either subject. François Robere (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That order of question is beside the point. A lot of historians with brilliant promise run wildly off the rails. Norman Stone's The Eastern Front, 1914-1917, (1975) still remains important, though he soon starting churning out junk. One evaluates works not people: otherwise a very large bag of public intellectuals would become suspect for everything they write simply because on one big question they deny the obvious. This is no exception.Nishidani (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason Irving is unreliable is that there is compelling evidence that he falsified evidence in order to support his pro-Nazi agenda. His reputation as an historian is destroyed, along with his reputation as a human. We know he lied in print, and we're not supposed to be the ones who decide whether a specific thing he wrote is one of his lies or not. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, sources are meant to be reputable. Irving obviously ain't. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are all mechanical answers to a position no one defends. Sources must be reputable, not the people who wrote them. If that were so, we would never cite Caesar's Gallic Wars, because they fail to mention he was engaged in genocide.Heath W. Lowry got a chair at Princeton, though he was a known denialist of the Armenian genocide. I don't think Turkologists consider this disgrace as imperiling the value of his early studies on defterlogy. I don't believe Irving is reliable for anything printed after 1965. Paul Foelsche's vocabulary lists from survivors of the 'tribes' he massacred are still thought indispensable for linguistics Evans's demonstration that even in the Dresden book Irving's later egregiously regular habit of wriggling around data he dislikes, when not outright lying, is present,  proves its case by focusing exclusively on Irving's casualty estimate, nothing else.  As for remarks to the effect  his reputation  'as a human' is destroyed because he denied the Holocaust, this is stupid, and eerily so in this context. Being evil or complicit with evil does not translate into being an unmensch. Were that so, an uncomfortable proportion of mankind would be dismanned of their humanity. Cognitively, man has stronger emotional reasons for denying the obvious than for pursuing the truth regardless. Scholars are trained to wean themselves from the survival value in our biopsychological prejudices, something, after a promising start. Irving radically failed to take on board. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that (as far as I am aware) Irvings work has been widely discredited, not just some of it, all of it (bar this one book). It is not the person who is discredited it is practically every work of history he has ever written, due to falsification, obscuration and use of questionable sources (even work that had one time be highly regarded, until people actually checked it or asked about its sourcing). Simply put there is good reason to be suspicious of any book he has written. If a man tell 100 lies and one truth do we regard him as reliable for something that has not been shown to be a lie, or ask for a more reliable source for it?15:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
 * Yup. "Sources must be reputable, not the people who wrote them" <- in the case of a monograph like this, that's not a meaningful distinction. Since Irving has been shown to falsify evidence, nothing he wrote can be taken as reliable. If something needs to be added to Wikipedia, we need to find another source that won't make readers go WTF!? Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If this is true and significant, someone less thoroughly disreputable will have noted it. If no-one else has noted it, I'd be suspicious on that score - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there are three other judgments here that try to reason, more than I would have expected. I've no brief for Irving, to the contrary. I happen simply to be loyal to what I learnt from one of the great historians of all time, who was never unnerved by tabus. Raul Hilberg recognized Irving had some impressive scholarship at his fingertips, but developed outlandish views, in part because he was self-taught and in good part a foolish controversialist. If there is a (hermeneutic) minefield, learn to walk through it. Don't just shy away.
 * A word of advice to lockstep naysayers, the majority. Irving's well-deserved repute as either a liar or deep-dyed abuser of historical methodologty postdates the book in question, which was roundly hailed by all contemporary reviewers, several of them, like  Duncan Sandys (‘an authoritative account of the V-weapon offensive’)  insiders to the actual events. Writing in hindsight of that reception, Clarence G. Lasby (University of Texas, specialist on US use of Nazi scientists)  (review)  The Mare's Nest by David Irving,  Technology and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 3 (July 1967), pp. 429-431, gives no sign that specialists found its presentation flawed for the reasons that, in his later work, Irving became notorious. He wrote that,'This is one of the most impressive single volumes dealing with the history of World War 11 p.429) It is still cited, esp. by historians of rocketry, because of its mastery of the relevant archival documents ((1) Jeremy Stocker,Britain and Ballistic Missile Defence, 1942-2002, Routledge  2004  cites it 17 times, while (2) Michael J. Neufeld's The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemuende and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era, The Free Press, (1995) in his  2013 reprint avails himself of it several times for details). The answer therefore to Rachel's request would be that (a) it could be used with attribution for a detail (b) if alternative works don't cover the precise point at issue, something one would have to gauge by reading more modern research (c) but for the fact that the aaarbitrasry wiki consensus is, don't use it, whatever historians may think of specifically that early book.  Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Irving should not be used as a source, following Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. If another source is available, it can be used instead. If it isn't, it would mean our sole source was someone Mr Justice Gray ruled had "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarah. As far as I can see that judgment never mentions the work in question, whose utility is still recognized by mainstream historians. A judge's ruling trumps historians' judgment.
 * The principle you are advancing is that any legal judgment about a writer or body's persistent manipulation of facts automatically translates on Wikipedia to categorical Not-RS? I imagine you can see where this would lead. Courts have made similar judgments on state institutions, but material thereafter produced by those institutions is widely used all over Wikipedia. That is the puzzle my chancing on this thread created. I couldn't give a flying eff either way about Irving.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you literally find no other source for the claims than Irving? You're trying way too hard to rescue him as a source - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't time to look into this. I just reread Vonnegut's Irving influenced novel on Dresden Slaughterhouse Five by coincidence after a half century, a week ago, and then noticed Icewhiz's comment, ergo I made what seems to me an obvious point, indifferent to suspicions that, the reputed 'antisemite' might be trying to get leverage for that silly bastard. Icewhiz thinks Manfred Gerstenfeld is a reliable source giving that the most tolerantly flexible reading imaginable (here, here and here) while making the usual blind austere reflex nyet with one specific work by Irving. Gerstenfeld  is widely reputed, as the later Irving has proven to be, a nutter (1,5 million Norwegians are 'anti-Semitic ideological criminals' is the conclusion he made after a few days' visiting that country). I argue always that coherence must regulate editors' calls over multiple pages. Unlike his Dresden book, I haven't read The Mare's Nest, so I examined the scholarly use of it after Gray's verdict and found serious historians still cite it. I expect from the reviews that it is perhaps the one book where Irving's later obsessive and anti-Semitic mania is absent, because it deals not with the Holocaust, but with the intricate history of two elites, scientific and political, in planning for, or defending their country from, rocketry. If you take as Sarah does, a law court's judgment as invalidating a source, then neither anything coming from Shin Bet nor the IDF, whose output is astroturfed into a huge amount of mainstream news sources, is reliable, since numerous Israeli commissions (Landau Commission etc) and the High Court have often caught them out lying, the Shin Bet committing perjury consistently over a 16 year period. No one acts on the principle Sarah implicitly enunciated, except with this Irving idiot. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I´m far from the majority opinion here (all his work forever ever not suitable for Wikipedia), I agree Irving´s reputation as a historian is so tainted (well rather utterly self-destroyed) one can´t use his work without strong precaution. It is obvious even from your list mainstream historians rather ignore this book (we would need far more than a few citations for author such controversial as Irving). Myself, I would probably just look for another source. Irving was allways outside of mainstream academia anyway (no formal education in history or similar discipline, or work for institution of higher learning). Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not Reliable for anything Do you really need to ask? He has been shown repeatedly to be a bald faced liar. His words cannot be trusted on anything, couldn't be trusted to tell you his name. Bacondrum (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post article on LGBT rights
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.0a9256d8a055 Yes yes I know that the Wshington Post is seen as "generally reliable" according to the reliable sources page. However, there is questionable content in this particular article, particually for the UAE. The passage claims "Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned." They do not specify which lawyers or experts, how these experts are qualified to make such a legal judgement or how current their claims have been made. Also it's worth noting that all sources claiming the same "legal experts" quote or reference this source so I can't find anything confirming them. Could be WP:UNRELIABLE or WP:REDFLAG.Care to give your insight? Moneyspender (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources with a reputation for reliability frequently use anonymous sources or otherwise do not name every single expert cited in their work. Source confidentiality is a rather widely employed practice. Given the absence of any sources disagreeing with the claim that "lawyers and experts disagree" on the issue at hand, I don't see any problems with using WaPo here. signed,Rosguill talk 03:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The real source is this. That other link is just an announcement of an update to it. They list their own sources as this report from ILGA, and vaguely the Pew Research Center, Amnesty International, and "news reports". It's not the best, and if reliable sources that give more specific details are available, those should be used instead. But nonetheless, it's reliable enough for this purpose, unless there is some reason to believe it is making controversial claims. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable. WP:NEWSORGs are not required to cite their sources, nor do they generally cite sources. An academic source on the subject would be preferred, but WaPo is generally as good as it gets for NEWORG coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable. WaPo has robust fact checking and is willing to clarify or withdraw incorrect statements. We don't need to see behind the curtain every time. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable established outlet with reputation for fact checking etc. Bacondrum (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Politician's statement of their own position in a debate or interview
Which policies govern? Assume the statement is not challenged as an authentic representation of the politician's statement by interlocutors. Humanengr (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't you already have this conversation, on this page, in this week? Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar — but that was about a tweet; this is about another setting — a conversation where there are interlocutors who can challenge. That wasn't covered. Thx Humanengr (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Article on a University association website with no listed author
The source: Behavioral Analysis Association of Michigan

The article: Rosemary Crossley

Content: "Crossley claimed in a 1993 documentary that a comatose man that she was working with could pick his own housing arrangement, but Frontline disproved this claim using digital overlays."

It's anonymous but should be fine for this purpose, I think.

Ylevental (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am dubious of anonymous sourcing. Why not just use the frontline source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just replaced with the frontline source Ylevental (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Borče Sredojević
I created that article a long time ago and recently a user came and removed some content claiming the sources are unreliable. This is the edit in question and the two sources he claims biased and unreliable are:


 * Средојевић селектор Српске ("SRedojevć iis the new coach of Srpska") at glassrpske.com, 27-6-2008


 * Republika Srpska pre 21 godinu igrala prvi meč at sportlive.ba, 3-7-2013

The first one is Glas Srpske, translated "Voice of Srpska", one of the most popular dailies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, specially in Republika Srpska. The second is one of the sports dedicated websites in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both articles have their authors identified, and date of publication. I restored the information but he removed it again, meaning he is up to edit-warring despite being him breaking the BRD. I came here to see if you can help me figure out if the sources are reliable, or not, as I see no reason for them not to be considered reliable, specially in this case where we are dealing with football, not something really controversial but rather trivial. It is just sourcing the players and coach that played that game in 1992, an era when there was no internet still. FkpCascais (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no internet in 1992? Please have a read of the article Internet. It was developed in the 1960s, and became international in the 1970s. Something called the World Wide Web was developed by a Britisher a while after that, but still before 1992. MPS1992 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean in general use in Bosnia in 1992... I tought that was clear enough so I didn´t needed to draw every detail for people to undrstand. But thank you anyway for your explanation, is good to know you know the basics about the history of the internet. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, I had to go to the articles to check :) But, I should also mention that references need not be webpages. Books or newspapers printed on paper are also acceptable. I am sure that in 1992 some newspaper would mention the names of the players or coach. Of course, this may not be helpful, and a newspaper source might also be challenged -- commonly such an offline source might need a very brief English translation in order to confirm that the source verifies the content, if the source is not in English. And if an editor is edit-warring over internet sources, she might edit-war over offline sources even more so. But I personally view the sources you mention as being reliable for the content you describe. I am an expert neither in sourcing reliability nor in association football in areas previously part of Yugoslavia, so hopefully others will comment with more authority than me. (Just one last thing, WP:BRD is optional.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is the thing, that I don´t see a valid reason why wouldn´t those two sources be valid to source the presence in a game in 1992. What I meant with the internet was that obviously I knew internet existed already, but what we are talking here is Bosnia in middle of civil war in 1992, it was a messy situation, major crysis, few people had computers and internet was literally inexistent there for normal people. That is why there are not many websites from the time talking about the game, but I must relly on this two sources for the game in question. The game is not in doubt, there are even books about it, exemple Football in Southeastern Europe: From Ethnic Homogenization to Reconciliation by John Hughson and Fiona Skillen; but what I need is the list of players, and that is what the two sources I bring here to ask for reliability, do provide me. One even provides a copy of a newspapper from that time with the pictures of all selected players. Thank you, I hope more people just confirm it that they are reliable so we can make consensus and close this thread as solved. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First,, this place is Noticeboard for discussion, and discussion you initiated here concerns me a lot - you should have informed me of this discussion, especially if you believe that you would be able to apply any of the conclusions reached here, since it's me who disputed your sources on the ground of WP:PARTISAN and WP:RS in the first place. And that's the reason you are unable to see, which is always huge and extremely problematic (isn't it ). Also, you are continually approaching editors with misleading and false claims. In this thread you already made one such claim, explaining that subject of dispute is trivial thing, which is surprising since you have created two posts on WikiProject Football, in total nearly 10 Megabytes of text, explaining how really controversial and highly political this whole issue is. Now, all of a sudden, it's a trivial?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  02:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The only false claim here is your claim that these are unreliable sources. Please convince editors why these two sources are unreliable, otherwise, stop obstrcuting addition of sourced information. FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to assume a conflict of interest, just inform me, what was exactly controversial here, so you deleted some sourced material? Republika Srpska is one of the two entities in BIH. There is also football selection which plays its matches, just as Catalonia for an example. There are no official FIFA matches, but also have international exibitions. Sources do not have to be in English, necessarily... --Lotom (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Lotom. Also, soruces seems to be secondary and reliable. Both have their authors identified, and date of publication. I see no reason to remove it. Acamicamacaraca (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * R.Srpska's existence isn't in question, nor the fact that entity have it's own regional football association. There is nothing contentious about that. However, there is no team that represents R.Srpska, not even at "exhibition level". Here's another interesting source which FkpCascais offered at one point after spending two days digging out, only to shoot himself in the foot as he obviously read only bits of its text:
 * It's an interview with two R.Srpska FA operatives conducted in August 2010, and from Serbian media outlet, so I am going to translate only relevant bits and operative's responses from Serbo-Croatian, which is still a considerable portion of the text:
 * Article intro states:
 * "The Republika Srpska football team will play its first official game in September [2010] in Novi Grad / Bosanski Novi, it is announced from the Republika Srpska Football Federation through Belgrade media.
 * Editorial:
 * "Interestingly, the match between the Republika Srpska and Serbia was recently agreed, but FIFA intervened and threatened to disqualify Serbia if it dared to play that match." (they referred to some celebration from previous year, but this or any other match never took place)
 * Branko Lazarević reply (FA operative introduced as "director of all FA teams"):
 * "Even though our team has not played any matches, we have the coat of arms, the jerseys are in sale, and the Republika Srpska Fan Association has been established." (it's a 2010);
 * Slobodan Tešić reply (introduced as another RS FA operative):
 * "There is no longer any reason for us not to play matches. It is time for the RS national team to come to life and get the place it belongs to and to start representing Republika Srpska football".
 * By the way, note that these edits are made on WP:BLP; note that at the very moment when some writer claims that Borče Sredojević will be appointed RS national team manager, he is already employed by Bosnian FA as assistant manager on Bosnian national team for three years and will continue in that role for four more years reaching WC 2014 finals in Brazil.
 * Further, analogy with Catalonia is absurd and inappropriate - Catalonia exists as a polity for hundreds of years, Republika Srpska exsits since 1996, Catalonia played football in various degree in various periods since at least FC Barcelona inception more than hundred years ago, R.Srpska never played a game, and you will not be able to fined one report online (or in any for, print, video, audio) which can confirm that they did.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot to include link for this interview.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Here is an example for the U23 squad from 2014. Teams have definitely existed, but no competitive matches. --Lotom (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First, what about my post from above and remarks, which I made in my post, about glaring discrepancy between statements made by RS FA operatives in contrast to claims expressed by writers in some obscure Internet website (I am referring to sources provide by discussion initiator); second, let's be little bit more serious, page from this new link is a private blog (I hope that when editing you keep WP:SELFPUB in high regard); third, there is no mention of Borce Sredojevic in this one so the text provided in this link is irrelevant for the above dispute; and fourth, there is no doubts that this report may well be true, because these announcements of listing the squads, announcing future gatherings for preparations and training, these "paper tigers" can be dug out around Internet in some, more or less obscure, websits (I have some examples of my own), but even if we could find additional reports from reporters who were on site during those times spent in training, they never crossed the border on their road to Greece let alone played some matches. So, what about WP:NOTA, what kind of football team are they if they don't play football ? I have explanation for that too, but this is not appropriate forum for that discussion.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am warning you for the second and the last time: when you accuse editor for utterance of "false claims" or "lies" or any similar misleading behavior without any evidence and explanation based on evidence, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and I am tired of yours. I am disputing sources, and I use arguments, which I can at least try to prove in any eventual further discussions about my arguments itself, but when you say how "only false claim here is your claim that these are unreliable sources" that's a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:EQ, WP:CIVILITY and WP:TALK, not an evidence.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for you to have your claim of those sources being unreliable, you need to have those claims confirmed. "There is no mention of Sredojevic in the article?" are you joking? Look at the list of players. FkpCascais (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the conclusion at this thread is the most important one. If vast majority agrees that sources are fine, you can´t continue claiming them unreliable, obscure,selfpublished, etc. There are more sources available about the game, but for some reason they seem to have suffered some cyber attack (how convenient) while sources confirming the game from 1992 are even found in academic books. That first game from 1992 is not controversial at any form, no one has doubts it ws played, and it is only the details about the line-ups there were more hard to find, but here we have them, and I am sure sooner or later more sources will come with more details. I don´t see your point in hidding that information. Unlike you, in the case of Kosovo while it was still non-FIFA team, I helped Kosovar editors to find the line-up of their first game: Talk:Kosovo_national_football_team. By your logic, I am Serbian, I should have tryied to discredit them, there must have been something wrong with me by helping them... There has been 30 years since the wars, your narrative of Serbian sources as unreliable and obscure is not really convincing. I collaborate with editors from all over Balkans which are constructive. I am sorry that you are someone more interested in removing info that in helping out. You also miss the point that the way you think about R. Srpska is really irrelevant. We dont delete articles or information because some group thinks they did something wrong. We have articles about the many teams that were national teams of countries affiliated with Nazi Germany. Even if world agrees they were bad, we add the info of those teams to players and coaches. You are missing many points here. FkpCascais (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you don't wait on me, you never intended to have me here as you didn't even informed me of this discussion, in the first place. I already made one set of arguments by introducing glaring discrepancy between sources you found, so it's actually me who waits on respond to that small problem called contradiction of source, which signals obvious WP:SYNTH.
 * My "(T)here is no mention of Sredojevic" remark is referred to part of discussion with User:Lotom, and is tottaly unrelated to your links.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen, I don't care about Kosovo, what is your editing history surrounding Kosovo or any other scope on Wkipedia project, I am not interested in your identity, your ethnicity, your political affiliations, and your walls of text in general. I don't conspiring against Republika Srpska, Serb people or editors, its FA, or, especially, against Internet severs containing some unreachable, invisible sources, I am not interested in "future" source, I don't conspiring to hide information (especially since I am not one who conspired to cyber-attack on any of the servers containing them), I don't care about articles on Nazis and their teams, and time past between Bosnian War and present discussion has nothing to do with the strengths of my arguments.
 * Not every book is "academic work", academic works usually contain footnotes and entire critical apparatus which supports it, books you are mentioning are not academic research since they are sparsely referenced, these books are non-fiction, expository and in style journalistic literature.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The last post I made to you at FOOTY was me telling you to come here to this thread to check the reliability of sources. Since this is no "incidents" noticeboard, I believe I am not obligated to inform you (I will check it right after finishing the post), and I indeed wanted neutral people giving simple answers, without this becoming again a dialogue between just us. I believe senior regulars at this noticeboard are perfectly capable of providing an answer regarding Glas Srpske for instance, without us influencing them.


