Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 394

Encyclopedia of Ukraine
The founder and chief editor of Encyclopedia of Ukraine was a major Nazi collaborator Volodymyr Kubijovyč who during the war worked closely under Hans Frank in GG. Among other things Volodymyr Kubijovyč was an originator and funder of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS responsible for war atrocities. After the war Kubijovyč settled in the West.

Is the Encyclopedia of Ukraine a reliable source for WW2 history?

Example:

I’ll present you an article about Ukrainian Nazi collaborator and war criminal Roman Shukhevych responsible for the massacres of approximately 100,000 civilians. Notice that in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine there is not a single word about the atrocities Shukhevych committed. Examples of such white-washing in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine are plenty, including the article about Kubijovyč himself, were he describes himself as: exceptional organizer and statesman (while working for the Nazis). - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is what we say about Roman Shukhevych
 * This is what Encyclopedia of Ukraine says about Roman Shukhevych


 * I have posted a link to this discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia of Ukraine and the WikiProjects it belongs to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reference works, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. —Michael Z. 04:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Unlikely Allies covers the issue and role of Volodymyr Kubiiovych in details. quote - ..reconstructs and contextualizes the activities of the Ukrainian Central Committee (UTs) in Krakow under Volodymyr Kubiiovych, the top Ukrainian collaborator in occupied Poland. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What does it say about the Encyclopedia of Ukraine as a reliable source on WWII? —Michael Z. 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you research the editors of the subjects listed in Category:German encyclopedias next? Gotta be some Nazis there. —Michael Z. 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac Can you move your comments into the Discussion section, this is not a please for it. Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I’m commenting directly to your problematic statement in the RFC. You didn’t write “a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue” per WP:RFCST, so it’s on you. —Michael Z. 23:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm. I see I was replying to a comment posted two days after the RFC, anyway. But your RFC statement is factually incorrect where it states that Kubijovyč “describes himself” as something in an article that he didn’t write, so I think you should strike that out before it’s challenged with more clutter. —Michael Z. 00:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Post your opinion below please


 * No - not for the WW2 history . For everything else, perhaps yes. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Rossoliński-Liebe writes:
 * Kubijovyč was .. sharing with the Nazis many political convictions, including antisemitism and other racism. On 18 April 1941, he petitioned General Governor Hans Frank to purge “Polish and Jewish elements” from the ethnic Ukrainian territories within the General Government. (page 155)
 * The Germans considered Kubiiovych to be more loyal to them and thus more appropriate for a Ukrainian leader.. (page 177)''
 * Kubiiovych asked Hans Frank, head of the General Government, to set up an ethnically pure Ukrainian enclave there, free from Jews and Poles...Kubiiovych asked Frank for a “Ukrainian National Army” or Ukrainian Wehrmacht, which would fight alongside the German Wehrmacht against the Red Army and the “Jewified English-American plutocracy”..Kubiiovych asked Frank to have “a very significant part of confiscated Jewish wealth turned over to the Ukrainian people. (page 226)
 * ... that in the first Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Kubiiovych ''presented a nationalist narrative of the Second World War in Ukraine and did not even include an entry on the Holocaust. (page 405) -
 * GizzyCatBella 🍁  10:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example of an ad hominem attack. It doesn’t say a single word about the source under discussion based on reliable sources or academic reviews.
 * The various edition of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine were edited and written by hundreds of contributors. Kubijovyč died in 1985, before the completion of the final English-language version, a product of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta Faculty of Arts and published by the University of Toronto Press. It is unreal to imply it is some kind of Nazi publication.
 * It’s true that the much shorter Shukhevych article doesn’t cover alleged UPA atrocities, on which subject Wikipedia’s article goes on at length, yet still fails to give a satisfying summary of the difficult Ukrainian politics of memory surrounding WWII between the Nazi and communist empires, a subject that remains complicated and controversial (and currently clouded by the mass of war propaganda). So what does, e.g., Britannica say?
 * The ad hominem arguments are grasping at straws to attack the encyclopedia.
 * For example: “in the first Encyclopedia of Ukrainian” (1st ed. 1949–1952, presumably) “did not even include an entry on the Holocaust.” Hm, Britannica, for example, added an article on the Holocaust in 1998. Have we politically vetted the personal history and opinions of Britannica’s first managing editor to determine whether it is an acceptable source? The Internet edition of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine has an article on the Holocaust. Let’s do the same for other major sources?
 * Kubijovyč “describes himself as” nothing. The authors of the article are clearly identified at the bottom. —Michael Z. 19:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Britannica had an an article on the Holocaust before 1998, this is the year when it was "added to new online database." The article on London was added in 1998 as well, so probably they just imported their existing articles en masse. Alaexis¿question? 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. I would be curious when, and highly doubt it was by 1952 since the Library of Congress added the subject heading in 1968 and I don’t believe the name was widely known in English until 1978. Anyway, this argument is absolute pants. —Michael Z. 20:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * More on usage of the name in Names of the Holocaust. —Michael Z. 21:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

- effects on Christian attitudes 10:325h - German occupation of Poland 14:653b - Jewish impact and ramifications 10:300h - rationale in Christian polemic 4:467d”
 * Yes The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a better source on Ukraine in WWII than practically any other single source. The field of history is barely sorting out Ukrainian memory politics now, in the midst of a blizzard of anti-Ukrainian war propaganda, and it is unfair to pick on a suspected blind spot to disqualify the work, without any reference to reliable sources or academic reviews of it. As mentioned in discussion below, it is a tertiary source, extremely useful, but as such we should supplement or replace it with secondary sources when we can. —Michael Z. 20:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some reviews [edit: added 1]:
 * Dmytro M. Shtohryn and Robert H. Burger, “Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Volume 1: A-F. Edited by Volodymyr Kubijovyč et al.,” Slavic Review, v 45, n 1 (Spring 1986), pp 106–108.
 * “This first of four volumes of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is the most advanced reference work on Ukraine in the English language.”
 * James Cracraft, “Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Volume II: G–K. Edited by Volodymyr Kubijovyč,” Slavic Review, v 48, n 2 (Summer 1989), pp 318–19.
 * “This being said, the present volume is a most worthy effort. If it fairly represents the others in the series (only the first, which I have not seen, has so far appeared), this Encyclopedia of Ukraine will be the standard reference work for all things Ukrainian for some time to come. Students of Russia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe will find it a most useful compendium as well. Any library supporting serious work in these fields should want to have it . . .”
 * Myroslav Shkandrij, “Danylo Husar Struk, editor in chief. Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Volumes 3–5,” Journal of Ukrainian Studies, v 18, n 1 (Summer 1993): pp 225–.
 * “Ukrainian scholarship can be a fractious business, but the Encyclopedia appears to have won the admiration, indeed the enthusiastic endorsement, of almost all reviewers.”
 * Oleh Gerus, “Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Volume III, edited by Danylo Husar Struk” (book review), Canadian Journal of History/Annales Canadiennes d’Histoire, v 29, n 2 (August 1, 1994): pp 446–449.
 * “As far as one can determine, there are no major errors in this volume. The qualitative composition of the editorial board should assure the reader of the credibility of the encyclopaedia.”
 * —Michael Z. 21:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources:
 * "Explanations of historical and cultural concepts and brief biographical data  about  Ukrainian  writers  and  public  figures  come  primarily  from  the  Internet  Encyclopedia  of  Ukraine  (hosted  by  the  Canadian  Institute  of  Ukrainian  Studies),  one  of  the  most  credible  and  comprehensive  yet  also  concise  online  sources  about  Ukraine."
 * "The six-volume Encyclopedia of Ukraine (Toronto, 1984-2001) is the most comprehensive compendium of information on Ukraine in English...Its [The dictionary's] reliance on many years of research and work that went into the Encyclopedia [of Ukraine] has resulted in remarkably well-balanced, clear presentation."
 * Tristario (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Addressing one of the few criticisms of the actual source rather than ad hominem comes from Rossoliński-Liebe 2014:452.
 * This project, on the one hand, gave rise to a useful and authoritative encyclopedia of Ukrainian history, but, on the other hand, it presented a nationalist narrative of the Second World War in Ukraine and did not even include an entry on the Holocaust”
 * This is presented unfairly as a criticism (perhaps exemplifying the criticisms of and controversies surrounding Rossoliński-Liebe’s book).
 * Useful and authoritative. Okay (but it is not only an encyclopedia of history).
 * Nationalist narrative. Nationalism is not inherently negative and has a range of meanings including “identification with one’s own nation” and “advocacy of or support for the political independence of a nation.” That the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a national encyclopedia is self-evident from its title. Our article encyclopedia gives other examples: the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Judaica.
 * No “Holocaust” entry. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine was first published in Ukrainian starting in 1949 when the name Holocaust wasn’t even used as we know it today (Names of the Holocaust tells us that it first became a Library of Congress subject heading in 1968 and became popularly recognized from 1978.) The full English-language translation of the dictionary part was a monumental 5-volume direct derivative started in 1984. The entry “Holocaust” by Dieter Pohl was added to the online version in 2007. Perhaps it can be accepted that an entire relatively new field of study wasn’t added to an already ambitious print translation project conducted by a diaspora in exile.
 * But is it a valid criticism at all? Compare to an even bigger and presumably much better-funded project:
 * 1973, Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 11, 14th revised ed., p 605
 * Entry “Holmium” followed by “Holography”
 * 1974, Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia, Volume V, 15th ed., pp 94–95
 * The full text of the entry, with uncapitalized title: “holocaust, usually a sacrifice or destruction by fire. The term is also used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of the European Jews.
 * 1976, Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia, Volume 8, 15th ed., p 98
 * Entry “Holmes, Oliver Wendell” followed by “Holocene Epoch”
 * 2003, Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia, Volume 20, 15th ed., p 629–634
 * The Holocaust, full article and four pages of plates.
 * 2005, Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia, Volume 6, 15th ed., pp 13–14
 * Holocaust [1 column], Holocaust Remembrance days [1½ columns]
 * Only the final print edition of Britannica had a real entry on the Holocaust. The online Britannica published its article in 1998. I presume the first printing to get one must have been around the same time. —Michael Z. 21:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes (with caveats) As above a number of decent scholarly sources clearly indicate that it's a well respected source. However, it's somewhat out of date, and some important scholarship relating to WWII has been conducted since 1990 (relating to previously inaccessible archives becoming available following the collapse of the Soviet Union), and it may be biased on certain topics, both of which should be kept in mind. I agree with the comments by Mzajac, the background of the founder doesn't necessarily tell you about the source itself. The apparent whitewashing of certain figures likely partially relates to the fact that certain archives and scholarship weren't available back then. David Marples comments about the lack of access to former soviet archives back then here for instance. --Tristario (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The volume of errata to the English-language edition was published in 2001. The Internet version is updated on an ongoing basis (e.g., the article on Kharkiv National university is updated 2021, per the note at the bottom). —Michael Z. 14:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then when the specific article was updated should be considered. I assume the errata just corrected errors though, and didn't try to bring it up to date Tristario (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, updates could be considered and like someone already said, I’m also open to revisiting the question of reliability of Encyclopedia of Ukraine in the future. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally no, not for WW2 stuff, although there may be some exceptions which can be discussed on case by case basis. Problems with reliability aren't just who started the encyclopedia but the fact it hasn't been updated, AFAIK, since 2001 or 2003. Ukraine today is a very different place than it was 20 years ago. I'm open to revisiting this question in the future.  Volunteer Marek   09:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The online encyclopedia is updated regularly on an article-by-article basis, and some major-article bibliographies are updated separately. Many WWII articles are dated 1993, but we also see, for example, History of Ukraine 1993 with latest bibliography entry 2011, Holocaust 2007–08, Operation Wisła refers to 2002, bibliography includes 2013, Ukrainian Canadian Servicemen’s Association 2014. —Michael Z. 14:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see..let's take a look at the first link you gave us History of Ukraine and let's scroll down to this part as an example:
 * On 30 June 1941, the OUN (Bandera faction) issued the Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941, in Lviv and formed the Ukrainian State Administration headed by Yaroslav Stetsko.
 * What's missing there? Well, the Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, in 1941 was accompanied by violent pogroms conducted by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists where thousands of Jews lost their lives. But wait, there is not a single word about it in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. So let's take a look at the Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941 article itself. Perhaps is there? Nope, not a single word. Okay, so let's search the Encyclopedia of Ukraine for the Lviv pogroms of 1941 article. Nope, nothing about it. Do you mind guiding us to the link in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess Wikipedia is a bad source on WWII because Act of restoration of the Ukrainian state doesn’t mention the Lviv pogroms either. Maybe a Nazi worked on Wikipedia. Let’s dox all the editors and get to the bottom of this. —Michael Z. 20:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The extermination of the Jews during WW2 is covered as follows:
 * Mass murder of Jews was carried out throughout Ukraine in 1942–4. Apart from the involvement of individuals and some organized auxiliary units, the Ukrainian population did not take part in these genocidal actions Jews.
 * During the Second World War a small number of individual Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis in victimizing the Jews. This, however, cannot really be considered a conspicuous example of Ukrainian [antisemitism] for three reasons... Anti-Semitism.
 * As part of their systematic effort to exterminate the Jews of Europe (see Holocaust) the Nazis rounded up and killed Jews living in Ukraine ... The Germans' Romanian allies, who occupied Transnistria, also committed war crimes (no mention of Ukrainian responsibilities) Nazi war crimes in Ukraine.
 * The article Holocaust (written in 2007 by Dieter Pohl), however, is a good article, although the following sentence may be a bit of an understatement: There is no doubt that the murder of the Jews was committed by the Third Reich and organized and carried out primarily by Germans and Austrians. Nevertheless, owing to a lack of personnel, these perpetrators of genocidal crimes relied heavily on indigenous auxiliaries ... At least some of the auxiliary police troops, the Schutzmannschafts-Bataillone, participated in the killings. Ukrainian auxiliaries were the main target of criminal investigation after 1943–44. Probably several thousand of them were tried by Soviet courts and received severe punishment. Among the main criminals responsible for the Holocaust in general, however, only some two hundred Germans and Austrians faced justice in other countries.
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally yes but with serious caveats. I wouldn't deprecate the Encyclopedia as such, as it may be (unless proven otherwise) factually accurate and may contain information that would otherwise not be available. However, I think it is a WP:BIASED source with strong nationalist leanings that make it occasionally unreliable and not authoritative as far as the assessment of historical events is concerned. Take the articles on "Jews", "Pogroms" and "Anti-Semitism"  as examples. The first two are informative and helpful, although at times questionable in their effort to present the Ukrainian people under the best possible light. But the article on "Anti-Semitism" is entirely apologetic and based on questionable distinctions: the distinction between genuine antisemitism deriving from "prejudice", and false antisemitism (mere "hostility") deriving from "significant socio-economic or political conflicts"; and the distinction between genuinely Ukrainian antisemitism, i.e. manifested by Ukrainians, and antisemitism manifested within Ukraine by others, such as the Russians and the Poles. The consequence of these distinctions is that it is difficult to identify major instances of a-s, in the specific sense of prejudice and not simply hostility, that have a demonstrably Ukrainian character. I don't want to have this POV included in Wikipedia. To sum up, IMHO:
 * It is a reliable source, but it is also a biased source when Ukrainian national identity is concerned;
 * Its bias does not affect only the articles on WW2 but also other areas of the Encyclopedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The three articles you linked to are dated as last updated respectively in 1988 (note: “it will be updated”), 1993, and 1984, while others have been updated as recently as 2022 (e.g., Crimea). All sources have biases and dating, and the Encyclopedia of Ukraine’s annotations help us identify the respective article’s context, and its updates help keep articles relevant.
 * What do you mean by “is also a biased source when Ukrainian national identity is concerned”? —Michael Z. 15:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that their treatment of antisemitism suggests that the Encyclopaedia's intentions are partly apologetic (see above some quotations). Therefore when the topic of the article impinges upon Ukrainian national identity (vis-a-vis the Jews, and possibly other groups) some bias is to be expected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not reliable for WWII, I actually doubt its reliable for anything but there may be a use case. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes The source looks generally reliable for general history of WWII, with attribution. An English translation was published by University of Toronto Press. Seems kind of like Encyclopedia Britannica for the British. People have complained about the Encyclopedia Britannica too on some of its articles, but that is generally because these are encyclopedias, not extensive or exhaustive sources. Seems to have positive responses from Ukrainian experts as has been mentioned by others here. I would argue that ATTRIBUTION would solve any issues in this particular case. That way it is not in wikipedia's voice and allows for a Ukrainian view of events.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ramos1990 lol...last time I checked Encyclopedia Britannica wasn’t narrated by former high ranking Nazi collaborators, was it? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this has been extensively answered by Michael Z.. He brings up some reasonable points. However it started is secondary to how it has evolved and how it is used today. University of Toronto Press would probably have never touched it if it was Nazi propaganda.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe you have checked. You’re only on a crusade about Kubijovyč and everything he’s touched, based on one biased source that mentions him in passing. British fascism goes back to 1922. Go on and get your research project going. Or are you going to stake your reputation on the assertion that the Britannica editions cited throughout Wikipedia have absolutely no racial, ethnic, class, or cultural biases, hm? —Michael Z. 18:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral since I don't have enough knowledge of the underlying dispute, but this RfC is a blatant violation WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Your argument that this was written by a Nazi collaborator should go down here, not in the RfC prompt. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chess Read the RfC again please - where RfC says - was written by a Nazi collaborator? Please adjust your comment, thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know that much about whether or not editors of real encyclopedias (i.e. not Wikipedia, where almost all editors are writers) engage in the writing of them. Regardless, The founder and chief editor of Encyclopedia of Ukraine was a major Nazi collaborator Volodymyr Kubijovyč who during the war worked closely under Hans Frank in GG. Among other things Volodymyr Kubijovyč was an originator and funder of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS responsible for war atrocities. After the war Kubijovyč settled in the West. should be in your reply to the RfC, not above the RfC statement and given prominence. All of your arguments should be below the Post your opinion below please line. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 @Chess Well, next time. Now is too late. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a tertiary/overview source, but I think it can be used along with other tertiary sources such "Encyclopedia of Nationalism", EB, etc. Was it criticized in RS for producing "fakes"? Are authors known as revisionist historians? No, it does not seem to be the case. Someone (one of editors-in-chief) collaborating in the past with bad guys" or even being himself a member of a bad organization in past (let's say Communist party or KGB) does not automatically disqualify sources. Is the source known for fact checking/accuracy or for promoting misinformation? Only that matters. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are definitely better sources out there. The encyclopedia is dated - the earliest volumes come from 1949 and the latest were published barely after independence (see here) - this is so old that in a lot of cases, it will basically be meaningless to represent current scholarly consensus. This is basically the greatest concern. I also looked at some of the more controversial articles (like OUN or UPA) and I'd say that the greatest flaw is not that what they tell is false but what they omit. You'd expect an article about the Volyn massacre/genocide/whatever but you won't see one, not even a mention; though it does mention that the Poles launched a mass campaign of Polonisation in the pre-war era and that the Home Army killed thousands of Ukrainians in 1942 (see Subtelny, History of Ukraine, 4 ed., p. 474-475). You won't see in the Cossack-Polish War article (Khmelnytsky Uprising) that Jews were among the most traumatized in the conflict - it only says that Jews largely allied with the Polish nobility. The bias is evident and palpable, so I wouldn't trust it for the whole picture, but it seems OK for what it says. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are referring to different editions, and unfortunately the nomination ignores the differences. I don’t think anyone’s considering the thirteen-volume 1949–52 Ukrainian-language edition. The online edition is derived from the English 1984–93 edition, and continues to be updated, e.g. “Holocaust” 2007, “Jewish National Council” 2022, “Pasmanik, Daniel” 2022.