 * Now, about the conflicting facts, you mean the several instances officials refer to the eventual game to be played in future as first one, and that being in conflict with the list of 15 games R. Srpska lists at their official website as games already played by its senior team, is that it? They are refering to the difference in level of organisation. Creating a team that would gather more regularly and will play its first game officially recognised by either FIFA and UEFA. All they are doing is recognising they would like to see a better organised team and playing at official level. But that doesn´t mean the team didn´t existed till then. Just that it didn´t existed at a level these people talking to the media would like.


 * The game from 1992 was clearly a non-FIFA recognised international match. Those were the national teams of self-declared Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina. Both had territory which they controlled, and formed FA´s that gathered local players to form their national teams. None of the two got international recognition, but that fact doesn´t change the international match character of the game. Whatever personal opinions about the political aspect of the game we have, it doesn´t erase it from history. We have academic books writting about the game, as in page 3 of Football in Southeastern Europe: From Ethnic Homogenization to Reconciliation by John Hughson and Fiona Skillen, or Violent Places: Everyday Politics and Public Lives in Post-Dayton Bosnia by Tobias Greiff, which at page 287 give a usefull, concise and clear definition of Srpska team and its formation in 1992 mentioning the game, of course. I don´t understand your motive to make such an effort to exclude data about R. Srpska and specially that game in 1992. I am a football editor not because of the game so much by itself (I can´t remember the last time I´ve been in a stadium), but I like football preciselly because of this historical and social perspective. I am not involved in articles because I like one team, or dislike another, I am involved because I love to contribute to the missing pieces specially of rare historical events in which football played its role. That is why I helped Albanian editors to find the first Kosovar line-up from time they needed to play as Kosovo secretly, that is why I help about Second World War Slovakian team, Bohemian, Saar, and that is why I want to prevent the info about the R. Srpska game from 1992 to be deleted. In my view the participation of those players and coaches in such games is such an interessting and important info for the biography. FkpCascais (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Where in these books Borce Sredojevic feature, where is he mentioned as player or manager of the RS national team?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He was a PLAYER in that gae from 1992. FkpCascais (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, now change the word "player" from upper to lower case, and apology would be in order.
 * Now, again, where in these books Borce Sredojevic feature as player, manager, janitor, driver, whatever ?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not OK, if you made a mistake, let it be, don´t correct your earlier posts and then changing the logic of the answer of the following commenteur. Please don´t do that ever again.
 * Both books speak only about the game, don´t go into game details. Bear in mind I only made searches in English at books, so we don´t know if there maybe are books giving details, we´ll see. Anyway, the point here is that the game by itself is more then well sourced, now the question I brought here is if the two sources I used in the article are reliable. There seems no reason why would they lie, one even provides a copy of a daily newspapper of the time of the game, and if anyone was added wrong, the sources are enough old that the persons in question would correct the info.
 * Now, regardless if we find a source such as academic book, or not, my question here about the reliability of these two sites from my opening statement, still remains. I am no expert in politics in R. Srpska, I don´t know what relation has the allegations you made about current, or former, owners of Glas Srpske, but, from what I Googled out, it is a very popular media enterprise and it has extensive coverage on sports and football which is very usefull. The other website also provides me no reasons to suspect on them. There was already 3 people and all said the websites are fine.


 * It doesn't change anything since nobody replied to it at the that very moment, and most importantly I immediately repeated myself below in full, so there is nothing confusing about it. Anyway it was genuine mistake unlike your upper case expression, which you need to remove right now.
 * I'm not interested in long explanations, I asked you where in the books Borce Sredojevic is mentioned?
 * Maybe you aren't expert in RS politics, I don't care, but you certainly present yourself as one, to which your megabytes of text and long treatise about it and about controversial and highly politicized matter of football in Bosnia attest.
 * Glas Srpske has this one article on that specific subject, but if the information on the matter is important and notable enough, other less WP:PARTISAN source should be available elsewhere with a same information. Sportlive is even less reliable source - they are small website, and in similar way too close to the subject. How small and obscure they are it's evident from the fact that no other media outlet use them as source of information. These are all arguments used widely on establishing WP:reliability and WP:verifiability on Wikipedia.
 * Who said they are OK, and on what insight ? You better read WP:CONCENSUS, before you get yourself into trouble.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But that is the problem, the only one claiming Glas Srpske is unreliable and partisan is you. Please, obtain consensus for that here at reliable sources noticeboard. FkpCascais (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I warned you against WP:ASPERSIONS and you are at it again. Do you understand that you are breachning numerous Behavioral guidelines and WP:CONDUCT policies by calling your fellow-editor "unreliable and partisan" - such arguments are reserved only for references and sources. You can't use them agains others just because editor(s) use those words to describe sources. Any administrator aware of your repeated breach of these policies and guidelines would react immediately.
 * why are you repeatedly pushing me to take this to a Conduct dispute resolution or to request administrator attention.
 * Whatever concerns me, also concerns you, so I am not the only one who needs to persuade community of my arguments. Only editors runaway when confronted with discussion that goes in circles, and treaties of texts included.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You already brought this to admin attention.
 * So, are you able to get consensus from the community that the two sources you removed are unreliable, or not? I am becoming really fed up of your excuses. Already 3 editors agreed there was nothing wrong with using the sources for the article. You are the one making ammounts of empty unverified accusations, I am giving you a chance to get your arguments to the community and get consensus, otherwise I will start by correcting your breaking of WP:BRD at the article itself, and ask advice about your conduct which has been criticized a«by all and not supported fully by absolutelly anyone at any of the numerous threads you tryied to get your will trough. Get consensus for the validity of your own actions, stop excusing yourself by attacking me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I did not ask for attention through proper channel, I just asked for directions without naming anything or anyone, it's takes time to collect in one place all of your conduct policies and guideline breaches.
 * Meanwhile, don't play that game with me, this is your discussion, you need consensus, you also need to start reading policies and guidelines, like WP:CONCENSUS, before you get yourself into trouble.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What three editors said "there was nothing wrong with using the sources for the article", again-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)?
 * Starting from your last question: MPS1992 said "But I personally view the sources you mention as being reliable for the content you describe.", then Lotom seems to see no logic in your removal of content and sources and tries to understand why you did it, and Acamicamacaraca says: " soruces seems to be secondary and reliable. Both have their authors identified, and date of publication. I see no reason to remove it." It is not enough for a consensus but we clearly see a tendency here, the only 3 participants agree with me about lack of reasons to remove them and consider them unreliable, and no one gives you the slightest support.


 * For you to go around removing sources and its content claiming that the sources are unreliable, you need to have that claim about those sources confirmed, and this is the most appropriate noticeboard. I was avoiding all time to do it, but this time I will say it to you: everything you have been saying about me is basically a mirror of yourself. Even if I was the worste hooligan ever, that wouldn´t say nothing about the issue in question here. It is not me who is going to affect the reliability of the two sources. The fact that I was topic banned recently because of a totally different unrelated issue, (well, it was related with Balkans, but not with football or Bosnia) doesn´t make more right or more wrong when debating another issue. Each and every time you talk about me to discredit me, actually confirms you lack arguments about the issue in discussion itself.


 * I will like to highlight the fact that it wasn´t me making any controversial edits or propagating any disruptive content. All I am doing here is defending a series of articles, some created by me, from an editor who is unilaterally removing specific content with the excuse of being irrelevant and the sources being unreliable. I restored the content and asked him to discuss and obtain consensus, as per WP:BRD, he edit-warred back just repeating the excuse.


 * I am an football editor mostly (although I am member of many other WP´s as well) not because of some cheering passion for football (I don´t even remember the last time I went to a stadium), but because I love the history of football in its socio-economic and geo-political context. I love statistics, and I admit I give higher attention to less known probably already defunct national teams, that Cristiano Ronaldo for exemple. So here we have a case of a group of players and coaches who gathered in middle of war and formed a Football Association and national team, and played its first "international" (although FIFA-unrecognised) match. As Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed independence from Yugoslavia, Republika Srpska declared independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this was what was to be their national team. After, probably much improvised, organisation, they menaged to play a game against a team in very similar situation, an also just recently formed national team of an unrecognised country and unrecognised by FIFA. At times of war this situations are normal, during WWII we had a duzen of FIFA-unrecognised national teams which played numerous games and even got much publicity. We can be free to personally have whatever opinion about these teams, the self-declared countries they represent, it is irrelevant, they were all part of football history. We are not here to glorify the allies and ignore and erase the bad guys. Santasa has this issue with Republika Srpska, which after that first game, few years later Dayton agreement came and R. Srpska became one of the two entities forming Bosnia and Herzegovina. Football Association of Republika Srpska is responsable of organising football on its territory and collaborate with its counterpart to send the best teams to form the BiH Premier League and best players to form the Bosnian national team. Besides that first ever game in 1992, R. Srpska mantained its official team but never more claimed to be national team. Its specially dedicated to the work with youth levels for which organises numerous tournaments, often intenational. The senior team has been wanting to play just as the other similar teams do Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA but has faced major opposition from the Bosniak and Croatian counterparts in Bosnia, so the senior team has played its 15 games and has ever since been like in sort of stand-by. The main senior team, just as each of the youth levels, has its own coach which are specially active in skauting talents that will ultimatelly obviously be usefull for the Bosnian national team R. Srpska is part of. The selected coaches are usually ammong the best ones, and both, being part of the R. Srpska team as player, or being nominated a coach, is a sign of recognition and reward.


 * What happends is that the more radical Bosniak and Croat political forces see R. Srpska FA and its teams as an inconvenient. Just as in politics, in football as well, there is a continuos pressure to somehow eliminate R. Srpska. It is not my fault R. Srpska exists and it is not my fault to add the once in time some relevant information about their team. They will not desapear if we allow editors such as Santasa to erase as much as info about it as possible. I didn´t wanted to complain, but Santasa from begining attacked me on ethnic basis. Then when justifiying why the two sources are unreliable, he made this totally biased rant against Glas Srpske... Just its start made me sick from the start " Glas Srpske is the local ideologically driven media outlet, based in Srpska entity, and run by Serbs exclusively, ..." Glas Srpske translates into "Voice of Srpska" and of course is going to be focused on the issues going on in Srpska. Just as Alaskan Times will focus on Alaska. But the following is offensive " run by Serbs exclusivelly ". First, how does he know that, did he counted the employees and their nationalities? And second, since when being Serbian became a crime? So, if only Serbs run some media, they are inmediatelly unreliable? Then he says these Serbs " who are closely affiliated to entity government and ruling party of SNSD and their boss Milorad Dodik, whose separatist rhetoric is naturally mirrored in Glas Srpske for decades ,..." OK, so, to start with, Dodik, "the boss", is someone who has no simpathies at all from me, lets just leave that clear. I think RS couldn´t have chousen a dumbest president possible. BUT, this is my opinion. it counts ZERO. Both Santasa and I could stay here all day long writting what should other organisations think and conclude about him, but again, that has ZERO weight. He speaks in name of UN, USA and EU, no Santasa, you don´t say what they should say, you present evidence of what they actually say. That is why I came here to Reliable Sources noticeboard, so you can present your evidence (evidence, not opinion) and have editors to take a look and decide.


 * Then, what you said about the sportlive.ba portal, again, doesn´t disprove the reliability of it. It is an article with identified author that includes interviews, and most important, provides a copy of the daily newspapper from back to the time of the game where players are identified.


 * What is disturbing is that Santasa has started by going around claiming Rep. Srpska team doesn´t exist, then removed info about the 1992 game claiming unreliability of sources, and I even read somewhere he claimed the game was irrelevant. So, gentleman, in a time of war, in extremelly difficult and dangerous circunstances, a group of players and high-ranking football officials organising themselves and creating a national team, and then playing an international game, despite lacking FIFA recognition, it´s imposible to claim it was irrelevant, specially for the lives of the players and coaches that participated in! This is my main issue, I don´t care about Glas Srpske, boss Dodik, how many Serbs or non-Serbs work at the headquarters of one of the sources... I care to have this extravagant game recorded which certainly impacted their lives! I did the same with the Kosovo game from 1993 against Albania which was the first ever Kosovo game in time Serbia was very much against even a sugestion of some independent Kosovo team. It was played in between secrecy and clearly unrecognised by FIFA. But for Kosovo Albanians that was their first ever game as national team. And they didn´t even had much info about the game itself until recently. I spent months searching to find the exact Kosovar line-up, because there were doubts about many players.


 * So dont accuse me of "conform with Serbian or any other ethnic feelings of editors; blp shouldn't contain such an extraordinary claims referenced by unreliable and biased sources." Me being Serbian and challenging you from deleting info about R. Srpska team and their first game has nothing to do with my ethnicity, but with the rules and principles of Wikipedia. I would equally challenge a Serbian editor if he tried to remove info about Kosovo 1993 game from Isa Sadriu article, and article I created btw and added that info about that match. I also work to expand whenever I can the Mandatory Palestine national football team and I created some articles of players and coaches and clarified some mistakes (I collaborate with RSSSF). I also contributed to some Palestinian (Arab) national team related articles from the time before they were members of FIFA. In case of R. Srpska, all I want is to source the game line-ups and had that info about that historical game in corresponding articles. I couldn´t care less if the source is pro this or that. However, in the process, I did felt that I should challenge you that you declare unreliable a source just because it focuses on R. Srpska. Even if they had a more pro-independence agenda, why would that make the source unreliable for sports for instance? To me you seemed like those Democrat radical supporters that would like to see FOX eliminated totally just because it is generally considered a more pro-Republican media and supports Trump. Don´t agreeing with some editorial ideology doesn´t make it unreliable just by itself, and in case of Glas Srpske, if they support the rulling party and are the third most popular media, well, they seem to me that they are quite reliable for what matters about R. Srpska. I see that when it comes to politics one may be cautious and compare how different editorials treat the same issue, but this was just a football game, from 1992, of R. Srpska, which is logically going to be most likelly found in sources from R. Srpska.


 * I made a promise to User:Sandstein that I intend to keep for all eternity. I am going to be carefull and obbey the rules and principles. However, that doesn´t mean I will not oppose the breaking of the same by some other editor. You erased information along its sources from several pages. You were reverted but you edit-warred to restore your version. You should not declare sources unreliable before getting consensus for it, specially, if apparently they seem OK. They have authors identified, one is even from a well known media, and also, there are no contradicting sources. Second thing, you should not remove categories and empty them first, and then call for their deletion after. Third thing, you should not proliferate the idea of R. Srpska team being inexistent and irrelevant, specially not when we see that ammong the Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA (look also other continents) you can see it is one of which has major structure behind.


 * So, I let know Sandtein about our situation, since I noteced you involved him by claiming exactly the opposite, as if I was someone making controversial "partisan" edits, and you were just a por victim fighting to keep Wikipedia free of my "evil". However, from all threads and all your countless accusations I didn´t even had time to respond to half of them, all other editors either agreed with me or either were neutral but asking more details from you to understand why you think you are on the right. You did however menaged to scare many to think this was some complicaed deeply political issue, unfortunatelly in Balkans-related articles that works easily, but you failed to have even one person saying you are right. I didn´t edit-warred, you did, so your version in which the reference to the 1992 game is removed is the one that stayed in the articles. I don´t want to hear you anymore saying bad about R. Srpska, about me or my conduct (I challenge someone to find in my entire 10+ years history vandalism), or conspiracies about Dodik and Glas Srpske... Also, I have intentionally not been linking policies, like BRD, because veterans we know them. You have been a real MVP in linking essays and policies, but next time you insist that I get familiarised with consensus (you did it at least twice) and keep on this paternalising tone towards public, I will really take it as offensive behavior. You get consensus that the two sources are unreliable, and the issue is over. If you can´t, I will politelly ask you please to restore the content from the articles where you remved it. I can´t see a more fair deal than this one. Please feel free and do your best to demonstrate to the community why the two links from my initial post are unreliable. From the way you have been talking all these days to all people, that seems peanuts to you, so please, be my guest. FkpCascais (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat used for this
Is Bellingcat a reliable source when used for this. 

According to Bellingcat, the suspect's Twitter account portrayed a "relatively normal Trump-supporting Republican" up to April 2017, when the account stopped posting.

The talk page discussion for it is at Talk:2019_El_Paso_shooting. Note that he said he had his views before Trump's campaign for president, that not why he did the shooting.  D r e a m Focus  22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's also cited to Heavy.com, which seems to be doing explainers for shootings like this? Anyway, I'd say Bellingcat is certainly at least usable for that sort of analysis - it doesn't seem to strike at any of the potential biases people were worried about in the discussion above, even.  The actual question being asked on talk there is more WP:DUE, which is separate from WP:RS, but I'd say it's worth at least a brief mention.  It might be more appropriate to mention his "normal" political background in the context of his radicalization via 8chan, though, which is how Bellingcat mentions it - that's why it matters; it's not just a random personal detail, it's part of their larger dive into how someone like that can get radicalized via boards like 8chan.  Also, is it appropriate to attribute it to Bellingcat when it's also being cited to Heavy (making something sourced to multiple sources look like the opinion of just one?) --Aquillion (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a RS, as explained above. Furthermore, the website has a good track record on covering events like these. According to CJR, Bellingcat's report on the Cristchurch shooting was "a comprehensive and contextualized report on the motives and movements of the Christchurch killer". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the source is reliable for the material per the following reasons: WP:EXCEPTIONAL, NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX and RECENTISM. There is nothing I have seen that speaks to high quality reliability of a citizen journalist which is not much above a blog site that requires expert/professional verification before it can be cited. Also keep in mind that not everything notable has to be included in the pedia. It is unconscionable to utilize massacres for partisan reasons and cite it to a citizen journalist. The same applies to the Ohio mass murders and the many other mass murders during the presidencies of Clinton, Bush & Obama. Atsme  Talk 📧 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The only one of those CAPS that is relevant to WP:RS is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't see how the quote above is an exceptional claim, so I do not see that reliability is the problem here. In a discussion about inclusion of this content on the article talk page, I would tend to agree it should be excluded, mostly per WP:WEIGHT. If the viewpoint is important enough to mention, it will have been mentioned by multiple news sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Robert Evans has a decent reputaiton, he also works for How Stuff Works, and primary research on popular culture is one of the things he's known for. There's no reason to doubt this, and the source is sufficient for the statement, the only quesiotn is whether it's considered significant. I would say it is: it helps to establish the itmeline of radicalisation, soething we often cover in such cases. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Right Wing Watch
How should this site be treated as a source? I'm thinking WP:BIASED, as it reports from a left-wing point of view. Swil999 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable with attribution There's no such thing as an unbiased media source, though people seem to think that only sources with a leftist POV have one for some strange reason. As with any media source, we must be especially careful to avoid treating statements of opinion as statements of fact. Beyond that I'd need to see specific usage to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to be very skeptical of ANY source with the word “watch” in its title. The key is whether they issue corrections when they get something wrong (few do). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a "biased source" and a partisan political advocacy group. The Washington Examiner and MSNBC are biased sources, as they consistently publish from a right-of-center and left-of-center viewpoint respectively. But a partisan political advocacy group is not on par with these sources. Instead, Right Wing Watch should be treated on par with sources like Turning Point USA. They don't exist for the purpose of journalism. They exist explicitly for the purpose of pushing a political agenda. They are only reliable for statements of their own opinion, probably shouldn't be used as statements of their own opinion unless that's been covered by other secondary sources, and they are mostly useless for the purposes of determining WP:WEIGHT.  G M G  talk  12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TPUSA is considered a reliable source for puppetry and golf, I believe... Guy (Help!) 14:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is, if we allow partisan think tanks as sources, then you can start with first what you want the article to say, and then reliably find a source for it. That's not how this is supposed to work. You're supposed to first find what the sources say, and then reflect that in our writing. Your or my personal opinion on anything other than the relative reliability of sources should not affect that calculation.
 * With the issue of DUE, on any political wedge issue, the partisan think tanks are just going to line up behind the predicable partisan talking points according to their allegiance. So you're not really measuring anything but a head count of how many think tanks are on either side. That's not that the type of WEIGHT that has any meaning for our purposes. That's not the WEIGHT of professional journalists, academics, and authors weighing all sides of an issue, evaluating all the information available, and presenting what they feel is a fair shake to all involved. Where we then take the average of all the fair shakes, and give the fair shakes a fair shake. That's the business we're in.  G M G  talk  22:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This right here. Unless a think tank or punditry group is routinely described in sources as an appropriate expert in that political area (eg like SPLC for hate groups), we should completely avoid using them as reliable sources, since they are a dime a dozen and can be used to craft any approach you want for an article. --M asem (t) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. I have devoted a lot of effort to removing think tanks as purported sources of fact, my view in general is that we shouldn't even use them as statements of opinion unless reliable independent third party sources establish that the opinion is considered significant, per WP:UNDUE. Virtually every think tank presents its opinion as if it is immutable truth, even when they are in violent disagreement. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree too I think we should have some RFC on this --Shrike (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your use of partisan is a misnomer. A partisan outlet, person or group is loyal to a party or organisation. Everything and everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of left to right, that doesn't make them partisan - the Guardian is obviously left, but it is not partisan, it is not connected financially or organisationally to the British Labor party. TPUSA is partisan, they have campaigned for the Republican party, unless you can direct us to a campaign RWW ran for a particular party then you should stop throwing the word "partisan" around, it is incorrect usage. Bacondrum (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I used precisely the wording I intended to.  G M G  talk  13:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but it is a misnomer. The word doesn't mean what you think it means. Bacondrum (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence RS consider them reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any context for the question? (ETA: The original question, not Slatersteven's) Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable with attribution. People for the American Way is a watchdog group, used as a source by several reliable outlets. What piece and what wiki article and what context? Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is left-wing is neither here nor there: the facts have a well-known liberal bias, and Ronald Reagan would be considered a radical socialist in the current US climate. However, it is also an opinion site with no evidence of peer-review, so I never cite it myself and would only support its use case by case with attribution. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Caution required but I think no more than the criticism we would normally apply to all news sources. RWW is a political advocacy blog and so any statements about political positions should be couched against other reliable sources, but they're generally reliable for basic statements of fact. For example, their article titled "Pizzagater Jack Posobiec Granted Fellowship By Increasingly White Nationalist Think Tank" is not stating anything about Posobiec's fellowship which is not accurate, but they are certainly reporting it from a particular political point of view. This discussion is likely of interest to this determination, and like several others have already said, context matters. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I expect you'd be hard pressed to find something in policy that supports using content from a partisan think tank's website for an unattributed claim of fact, whether you consider it biased, a self-published, a questionable, or a non-independent source.  G M G  talk  14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with GMG above. There is a significant and important difference between news sources, with editorial control, fact checking and corrections, and think-tanks / activists. Right Wing Watch takes more care over facts than Judicial Watch but they both have the same problem: information is judged through a filter of advancing a POV. That is antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable with attribution. It's really that simple. Expert opinion is always welcome, but it should be attributed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * GMG is persuasive here. Partisan think tanks are not generally reliable sources. Haukur (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable as Per GMG. There is a difference between biased and propaganda source --Shrike (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If their opinion is WP:DUE on a subject, then they can be used as a source with attribution. Even very established, highly respected, and widely cited advocacy groups like the SPLC generally can only be used as sources for their own opinion (ie claims with attribution). This group is certainly not as well-respected as the SPLC, but they appear to have some citations in reliable sources, so there might well be times when their opinion on a subject is relevant and should be included. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable Right Wing Watch is a project of People for the American Way, which was founded in 1981 by the producer Norman Lear, Time Inc. chair and CEO Andrew Heiskell and Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Certainly it has a viewpoint, but that is separate from reliability. It only becomes an issue if a source is willing to falsify information in order to discredit people with whom its writers disagree. That's why mainstream liberal and conservative media are acceptable, while the website some unknown person sets up to discredit their congressman isn't. Note that it gets support from George Soros' Open Society Foundation and many other mainstream liberal sources. It has professional writers. The only caveat is how it is used. It's there to publicize news that may be ignored by the mainstream, so there may be a weight issue. I think the value of this type of source is for topics that are less covered. In an article about Donald Trump for example, I would stick to what mainstream media reports. But in an article about a little covered topic, this source could be helpful. TFD (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Treat it the same way as other partisan think tanks. Certainly not a nonpartisan source, and certainly not unbiased, but there might be some value to their viewpoint on some things. Use with caution. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time imagining anything we should include that is only mentioned in Right Wing Watch and no other sources. To the OP: if you have a concern with any specific use case for Right Wing Watch, please specify it here as it makes evaluation more effective. feminist (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable with attribution As for claims that it is partisan "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" A partisan outlet, person or group is loyal to a party or organisation. Everything and everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of left to right, that doesn't make them partisan - the Guardian is obviously left, but it is not partisan, it is not connected financially or organisationally to the British Labor party. These claims of partisanship are obviously incorrect, a misnomer. However this is a lobby group and despite its use by reliable sources and a reputation for accurate representations of figures etc, it should be used carefully. That being said, it is definitely not partisan as defined in common English language usage. Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Partisan Is there any evidence that RWW or PFAW have campaigned for, are funded by or have any direct connection to any political party? If not, they are not a partisan group.
 * Comment is there any evidence they've regularly gotten the facts wrong or refused to acknowledge when they have gotten it wrong? 08:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)
 * People for the American Way  G M G  talk  15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see a single word that indicates that they have campaigned for, are funded by or have any direct connection to any political party. They are clearly left, but partisan? I've seen no evidence that they are partisan. Bacondrum (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you call Fox News partisan? They clearly lean towards the Republican party, it's a right-wing outlet, but they are not partisan - they do not campaign for, are not funded by and have no direct connection to the Republicans...do you see the difference between having a political position and being partisan? It's an important distinction. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it that I have one bar of service and I'm charging my phone with a generator, but I can still somehow manage to do more reasearch on the subject than you have apparently done? You are asking rhetorical questions easily answered by simply reading our own article, which I have linked you to, and you have still apparently not read.  G M G  talk  23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I read it, and I can see no part that makes it clear that RWW or PFAW have campaigned for, are funded by or have any direct connection to any political party. Could you please point out the exact words that make such an assertion? Failing that you've not given any evidence of partisanship relating to RWW or PFAW. Lets stick to facts, no need for accusations - I read the section and can't see your point, and it's of no concern to me if you can't charge your phone. Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're falling into an old trap, not being able to discern between advocacy and partisanship. Here in Australia we have two major lobby groups on the left and right, but neither are partisan, they are very similar to TPUSA and PFAW - The Institute of Public Affairs, which favours right-wing policy and GetUp!, which favours the left - they are both constantly attacked for being partisan, they both lean toward the two major opposing parties, but neither are associated entities and therefor are not partisan. I hope you understand, there is a difference, in politics a partisan is a member or branch of a party, or an organisation that runs party endorsed campaigns, receives funding and direction from a party. Simply having similar views or supporting/objecting to policy is not partisanship. This source should be treated with the same care that SPLC is, but there's no evidence of partisanship and more importantly, inaccuracy. Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not reliable per GreenMeansGo. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable with WP:BIASED caveats. They're clearly a biased or opinionated source, but they're also relatively high-profile and are treated as reliable by mainstream publications (though sometimes cited with a note about their left-wing views); for WP:USEBYOTHERS, see  (the last treats working there as valid expertise.) Like most clearly WP:BIASED sources, it should generally be used with an in-line cite. --Aquillion (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable with attribution per the arguments above (no need to repeat them). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not useful as a hyperpartisan "watchlist" run by an advocacy group, mostly per GNG, but it's also worth noting that their website does not in any distinguish opinions from facts. All they have are "posts" with sweeping titles like "Dennis Prager Blames Everything But Guns for Mass Shootings". Even more caution should be required, because this source would almost exclusively be used in contentious WP:BLPs. If they uncover something notable, some reliable source will follow for sure, so there's usually no need to use advocacy sources. --Pudeo (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:GNG applies here. Did you mean something else? —  Newslinger  talk   17:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marginally reliable. We currently consider similar think tanks and advocacy groups (e.g. Cato Institute, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , Hope not Hate , Media Matters for America , and Media Research Center ) usable in some cases with proper attribution despite being biased and opinionated. It would be inconsistent to treat Right Wing Watch differently from the publications of these other advocacy organizations. —  Newslinger  talk   17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in August 2019
Would some uninvolved parties like to come over to article talk at this page and confirm that we need reliable sources stating an incident is terrorism to include it on a list? A few of the locals aren't very happy that they don't get to call whatever they like terrorism anymore. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a much bigger problem as it covers several years of similar articles, 12 articles to a year. Would an RfC about sourcing for claims of terrorism be most suitable here or if not where? Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Such an RFC is needed, but I don't think its RS/N issue. Maybe VPP or VPR as a better central point. I fully agree that "terrorism" is something that should come down from official sources, not just any random paper even if that paper is an RS. --M asem  (t) 17:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Raised at Talk:List of terrorist incidents. Doug Weller  talk 06:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Quillette
IDW go-to Quillette has been caught publishing (and indeed "improving" on) a blatant hoax. That's a strike against it. . Guy (Help!) 09:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In its favor, they issued a retraction and then took the story down. That is one of the things we look for.  Blueboar (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but their polishing of the turd prior to publication does suggest that they only retracted because they had to. They don't seem to have done anything to check it themselves, it reads more as "FINE, WE'LL TAKE IT DOWN THEN". Guy (Help!) 11:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a RS. Sloppy and non-transparent editorial practices. Willingness to publish random BS. In May 2019, Quillette published an editorial by someone purporting to be a researcher who had allegedly found extensive ties between journalists who cover far-right activism and anti-fascists. According to a column in the Columbia Journalism Review, the author of the Quillette piece was an established right-wing troll who would later be banned by Twitter for managing multiple accounts. When Quillette was asked about how it determined whether the troll's claims were legitimate and whether the editorial was fact-checked or editorially reviewed, Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann declined to comment. Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article, the journalists who were mentioned in the article were harassed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably agree, what's more concerning is that Ngo has also published fabrications in the WSJ. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this even a question? It's an incredibly sloppy and low-quality publication - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's virtually no reason to ever use or cite Quillette on the project. This is not the kind of encyclopedia-quality source we look for. Neutralitytalk 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Even putting aside that incident. Quillette is basically just a blog - they post opinion and nothing else, and have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy when it comes to the material in those opinions. They're not citable for anything but opinion, and are not a good opinion source because publication there doesn't have any particular weight or meaning outside of "reflects the opinions of the people who run Quillette." --Aquillion (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can't really imagine a scenario where we would use them as a reliable source for a statement of fact. Since we're on the subject: what do folks think about this claim? On the one hand, I felt it was probably too minor to quibble over, but, on the other hand: I seriously doubt that Quillette actually did anything to verify the credentials of the signatories - especially in light of how little they apparently do to vet the people who submit articles.  Nblund talk 16:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "people, including a number of" is probably the better formulation there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kill the entire mention of the statement for now as WP:UNDUE unless a secondary / independent source can be found covering it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a links search. Doug Weller  talk 14:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