 * The “Cossack-Polish War” article was updated 1984 by Orest Subtelny. If you click through to “Jews” (1998) there’s a paragraph on the Khmelnytsky uprising. —Michael Z. 17:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw these articles, which are pretty good (though the Cossack-Polish war one is a bit too short; I prefer to use Subtelny's book for the description of the uprising. The issue I have is that those I visited were not updated, and there are many more of these I'm afraid. Even if we assume that the end date is 1993, we basically miss out all research done post-1991 about the USSR years as secret archives were inaccessible until its dissolution. Some articles are better, but most are not very much so. I'd say that updated articles, like the ones you linked, are fine; articles published in the original encyclopedia or its English translation could in general also be acceptable (attributed in contentious fragments), but there are much better resources than these. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. But we don’t deprecate sources as “unreliable” because they omit history after their publication date. —Michael Z. 03:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Michael Z, it depends. When describing a scene and omit to mention your side's wrongdoings, that yells "deprecate me". When you describe a scene and omit analysing sociological or philosophical factors that lead to the war, well, that is prob ok. Cinadon36 06:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a completely different argument. Exactly which side do you think each historian who wrote a relevant article for the Encyclopedia of Ukraine was on? Did all of the reliable sources cited about WWII in Wikipedia always mention their side’s wrongdoings? Do all neutral sources always mention the wrongdoings that you see omitted? Or are a large proportion of Wikipedia’s sources yelling “deprecate me”? —Michael Z. 19:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds as whataboutism. But in any case, I explained why there are various degrees, levels and qualities of omissions. Enc of Ukraine does not meet WP standards. Why wont you find a couple of review articles that tell EoU is awesome? That will help you. Cinadon36 05:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it’s not “whataboutism.” It’s trying to put your tangential comment into perspective.
 * I listed several reviews above. Perhaps they’ll help you. —Michael Z. 20:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * YES per Michael. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 17:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
 * Usually reliable with minor exceptions. Micheal Z. makes a good point that there are some good academic reviews, which are generally positive of this. At the same time, some reviewers correcty point out the nationalistic bias of the publication. As such, it is a reliable but biased source, and should be used carefully/attributed when it comes to aspects of history that are distored in Ukraine (all countries have their own nationalistic biases, Ukraine is not an exception). Nonetheless, I've reviewed several reliable reviews of this work and they treat it as mostly reliable. Remember then it will probably be biased when it comes to the usual nationalistic POV, and move on. PS. To be clearer, for topics related to Ukrainian-Polish-Jewish relations in WWII, I'd support better sources needed, teriary sources are not best for such controversial issues. I'd be quite curious to know what that encyclopedia says about Holocaust in Ukraine, Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany or Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, if it says anythign about these topics at all? (And I am sure most Polish encyclopedias, for example, gloss over similar dark and humiliating aspects of Polish hstory...) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an article “Holocaust.”
 * As far as I can tell from brief searching, the massacres of Poles are not represented: the closest I could find is descriptions of Ukrainian–Polish conflict as in the article “Kholm Region,” in the paragraph starting with “After most of the Galician refugees,” which does not acknowledge them. To put it into context of the corpus of sources though, the articles on Poles in Ukraine and Volhynia were updated in 1993. I notice that most references in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and in its tables are recent, nearly all after the mid 1990s.
 * I wonder if we compare this to other reliable tertiary sources of the period, or even today, if it fares poorly. For example, are the massacres even mentioned in the monumental Britannica 2022 at all? All I can find is “With the approach of the front, guerrilla activity in western Ukraine intensified, and bloody clashes that claimed large numbers of civilian victims occurred between Ukrainians and Poles” in the article “Ukraine,” § History, § Ukraine reunited under Soviet rule.
 * The “execution by specific omissions” of the source being conducted on this page seems inadequate unless it compares it to any counterexamples. —Michael Z. 17:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus You wonder what that Encyclopaedia of Ukraine says --> nothing. And Mzajac, Encyclopedia Brittanica isn’t dedicated to Ukraine as Encyclopedia of Ukraine is, so there is no excuse for being silent about difficult topics related to Ukraine. As I already said, I’ll be more than happy to revisit the issue once the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is fully updated. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wondered if we compare other sources. Can you give any counterexamples at all? —Michael Z. 20:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the rather evident bias we identified is not discussed in reliable sources. If it is, it should be mentioned in the reception section I started in the article, everyone is invited to expand it. Anyway, as I said, I think the source is somewhat biased towards nationalistic Ukrainian historiography. Which is to be expected and common for all countries. IF the bias of this source is above average, we need sources for that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not wikipedia pages. Editors absolutely have the judgement to decide if a source is reliable. We try to source things in this noticeboard to make reasonable and logical arguments for why a source is or isn't reliable, but we don't need secondary sourcing for that as a replacement of consensus and judgement. Parabolist (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's also a good assessment IMHO Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC. I notice that the OP GizzyCatBella and Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 were participating in this thread which mentioned Roman Shukhevych and Encyclopedia of Ukraine, before GizzyCatBella went to WP:RSN. I agree with Chess that the RfC doesn't appear to fit WP:RFCNEUTRAL requirements. I go further and deplore the suggestion that anything on "WW2 history" should disallow Encyclopedia of Ukraine because bias appears in some Encyclopedia-of-Ukraine articles -- those are appropriate arguments in the relevant Wikipedia-article talk pages about specific items only, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Too dated for WWII topics. The historiography of the conflict has advanced dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and much of the literature that is 30 years old has been supplanted by newer sources. That said, I reviewed the article on the Holocaust that was linked in this discussion and it contains a strange turn of phrase:
 * Apparently some OUN underground groups in Western Ukraine staged or incited anti-Jewish actions in their efforts to sabotage the Red Army's retreat after 22 June 1941 . Source: ; emphasis mine.
 * I've never seen this argument in the literature I read on the Holocaust in Ukraine. It's also bizarre since the anti-jewish violence broke out after the Soviet army had retreated, and often after the German forces entered the area, since they incited most of it or condoned it. This reads like negationist apologia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it might seem that way if you ignore the rest of the paragraph. Your conclusion is that writer of the article Dieter Pohl is an OUN apologist? Please offer more evidence than one out-of-context sentence.
 * If it’s too dated, that mean that we should deprecate all sources 30 years or older on WWII? —Michael Z. 20:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a seriously dated source. it really shouldn't be included unless there just plain aren't more up to date sources—blindlynx 15:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes in the areas where it broadly aligns with other reliable sources. No as a sole source in potentially controversial areas, especially those related to WW2. That said, I see no realistic situation where EoU would be the only available source for WW2-related topics. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion and more opinions/!votes (Encyclopedia of Ukraine)
It's obviously biased, perhaps extremely so (the article about it also says it). It doesn't mean that it's automatically unreliable, but considering that it's a WP:TERTIARY source, I think we can almost always find a better source. Alaexis¿question? 10:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Alaexis Exactly. So how should we approach the issue? Always ask for a better source? GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and for uncontroversial claims, add better source needed, for controversial ones, remove I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also it should not be used to determine the due weight. Alaexis¿question? 20:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kubijovyč authored over 80 scientific pieces on the geography of Ukraine. I'm sure those are very sound. I have no objection to using Encyclopedia of Ukraine as a reference on the geography, for example. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I lean towards thinking it's not automatically unreliable, it's going to be biased for sure, however, it may also be useful for certain other information. In the case of Shukhevych, for example, I see that other biographical treatments of him, which are widely considered neutral (I think) and factually accurate, use it as a source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Biographical_Dictionary_of_Central_and_E/RnKlDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=2473 Cononsense (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The maps of Ukraine in this encyclopedia is excellent for its time and is very high-quality. Very reliable. The rest of it is probably too old to be reliable. Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)  The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
 * The sole source supporting the “diaspora bias” accusation is Oleh Romaniv, Романів Олег Миколайович, a Soviet expert in extractive metallurgy and construction material properties, who changed his specialty to historical memory and politological aspects of the Ukrainian national revival in 1992. The following year he wrote this assessment of the encyclopedia, in the same year he personally initiated the 1993–2003 reprint of the original Ukrainian-language edition in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 03:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s even better. The cited source is in Romaniv’s essay in Volume I of the Ukrainian-language reprint. —Michael Z. 04:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac You wrote  alleged  UPA atrocities (!?) Seriously ? That says a lot. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What does it say, @GizzyCatBella? That you’re adding innuendo to your ad hominem arguments? —Michael Z. 14:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, what I’m saying is that there is nothing alleged about UPA atrocities and historians agree on it. Do you claim otherwise? Encyclopedia of Ukraine is indeed silent (not a single word) about atrocities UPA commited. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella I meant all the alleged atrocities, including proven, unproven, and disproven, okay? Because I haven’t reviewed both articles for discrepancies and accuracy, and I’m not an expert on the topic.
 * But what is your point? That I’m a Nazi or something? Stick to the fucking topic. —Michael Z. 16:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn’t say you are a Nazi or something. Stop. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You implied something when you said I wrote something and “that says a lot.” I think you probably didn’t mean to cast aspersions on me but it was a poor choice of words. I’d appreciate it if you said so. —Michael Z. 20:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The poor choice of words was yours... "alleged atrocities" was the wrong language to use and you know that. Please apologize to GizzyCatBella. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I really doubt that Mzajac was saying that there is doubt that the UPA committed atrocities. His explanation seems reasonable. Lots of people put "alleged" if they're just talking about something they don't have a lot of knowledge about (it's commonly done among journalists for all sorts of topics, for instance). Tristario (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Does this source make incorrect statements, or does it omit correct and WP:DUE statements? From the statements made here, my understanding is that it is the latter, in which case it is reliable but biased, and can be used, in conjunction with other sources, to produce a policy-compliant article. However, this does demonstrate why permitting articles to exist with only a single WP:SIGCOV source violates WP:NPOV - such an article reflects that sources POV, not NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal
 * The bias of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is discussed in scholarly publications including what I already linked.
 * Here - page 405
 * The head of this important academic project was Volodymyr Kubiiovych, one of the major Ukrainian collaborators with the Nazis, and who, after the Second World War, became the S.S.S. This project, on the one hand, gave rise to a useful and authoritative encyclopedia of Ukrainian history, but, on the other hand, it presented a nationalist narrative of the Second World War in Ukraine and did not even include an entry on the Holocaust.
 * also (some of those contributed to the development of that Encyclopedia) page 405
 * The heroic discourse on the OUN-UPA and the “liberation movement” was shaped by a number of other historians and activists, in addition to Poltava and Mirchuk. Some of them were members of the OUN-B, such as Volodymyr Kosyk, Ivan Hryn’okh, Iaroslav Stets’ko, Mykola Klymyshyn, Stepan Lenkavs’kyi, Stepan Bandera himself, Volodymyr Ianiv, Mykola Lebed’, Roman Ilnytzkyi and Taras Hunchak. Others such as Petro Potichnyj were veterans of the UPA, and still others of the Waffen-SS Galizien, such as Vasyl’ Veryha, Oleksa Horbatsch, Roman Drazhn’ovs’kyi, and Petro Savaryn. A number of them, such as Ilnytzkyi, Hryn’okh, and Horbatsch worked at the Free Ukrainian University (UVU) in Munich; others such as Mirchuk and Kosyk were associated with the UVU or completed PhDs at this university. Ianiv was the rector of the UVU from 1968 until 1986, and Drazhn’ovs’kyi from 1993 to 1995. Hunchak was a professor at Rutgers University, Potichnyj at McMaster University. Horbatsch was professor of Slavic languages at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main from 1965 to 1982. Petro Savaryn was chancellor of the University of Alberta from 1982 to 1986. Bohdan Osadczuk, who was neither in the OUN nor the Waffen-SS Galizien but published articles in the collaborationist newspaper Krakivs’ki visits in 1943, was a professor at the Otto-Suhr-Institut for Political Science of the Free University of Berlin from 1966. The falsification of documents was another well-organized and institutionalized activity related to the discourse of extolling and denying. Lebed’, who had whitewashed the history of the OUN-UPA in a monograph published as early as 1946.
 * page 406