BizJournals in the Bitcoin Cash article
The sources 1 and 2

The article: Bitcoin Cash

Content: "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash."

Questions: Is bizjournals a RS and second does the source support the content? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These appear to be based on press releases. I would be astounded if they were not both written by Bitcoin Cash's PR agency. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable As noted, these are based on press releases. Both seem to be written by a PR agency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not supporting the content The articles do not mention the Bitcoin Cash name at all. Note that the press release was already found as not supporting the content in Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh... actually, the articles DO mention it (OK, they may not spell out the full name... but both articles use the ticker symbol “BCH”). No opinion on reliability. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that you did not consult WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, both mentioned in the RfC. Also, perhaps you overlooked that the RfC has been closed? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of the RfC you refer to was not these 2 sources. You personally are above asserting there is a connection, but it is incorrect to imply that the RfC was related to these sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Chris Hedges article in Truthdig
I'm curious to see what the community thinks of this story: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-cult-of-violence-always-kills-the-left/

It is written by a Pultizer Prize winner. Does the author having a PP and a history of working for the NYT take precedent over Truthdig not being a RS???

Thanks! Mbsyl (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't. The New York Times is considered a reliable source because it has an editorial team that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, but if you're not publishing articles in their paper, you're no longer subject to their editorial standards. Truthdig, for whatever it's worth, might be acceptable as a source for some stuff (maybe on the level of The Nation, or The National Review), but even if they were acceptable normally, this is clearly an opinion piece. Which means that it isn't reliable for much else beyond the author's own opinion (see WP:NEWSORG). Nblund talk 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What kind of content is the source being used for? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the quote from Mark Rudd about the similarities between Weather Underground and antifa was used in the antifa wiki article, but removed due to not coming from an RS.


 * Truthdig utterly fails WP:RS; numerous sources have described them as publishing propaganda and other misleading content. They cannot reasonably be cited for anything outside of situations where they themselves are the direct focus of the article.  And, generally speaking, an author having unrelated expertise does not allow one to ignore WP:RS - an expert in the specific field might be citeable even in a less reliable publication, but "won a Pulitzer Prize" doesn't automatically make everything someone writes reliable.  --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion piece put out by an outlet with a questionable record for fact checking. But furthermore it's not been shown how the opinion cited in it is WP:DUE mention in this article. It might be due in Mark Rudd but the opinion of one failed revolutionary on the Kids Today with their bandanas is not something of significance to antifa in the United States. Simply put, nobody really cares what Mark Rudd thinks about this. The lack of pickup in more reliable sources is demonstrable of this truth. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And should have mentioned that what they were trying to add to the article specifically was a quote by Mark Rudd. Lampshading this with Hedges' prize doesn't change that the opinion being proffered is that of Rudd. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Common Sense Media
Greetings, everyone. I recently came across a film whose major claim to fame was the amount of references to Common Sense Media. CSM is an organization that describes itself as dedicated to "improving kids’ media lives". CSM is concerned that "the media in general [are] encouraging violent or antisocial behavior in children." It provides reviews for "thousands of movies, TV shows, music, video games, apps, web sites and books" and then "indicates the age for which a title is either appropriate or most relevant." It also provides a "five-star quality rating" system that is entirely different from the system used by the Motion Picture Association of America. CSM currently provides free content to media companies that distribute it to tens of millions of American homes.

It is clear that this is a non-profit that promotes a political agenda. Irrespective of whether we respect or reject that agenda, should we continue to use CSMK as a reliable source for films' notability? CSM's focus seems to be exclusively the extent to which the film is, according to their own criteria, suitable for children. Therefore, they will quite often highlight an otherwise non-notable film, because the film ostensibly promotes the values CSM supports. I'd suggest placing a description of CSM here as follows: CSM is generally assessed as promoting an agenda. Its film reviews can be quoted in an article but they do not, by themselves, necessarily provide evidence of a film's notability. Support or Oppose? -The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion was moved from, so the word here in the last sentence probably refers to WP:RSP. There is one previous discussion of Common Sense Media from 2013 at . —  Newslinger  talk   08:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that Common Sense Media, as an advocacy group, is a biased or opinionated source. Most advocacy groups, including Media Matters for America and the Media Research Center, are considered marginally reliable. On the topic of notability (specifically with regard to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM), the other part of the question is whether Common Sense Media's bias makes its film reviews non-independent. I don't have an opinion at this time, but since this discussion affects Articles for deletion/A Cowgirl's Story, I'll notify that discussion of this one. See here for Common Sense Media's review of A Cowgirl's Story. —  Newslinger   talk   08:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Attribute ans its fine as far as I can see. Bias is not a valid exclusion criteria, lack of fact checking would be. But I am not sure that one source is enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as they are a well known film reviewing site who review widely released family and childrens films, their reviews are used by Rotten Tomatoes and they critique the merits of the film in isolation from also reviewing the suitability of the film for children. On their own it's not enough for establishing notability but it can contribute to WP:GNG as an independent national reviewer, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that the source fails to do appropriate fact checking for their movie reviews. Their bias would make me hesitant to declare that a subject meets WP:NPOSSIBLE on the basis of a Common Sense Media review existing, but I don't see any reason to discount coverage in Common Sense Media outright. signed,Rosguill talk 17:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. They advocate for children's safety and mental health. That is a goal that few would object to. Unlike most advocacy organizations, they are by and large apolitical and (as far as I can see) not religiously motivated, so that means we should have much fewer qualms with quoting them than other advocacy sources. Their work and reviews have been recognized by other sources. To suggest that they are unreliable because they use their own rating system (just like any other film review site) is absurd. Perhaps parents may misuse their content and e.g. consider their age ratings as inflexible, while ignoring differences in maturity between kids; that's fine, as we are not using their data in this way. In terms of reliability or bias they are closer to Consumer Reports than Hope not Hate or (shudders) Movieguide. feminist (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Eurasian Studies
Interesting one this... The Journal of Eurasian Studdies is a peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier: website.

I've come across another "journal" of the same name, published online by "Mikes International". It is clearly not of the standard of the former journal... here is a representative article:. I contend that it is not a reliable source. Would others agree?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The link you provided suggests it's the Elsevier version. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Some of the supporting information does (like impact factor) but the article is not the Elsevier version.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Transferred to SAGE. As the article is not in any of the 2013 issues (volume 4) -, nor in any of the 2014 issues (volume 5) - - it fails WP:V in terms of being published in the journal. I'll also note the google-scholar entry on this PDF has a 2001 date and no citations. In short - it seems like a PDF available online that wasn't actually published by the journal in question. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh - you're right - it actually does appear - here, in the federatio.org journal of the same name. It is unclear to me at first blush whether federatio.org is a reputable publisher. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which seems to be published by a Maygar (Hungarians) in the Hague association. Reading through the articles in the latest issue they are not quite a scientific journal (seem to relate many personal travel experiences). It is unclear from their page (hosted on Yahoo) - - whether there is a peer review process, though it does seem they (usually) reject Wikipedia as a source. I don't think we'd see this as WP:SCHOLARSHIP - unless I'm missing something. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article in question clearly hasn't been peer reviewed (or proofread for that matter). It kind of reads like it's been through Google Translate and it's packed full of errors. For instance:
 * The tombstones  we  meet  here  in  our  booklet  can  be  found  in  Northern  Scotland.  We  can follow them on the backside map. Some of them are standing out there in the fields today, like as Aberlemno, or Hilton of Cadboll, the most well known ones carved on both sides. On one side there  are fight  scenarios, on  the other  one the  ancient symbols  are arranged  around the Cross of Christ.
 * 1. They're not tombstones
 * 2. It's debatable whether their range can be described as "Northern Scotland". North of the River Forth, granted.
 * 3. The Aberlemno stones are not in fields. The one that has a "fight scenario" on it is in a churchyard.
 * 4. The Hilton of Cadboll stone is in the Museum of Scotland. It has a hunting scene on it, not a fight scene.
 * 5. While the Hilton of Cadboll stone is carved on both sides, there is no cross. It was erased in the 17th century when the stone was reused as a memorial for a local man called Alexander Duff. This isn't covered in its Wikipedia article, so it's understandable that an amateur historian in Hungary wouldn't know this.
 * All in all I think it would be difficult to see this as a reliable source.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a possible case of hijacking. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly good faith all around - the Maygar journal seems to possibly predate the Elsevier/SAGE one - and this is a rather common name. Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Student perceptions
Is it OK to use the Master thesis for the following material in the Women's rights in Iran?

Female education in Iran is a relatively recent advancement in society. Women have been allowed to attend school as of the late 19th century and have been allowed to attend college for merely 80 years. During the Qajar years, two schools were opened for girls, both of which were opened by missionaries for minority girls such as Christian, Jew, and Zoroastrian girls. Among the elite families, some provided their daughters with education through private tutors, but, for the most part, Muslim girls were denied education as the clergies feared female education would negatively impact the fabric of Islamic society. For the pious and faithful Muslim women, education was only acceptable when it was in agreement with the teachings of Islam. The first school for Muslim girls opened at the end of 19th century in 1899. Women's education began to increase by 1920 as 58 schools in Tehran provided education for nearly 3,000 girls.

Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Master thesis-es are not used as sources. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking issues of master thesis as a source in general aside, this part is not properly sourced in the referenced thesis. There are many good sources about female education in Iran, better to use these. Pavlor (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally a good masters thesis will have a bibliography full of usable reliable sources. Use those instead. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

RenewCancelTV
This discussion pertains to a website called RenewCancelTV.

Personally, I find the site to be a questionable source, as they have made a number of unsourced statements. For example, they ran an article saying Mickey and the Roadster Racers was cancelled due to Russi Taylor's death, but failed to provide any citations beyond "per sources". Another example was where they said in an article about the Steven Universe five-night event "The Heart of the Crystal Gems" that the show was "quietly cancelled", again failing to cite any reliable sources.

I've seen RenewCancelTV cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, such as Crikey! It's the Irwins, Escaping Polygamy, Most Expensivest, etc. Based on what I presented above, should we continue allowing RenewCancelTV to be cited, or should it be considered an unreliable source? Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like a less popular SpoilerTV to me, which isn't a site considered reliable on TV project pages as it has no industry writers. The staff on reliable sites like Deadline, TVline etc have the credentials and industry contacts. Where as SpoilerTV & RenewCancelTV do not. Esuka (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Writers Guild of America
Is Writers Guild of America considered to be reliable source? I am asking because there is Disclaimer which states: Some of the data is self-reported by writers and not independently verified by WGAW. Users of the database accept the data as is, with no warranty of its accuracy stated or implied. I can't seem to find archives on Writers Guild of America as a reliable source or not. — Young Forever (talk)   20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the content being referenced and what are we attempting to support with it? Reliability isn't an island; we have to ask "reliable for what?" Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, for writers of episodes of TV series on Episode tables. — Young Forever (talk)   20:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They would be a RS for the writers of an American TV episode, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kurdish Press
How about this source?Does it suit for the following text in "Women's rights in Iran"?
 * On November 28, 2018 guards in khoy women prison, north west of Iran, attacked inmate Zeynab Jalalian and confiscated all her belongings. She was arrested in February 2007
 * Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * it is a povish source, for example, does not say anything, why she was arrested and report her situation just based on "a reliable source, has told Kurdistan Human Rights Network (KHRN)". Now is it useable?Saff V. (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BIASED Shrike (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but how about the base of the report, it was mentioned in the report that "a reliable source, has told Kurdistan Human Rights Network (KHRN)"? Is it trustable?Saff V. (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * NO, it may be included (as I said) with attribution. But we cannot say it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Two journals


Is it fine to use mentioned sources for following text in People's Mujahedin of Iran?

In 1982, as the government in Tehran led an expansive effort to limit women’s rights, the MEK adopted a female leadership. In 1987, the National Liberation Army (NLA), “saw female resistors commanding military operations from their former base at Camp Ashraf (in Diyala, Iraq) to Iran’s westernmost provinces, where they engaged alongside the men in armed combat with Iran’s regular and paramilitary forces.
 * Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They would be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative Vision
There's a bit of a dearth of reliable reviews of nu metal (not helped by it being a terrible genre, but that's by the by).

Alternative Vision looks like, despite a casual setup, it might be relatively reliable. Example review

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do any of the staff have any sort of credentials other than liking metal bands? Sergecross73   msg me  15:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced – it seems to be a blog that has expanded with further contributors, but all just music enthusiasts. The reviews seem to be 95% by the website's founder. It hasn't conducted any interviews with any artists for more than three years. The "News" section is simply reproducing press releases or information found on other websites, none of it is their own work. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s consistent with my thoughts too. It’s just another “enthusiasts website” where the only credentials are “loving the given subject”. That’s not how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. It looks unreliable. Sergecross73   msg me  18:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

PhD thesis
Normally I'm not much of a one for PhD theses as a source, but this from Sharon Lockyer has the potential to be very useful in sourcing a number of recurring themes in articles related to Private Eye. Lockyer is a tenured academic at Brunel University now, which is a respected institution, and she publishes on media controversy and comedy, which is squarely on point for this thesis. It contains an in-depth discussion of the Eye's long-running disputes with Maxwell (incidentally Ghislaine Maxwell's father), Goldsmith and others. I'd intend to use this when drawing the "frequent flyer" disputes together in a section in the main article. Proceed with caution, or ignore and reference the primary sources it cites? Guy (Help!) 12:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A PhD thesis is usable as a source, but it does require caution because the standards for them are generally lower and because a thesis often focuses on something that isn't borne out by later papers. I would say it can be used for simple, uncontroversial details, but shouldn't be used for anything potentially controversial, defamatory, or WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Assuming the institution from which the author graduated is legitimate (in the U.S. context I'd want to know if the institution, and perhaps the specific degree program, is accredited) and there's nothing odd about the thesis and its related processes (e.g., was successfully defended and accepted by the institution, followed the institution's policies, was accepted by a group of qualified faculty and experts) then it's certainly a reliable source.  But that doesn't mean that it's a very good source; WP:DUE is a separate question altogether. ElKevbo (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Some articles
There are plenty of sources used in Women's rights in Iran and I am going to know about their reliability: for With the rise of each regime, a series of mandates for women's rights arose, which affected a broad range of issues from voting rights to dress code...During the Qajar, the royal dynasty that ruled Iran from the late 1800s to the early 20th century, women were more isolated as they were not engaged in politics, and their economic contribution was limited to household work. These conditions transformed to a great extent during the Pahlavi regime from 1925-1979 where women had much more freedom for Women's rights in Iran are limited compared to the women in developed nations. The World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Iran 140 out of 144 countries for gender parity. Women in Iran constitute 19% of the workforce in 2017 with only 7% growth since 1990. for In 2017, the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Index ranked Iran in the bottom tercile of 153 countries.Compared to other South Asian regions, women in Iran have a better access to financial accounts, education, and cellphones. However, Iran ranked 116 out of the 153 countries in terms of legal discrimination against women. for According to a 2018 World Bank report, the female labor force participation rate has reached 19.8%, a marked improvement despite a wide gender gap for When the Iranian Revolution started in 1977, many women protested by marching in metropolitan cities and wore chadors as a sign of protest. Women played a significant role in the success of the revolution... "Our uprising is indebted to women. Men took the example of the women into the streets. Women encouraged the men to revolt, and sometimes even led the way. Woman is a wonderful creature. She possesses fiendish, strong [and] passionate capabilities."(Imam Khomeini, 6/5/1980) for After the Islamic revolution Khomeini said that "Women have the right to intervene in politics. It is their duty, Islam is a political religion" forCompulsory hijab was re-instated for Iranian state employees after the Islamic revolution in 1979, followed by a law for requiring the wearing of hijab in all public spaces in 1983. for Wearing a headscarf has been strictly enforced in Iran and has been since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Women who do not wear a hijab or are deemed to be wearing 'bad hijab' by having some of their hair showing face punishments ranging from fines to imprisonment. It was announced that in the beginning of 2018, women would no longer be arrested for wearing 'bad hijab' in public. Though the announcement was viewed as a moderate improvement, activists campaigning against compulsory hijab have still since been targeted by police

Thanks alot. Saff V. (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if these are, or are not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes i ask they are Useable in the article or not.Saff V. (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response. For Camara source,it was mentioned in the article for this source that better source is needed as well as Tafreshi source is a thesis.are they useable?Saff V. (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thesis are a bit of a grey area, who is the author?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the thesis. What do you think about this one? Is it reliable?Saff V. (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate you to give your opinion for the mentioned sources.Saff V. (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check at Toronto Sun


Media Bias/Fact is being used at Toronto Sun to describe the paper's orientation. I've removed it twice; is edit warring to restore it. So, I guess we get to discuss MB/FC here again. Is this a reliable source for the paper's orientation? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this how you discuss? I have started a discussion point at Talk:Toronto Sun. I am trying to make a non-sourced section into a sourced one. Let's build some consensus. Alaney2k (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can someone please systematically remove MBFC from Wikipedia pages? It's not a RS. It irks me to no end that this website is used to categorize news outlets on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I rephrased it to describe it as an example of an opinion about the paper. Is it not usable in that case, either? Alaney2k (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How can you not understand basic Wikipedia policies? We don't cite the opinions of unreliable sources on Wikipedia.  I'm beginning to think your pending changes reviewer right needs to be revoked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Is this how you discuss? With threats? Not appropriate in any context. IMO, you need to turn it down a notch. Drink less coffee. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does anybody even need it? The Sun's editorial positions are WP:BLUESKY. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not true. WP:RSOPINION allows non-reliable sources' opinions to be used. That said, the use of those opinions then fall under WP:UNDUE (as to avoid any random site's opinion from being added). --M asem (t) 17:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the website's ratings of news outlets are as reliable as my own ratings of news outlets. Neither belong in articles, whether it's in Wiki voice or attributed. 16:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * MBFC is a self-published source, so no, not reliable for any statement in wikivoice, and undue weight for any statement of opinion, even if attributed. Neutralitytalk 22:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What is Snopes? Atsme Talk 📧 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A self-published source with a much better reputation. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider Snopes self-published, as it has a sizable team. Snopes is also accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network (2018 evaluation), while Media Bias/Fact Check  is not. —  Newslinger   talk   17:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FDA import ban list. Reliable source?
Hello, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing Neal's Yard Remedies. I would like to call into question the reliability of this source. It is a primary source and it has been used to support a statement relating to alledged microbacterial contamination. There is no mention of the import ban anywhere else on the internet so we have no way of verifying the facts. Thank you. Essayist1 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do your employers say about the import ban? Are they saying it didn't happen, because clearly it did, that document appears to support the fact that some NY products were import banned, yes? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as a reliable primary source for the fact; I think this is more an issue of due weight. Every company of sufficient size sometimes runs afoul of regulations—this is not worth mentioning in the article if no independent sources report it. Kim Post (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Different issues, this is about is the source reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kim Post. The issue is weight. Companies fail on regulations every once in a while. Furthermore, it is about detention of a shipment, not that there is a definite ban on the company. If no mainstream media reported such an issue, then it is not relevant to the article since maybe they got it fixed and then it would not be detained anymore.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

MEL Magazine
Hi all, just want some feedback on Mel Magazine. Seems like absolute garbage to me, appears to rely on advertorials for income and has a whole section dedicated to talking about penises. Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The specific edit in question was this. IMHO, it appears to have editorial oversight and is described as a lifestyle magazine. It seems similar to Jezebel (website) to me, which we do use as a source for certain topics. I don't endorse MEL or even know much about it, but it seemed good enough to cite as a source on MGTOW's article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The esteemed author of the specific article being cited seems a long way from anything I would describe as a journalist, or an authority on anything other than masturbation (literally). Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hrm, tricky. Mel Magazine is a redirect to Dollar_Shave_Club, which says In May 2015, the company began hiring writers and editors for a new website, Mel Magazine (stylized as MEL) which went online in late 2015. The website contains editorial content described by the company as "men's lifestyle topics". While the site does not host sponsored content, its business model "relies upon being a branded publisher", according to Fast Company.  My first intuition was that that doesn't look like a great source, especially since everything in that sentence can be cited to Vice.  But a Google News search for WP:USEBYOTHERS - always a good first step for obscure-seeming sources - shows an awful lot of reliable sources citing it, without much indication of skepticism outside the obviously important caveat that it is run by a brand (I wouldn't cite it for razor reviews!)  I'd say it should be used with caution, especially for anything that has to do with its potential WP:BIAS implied by its status as...  the Nintendo Power-esque publication of a razor-blade company?  That does seem like what it is, doesn't it?  But here's some decent use by other sources: AV Club, Vox, QZ.com, NYmag, The Verge, The Atlantic.   That's enough to show that other reliable sources consider it worth referencing for uncontroversial tidbits about masculinity-related culture stuff.  (Honestly, that list is a decent chunk of the major WP:RSes who do cover the more online aspects of the topic.) So I think it's usable for this, which isn't that WP:EXCEPTIONAL a claim or anything (we have another source backing it up, and intuitively while the two groups are notionally in the manosphere they obviously have directly opposing takes.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks again. (as always, a well reasoned and detailed explanation) Bacondrum (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

World Population Review
I missed the earlier discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261, but I just came across the site's entry for Bangkok, and all of the text is clearly plagiarised (closely paraphrased without attribution) from Wikipedia. I'd suggest that the site should be regarded as an unreliable source, and references to it should be replaced and removed. Pinging Cordless Larry, who initiated the earlier discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Most demographic data is hidden in spreadsheets, behind complex APIs, or inside cumbersome tools. World Population Review's goal is to make this data more accessible through graphs, charts, analysis and visualizations. We also strive to present the most recent information available, and develop our own projections based on recent growth." Apparently the creator of this resource is... "Shane". Absent some evidence that any of the original "analysis" conducted by this source is frequently cited or otherwise held in high regard by academic sources, I'd say there is simply no point citing it. If there is anything worthwhile on WPR, just cite their own source for it. It's not like UN reports become more reliable from being filtered through "Shane". Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

GQ
On Antifa (United States) an editor recently made this edit. They have provided no justification for their claim that GQ is not reliable and when pressed at talk outright refused to explain how the source was not reliable. Can we get some third party opinions please? Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to assume it is not as RS as any other magazine of this type.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * GQ seems obviously reliable (and in any case the sentence merely summarizes the rest of the section, so it's not even clear it requires a source - though having one helps avoid the risk of WP:SYNTH.) Based on their comments, it looks like they were confused in that they believed WP:RS/P was an exhaustive list of every single acceptable source; they thought GQ wasn't usable because it isn't listed there. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Modern GQ is absolutely fine and reliable. I wouldn't use them for world political news, but Antifa would come under their scope. --M asem (t) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree its reliable for non-controversial matters Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * GQ should not be relied upon for unattributed facts on matters of political controversy. It is a men's fashion magazine, and is therefore RS on matters of men's fashion. It is irritating that no notification of this discussion was posted at the Antifa talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for a piece published in GQ and it wasn't about men's fashion. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * GQ in the past was a fashion magazine. It has shifted to broader matters related to modern men issues in more recent years, and retains a high quality editorial board. --M asem (t) 19:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * GQ is a fashion magazine. That doesn't mean that every article is about fashion. It should also be noted that this men's fashion magazine leans very left, and does not appear to make any clear distinction between reporting and opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a lifestyle magazine. Which includes politics. It certainly has both the editorial rigour we expect from a reliable source, and the subject matter is within its current remit. For this claim, the source is reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable. GQ (formerly Gentlemen's Quarterly) is a men's magazine that covers a broad range of subjects (including some news stories), much like Vogue does as a women's magazine. Two of the publications mentioned in "Right Wing Publications Can't Stop Getting Duped By Fake Antifa Accounts" retracted or amended their original articles after the GQ article was published, which lends credibility to the GQ article. As  mentioned, GQ 's 2017 article "A Most American Terrorist: The Making of Dylann Roof" earned its author the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing, which shows that GQ has the ability to produce high-quality articles related to American politics. —  Newslinger   talk   02:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable. This is pretty squarely in their area of coverage, they have genuine journalists and good editorial standards. Not quite Time but certainly not junk. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable - Definitely a reliable source with editorial oversight. Condé Nast, which I believe is GQ's parent company, also owns Vogue, Vanity Fair, Glamour, Self, The New Yorker, Condé Nast Traveler, Allure, AD, Bon Appétit, and Wired, all of which are considered reliable. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 20:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable Quality publication with respected journalists and editorial oversight. Bacondrum (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