 * ...for the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, he did not mention that the OUN and UPA persecuted Jews during the Second World War and stated that “in the spring of 1943 thousands of Ukrainian policemen in German service deserted to form the fighting nucleus of the UPA [in order to attack] German outposts.” Similarly, he did not mention that in 1944 the OUN-UPA began collaborating once again with Nazi Germany. He asserted that the “UPA began liquidating Polish settlements in Volhynia” but omitted the fact that they also did so in eastern Galicia, and he relativized it with: “This soon escalated into full-scale Polish-Ukrainian ethnic warfare across western Ukraine"
 * page 409
 * Only a very few scholars at that time, such as Ivan Lysiak-Rudnyts’kyi, objected to the apologetic discourses and the use of scholarship for propagating denial and creating various nationalist myths. Nevertheless, even Lysiak-Rudnyts’kyi did not have any problems with silence about Volodymyr Kubiiovych’s past, because the former head of the UTsK initiated the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and supported several other projects that were perceived by the Ukrainian diaspora as being very important.
 * page 498
 * The apologetic and eulogizing narrative about Bandera and his “liberation movement” was created not only by nationalist fanatics, Bandera’s hard admirers and far-right activists, but also by a number of scholars who worked at universities in Canada, Germany, France, and the United States. Some of these scholars, such as Taras Hunchak, Petro Potichnyi, and Volodymyr Kosyk were veterans of the OUN or UPA.
 * I strongly advise users not to use that Encyclopedia as a source for WW2 history or if used, use it with extreme caution and always look for a better source. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you’re repeating an ad hominem against a respected publication, without any reliable source backing it, so I’ll respond again (but please stop WP:REPEAT). Your single-source, Rossoliński-Liebe, talks about a historical figure, Bandera, and passim about Kubijovyč, but does not criticize the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Which other encyclopedia do we disqualify after examining the personal history of one editor?
 * But “some of those contributed” among over a hundred? What are you trying to establish that this is a Nazi encyclopedia? that Ukrainian academics tend to be Nazis? @GizzyCatBella, you are on the verge of indulging in a witch hunt. What else have you been reading that’s influenced this crass action? Maybe think twice about going there at a time when tens of thousands of Ukrainians are literally being wounded and killed by a nuclear power while it incites genocide by painting the nation as requiring violent “denazification.”
 * Your sole-source Rossoliński-Liebe’s only apparent criticism is the apparent crime of not having an entry on the Holocaust in the EU’s 1949–52 Ukrainian-language edition, which no one is using for Wikipedia! But please, name the other early-’50s encyclopedias that are not guilty of the same. Your repeated arguments remain completely without merit. —Michael Z. 16:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current events in Ukraine have nothing to do with it and I fully support the Ukranian side, so please stop, okay?
 * What inspired me into digging into the issue is this article move request (now I noticed you were the nominator) Kubiyovych seems to be a standard Ukrainian romanized spelling. Kubijovyč looked more like Czech spelling to me. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The name he used in Poland (were he lived before the war, he was half Polish) was Włodzimierz Kubijowicz. But this is irrelevant to the current discussion. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Standard Ukrainian romanization is Kubiiovych, but there are other schemes.
 * Rossoliński-Liebe looks like an important work but also suffers from a bias identified by Oleksandr Zaitsev and subject to criticism by Yaroslav Hrytsak and Yuri Radchenko. None of your arguments have a sound basis, and repeating demonization of Kubijovyč is not helping. —Michael Z. 19:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not demonizing Kubijovyč, I'm stating the  facts .
 * He was a major Nazi collaborator working directly under Nazi war criminal Hans Frank who was executed for his crimes. Volodymyr Kubijovyc can be seen here (page 341) in the first row, in dark suit raising the right arm in the Nazi Heil Hitler salute.
 * You complaining about sourcing Liebe? Okay, let's source Rudling and see what he has to say about Kubijovyc.
 * Here we go:
 * ''In organizing Waffen-SS Galizien, Wächter worked closely with Volodymyr Kubijovycˇ, an enthusiastic proponent of ethnic cleansing. In April 1941 he requested that Hans Frank set up an ethnically pure Ukrainian enclave in the General Government, free from Jews and Poles. Kubijovyc benefited from Aryanization of Jewish property and published anti-Semitic materials in the collaborationist press. He asked Governor General Hans Frank to have Aryanized money go to Ukrainians, as it had ended up in Jewish hands, he argued, ‘only through ruthless breach of law on the part of the Jews and their exploitation of members of the Ukrainian people. On 2 May 1943 Kubijovycˇ declared himself ready to take up arms for the Waffen-SS. On 28 April 1943, the day of the proclamation of the formation, he stated:
 * Today, for Ukrainians in Galicia, is a very historic day, because today’s Act of State one of the most coveted wishes of the Ukrainian people is realized—to fight against Bolshevism with weapons in our hands. This wish was the result of the deeper conviction, that it is our duty not to stay neutral in the great fight for building the new European order, and what we can do for the victory of the new Europe. On these principles, we have based our active role in cooperating with the German government. We did everything that was possible. I have mentioned the voluntary departure of hundreds of thousands of workers to Germany. Their conscious contribution of quotas, the collection of winter clothing for the German armed forces, their large donations of money for military purposes show their readiness. We realize the great meaning of this greatest decision for our people. Therefore, we want to ensure that it will be the best. The formation of the Galician-Ukrainian division within the framework of the SS is for us not only a distinction but our responsibility that we will continue to [support] and maintain this active decision, in cooperation with the German state organizations, until the victorious end of the war. I ask you, governor, to accept our assurances that we will fulfill our responsibilities. This historic day was made possible by the conditions to create a worthy opportunity for the Ukrainians of Galicia, to fight arm in arm with the heroic German soldiers of the Army and the Waffen-SS against Bolshevism, your and our deadly enemy. We thank you from our hearts. Of course, we ought to thank the Great Führer of the united Europe  for recognizing our participation in the war, that he approved your initiative and agreed to the creation of the Galicia division. (Pages 339-340''
 * Are we supposed to uncritically trust such an individual and what he later allowed to be written about WW2 in his Encyclopedia of Ukraine?
 * I don't think so. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Says nothing about the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Pure ad hominem. —Michael Z. 19:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And Rudling has a borderline WP:FRINGE political bias, having characterized the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association as “ultranationalist lobbies” in Ball and Rudling 2015, “The Underbelly of Canadian Multiculturalism.” —Michael Z. 21:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to append to my remark. Rossoliński-Liebe actually does comment on the value of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, calling it “a useful and authoritative encyclopedia of Ukrainian history.” I missed this because you omitted that part of the sentence the first time you quoted it. I’ve responded in detail above, starting with “This is presented unfairly . . .” —Michael Z. 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WW2 is not the only area where it shows a bias, unfortunately The many historical entries tend to a view that is excessively...nationalist: nationalist in the direction of distorting anachronism with respect to earlier centuries, moral exculpation with respect to atrocious events, assertion of a spurious uniqueness, thoughtless isolationism, and so on.... "Jews" (pp. 385-393) proceeds carefully through this sensitive and incontestably important subject, making various points that my Jewish students should want to know, while still leaving the overall impression that Jews were always intruders in this unfortunate land and that whatever horrible happened to them there was really the fault of Russians, Poles, Germans, or Soviets if not of Jews themselves.It will not do. In the entry "Icon" (pp. 294-297) the famous Vladimir Mother of God, revered for centuries in Russia, is called the Vyshhorod Theotokos on the ground that shortly after leaving Constantinople (where it probably was painted) it resided forabout twenty years (1134-1155) in Vyshhorod....."Human Rights"(pp. 266-267) is an anti-Soviet diatribe Alaexis¿question? 15:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Alaexis - Quote from Rudling (page 364)
 * The OUN(b) [after the war] maintained contact with Francisco Franco and negotiated for an arrangement to accept former UPA and Waffen-SSGalizien soldiers into Spanish military academies. A center of former Waffen SS-Galizien veterans in London sought to establish a military dictatorship in Ukraine. Others professed themselves to be democrats after 1945, making careers in politics and academia. In contact with majority society the veterns generally omitted their background in the Waffen-SS. Within their community, however, it was regarded as merit. Among the more prominent alumni were Volodymyr Kubijovycˇ, who after the war came to edit the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No Not peer reviewed source.Cinadon36 PS: An argument that has been used by other scholarly articles, is pretty weak. Scholars and academic can use primary or other sources that are deemed unreliable for us, as WP editors. Scholars have been trained on how to use not-exceptionally sources. We have not. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]
 * It’s not a primary source. Numerous scholars have praised it in reviews, without warnings that it’s for professional use only. One lamented that the print version is too expensive for non-specialists to own. Even one of the two sources used to demonize it above calls it “useful and authoritative.” —Michael Z. 17:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * useful and authoritative for topics unrelated to WW2, that’s what they meant. The WW2 history narrated by the Encyclopaedia of Ukraine is .. let's put it this way.. incomplete - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which sources have a complete WWII history? Your criticisms are presented in a vacuum, without comparison to everything else which you imply is better. —Michael Z. 18:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cracraft 1989: “Any library supporting serious work in these fields should want to have it and, were price not a factor, so should every English-reading Ukrainian serious about his heritage.” —Michael Z. 18:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, E.ofU. is great for everything except the 1939-1945 period when it becomes incomplete. I’m putting this mildly - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please point to some complete sources on the 1939–1945 period. Your criticism is based on a fallacious comparison to nothing in particular. What sources stand the test of completeness and lack any biases, weak spots, blind spots, or omissions? —Michael Z. 19:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A source does not have to be complete to be Reliable. There are plenty of University publications on WWII, no need for amateur or not established historians. Also, there is bias everywhere, that does not mean publications coming from a nazi apologist and an Ivy league University have the same weight. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Ps- it is a matter of epistemonology. We need reliable sources. Only science can offer us reliable sources. Not primary witnesses, advocates, activists etc. When it come to knowledge, nothing match peer reviewed perspectives. This is the knowledge WP has to host. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is. Even Ivy League universities are made of people who have points of view.
 * The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is coming from dozens of academic professionals, the University of Alberta, and University of Toronto. —Michael Z. 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse @Mzajac (Michael Z) it is not a primary source. I havent made such claim. My point is that the argument "it is being used by scholars hence it is a legitimate source", is not valid. Scholars use various sources we regularly avoid. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 18:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * From the evidence above, the Encyclopaedia is very much not something we should be using for WWII history, or any history with a political dimension. It is not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Tibetan Blue Bear
A Tibetan Blue Bear is used extensively in the short story, “The Voice in the Drum (1923),” by Harold Lamb, Short Stories magazine, 1923, January 25, pp. 74-87. The Voice in the Drum - Wikisource, the free online library The blue bear is central to the action, and it is a very entertaining story, but it is a work of fiction, and I am not certain if this can be considered a reliable source of information. Lamb was an extensive traveler to the far east in his youth, and I am curious if his use of the blue bear is based on his own observations from Tibet, or if this is a retelling of local stories he might have heard in his travels. 2603:6011:B603:F6E5:5017:AF89:EAEE:A6D7 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Works of fiction are not reliable for anything except for straightforward summaries of the contents of that particular work of fiction. So "The Voice in the Drum" would be a reliable source for the claim that a blue bear appears in "The Voice in the Drum" and nothing else about blue bears. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The Yemen Times
Hello, does anyone know about the reliability of The Yemen Times, which has been defunct since April 2015? It was based in the Yemeni capital of Sana'a. I can't find much information on its reliability. One source on the Wiki article, a brief description from newspaperhunt.com, which doesn't appear reliable, claims that it was "an independent newspaper". However, I don't see other information to corroborate this or on its reliability other than their website and I don't know if much can be said for Yemen's press freedom or reliability in general. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, the Wiki article mentions the founder was a "human rights activist" and this publication may potentially have been a form of advocacy. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This query is related to Zainab Salbi as per this edit. I have no opinion on the reliability of this but do note that I am involved in the discussion.  VickKiang  (talk)  08:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I found myself here in response to your "reliable source?" tag in the same AFD, so am also involved in that discussion.
 * Plus points:
 * I note it won an award for its efforts for a free and independent media. https://web.archive.org/web/20150315222412/http://www.freemedia.at/awards/free-media-pioneer.html
 * Yemen Times claims to be Yemen's most popular newspaper, noting that this is uncited, but also unchallenged.
 * Been operating since 1991
 * Negative points:
 * Yemen ranks poorly in the Press Freedom Index
 * My analysis
 * Overall, my assessment would be that I'd consider it a reliable source for things that are less connected to Yemen, less political and polarising in Yemen. For polarising and political issues in Yemen, I'd be looking for and favouring different (probably international) sources. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CT55555, for others' transparency, you are involved with the relevant AfD and arguing to keep, on which this is being used as a "reliable source" on the corresponding BLP article to claim rape on the subject.
 * We should let someone who may know better speak to the value of this honor and some of the other questionable recipients.
 * Yemen Times does not claim to be Yemen's most popular newspaper, nor does the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article claims "Yemen's first and most widely read independent English-language newspaper", and this is unsourced original research. This is contradicted just below by "The first national English-language Yemeni newspapers were published in 1960s in Aden."
 * They went defunct in 2015. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I already stated clearly that I was involved. It's not like a I have a conflict of interest here, I am able to take a rational approach to this article and to the Yemen Times, I've created several articles about Yemen related topics. Being a popular newspaper and being older newspaper are not in contradiction, and I mentioned it was uncited. You're caveats to my comment are mostly repeating what I already said, so a little superfluous. Please let's stay on topic ie. discuss the topic, not the editors. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unchallenged because it's a barely trafficked article. I'll go ahead and fix this blatant OR. Original research isn't a plus point by the way. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