trojetshqiptare
Is the web site reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For what? The about us page, http://www.trojetshqiptare.net/index.aspx?SID=12&LID=2&ACatID=11&AID=77, shows that journalist Cena Hamit Pushkolli founded the paper. and is the editor-in-chief. My Albanian translator is messing with me finding a staff page. It's not clear what its editorial policy is and who the staff are so it may be necessayr to review each page individually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Its academic in this case as it now turns out its an biographical article ]being used as a source for a BLP of the person who wrote the article. But I let this stand as I am unsure it is an RS anyway (primary aside), But this (as in this page, and a few other I checked) looks very blogy, so I wonder if this just uses user generated content to bulk out its content.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Blogger dismantles watch for tech details, can this be ref'd and reported?
Obviously this is a self-published blog. However it is technical in nature and appears serious. I wonder if it could be considered reliable for the article about the watch in question, the Casio F-91W? It appears to have been added to the article by the blog author himself, who appears to be new to WP. He made a statement on the topic's talk page. It was subsequently reverted by another editor, but I've come here to get another opinion. Thanks for your consideration. --Cornellier (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. The blog's about page indicates that the author is a hobbyist, and not a subject-matter expert. In general, if the author of a self-published source is not notable enough to be eligible for their own Wikipedia article, they don't qualify for the expert exception in WP:SPS. —  Newslinger  talk   20:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't pass WP:RS, but there's something more important to point out - it was correcting something that is completely uncited. (There's a cite to Casio's own website, but that says nothing beyond it being water-resistant.) The whole section was a bunch of uncited WP:OR even before that well-meaning new editor tried to correct it with more WP:OR of their own.  Honestly, the only cited thing in the entire section is that it's marketed as water-resistant, and even that relies entirely on a primary source. They're at least not wrong that we need better sources than what's there, even if their immediate addition isn't usable. --Aquillion (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs
I've been trying to fill out the discography for Jo Ann Kelly. I would like to use Discogs and/or Allmusic for external links to their discographies only. On the RS perennials list, it looks like Discogs may be appropriate as an external link, but it also looks like it might be a close call from the 2019 RfC on Discogs. Last I looked, Allmusic is OK for this purpose. My own research in trying to expand the article on Kelly indicates the Discogs discography is more complete because it includes posthumous re-releases and collections of her rarer recordings (not bootlegs). I'm not an expert on Kelly but I haven't found mistakes or wrong details in Discogs' version. I would prefer to use Discogs for this reason. Allmusic's version is... adequate but lacks detail. Currently I have both in the external links. Discogs link and Allmusic link Thoughts or comments? Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most editors will not balk at using Discogs in the EL section, but a few might complain that it's user-generated and not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was my impression. I wouldn't use it if I couldn't verify details against other sources. In the body of the article, I'll use different sourcing/citations for album releases but as a consolidated list in EL, this would be easier. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no problems with both of them as links. You can't use Discogs as a source, but as an external link sure. That said, if Discogs and Allmusic both provide the same information, then only have one of them. Only include both if they both have information that is A) not on the other link and B) not in the article. If the information is duplicated either on the other link or article, then don't include the link. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WorldCat is a resource which may also be helpful for basic information on music releases. They use the format for identification and do have a substantial listing of Jo Ann Kelly's publications which are already listed under  in the article, although not many of the specialty re-releases you've mentioned are shown. Regards,  Spintendo  03:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I've never dug into the authority control listings before and it does have some good info. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A potential problem I've come across is when some of the user generated content on Discogs and non-review info on AllMusic conflicts with reliably sourced info included in the WP article, readers are unsure what to believe. I'm not sure how, but maybe a disclaimer can be worked into the links that warn readers that those sites may contain incorrect info and should only be used for a general overview of album releases. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a really good suggestion about a disclaimer, Ojorojo, about incorrect info on Discogs. As I said, I plan to use actual RS for any releases mentioned in the body text. I think I'm cutting the Allmusic discography out. The Musicbrainz listing seems the worst of the lot. It doesn't even list all her primary releases during her lifetime (6 LPs) and some don't have release dates at all. If it's considered a RS, it contains several errors in Jo Ann Kelly's particular case. I'm still evaluating the Illustrated Jo Ann Kelly discography. It was a COI addition by the creator of Kelly's WP article. On principle, I should remove it. It also contains images which may be copyright violations (album and magazine covers, for example.) I'm pretty sure WP doesn't allow links out to sites with copyright violations on them but I need to refresh my memory on this point. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I could use some feedback and tweaking on a note for the Discogs EL. It will be put directly after the EL for Discogs. This is what I have: I'm not happy with the WP:SELFPUBLISH link because it doesn't really cover Discogs accurately. I couldn't find a more pertinent section in the Verifiability policy. Mark Ironie (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would work. But something simpler may be more effective, such as "The link to Discogs is provided for a general overview only. Details shown by the website are supplied by its readers, so they may not be completely accurate." —Ojorojo (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Much better wording. I have a tendency to go long when short and pithy is needed. Thank you, I'll use your wording. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of Nazi propagandist advocating supremacy of German people and genocide of Poles in history of Poland
A map showing supposed extent of German settlement in Poland has been inserted in some articles concerning Polish history. The map was created by Nazi Walter Kuhn who I quote ''was a Nazi party member,[1] nationalist historian and Ostforschung researcher interested in linguistics and German minorities outside Germany, particularly in the area of Ukraine. During the war he was involved with Nazi re-settlement policies aimed at Jews, Poles and Germans. As a historian he was intoxicated with the idea of politically engaged scholarship and bereft of any criticism,[2] while demonstrating anti-Polish prejudices.[3] '' ''On October 11, 1939 Nazi Germany authorities published in secret a publication called "Eindeutschung Posens and Westpreusens" by German historians including Hermann Aubin, Albert Brackmann, Theodor Schieder, Ludwig Petry, Werner Trillmilch as well as Walter Kuhn himself. The mentioned historians advised to remove 2.9 million Poles and Jews from the area of Greater Poland, and '''proposed introduction of German settlers who would lead the "national fight against Poles". Several Polish cities were presented as ancient German possessions and the authors proposed a state settlement policy to ensure continued control over "German Lebensraum".'[16]

The map has been reinserted with comment the quality of the work and the author's views and political stance should not be confused,

However I believe based on assesment of Kuhn's work and beliefs that he is not neutral author that can be used to show German settlement in Poland, as he was a dedicated Nazi and as historian motivated by idea of political engagement and anti-Polish bias, who was also involved in propaganda showing Polish areas as Germans.

Therefore I do not belive he is a reliable source and would like to ask for opinion on this matter. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the historical context and importance of Ostsiedlung within German nationalism in general and Nazi propaganda in particular, it seems like it might be worth covering that map in that context as a representation of such Nazi propaganda. But to do that properly you'd have to also be able to source and describe how they manipulated it and perhaps have a section devoted to that.  Ironically, if there are no such sources (ie. no specific reason to doubt the map outside its age and providence)...  the map becomes hard to justify using for anything, because even in the absence of a clear indication of specific problems, there's no reason not to just use a more up-to-date source if one exists.  1939's Nazi-era scholarship is obviously not ideal to lean; as WP:RS says, However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.  So I'd just find something more recent and replace it with that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MyMoloboaccount has misrepresented the source of the map (can be seen here ). The source is in the image description, namely: Putzger – Historischer Weltatlas (Jubiläumsausgabe); 85. Auflage, 1963, Velhagen & Klasing (Bielefeld u.a.), S. 54f; Putzger – Historischer Weltatlas, 89. Auflage, 1965; Westermanns Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, 1969; Haacks geographischer Atlas. VEB Hermann Haack Geographisch-Kartographische Anstalt, Gotha/Leipzig, 1. Auflage, 1979; dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte Band 1: Von den Anfängen bis zur Französischen Revolution; 23. Aufl. 1989, ISBN 3-423-03002-X. All of these sources are post-war and cannot be described as Nazi scholarship, whatever Walter Kuhn may have done before the war. In fact, the map was not even created by Walter Kuhn, although it is partially based on his studies. It went through post-war editors in several fairly prestigious (if popular) publications in post-war Germany.
 * This has all already been discussed, MyMoloboaccount has not bothered to look at it. See Talk:Middle High German--Ermenrich (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that map is cleary labeled as one based on Nazi Walter Kuhn in fragment you decided to cut out from your description above "Own work based on Walter Kuhn: Die bäuerliche deutsche Ostsiedlung-interestingly you decided to omit this part in your description. Also I note your comment in wikilink supporting use of Nazis on Wikipedia any former academic supporters of Nazism continued in their positions after the war, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with their research which is absolutely shocking.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this map is "bearbeitet" by Walter Kuhn, i.e. he worked on it. It's from the dtv-Atlas.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your sources are German. German is German, not neutral.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, this argumentation cannot be taken serious, since just because a source is a German source, it does not mean it is necessarily non-neutral, then the same you may conclude to English, Polish, Russian, Romanian, Hungarian, Czechoslovak up till' to the infinity assuming all parties' sources are claiming "non-neutral" things to their benefit....NO, there are ANYLAND sources that are accurate, and as well that are NOT accurate, shall it belong to anyone, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC))


 * I would be hesitant to use any map even based on, if not directly by, that particular person, as factual (except when discussing in context as noted above by Aquillion). There should be a better option somewhere. If there isnt a better option, then it could be used with a clear disclaimer as to its origins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Only in the death, it is openly written on who's worked it is based.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC))


 * When and where was it published? Kuhn lived until 1983. If this was published pre-1945, and not discussed in sources subsequent to 1945 - I'd say it's a clear no-go (bias + out dated). However - file description supposedly lists sources well beyond 1945 (including one post-death - in 1989). If, as Ermenrich says, this is a map by susbsequent authors based on Kuhn's work - that's even less of a problem (and we should assess those authors - not their sources) - e.g. we wouldn't disqualify sources on Hypothermia that use data from the Dachau freezing experiments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it is most directly based on the last source, the dtv-Atlas. At any rate, it is certainly from after the war, not one of Kuhn's publications in support of Nazi policy in Poland.--Ermenrich (talk)
 * If this is appears in the dtv Atlas (dewiki) - I'd say it is usable (and this Atlas has modern republications) - as in this case we have dtv and reasonable authors as a mediator. If this is based off of Kuhn directly - it is quite suspect. I suggest that an attempt to verify this map appearing in the dtv-Atlas (+accompanying text there - e.g. we want them presenting this as factual (as opposed to a historical POV stance)) be made - and then a more informed decision here could be made. If it is in dtv-Atlas to commons file should be more clearly attributed to it. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * you did some sleuthing last time this came up, what did you find?
 * I'd also like to add that the majority of Kuhn's publications are from after the war, see here --Ermenrich (talk)
 * Can't remember all the details now. My original comment was at and the key point was: "The fact that the ultimate source of the map is not a publication of Kuhn's but from a series of historical atlases means that independent editorial teams in post-war Germany have found Kuhn's map acceptable." It's also worth pointing out that the map posted on WP was in any case simpified from the original. The fact that Kuhn's original is used on a university's "Poland in the Classrom" site suggests that the supposed evils of this map are in the eye of the beholder.I find the objections to the map are not WP:NPOV and should be rejected on those grounds. --Pfold (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've decided to contact Ziegelbrenner directly on German Wikipedia, we'll see if he gets back to me. I remember there being some talk of making an improved map before, perhaps he could tell me if they have. But I believe Pfold is right: none of the sources predates the war, they all went through independent editoral boards after the war, there are really no grounds to remove the map, whatever odious political beliefs Kuhn might have espoused.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is actually based on Walter Kuhn. However, the model was "Putzger - Historical World Atlas (Anniversary Edition); 85th edition, 1963, Velhagen & Klasing (Bielefeld u.a.), p 54f" with the reference W. Kuhn. Regards--Ziegelbrenner (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - and in the atlas, this is presented as fact (and not as historical propaganda) ? Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on these citations of the map in later editions, I'd say there's no way it was there as an example of Nazi propaganda:, . The map was still in the 1992 edition of the same Atlas. The two publications linked above from the 2010s cite it as a reliable map. This edition of the Getica cites Kuhn himself as editor of "Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung" (1958) .--Ermenrich (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AGFing Ermenrich's verification of this map being used in subsequent publications that appear to be reliable - then yes - it should be reliable. Kuhn directly would be questionable, A reliable source choosing to use Kuhn as a citation - is after said source vetted. Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AGFing? (Sorry, I don't know this abbreviation.)--Ermenrich (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. I'm of the opinion that almost everything may be verbalized (in the turned into verb sense). Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well, anyone can check for themselves that they're reliable. They're published by de Gruyter.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that work by Walter Kuhn regularly gets cited in modern publications on the Ostsiedlung, including Polish, Czech , Lithuanian  and English-language ones   , as can be seen from Google Scholar. In my opinion, the fact that he was a Nazi is sort of besides the point. Almost every German academic who had a post during the War was a Nazi. Most of them kept on working. We can't just disregard everything they wrote, particularly after the war, for that reason. If there is something specific that they said that was problematic, we should be able to find reliable sources that say so. But Kuhn appears simply to be treated as a scholar among scholars. I'd also like to note that Norbert Angermann refers to Kuhn as "als bedeutendster Historiker der deutschen Ostsiedlung anerkannt" (recognized as the most significant scholar of the German Ostsiedlung) for the period after the war. He also claims of his pre-war work "Gegenüber den rassenideologischen Auffassungen der Nationalsozialisten blieb Kuhn in seinen Publikationen immun" ("Kuhn remained immune to the racial ideology of the National Socialists in his publications"), which I don't know that I'm prepared to agree with (Angermann conveniently leaves out anything Kuhn did during the war), but still. I'll need to actually order the books to check, but I suspect there's some POV and cherry-picking going on in our article on Kuhn at the moment.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

INCOMING!
I am removing a number of self-publsihed books as sources. I tagged these last December. They are mainly XLibris and Lulu. Experience indicates that the following will happen: We have discussed this here before, I have summarised my understanding of those discussions at WP:RSIT. My approach will be, by default, to remove the sentence the self-published source ssupports, unless it seems uncontroversial in which case I may cn tag it. In some cases the surce is redundant to another, this is easy. About half are just tacked on in "further reading" or whatever - those sections gerow in the same way "external links" does. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most will not be challenged.
 * A few will have passionate defenders, some of whom will actually be right: occasionally self-published books are reliable. I know of at least two, of the three or four thousand I have removed in previous edits (these are excluded from my current activity).
 * Some people will tell me that I must leave the text supported by the source and tag it cn, others will tell me I must remove it and must not leave it, tagged cn or not, and probably at least one person will tell me that I must find an alternative source myself.
 * /me dives into the treeline  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice... first do a quick search to see if there are alternative sources. Assuming you can’t find any, use your best judgement, but go SLOWLY.  Don’t mass remove ... remove them one at a time (Yes, it takes longer, but the optics are better. There will be less chance that someone will accuse you of being on some sort of disruptive “crusade”.) If you get pushback... Go to the talk page and explain WHY you removed the flawed material.  ASK whether there are other sources, and be willing to listen to opposing views. And if things get heated... “let the Wookiee win”.  You can walk away knowing you were right, but that the other guy was simply too stubborn to see it. That’s OK. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With thousands of articles to process, that is a serious burden. The editors of the articles have had six months to fix it. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel that the choice between CN tagging it and removing it is entirely dependent on context (with one obvious exception - controversial / potentially defamatory stuff about a WP:BLP must be removed if you're removing the source, of course.) For others, it's a question of whether the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and controversial, whether it's likely to do any harm if left untagged, whether you think finding a cite is possible (if it's probably not possible to find a source - ie. the sentence is wrong or so obscure that no RS is likely to talk about it - it should just be removed) and how easy it's likely to be (if it's clearly going to be trivial to find another source, and the cited material is uncontroversial in the sense that there's no question that such sources exist, removing it is a bit unnecessarily disruptive and probably goes against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE.)  But ultimately it's your call for everything except the WP:BLP stuff. --Aquillion (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I review each one, and look to see if the claim is extraordinary. In some cases it's trivia that we lose nothing by removing anyway. Most either have an alternate source or are bare links at the bottom of the article. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources at Media bias in the United States for claims of censorship of conservative content
This is a pretty big article and I haven't looked at all of it, just one section under "Liberal biss", " Claims of Censorship of Conservative Content". I'm pinging the editor who added this, User:Gem095 - a new account which probably explains the use of soueces, including using an article of ours as a source.

I don't know Axios, but I'm not convinced that this is a good enough source for "An article published by Axios in August 2018 reported that YouTube would begin displaying comments from Wikipedia and other third-party sources alongside videos they deemed to be controversial or propagating false information. The effort was criticized by some as an attempt to censor content that YouTube did not agree with, thereby creating an “echo-chamber” for consumers."

The Hill (newspaper) is used to back "The pair of African-American, North Carolina-based sisters have garnered a large conservative fanbase due to their pro-Trump beliefs and their defense of Trump’s rhetoric on race and immigration. Hardaway and Richardson claimed that Facebook was unfairly censoring their content and had also noticed that their 1.2 million followers were not receiving the usual alerts when the pair published new posts." I admit that I'm concerned that so many conservative sources are used in this section on liberal bias, but in this case I don't see where the article discusses the reasons for their fanbase - I don't even see a mention of race or immigration or Trump's rhetoric. As a side issue, the source's " they observed in September that their 1.2 million Facebook followers were not getting the usual alerts whenever they posted new content." is very similar to "noticed that their 1.2 million followers were not receiving the usual alerts when the pair published new posts." I don't think that's sufficiently paraphrased to avoid being copyvio.

Does this article from The Hill back "A number of conservatives and supporters of Kelly argued that Twitter had violated its own policy stating that it would “explain which policy or policies [the user] violated and which content was in violation.”"? I see only one.

Are The Daily Signal, the Apple App store sufficient to argue that the "Inconvenient Facts' app was censored? Note that the 2nd Daily Signal source lists the reasons Apple dropped it, point out that those were remedied and that the app was reinstatedl. It looks to me as though this was all speculation based on the fact that Al Gore is on the Apple board - sure, maybe correct speculation, but the sources don't seem sufficient.

The last paragraph in that section has a claim about a Google employee labeling some individuals as Nazis. The first source is the Washington Examiner which is a dubious source but worse, that article is based on the 2nd and 3rd source, Project Veritas, which even the Examiner calls a "right-wing operative group".

A couple of other comments - it's not just that section where there are problems. A quick peek at the "Conservative bias" section shows one source is a Forbes contributor - not an RS, and the "Author" section looks a mess. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go through these sources one at at time.
 * Axios seems like a new media organization. Their website is pretty low on details about editorial standards, so I'd treat them with a grain of salt. That said, without a link to the article mentioned, it can't be used as an RS regardless.
 * The Hill can be used to support that Hardaway and Richardson made claims, but it does raise the question of whether their claims are WP:DUE - are there other sources supporting this was a notable case?
 * The Hill cannot be used as a source that multiple conservatives and supporters of Kelly yadda yadda yadda. They listed some twitter noise. But that's not WP:RS even when it's reposted by a media enterprise.
 * The Apple Store is not a reliable source.
 * The Daily Signal is not a reliable source.
 * The Washington Examiner is not a reliable source.
 * Project Veritas is definitely not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Regarding the specific sources: the Axios cite seems to be a simple misreading of the source: Axios is noting that Youtubes algorithm has been criticized for creating an ideological echo-chamber, and that citing Wikipedia is an effort (however ill-advised) to combat that. Daily Signal is essentially just the Heritage foundation, and is a borderline unusable source for anything related to climate change. I can't find any coverage of this story from a reliable source, and it really looks like it's just a plug for the app. The Project Veritas stuff should definitely be scrapped unless there's additional coverage - I think we're at the point now where reliable sources no longer even bother debunking their "investigations", but nothing they've done in the past has held up to under any serious scrutiny.
 * Ultimately, I'm not sure any of this really falls under "media bias" to begin with, but at the very least, the section shouldn't be a list of assorted anecdotes. Nblund talk 19:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Simon's assessement of the sources.
 * Also to add: seeing this reminded me I saw this CRJ article this morning that probably has more links to help fill out that section, and also that I've been adding to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which has been in the news a LOT lately which should also be linked (GOP senators have been looking to add neutrality to a law, and there's word that an EO is floating around in draft stages to modify Section 230 require neutrality ). --M asem  (t) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any center right RS?? You know, for balance so that we're not citing only those RS that agree with us? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 02:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That beloved chart lists The Hill, The Wall Street Journal and Foreign Policy as center right. All three have plenty of opinion pieces and some articles about this type of allegation. Maybe one of those is based on more than a tweet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the sources proffered are to the left of center-right at all. (Excluding those things like the Apple Store that aren't sources at all.) If you believe that WSJ and The Hill are to the left, perhaps you need to adjust your Overton Window. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with what I take to be the emerging consensus here that the listed sources are inappropriate. The Hill and Axios are marginally adequate in general, but do not support the content in question. The other sources are pretty much unfit, period. The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source, and the article linked by Masem above suggests in no uncertain terms that the "media bias" issue, at least as it applies to organizations like Facebook and Google, is a made-up grievance and a "conspiracy theory" circulated by right-wing outlets, and that the conservative attack on Section 230 of the CDA is "based on a fundamental misunderstanding" of the law. Masem, are you working to incorporate that source into Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? MastCell Talk 16:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Platform neutrality" is the section on that but I haven't added the CRJ to it yet. I think in context, that definitely does need to be added. --M asem (t) 16:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above: Of those originally listed, only Axios is anything other than garbage, and they have a worrying tendency to false balance. I'd want much better sources. I consider CJR generally reliable, I don't think that's controversial. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts on the disputed sources from Special:Diff/908744552:
 * Axios is a new website that launched in 2017, and doesn't have much of a reputation at this point. Most of its posts are short (under 300 words, according to TechCrunch, although recent posts tend to be from 100–500 words), and don't go into much detail on the subjects they cover. While this might make the site more palatable for social media consumers, we should generally prefer sources that cover topics in greater depth. In this particular case, the Axios article "YouTube uses Wikipedia partnership to combat climate hoaxes" does not mention "liberal bias", and the cited information does not belong in.
 * The Hill has been found to be generally reliable in past discussions. I consider it generally reliable for topics related to American politics, with the usual exceptions (opinion pieces use WP:RSOPINION and non-staff contributor pieces are self-published sources). "Diamond and Silk slam Facebook after company deems their rhetoric 'unsafe to the community'" is an acceptable source for Diamond and Silk's claims alongside corroborating articles from Time  and The Washington Post . However, due weight should still be considered; since there is no evidence supporting the duo's allegations, they should not be mentioned in this article. "Conservative pundit Jesse Kelly's Twitter ban sparks outrage: 'New low'" is a roundup of embedded Twitter  posts, and we should prefer sources that describe more of the subject matter in their own words (instead of simply embedding tweets).
 * Both of the articles from The Daily Signal (operated by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank) promote climate change denial, and can be dismissed.
 * The Washington Examiner 's article "Leaked email from Google employee refers to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson as Nazis" simply quotes a Project Veritas document without any further analysis (besides distancing themselves with terms like purportedly and appears to show). Project Veritas is generally unreliable due to its reputation for publishing false, fabricated, and misleading information. Neither the Washington Examiner nor Project Veritas should be used in this case.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   16:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) is generally reliable for news and analysis in media and journalism, as a longstanding publication of Columbia University. "The myth of social media anti-conservative bias refuses to die" is usable here. —  Newslinger   talk   17:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, and having seen this elsewhere recently: This whole "criticized by some" thing needs to die in a fire. Any time egregious bullshit is addressed, by removal, demonetisation, or adding fact-check boxes, people bitch and moan. Some people are deeply invested in climate change denial, antivaccinationism, homeopathy, creationism and al l manner of buillshit, and they deeply resent any attempt to water down their promotion of this bullshit by placing it alongside factual information. We can and should ignore that. So they write an op-ed or get quoted in one article. So what? Ignore it unless there is substantive and weighty discussion of an actual problem (i.e a problem which is not of the form "YouTube said my flat earth video was bullshit"). Guy (Help!) 19:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, which say that all significant views should be represent -- not just those that you personally think are "not bullshit". Separately, can someone point me to the full list of RSs? MaximumIdeas (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oooh, can I have a list of reliable sources too? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 13:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I accept only the 1955 version of the World Book Encyclopedia and Cat Fancy Magazine as authoritative. Prove me wrong.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cat Fancy is a biased source that completely ignores the pro-canine POV. It should be placed on our list of depreciated sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cat Fancy should be on the blacklist. Is the World Book Encyclopedia 1955 edition the annual update or full volume? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Article of IRDC
Is it OK to use these sources this one and that one in People's Mujahedin of Iran for following content: According to the report of Kayhan, in October 1981 when the MEK set fire to a bus in Shiraz, 15 passengers included2 child and a 17-year- old girl had been burnt to death.
 * Regards!Saff V. (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part of Twitter as WP:RS
There is currently a dispute involving SpongeBob SquarePants articles (particularly Kamp Koral) and the Twitter accounts of the show's producers Vincent Waller and Paul Tibbitt, both of which do not have the blue tick that says "verified". User has constantly removed Twitter citings from either person on the no-blue-tick-that-says-verified ground. User also removed a news article from Heavy just because it cited PT's twitter (for the record WP:RSP's entry for Heavy lists it as "no consensus", and please look at the "serious and contentious" part), and at one point even called PT's twitter "supposed".

On July 15 user reverted an announcement on SB Season 13 that came from VT on the aforementioned NBTTSV ground.

But on July 20, user claimed that "[t]hese two Twitter accounts have repeatedly been confirmed to be the actual crew members (posting photos of themselves and of production, interacting with other verified accounts, etc.) In terms of WP:RS, there is no reasonable doubt at all that they're the people they're representing". Of course, someone should look at WP:RSP's Twitter entry and see if anyone agrees with me that it should satisfy the "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part. (The identity-confirmed-in-some-way part makes it very clear that just not having blue-tick won't make it non-RS), so we should also keep track of all of these kinds of Twitters on a separate page. Lots of famous people (can't bother to name who) don't even have a blue-tick. Even the director of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse took a long time to get one, and by the time his "not having a blue mark" problem had been brought up on Mashable, he had directed an Oscar-winning animated film that made $375.5 million) If it doesn't work, someone ask VW and PT to apply for the blue tick.

FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * On mobile right now so can't do/say much atm. I'll wait to see what others think, but I do think it's worth noting the case is similar to Knight Squad ending. The series stays as "present" as of right now, even though the supposed Twitter of the creator says its ended. It's been reverted multiple times, with a conversation about it on the talk page as well. Magitroopa (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The tweets in concern are about a lot of stuff in a TV show, not just its fate. On an unrelated note, the Knight Squad tweet would not be usuable for determining that show's fate even if it met the "in some way" criteria because "[the poster of the tweet, Knight Squad's creator Sean W. Cunningham] doesn't outright say canceled" and "series' fates are controlled by networks, not the producers" FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * New update: removed cartoonbrew source as not RS, same as in with Heavy source. On an unrelated note,  (who I'll re-ping) claimed that the accounts are real and even had picture of themselves and production, but someone needs to search both of the twitter feeds for these supposedly existant pictures so that the "confirmed in some way" is fulfilled. Also pinging everyone from the Knight Squad discussion, since there is a similar context there and can apply anywhere. Also repinging . FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources discussed: Heavy (which is listed at WP:RS/P as "no consensus", see that page for details) and Cartoonbrew FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unverified Twitter accounts should not be used to source info such as show premieres and endings, cast information, etc., though will have further thoughts on this. On Cartoon Brew, their About page makes it unclear to me as to whether it would be considered enough of a WP:RS to be usable – other editors will have to weigh in on this question. However, I agree with Magitroopa that the section that was added based on the Cartoon Brew was WP:UNDUE and should not be at the article (certainly not as a dedicated section)... As an aside, it's a real question in my mind as to whether the Kamp Koral article even currently qualifies for an article under WP:TVSHOW – yes, it has apparently entered production, but it does not have even an approximate scheduled premiere date yet, and thus doesn't look to meet WP:TVSHOW IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A non-verified twitter should be attached to the user in some reliable source that can be verified, hopefully easily. Best would be a reliable secondary source to make the connection such as a news article that mentions the person's twitter account. A bit weaker but still acceptable would be some other verified social media account of someone else who demonstratively has good reason to personally know the unverified person to vouch for the identity in some way. A known coworker, the network, a production account. "Everyone knows" without proof is unacceptable. Once the account is verified in some way to be attached to the person we can treat it as we would a blue checkmarked account. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the WP:UNDUE issue, there was a similar issue here: removed the Cartoon Brew sourcing regarding Chris Savino's sexual harassment allegations due to both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP issues, so it seems both (along with WP:NPOV apply to the Kamp Koral issue for the timebeing. On an unrelated note, can I take Kamp Koral to WP:AFD, since there's a WP:TOOSOON issue there? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's now at AFD: Articles for deletion/Kamp Koral. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And as for, both of the sources mention PT's apparent twitter as, well, PT's twitter. The Heavy source only sources it to a copy of a summary of a petition (WP:SPS). The Cartoon Brew source indirectly acknowledges it as PT's twitter but, given that Cartoon Brew's reliability has just been questioned here, I'd best avoid it. Guess someone has to ask him and VW to apply for the blue tick. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the concern with Cartoon Brew? I've been using it as a source for years, and not once has anyone ever suggested that it might not qualify as a reliable source. Cartoon Brew is arguably regarded as one the leading sources available for animation-related news, and as its "About" section states, the website is under the direct editorial oversight of a well-regarded author and historian, Amid Amidi, who has been cited as an animation/art expert by both Variety and the Los Angeles Times. Even Time magazine's website has linked off to Cartoon Brew. So I really don't think there should be any question that Cartoon Brew is a quality source.

It looks like Paul Tibbitt isn't very active on Twitter, which might explain why he's never bothered to become verified; since starting his account in 2012, he's apparently only tweeted 85 times. I haven't noticed any instances of him interacting with verified accounts, but maybe I've missed something - is anyone able to point to an example of him doing that? Even if not, I still think that we should be able to treat his Twitter account as a reliable source, considering that Cartoon Brew says that it's an authentic account.

Vincent Waller is a lot more active on Twitter than Tibbitt, and even though I haven't noticed any instances of Waller *interacting* with verified accounts, I did notice that Waller is followed by the verified accounts of Clancy Brown, the voice of Mr. Krabs, and Ian Jones-Quartey, the creator of a Cartoon Network series called OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes. A lot of non-verified accounts belonging to other animation professionals interact with Waller regularly on Twitter. And Cartoon Brew cites Waller's Twitter account in this article.

It might be worth noting that even Tom Kenny (the voice of SpongeBob) hasn't bothered to verify his Twitter account, although in his case, his humorous profile photo makes the authenticity of his account indisputable. -Jpcase (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I dug a little further through Tibbitt's followers on Twitter, and turns out that he's followed by quite a few verified accounts - e.g. Lori Alan (the voice of Pearl on SpongeBob), Craig McCracken (the creator of The PowerPuff Girls and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends), Thurop Van Orman (the creator of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack), Eric Bauza (a prolific Daytime Emmy and Annie Award nominated voice actor), and Lizz Hickey (who created a short film, called Lazybones, for Nickelodeon). --Jpcase (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to re-add these Twitter accounts as sources to the SpongeBob SquarePants article and feel that I've found enough evidence to authenticate the accounts. What are you thoughts? --Jpcase (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm...Interesting that this has come up. When it comes to users without the blue checkmark, it should be done on a case-by-case basis imo. I don't know about the Paul Tibbit account but I happened to follow Vincent Waller on twitter for a while. He's been known to announce stuff pertaining to the show like episode titles in the past. I've also seen concept drawings for the show as well, so I'm *fairly* sure at least that he is actually who he says he is...Also I heard this through the grapevine, but I heard that CartoonBrew isn't trusted here. Can someone back that up? Jerry (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since no one else is responding, I'll just reiterate, I feel very strongly that Cartoon Brew should be considered a reliable source. It's a professional publication, put together by a highly qualified team of people, as can be seen on the website's staff page. I'm not entirely sure about Cartoon Brew's whole history, but I think that at some point in the past, it may have been run more or less exclusively by Amidi, in which case, the website probably would have been considered a self-published source. That's probably where the idea came from that Cartoon Brew is unreliable; although keep in mind that self-published sources aren't even considered outright unreliable on Wikipedia; one just has to be careful when using a self-published source. As I've pointed out above, Amid Amidi is clearly an expert in his field, and so even back in the earliest days of his website, Cartoon Brew was probably a fine source to use in most cases. But Cartoon Brew seems to have grown quite a bit over the years, and it shouldn't even be considered a self-published source anymore. It's just a good source. --Jpcase (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Cartoon Brew counts as RS. Of course, since this section is very high on this page, we may have to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nickelodeon. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