TRT for post Paris shooting events
Hi, can this TRT page be used in 2022 Paris shooting to say that 'PKK members had clash with UK police' with attribution given to TRT? -- M h hossein   talk 07:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * TRT are likely to be biased here, which doesn't disqualify them (per WP:BIAS) but begs the question why would you want to use them rather than some local reliable sources? Alaexis¿question? 09:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response @Alaexis. I could not find other sources regarding Kurds protesting in UK. -- M h hossein   talk 10:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked - there's nothing reported in any UK media. That says to me this is likely to be, at best, TRT highly exaggerating something very minor - I wouldn't trust or use TRT on this without other corroboration. DeCausa (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with that. There should be other more reliable sources, too.  M h hossein   talk 05:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Arguments that are needed in disputing a source
How do you challenge the books of historians or their scientific works if someone thinks that the sources are not good. What is the rule in that case? In what direction discussion must going? It is the editor's free opinion or editor must present something, source, review etc? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the disputed source is an RS on the face of it, the best way (imo) is to produce contradictory RS and establish a consensus that the disputed RS is a minority view. There is nothing to prevent you asking for opinions here whether some specific source is considered reliable for some statement although a reason for doubting an apparently reliable RS is usually necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand in what sense contradictory RS(are they negative reviews or something like that), and that the disputed RS is a minority view(but the book is RS, in what sense minority view)? Let's say that we have a book or scientific work of some historian ie RS. What specifically in the discussion do I have to attach so that book or scientific work is presented as no RS. That this RS cannot be used on Wikipedia. In other words, what the editors have to present specifically? If you can explain it to me. --Mikola22 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a little difficult answering your question in the abstract. You seem to be saying that an entire book/paper is unreliable? The author, the publisher, all the material in it? Have you looked at Deprecated sources? Does that help? Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the entire book/paper. I'm not talking about any specific source, but I'm interested in what is needed for such RS to be disputed, say here in some discussion. What do I have to present as an editor?  --Mikola22 (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do I give my personal opinion that some source is not valid or do I have to present the sources that speak about it? --Mikola22 (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally a specific source is first disputed at some article talk page and if it proves difficult to obtain a local consensus, an opinion can be sought here. I don't know what to say, you need to make your case, your personal opinion will not carry much weight in such a discussion. You may need to show that the source contains factually incorrect information, is extremely biased and whatever other information is appropriate for the specific case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And as for the authors, i.e. the historians, whether they can be contested and how? --Mikola22 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An author is a source as well. The same principles apply, except that one would need to careful about what was said if the author is a living person. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * you didn't clarify what do I must present when: "You need to show that the source contains factually incorrect information, is extremely biased and whatever other information is appropriate for the specific case". Am I expressing my personal opinion or do I have to cite scientific papers, reviews that say so? --Mikola22 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I said your personal opinion will not carry much weight in such a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger that. --Mikola22 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier: I can be more specific. Mikola22 is using your answers here in his attempt to guide a discussion on the Croatian Wikipedia about a source that, based on some 1964 (or so) anthropologist' findings from a WWII mass grave (that the victims were most likely of Slavic descent, not Jews or Gypsies), in a 2014 paper draws conclusions, no additional evidence, that they also were not Serbs (Slavic people), but maybe Germans (not Slavic people) or "Croats (Catholic or Muslim)" (!), who were post-war refugees, returned from Austria by the Allies. The source (meaning the author, @Scholar) has no known affiliation (the one on Scholar is where she was a student), and is mostly self published through her own "Historical Society" of some kind. A Croatian university professor lists her as one of modern (holocaust) revisionists/deniers. Mikola22 claims that only negative reviews of the work in question can be used to discard it, and that we as editors (i.e. our opinions) have no say in the whole process. I argue that many fringe theories would end up being in Wikipedia articles just because they were published in "little known journals" (is that my opinion?) by "little cited authors" (opinion?); no negative reviews — can be used in Wikipedia articles. Or maybe not? Ponor (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-published work would immediately fall into the category of unreliable. There is also the question of WP:REDFLAG, a claim to be able to differentiate European ethnic groups based on skull morphology would require extremely strong evidence from a qualified person, in this case a probably a forensic anthropologist specialising in the field of comparing sets of remains? I am not aware of any means to do this with historical remains, so I doubt it can be done with modern remains either. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, what is the peer-review process of this journal, and the qualifications of the authors/editors? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to introduce interested editors to my motives, the first motive of my question here is for the reason that editors including editor Ponor in discussion do not use sources to argue whether some source is good or not, they use their personal private opinion in that discussion. I have discussed here on this page dozens of times and I know how it is discussed here, but unfortunately these Croatian editors still use this way of discussion ie. private personal argument in discussion. As for this source itself about which editor Ponor speaks. it was published by Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts and negative reviews of that work by quality historians have not been presented in the discussion so far. However, there are discussions about a dozen sources and in each of those discussions the argument is private personal opinion of several editors, which in my opinion is not an argument in the discussion. We cannot dispute or confirm RS with a personal word, others RS have to talk about that.  --Mikola22 (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What Mikola22 calls "opinion" I call "common sense", which we are supposed to use when writing articles - and we do. What's shocking in the paper (WP:REDFLAG!) is that someone in 2014 concludes, from a 1964 forensic report on 20 year old remains, that the victims traveled from Austria, that they were Christians or Muslims and so on. So yes, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and it's the burden of Mikola22 to provide those, upon other editors' request. The paper in question was published in a departmental journal (local branch) with little visibility. The authors and the paper *are* actually covered by a review or two, the one I already cited (prof. Kasapović) quoting Matković: "my work does not seem convincing to historians because I haven't use the scientific apparatus, so they cannot confirm the value of my data". Am I free to call this fringe or should we find a source that explicitly says, without the need for any interpretation, "do not use this paper on Wikipedia"? Ponor (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does Croatian wiki not have a board like this one? That's where this should be resolved, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This last answer from editor Ponor says what i'm talking about. Using arguments such as "common sense, what's shocking in the paper is that someone in 2014 concludes, am I free to call this fringe or should we find a source that explicitly says, without the need for any interpretation", and similar claims in the croatian discussion. This is discussed right there, but the editor's arguments are a private opinion. By the way, such discussion(Reliable sources/Noticeboard) was introduced recently and the editors obviously have no experience, but the problem is that editor Ponor is also administrator and it is a little strange that such a rank of editor does not know the rules of discussion about some RS. I don't know if you can help somehow? You don't need to discuss the sources, but to familiarize the editors with the practice of discussing. Mikola22 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors are free to express personal opinions on talk pages within reason but in general back up those opinions either by reference to RS or by reference to WP policies. I don't know what material exactly is being disputed, is it WP:EXCEPTIONAL for instance? I don't really want to make a judgement based on what is written here (I can't read the paper anyway) but there appear to be reliability/verifiability concerns that ought to be addressed. Just a personal opinion, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not really worth much. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Leave the sources aside(there can be tens or hundreds of them), the problem is discussion. What evidence must be presented if RS is contested, not just one piece of information but the whole RS. I think you answered in that sense and I think you understand what I'm talking about? Some editors use their personally opinion and without evidence in another RS to challenge RS. They are simply using their personal opinion as evidence, and that's it. I did not see such a way of discussing about some RS on this Wikipedia. --Mikola22 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I already said that personal opinion does not carry a lot of weight. However the discussion about the specific source above indicates that it is not ONLY a matter of personal opinion, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The two editors who were in that discussion did not present a negative review, ie RS which would dispute that source. Those two editors use ONLY their personal opinion about the source. This is what we have now. Otherwise, there are several sources for discussion, and there will probably be many more. But the problem is the discussion because I demand for sources, reviews that challenge those sources and they give their personal opinion as an argument. It does not make sense. They are not historians or reviewers of that source, they are anonymous editors. --Mikola22 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is in that discussion and I cannot read it. I cannot read the disputed source either. I am not going to take sides in such circumstances. As I said below, I do not see what else can be done in this forum. If you believe that your fellow editors are abusing WP policies, and you cannot reach agreement with them, then take that to dispute resolution at the Croatia WP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not come here to talk about the sources which are in discussions, they are not important because there are many sources for discussion. I came here to ask what the rule is when we discussing some source. There is no choosing sides. I guess you know how you discussing here? I know. I can now start a discussion about some source here. Let's say about a book of some American historian. And you as editor come here and you start giving your personal opinion about the book, some other editor joins you and two of you express your objections about that source based on your personal opinion. So it's not an argument in a debate, you have to have reviews, books etc to dispute that source. --Mikola22 (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or a relevant wp policy. And we can keep repeating ourselves to no useful purposes, right? Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Other RS (as others have said) must challenge what it says. So (for example) if "the big book of Dinosaurs" says "and the T-rex was a type of fish" we would need RS challenging that (either direct by denying it "no the T-rex was not a fish" or by implying it "the T-Rex was a type of large lizard". Also, a lot would depend on undue, if one source says "and the T-rex was a type of fish", and no one else, then we might well argue that this is a fringe theory that we should not even include in the article about T-rex. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I learned to discuss about RS mostly from you but also from examples of others editors. What I have learned is that my word means nothing, but the sources have to speak instead of me. We are talking about quality RS here and not about some portal, newspaper, etc, where an opinion is enough. I see your comparison, but we are specifically interested in how the source ie RS is discussed, a book of some historian, a scientific paper of some historian etc. It is in our discussion about some RS enough private opinion or it is required negative-positive reviews, statements of historians from some books, etc? Tell us specifically what we have to present in the discussion. And tell us specifically what our private opinion without confirmation in RS means. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per wp:rs a source to be an RS has to have a reputation for fact-checking. It has to have had a positive reception by either A a very large number of cites by nonexpert RS, or B a smaller number from expert RS, It needs to be shown RS thinks it knows what it is talking about. That RS considers it a trustworthy source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Leave the "Per wp:rs" aside. I specific asking for a discussion ie situations where some source is being discussed. What are my arguments in challenging some RS. Do I have to present reviews ie RS, criticisms from some book ie RS, etc, or just say my personal opinion as proof that some source is not RS? Do you understand what I'm asking you? If necessary, I will explain further. Mikola22 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be better aked at village pump, we are here to discuss if a source is RS, not give advice on how to challenge a source. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Slatersteven, I think we have reached the limit of what we can do here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The question has been (re)asked at the Village Pump. Further discussion should be directed there. We can close this thread. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Economic and Political Weekly a reliable source
[] Is Is economic and political weekly relaible ,The Brokskat langauge native name is Minaro, but i needed a reliable  source to cite it , these articles has the content that I was search for. Please someone tell me is it a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaro123 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the Wikipedia article on Economic and Political Weekly it is a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been published for over 70 years. It is definitely a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Researchgate a reliable source for number of peer reviewed papers?
See this edit:, which would not belong in the lead in any case. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not every paper listed at Researchgate is peer-reviewed, so no. It includes editorials and book reviews that are not subject to peer review. Regardless. I wouldn't make a promotional claim like "has published over X" papers unless it's something independent RS focus on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And a similar claim, different source. Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Falls afoul of the "unduly self-serving" in WP:ABOUTSELF. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Generalrelative (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Dropbox (2x) used as References on two seperate pages
Women's Racquetball and Men's Racquetball.

DarklitShadow (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In fairness Dropbox is not being used as a reference, the files just happen to reside on Dropbox. That being said however those files look like copy and paste mashups of, well, something and have zero provenance so are not valid references. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 02:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Miracle of Lanciano
Article in which almost all sources are falsified. Numerous fundamentalist Catholic websites are used. A whole passage reads "scientific testing". Apart from the fact that a miracle is by definition not scientifically verifiable at all, pseudo-evidence is compiled here with more or less simple tricks. Quotations are faked and attributed to a source without naming page numbers.

Several users have pointed out faked sources. A fundamentalist user is reinserting the sources without argementation. Please intervene here and delete large part of the article for misleading. Mr. bobby (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yoga International
What is the reliability of Yoga International articles https://yogainternational.com/articles/?

My take is that since it is primarily a business website and businesses regularly use blogging to drive business leads, it wouldn't live up to our RS standards. Neither could I find any info on their editorial standards. (pinging @Chiswick Chap) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yoga articles use this as a minor or supplementary source - the sources of choice are textbooks, academic journals, and for popular topics like asanas, Yoga Journal as well. Yoga International is used for a few more recent asanas; DaxServer and I agree that it appears to present information concisely and accurately (and is free of chat and gossip) so it does not look problematic. The logic that it is "a business site", and that (some) businesses blog "to drive business leads", does not imply that YI is one of those sites which attempt to drive leads, that would be a logical error, not a valid deduction. If there is hard evidence that YI descriptions of asanas are biased in some way, that would be a problem, but I see no indication of that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with DaxServer. It is not a reliable source. This is a commercial website that exists principally to sell memberships in the site. There is no description of what editorial oversight, if any, is in place to review the content. One may question whether its repeated use as a source is essentially spam. See WP:VENDOR and WP:CITESPAM. Banks Irk (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Daxserver and Banks Irk. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source. There doesn't appear to be any editorial oversight of the articles, and as a commercial website it's output will be slanted towards it's business. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Gossipnextdoor.com
Is this a reliable source? I found this supporting content in Jenna Ortega, particularly her parents' jobs. (Specific citation: .) Two editors, one of them being me, have reverted the edit, though I brought up the reliability matter.

At the web site, under "About us", all I see is Gossip Next Door is a hub for trending news, stories related to entertainment, and everything show biz. We strive to provide well-researched materials for our readers to consume. It does bring into question whether there is any editorial oversight (fact-checking), and I'm thinking a WP:BLP article needs something better. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The about us page doesn't inspire confidence, and the contact details are a gmail address. It doesn't look like a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Playdowns.com
I've seen this in multiple places (example) and each time I've seen it, the external link text always says "Account Suspended".

In addition, BitDefender doesn't like that external link.

DarklitShadow (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It says "Account Suspended" because you used a script that auto-filled that and changed the URL. The site appears to have been taken down now, but looking at an archive of the original URL is more informative. From the archived about page it sounds like the site was created in collaboration with sports organizations and is probably reliable enough for the sports results it was used to source. Siawase (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure the archived about] page has "give my less-than-expert opinion about the sport when I wish.", which certainly gives the impression of a passion project more than a reliable source. Also in later section, "How the playdown results work", we find "Anyone with basic knowledge of how to navigate a web page can easily manage the following:" and goes onto; list Line scores, Bonspiel draws, Standings as examples. That would suggest that at least in part the details are user generated, and so falls foul of WP:UGC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence right before "Anyone..." says "Each curling club that hosts a playdown event or bonspiel can log into Playdowns.com through their browser" so it's WP:SPS by the hosts rather than WP:UGC by the general public. Frankly I don't know enough about sports sourcing to make a solid judgment call, and this might be more of a WP:DUE issue anyway. Siawase (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS would require previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I agree on DUE though, all the statistical data is probably best discussed on the articles btalk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Minimum number of reliable sources?
I'm brand new to Wikipedia so bear with me. I am inquiring whether Wikipedia requires a minimum number of reliable sources to justify the credibility of an article about a notable person. A Wikipedia writing service provider informed me that Wikipedia requires a minimum number of published sources for meeting Notability requirements. Is this accurate?

Here is the response from the writing service provider after they conducted a 'Notability Assessment Report' and after Wikipedia editors and moderators made comments on the report:

"I would like you to know that the notability assessment report is here. You can also read the Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia moderators comments on the right below in the file. As per reviewing the report, It seems that we have found a total of 86 references under your name over the internet. However, out of those references only 4 have been passed and are under the guidelines of Wikipedia. The remaining sources are unreliable according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines for the notability of a new page. Interviews, trivial mentions, press releases, podcasts, blogs, press releases, trivial mention and general self-written or self-published articles cannot be included on a Wikipedia page. We did our team's extensive research about your profile to fulfill Wikipedia Eligibility and Notability criteria, so far due to your good online existence you are successfully an eligible subject for Wikipedia but your profile does not have much credible links due to which your online significance lacks for Wikipedia, so we need more links with significant articles and online magazines coverage about the profile. As we coordinate with Wikipedia Moderators for your pages to ensure that your page passes all the guidelines and they approve your official test entry, so the requirement is advised by them and currently there is only one article with significance, noteworthy and unique news about your personal profile and according to Wiki Moderators your page additionally needs 5-8 of these articles on Top-Tier Sites or 2 to 3 major publications."