uboat.net
I am seeking guidance regarding the reliability of uboat.net as a source. I have raised this question at MILHIST before (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 150) and the local consensus gave me the impression that it can be considered reliable. In addition, Wikipedia even has a template Cite Uboat.net encouraging its usage, featured articles such as the HMS Royal Oak (08) or good articles such as USS Jacob Jones (DD-61), USS Parker (DD-48), USS Nicholson (DD-52), USS Wainwright (DD-62), to name a few, articles use this website as a source. Thanks for your feedback. In addition, I found this question posted here before (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75) Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it is adequate up to and including GA, but not above. I recently reviewed a couple of British sub articles at GAN and pointed out that if the article was going further, it would need to be replaced. I recently tested this when I brought a GA to Milhist A-Class review (here, and the consensus among the reviewers was that it needed to be replaced to meet the recently introduced "high quality and reliable sources" criteria. Which is what happened, a small amount of material was lost, but most was available from other clearly reliable sources, both in hard copy and online. If it doesn't meet the criteria for A-Class it certainly won't meet the criteria for FA. Frankly, I would avoid using it, and use the many reliable book sources on the u-boats and their captains that are available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd add that all those articles were promoted 8-10 years ago, and our standards of sourcing have improved in that time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to disfavor this source on featured articles as it is deficient mainly in one area: inline citations. It is normally unclear where any of the information on the various pages originates, and pages outside the "articles" section usually don't have a listed author. From an academic standpoint, this website is kind of a dead end, in that you cannot trace information back to relevant primary sources. However, from a Wikipedia standpoint, it can be said that uboat.net appears to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is frequently cited by writers and journalists at normally reliable outlets. It is also cited by military historians on occasion: Lawrence Sondhaus in "German Submarine Warfare in World War I: The Onset of Total War at Sea"; Barbara Brooks Tomblin in "With Utmost Spirit: Allied Naval Operations in the Mediterranean, 1942-1945", and though not a professional historian, Theodore R. Treadwell's "Splinter Fleet: The Wooden Subchasers of World War II" was published by the US Naval Institute. Also, I would not call the site user generated. Anyone can submit content, but only approved posts are actually uploaded. I will admit that there is no obvious relevant expertise by the operator of the site, and the review process is utterly opaque. These are obviously reasons to be skeptical, but again, the most important part of RS is "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". If well regarded publishers and military historians cite it, we can cite it, even if something else would be preferable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source. I don't see why and other Milhist editors say it's only reliable for articles up to GA class. This is black and white, either it's usable, or it isn't. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If only the world was so black and white. How does it clearly meet the author or publication requirements for reliability, ? It is written by enthusiasts and effectively self-published. None of the contributors, to my knowledge, have been published in journals or books on the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is reliable in that the information presented is usually found to be correct, and can be corroborated by other, independent, sources. Of course, errors can occur, but that can be said of any reliable source. That a piece of information may be available in a book and on uboat.net should not prevent an editor from using uboat.net if that is the only source available to him/her. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All three of author, content and publisher need to be reliable. The content may generally be reliable, but the author needs to be too, as does the publisher. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Amateur authors (i.e. those doing research as a hobby) can often produce good work, because they have a passion for the subject. Would you say I was a "reliable author"?
 * I did start writing a book many years ago, but couldn't find a publisher. So that my research didn't go to waste, the results were published on the internet - All pages linked except the Bixley postmill one are my work. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how uboat.net can be a reliable source if you have to rely on statements like "the information presented is usually found to be correct". That means you have to check it with another source - so why not go to that other source for the Wikipedia reference in the first instance? At best, uboat.net will have the same value as a Wikipedia article (the product of dedicated amateur enthusiasts) - and we already have the rule that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. A wish to use uboat.net is really a case of (and there is no polite way to say this) editor laziness. By that I mean online sources tend to get disproportionately preferred in Wikipedia because they are more easily accessed by someone who is already sitting in front of a computer. It is worth adding (though possibly off-topic) that books of high value (to us as sources and to the publisher as a revenue stream) tend not to make it onto full free internet access (such as google books) - so Wikipedia already has a tendency to avoid the best quality sources as you need to go out to the library or actually buy a book to access them.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought got it right back in 2008 as mentioned in para 1 here Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75). Even the best books on the subject, including those with eye witness testimony, could miss info from official archives. Not forgetting many were written in the days before official secret releases, OCR, and the benefits of computerised searching, and indexing. As new finds come to market on a regular basis, our understanding of history is continually subject to review. Broichmore (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but read paragraphs 4 and 5 of Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75. Note also that the works that recommend uboat.net appear to be readily available on google books (see all the links in para 2). Am I wrong, or is this an indication that their money making value to the publisher is now low - from which one could conclude that their information value as a source is also low? Some of the content of these books, from a very quick look, appears to be at a very basic level.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The links in the previous discussion includes a book published by the Naval Institute Press (a high quality publisher on the subject), PBS, two books published by academic publishers (Greenwood Publishing and M. E. Sharpe) on finding sources on the internet and the Naval Museum of Manitoba, along with several dead links which appear to be academic websites of some sort, so they don't seem to be completely useless.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue for the use of the website, though I normally prefer sources furrowed in the traditional way. It cannot be left to individuals to decide when, where and what it is reliable for. Dapi89 (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI - on controverisal subjects like who sank which ship, I would point to Jürgen Rohwer 's Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two: German, Italian and Japanese Submarine Successes in World War II, 1939-1945 as the best source on the topic. Dapi89 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * uboat.net is a RS as it's often cited in published reliable sources . A point of confusion here is that different RS on naval topics often say different things in regards to the numbers of ships involved in different operations, the number of casualties, etc. It is not at all unusual for different "gold standard" sources to give different figures. It seems that this is an inexact science, and the upshot is that you usually need to consult multiple sources and report what they say - relying on a single source in this subject area is highly problematic. I would be very concerned to see an article only relying on uboat.net given that there are multiple high quality sources on the topics it covers which often disagree on various details. For instance, anyone writing about a U-Boat of World War II should also consult Clay Blair's books on the German submarine campaign, Rohwer and other sources which discuss this topic at the granular level. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I have read several opinions here, spanning from not reliable, reliable with constraints (up to GA only), to fully reliable. I am still confused; how do we reach an agreement that defines the usage (or exclusion) of uboat.net as a source on Wikipedia? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning unreliable here. The site "crew" appear to be fans not credentialled experts, and there's no evidence they are considered authorities by anyone else, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But experts do find it reliable. Jürgen Rohwer has used it. Dapi89 (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I must ask again because I don't find this discussion conclusive so far. Is it safe to assume that the assessment conducted by professional publishing historians such as Jürgen Rohwer and Lawrence Sondhaus (and others) outweigh the opinions of Wikipedia amateur editors on this matter? In consequence of the source evaluation by Rohwer and Sondhaus, must we not consider uboat.net a reliable source? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my view: reliable sources frequently reference this website, so it's a RS. No sources on the topic it covers should be consulted in isolation from others though, given that they often differ in regards to details. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and frankly the "amateur editors" tag fails to take into account the fact that we have a policy on reliability, which was created by the community. It doesn't meet the full requirements of WP:RS, because while its content may be generally reliable, the authors and publishers clearly are not reliable. My acceptance of the source up to GA is begrudging at best, and I think you will find that when reviewed at higher levels, it will continue to come under very close scrutiny and will often fail to be accepted. When there are plenty of other sources available for information on u-boats and their captains, use of uboat.net is lazy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable, at least for the biographical information. The site is self-published and its team are non-experts: Uboat.net crew. For the bio info, they used dated "Knight's Cross Winner" profiles which reproduce German war-time propaganda:
 * Source: uboat.net sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

VDARE
VDARE is deprecated. Today I saw this:. The USDOJ sent a link to a white nationalist story on VDARE (https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-sent-immigration-judges-racist-article-vdare-2019-8). It seems to me that it's past time to purge links to this site and possibly even blacklist it, certainly add it to an edit filter to stop inadvertent use.

Filter traps addition of the Daily Mail. There is no obvious reason why the other deprecated sites could not be included in this filter, with the editnotice amended to point tot he perennial source list.

Filter traps two tabloids in BLPs. This, too, has the potential to be expanded to other tabloids.

What do people think? Guy (Help!) 23:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. I generally remove it when I come across it. There might be some instances where WP:ABOUTSELF could possibly be relevant but even in those cases there's probably better sources out there. Take it out.  Volunteer Marek   23:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I support the edit filter expansion. See for my original request. Since I don't have any way of knowing how performance would be affected, I'm not sure where to go from here. Perhaps we could measure the performance impact in a trial. —  Newslinger   talk   01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Chinese news sources
Are Chinese state media sources like Global Times, People's Daily, China Daily, Xinhua News Agency, China Central Television or China Global Television Network reliable sources on the Chinese government perspective? The Account 1 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean as sources for claims about themselves? If so that is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair. The Beijing News and Southern Metropolis Daily had made several investigative report that slammed the face of the government so hard, despite they are owned by the CCP. Note that most of the Mainland Chinese (print) newspaper are owned by CCP but not the government. But you have to understand CCP is the ruling party since 1949. Matthew hk (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say tentatively that they are generally reliable for supporting claims about the public positions of the Chinese Communist Party and the government of China,  with the possible exception of Global Times per Newslinger's comments below . Did you have a specific use case in mind? signed,Rosguill talk 20:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC) 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to use some of these sources to put the official government view on issues like the current trade war, Hong Kong protests, etc. I know that the Global Times is especially unreliable (they even accused the "deep state" in America of damaging relations with China ), but which one is the closest to the Chinese government perspective? The Account 1 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the sources directly report the Chinese government's position (e.g. "On Wednesday, government officials announced...."), then most of these should be ok. Attempting to infer the Chinese government's position based on coverage in these sources is a bit shakier and could run afoul of original research concerns, but you may be able to accomplish the same result without engaging in OR by simply providing attribution in the article (e.g. "Chinese state media reported that..."). For these purposes, People's Daily and Xinhua may be your best options, although you may run into editors objecting that including such perspectives may not be DUE (depending on the exact context). signed,Rosguill talk 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's suggestion to attribute the specific source. Due to the actions of the CCPPD, major state media sources in China (excluding the Global Times) are quite unified with their messaging, and any of the other listed sources in the original question should accurately portray the Chinese government's position. As the largest news agency, the Xinhua News Agency is comparable to TASS and is probably the gold standard for this use case. —  Newslinger   talk   02:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The Global Times tabloid is the least reputable of the listed publications, and is known for publishing hyperbolic pro-CPC propaganda (especially in its Chinese edition). It's the RT of China. —  Newslinger   talk   21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The Global Times tends to exaggerate instead of providing accurate representations of the positions of the Chinese government and the Chinese public. Its inflammatory editorials attract a disproportionate amount of attention from Western publications, but it's not a good source at all. I consider the Global Times generally unreliable. All Chinese state media is biased or opinionated, in light of the pervasiveness of propaganda in China, and should only be used with in-text attribution. —  Newslinger  talk   22:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These criticisms would place the Global Times at a cut below other Chinese state sources, although it seems like most of the concerns listed here are about the paper's editorials and coverage of foreign incidents, rather than any reports about the Chinese government's official stances. signed,Rosguill talk 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added an article from Foreign Policy to the list that highlights the main issue with the Global Times: its statements are frequently misrepresented or misinterpreted as China's official position, when it's merely a sensationalist tabloid that serves more as a source of entertainment than a source of information. I agree that most of the Global Times 's problematic content focuses on international politics. —  Newslinger  talk   23:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably a good thing to point out here, even if using any of the listed sources thusly would be original research most of the time anyway . signed,Rosguill talk 23:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I found that English version and Chinese version Global Times has differences, even it is about the same editional. I am not sure if other state-run media has the same situation. Also, the state-run media are required to honestly mirror the view of state. Mariogoods (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Filter of joy
Filter was set to trap attempts to source content to the Daily Mail. I have tweaked it, parameterised the search and added the first couple of the deprecated sources from the perennial list. This appears to be working. The filter log is a worthwhile thing to bookmark. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With an average run time of 0.13 ms, the performance impact is negligible. Please consider adding the others. —  Newslinger  talk   05:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

DOI: 10.13140
I have encountered a number of instances of DOIs with the root 10.13140. All of these have been unpublished work - preprints, self-published articles and the like. Does anyone know what's going on here? Is this an open DOI against which you can register any old shit? Guy (Help!) 23:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * All those DOI should lead to ResearchGate. --bender235 (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is indeed an open site where you can post any old shite! Also, this was illuminating from DOI's faq: "6. What can a DOI name be assigned to? It can be any entity — physical, digital or abstract — that you wish to identify, primarily for sharing with an interested user community or managing as intellectual property." Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Western Journal
Is a clickbait engine per this NYT piece and the refs in our article about it, and is not what we want to be sourcing content from.

Used in several BLPs per this

For example


 * in Political positions of Susan Collins: "She was the subject of negative criticism from movement conservatives for her vote against repealing Obamacare. " (this was widely covered; there are much higher quality and more balanced discussions of her vote eg Time Magazine, politico on the republican reaction, etc.)


 * in Ted Kennedy: "A 1983 KGB memo indicates that Kennedy engaged in back-channel communication with the Soviet Union.  " (pile of bad refs there)

Should be deprecated but at minimum removed from mainspace.

-- 2604:2000:1481:C006:F14C:B674:B294:9FDD (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Utter trash. Should never be cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable per the investigation from The New York Times, which reveals The Western Journal as a partisan disinformation outlet operated by Floyd Brown, who has a reputation for propagating conspiracy theories. Note that The Western Journal republishes content from the Associated Press ; use of syndicated content should preferably cite the original source (Associated Press). —  Newslinger   talk   12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

High-quality interview published in unreliable source
An unusual case: in a charity auction someone paid for the right to have Owen Duffy, a journalist for The Guardian, interview designer Volko Ruhnke about his board game Labyrinth. Sadly the resulting interview was not traditionally published, but the auction winner posted it on the fan forum BoardGameGeek. Thus, content and creator are solid, but the interview's publisher is not. Normally I would say a questionable source making claims about a third party must not be cited. However, this interview is linked to on the official Labyrinth webpage by GMT Games, the publisher—apparently endorsing its authenticity. Is this a reliable source for Ruhnke's statement that "I think the heart of the game was taking Twilight Struggle as a starting point and asking what it would mean in the War on Terror"? Kim Post (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's a complicated situation. It's probably "reliable" (you could rely on it), but it might not be "usable" anyway, because of WP:BLPSPS.  Given the apparently endorsement, and the fact that you're using it to talk about the game (rather than, e.g., someone's personal life), I think you could justify it under WP:IAR.  The point behind our rules is to write better articles.  Something posted on a fan forum rarely helps us write better articles, but this one seems to have the potential.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes I believe this is sufficiently reliable. GMTs endorsement of the source means it has been vetted by someone other than the author and found to be reliable. That's all we really care about in the end, can it be trusted. Also the journalist works for The Guardian a well known reliable source so we can further trust they are probably not making things up but is a trained professional. And since we are quoting the author's opinion, and attributing the opinion to the author, it's not writing in Wikipedia's voice. With that said I wouldn't base a large portion of the article on this source. -- Green  C  16:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this student paper a reliable source for historical fact
The paper is described as "by Tyron Judes D. Casumpang May 6, 2015 PS 220 Final Requirement Dr. Santamaria". He now works in the "Department of Filipino, Ateneo Senior High School". It's used as a source for historical fact in I think five articles Manila, Tanza, Cavite and Cavite City. The editor in question User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. has said it's fine to use student papers. WP:ANI. Thanks. -- Doug Weller talk 16:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a RS. Student papers are not legit as sources (except, possibly, in WP:ABOUTSELF situations) - and it doesn't matter if the student in question got a PhD later and a Nobel prize (he still might have been lax as an undergrad, and might've been cut slack by his instructors). Student papers can be useful for citation mining (i.e. the sources in the paper often are useful as sources), and they may (or may not) make interesting reading - but reliable sources they are not. Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree - Not Reliable. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was me who used that Student Paper as a source since in the case of Historian William Henry Scott's Student Papers, which he defended, also in Ateneo de Manila University, it's currently used copiously by Academics in the Philippines and Philippine History Article. But I am open to other people's opinion. If consensus says that his student paper is not valid. Then I will go deeper and use the sources he cited rather than the paper itself, but it would be unfair on his part that he wouldn't be mentioned though. I think we shall only relegate him to supplementary source.
 * Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source as it doesn't seem to have been published in a venue that has a reputation for fact-checking (it doesn't appear to have been published at all). Moreover, the onus is on those who think this source is reliable to argue their case and present evidence that it meets WP:RS. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The paper could serve as a tertiary source if we could find which source the paper used, but there are no inline footnotes, except in a few places, only a Bibliography section. One could track down facts from those sources, if really determined. -- Green  C  16:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)