I was surprised that the Wikipedia editors and moderators made comments on the Notability Assessment Report within one day after the report was made. Also, I have scores of offline published sources (that are not readily accessible) but the writing service provider indicated that the reliable sources needed to be online.

Any feedback appreciated. Capricho74 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is true that sources are required for articles, you can read about that at WP:GNG and WP:N. However: As we coordinate with Wikipedia Moderators for your pages to ensure that your page passes all the guidelines and they approve your official test entry, so the requirement is advised by them - that is almost certainly a lie. I would advise you not to work with any 'writing service provider' - they usually are working in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use (see WP:PAID) and they are quite untrustworthy. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a number of signs in this message that you are dealing with someone who does not have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia. Perhaps the most glaring is their repeated referral to "Wikipedia Moderators"; Wikipedia does not have folks known as "Moderators", a fact so important that we've set up a page just to let people know that fact. Some of the things that they say cannot be used in a Wikipedia page can, in fact, be used on a Wikipedia page; most of them are just of little use when establish notability. And yes, we do accept offline sources; we prefer online ones, as they are easier to deal with, but there are plenty of references on Wikipedia to offline books and articles, some even used for establishing notability. One should be wary of anyone offering to take your money in return for getting a page about you onto Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There are many false and misleading statements in the message you quoted above. There is no such thing as a "Notability Assessment Report" on Wikipedia, and therefore nowhere for Wikipedia editors and "moderators" (administrators?) to comment. "Top-Tier sites" is not terminology used on Wikipedia. The "5 to 8" standard is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia. According to Offline sources, there is no restriction on using paper sources, so that is another thing these people have wrong. This seems to be a combination of incompetence and deception. There are a handful of ethical paid Wikipedia editing services, but in my opinion, the vast majority are unethical and liars. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Carbon Farming
A category of carbon farming is mussing from the section! Organisations are planting large areas of desert with cacti in Mexico and Portugal. This will provide an alternative fuel to trees etc. It could be one of the few ways of making carbon capture permanent! 188.28.21.104 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Broadway World
Is Broadway World a reliable source? — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 12:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * They allow users to directly post press releases, listing and such, see here. Shouldn't be used for any exceptional claims, and no good for notability. Might be ok for listing dates, but little else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested: How about non-exceptional stuff like education andlists of performances. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 04:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific example? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First section in Nikocado Avocado. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 10:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The bio details are probably reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF. From the nature of the site this was upload by the subject or more likely their agent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Ibn al Haytham
Hi, few months ago, the following sources have been cited in the article about Ibn al Haytham to support a possible Persian origin, i would like to know if said sources are reliable. The sources in question are :

Thanks for your insight. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There are reliable per se, as they come from a reliable publisher and there are no problems with the authors. However they are general sources that only make the claim in passing. The first is for younger readers and has the claim under an image to the side of the page. So reliable in general, but for the specific claim it's not so clear. They are certainly not very strong sources.
 * Just to clarify I know these sources as the claim and it's refs were added without the corresponding cites. Something I corrected, while working out what the refs meant I read through them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight, i think just like you that the sources are ok in general, now, the question is : should we use them for that specific claim about Ibn al-Haytham's ethnicity ? Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If they contradict higher-quality sources, it's probably better to either leave them out or to relegate them to a footnote. The article cites Vernet 1996 and Sabra 2008, both of which are absolute top quality (Encyclopaedia of Islam and Dictionary of Scientific Biography are standard reference works in their respective fields, and the authors J. Vernet and A. I. Sabra are prominent experts on Ibn al-Haytham), as well as Kalin, Ayduz & Dagli 2009 and Dallal 1999, which appear to be slightly less prominent but still high-quality. If the non-expert sources under discussion here contradict these high-quality sources in a passing mention, and if that contradictory claim is not discussed by any high-quality source, it's very likely that the contradictory claim is simply mistaken. In general it's important to recognize that reliable sources can –and often do– make honest mistakes, in which case it is better for us not to repeat them.
 * On another note, did you know that Brill sources like Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Islamica can now be freely consulted online by Wikipedia editors? All it takes is registering and logging in at WP:LIBRARY, after which one can click this link to search Brill's entire database, or this link to select a encyclopedic reference work of one's choice. Anyone editing Islam-related articles is strongly advised to start with skimming the entries in these expert encyclopedias: in this way it only takes a few minutes to check (and when applicable, correct) the most relevant facts about a subject. As encyclopedias they often also point to further reliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is the point, more than if they are reliable. However that's really a question for the article talk page than RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you, i'll take this to the article's talk page. Happy new year. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal tennis season
Multiple pages about Rafael Nadal's tennis season have recurring problems as follows:


 * 2005: References 1 & 2 no longer have valid security certificates.
 * 2006: References 1 & 2 no longer have valid security certificates.
 * 2007: References 1 & 2 no longer have valid security certificates.
 * 2008: References 1 & 2 no longer have valid security certificates.
 * 2009: References 1 & 2 no longer have valid security certificates.
 * 2018: Reference 10 no longer has a valid security certificates
 * 2019: Reference 7 is a permanent dead link
 * Rafael Nadal: Reference 101 failed verification

DarklitShadow (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Security certificates are a concern of the relevant website, and appears to have been fixed. I've added a webarchive to reference 7 in 2019 Rafael Nadal tennis season, you could also use dead link to highlight the issue to other editors. References that fail verification can be marked with failed verification, or removed with the relevant text. You may however want to note the reason for the removal on the articles talk page. Finally this isn't really the correct noticeboard for these issues, as they don't relate to the reliability of the sources. You may be better off starting bat the article talk page next time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello community! Need your advice.
1. Source: [http://amudarya.gei.de/fileadmin/_amudarya/bs/ay.pdf A. Yunusov. Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan] a report presented by the Arif Yunusov at Leibniz Institute's conference.

2. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

Hello community! I need your advice with above. Questions are: Is presentation at scholarly conference sufficient to consider Arif Yunusov's report as reliably published? is it acceptable to use it as a source for Wikipedia, and if so, what type of source is it? Primary? Secondary? Other?

Here is my view:

From page of Leibniz Institute for International Textbook Research institute it is clear that "Myths and enemy images in historiography and history textbooks in independent Azerbaijan" is a report presented by the Arif Yunusov at the International Conference "Memory Wars" 2009. Thus, there is no distinction between Arif's report and any other report presented by an individual contributor at any other conference. Arif Yunusov's report, in my opinion, should be regarded as his own opinion, because it was not published by reliably scholarship, and so did not go through the process of fact-checking and accuracy checking, nor was it peer reviewed. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this keeps being brought up in RSN, but I'll reiterate what I said previously: historian Arif Yunus is reliable, and he's more than qualified to talk about Armenia/Azerbaijan. He and his wife Leyla Yunus, described as "Azerbaijan's most prominent human rights campaigner", were jailed for allegedly "spying for Armenia", 15 months later allowed to leave for the Netherlands.
 * "Mythen und Feindbilder in der Historiographie und Schulbüchern für Geschichte im unabhängigen Aserbaidschan" is a legit publication of materials presented by Yunus - who's also Head of the Department of Conflict and Migration Studies at the Institute of Peace and Democracy  at a conference Internationale DAAD-Tagung „Krieg der Vorstellungswelten?“ Der Zusammenhang von Schulbuch und Konflikt im postsowjetischen Zentralasien, Südkaukasus und Moldau, Braunschweig, 12.-18.07.09, available online at Leibniz Institute for International Textbook Research institute page. Written by Yunus and published by Georg Eckert Institute, the source is reliably published by an academic institution. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Arif Yunus has a doctorate in history and is well published in regard to the history of Azerbaijan. I see no reason why their work shouldn't be seen as a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The question was not about whether Arif Yunus is reliable or not, rather it was about the specific research of him. My concern is that this specific research was not published by reliably scholarship, did not go through the process of fact-checking and accuracy checking, and was not peer reviewed. It is available online only as textbook, which put online as part of other textbooks presented at the conference. My concern that it might fall under WP:PREPRINT: Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online.. So I am not sure if that can be used as source or not, and if yes, then is it primary source or secondary?  A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a reason that cite conference exist, a paper delivered at a conference is not a preprint. If you have reliable sources decrying the paper that would help your case, but otherwise I feel your concerns are unfounded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just Facts and Just Facts Daily: Reliability for Wikipedia?
Should Justfacts and it’s subsidiary be used for citations? (Since it’s Covid article is rather questionable; in spite of it’s claims of authenticity) – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The about us says all the right things, but the site has my bullshit meter stuck at the top of the scale. The COVID article shouldn't be used anywhere, and directly contradicts what reliable sources state. It's over pieces of "research" are nearly all conspiratorial political essays. Not a reliable source for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested Reason I asked is cause it went after Media Bias/Fact Check. (Side note: All Sides regards it as “Center”) – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put much faith in media bias or allsides either, but "Just Facts" is just nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I read three "articles" and all of them contained either completely false statements or was heavily biased to a single viewpoint. The COVID article is particularly egregious. However, it's quite clever at presenting what the reader might think is a "balanced view" by providing counter-arguments where those don't really scupper the main viewpoint it is trying to push. It should be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So similar to this article? (Along, with it’s source?) – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Worse than that actually, because the CCHF makes no pretence to be unbiased, as simply browsing the titles of its podcasts ("Was Covid-19 a Pre-Meditated Pandemic?", "Hippocratic Oath goes Woke"), will show. Black Kite (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason being, it’s labeled Right wing by Sourcewatch. – 2601:183:4A80:E570:F1C9:E148:56C9:4F3C (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * shows that these sources are almost unused on Wikipedia (only 1 ref for the first and none for the second). Depreciation seems like overkill for such an obscure source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no need to formally deprecate… but lack of official depreciation does not mean we consider the sites in any way reliable. Blueboar (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but more to the point, we don't need to make official pronouncements on every source in existence. WP:SOFIXIT applies just as well to assessing the reliability of sources, and the OP, or yourself, or anyone can freely remove any reference (and if needed, the associated Wikipedia text) for anything which is patently unreliable, and doesn't need to seek any prior permission to do so.  This board is most useful for dealing with legitimate conflicts that exist where multiple editors are taking opposing positions on the reliability of a source; clogging the board with discussions over WP:SNOW-type issues with sources no one would ever consider reliable is not useful.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Irishcentral.com a reliable source?
It's used in quite a few articles so one might assume it is, but then we have Could DNA prove that ancient Egyptians visited Ireland? Perhaps its reliability should depend on the author? This is by "staff". Doug Weller talk 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * removed incorrect comment Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The DNA feature looks like it takes the subject seriously ("By contrast, the genomes of three men who lived during the Bronze Age 4,000 years ago showed one-third of their ancestry came from the Pontic steppe on the shores of the Black Sea."). I've had a look over the site and whilst some of the articles are quite light-hearted, I can't see anything that raises any major red flags. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite The Irish Central piece draws heavily from the fringe Ancient-Origins.net opinion-guest-authors/thoth-s-storm-new-evidence-ancient-egyptians-ireland-005187(blacklisted} which seems to incorrectly argue that the DNA shows something new or unexpected. The faience claim and its link to Egypt is wrong and outdated. See [ http://thetipperaryantiquarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-tara-prince-egyptian-princess-and.html ], eg " "It should be added that Ó Ríordáin’s (1955, 173) claim that the beads had been imported from the eastern Mediterranean around 1400 BC can safely be discounted, given our present understanding of the dating and spread of faience use (Sheridan and Shortland 2004)." [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller] talk 15:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Like every source in existence, it's reliable enough when it stays in its lane, but less so when it doesn't. It is not an archeology journal, a human genomics journal, nor does it represent (nor cite) any recognized experts in the field, so this one article can be safely dismissed as a misuse of a non-expert source.  I don't think one article taints the entire source, however.  In short, don't use that article, but given that you've only given us one article to assess, there's nothing more to be said on the matter.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Usage of government references
Is there any policy for usage of government sources? WP:RS doesn't even have the word "government". Specifcially, I am talking about using government of India and US references for Geography of Arunachal Pradesh. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They are kind of covered by both "has a reputation for fact-checking" and wp:sps. So generally they would be OK for non-controversial claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The status of being government funded/supported or not is basically irrelevant to WP:RS concerns, which is why it isn't mentioned. As noted, reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, editorial control, citation by other reliable source, broad agreement with other reliable sources that get their own information independently, etc. etc. are all far more important than if the source is or is not a government-supported source.  A good example to understand the difference would be RT (TV network) vs. the BBC.  They are both government supported sources, but have a very different editorial reputation.  The governmental support is irrelevant to the discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Nova24tv.si
Hello! I would propose that the Slovenian news portal https://nova24tv.si/ is put on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (with the possibility of whitelisting individual pages). The Slovenian fact-checking site Oštro found it to be "among the most significant contributors of misinformation in Slovenia". It summarised Breitbart (blacklisted here) over 550 times,. At the moment, it is used approximately 100 times in the English Wikipedia, but I have started to remove the links. Other sites are also mentioned in a recent report, but this one is the most topical. --TadejM my talk 09:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I support this motion, Nova24tv is not considered a reliable media in Slovenia. Tone 09:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: A discussion is also being held at sl:Pogovor o Wikipediji:Brez izvirnega raziskovanja. --TadejM my talk 01:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In view of the discussion, I consider that it will be best to leave Nova24tv.si out of the blacklist at the moment. However, the links should be carefully checked.


 * The left-wing media Necenzurirano and Mladina are not much better. Their links should also be carefully reviewed. --TadejM my talk 02:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Particularly Mladina seems spammy. (almost 200 links). I mean, how can a clearly left-wing magazine be used to reliably source an article on Far-right politics in Slovenia? --TadejM my talk 02:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've now tagged two articles – Far-right politics in Slovenia and Slovenian Democratic Party – as using unreliable sources and therefore most probably biased (please see the discussion there). --TadejM my talk 03:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A request for a third opinion has been posted at Far-right politics in Slovenia. Please see Third opinion. --TadejM my talk 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Necenzurirano is an online investigative journalism outlet founded by veteran investigative journalists that have previously worked with major mainstream news organisations Delo, Dnevnik, and Siol.net. Their original reporting is high-impact and regularly picked up by prominent media organisations. Necenzurirano has a business collaboration with the print news daily Svet24. I don't think the factual accuracy of Necenzurirano's reporting itself is in question. However, the outlet's team has recently established close working ties with the country's current liberal government/ruling party, leading to accusations of political bias, as I have explained in the SLO wiki article about Necenzurirano that TadejM has referrenced.
 * Mladina is an established left-wing political, cultural and current affaris weekly magazine with a 100 year history. It has a very clear and explicit editorial stance. However, it does also publish investigative original reporting which adheres to relevant jounalistic/editorial standards and is separate from commentary etc. Mladina's original reporting is often picked up by prominent news media. I find its reporting to be factually accurate. Reporting is occasionally somewhat polemical with editorial opinion spilling over into objective reporting a bit, however, I find one can still easily distinguish facts from any potential editorialising. It's ownership is rather opaque, however, it must be noted that opaque or otherwise problematic media ownership is a rule rather than an exception in SLO, and there are documented instances of political/ownership pressure/intrusion on editorial/journalistic independence with many prominent SLO media publications of which Mladina and Necenzurirano are not one.
 * Mladina has published a lot of prominent original reporting about far-right movements in SLO. I've extensively worked on both articles mentioned by TadejM and have answered TadejM's objections to my selection of sources on the respective talk pages.
 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're painting a very rosy picture here. Mladina and Necenzurirano are not really credible. I have explained the criticisms of Mladina with the relevant sources at the page under consideration. The editorial process is fully nontransparent, there are problems with undisclosed ownership, they often use hate speech and they are also frequently (and successfully!) sued for their incorrect claims. As to Necenzurirano, it is of higher quality than Mladina but has also lost a lot of credibility recently. Two interesting articles:, . They also tend to report inaccurately and do not owe up to their mistakes. --TadejM my talk 06:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "the editorial process is fully nontransparent" means (would you care to explain which news publications do have a transparent editorial process and how you ascertained this fact). Which SLO publication has an ownership structure that is to your liking (as I've mentioned, problematic SLO media ownership is rather a rule than a exception, which uncomfortable fact you conveniently - and quite dishonetly and hypocritically - keep ignoring)? A batchlor's thesis based on close reading of articles to reaveal supposed subliminal hate speech towards opponents of gay rights is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. "they are also frequently (and successfully!) sued for their incorrect claims" You have furnished only one such example which was - according to Mladina - a default judgement after a failure to deliver the court summons, meaning that the veracity of their reporting was not evaluated by the court. By the way, I'm guessing Mladina's recent bombshell revelation that PM Golob is being investigated by the two police departments whose chiefs he wanted replaced (prompting the resignation of the serving police director and of the Interior Minister) is not to be believed, and all publications that reported Mladina's revelations as credible journalism aren't to be trusted, either, right?
 * Well, I am deeply honoured that you find the wiki article about Necenzurirano that I wrote "interesting". And the interesting N1 article that you mention I used as a source in the wiki article. As to Necenzurirano's "inaccurate tweeting" about the pope's visit (clearly not their original reporting):

Francis originally had planned to visit Budapest for only a few hours, before continuing on for three full days to neighboring Slovakia, which is led by a young, pro-environment woman. Hungary’s top clerics and government officials lobbied the Vatican for more time, while Mr. Orban’s allies in the news media, where his party holds great sway, applied less polite pressure, excoriating Francis for insulting Hungary and “behaving in an anti-Christian manner,” and for “causing extraordinary damage to the Christian world.” The Vatican tried to lower the temperature by knocking down the notion — first floated by Francis and later amplified in conservative Catholic media outlets — that a meeting with Mr. Orban was ever in doubt. The visit to Hungary was of layover length, the Vatican said, because it was spiritual in nature, with the pope there to preside over the final Mass of a weeklong Catholic Congress. But the disparity between the duration of the trips to Hungary and Slovakia, Francis’ allies suggested, was perhaps no accident.
 * But as the dear former Interior Minister and veteran SDS politician himself complains in his blog post that you've referenced, Necenzurirano's reporting is picked up by all major SLO news publications on a weekly basis. So does that mean Necenzurirano is a reputable source after all - since all prominent media in the country seem to think so - or are they republishing reporting from an untrustworthy publication and consequently not to be trusted, either?
 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the editorial process, I would expect something like or . The ownership structure is not always non-transparent. It is known for example for Finance (newspaper) or sl:N1 Slovenija or Delo (newspaper), while for Mladina it has remained obscure and has been a subject of intense journalistic debate. For a review, see this report by a research institute (pp. 64–68) or this governmental report, where obscure ownership is only mentioned for Mladina. Hate speech in Mladina is well known and you're completely misreading the thesis in order to belittle its significance. See also e.g.  or . Regarding the damage claims, it is not hard to find other such cases.,, . As to Necenzurirano, in addition to what has already been said, it is clear that they jumped on the wagon as it suited their political stance and incorrectly reported there would be no meeting whatsoever between the Pope and Orban. Which also goes against the quote that you have provided here. Later they did not report about the true event as it happened and did not apologise for their incorrect claim. --TadejM my talk 21:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, I quite frankly do not know how else to construe your replies other than as lies by omission since you conveniently again and again neglect to address uncomfortable facts that undermine your case.


 * And which prominent SLO publications have published such "editorial process disclosures" - why do you apply one standard to Mladina yet not to other publications? Furthermore, you'll note that the NYT explainer has been published only half a year ago as part of their Behind the Journalism series. So am I right to assume that NYT had hitherto had unclear editorial standards and was therefore an unreliable source until mid-2022? Are all publications that have not published such an explainer suspect - and all that have legit regardless of their track record?


 * Funny that you mention Delo - as I've repeatedly noted, Delo's "taikun" owners have repeatedly trampled Delo's editorial and journalistic independence for corrupt political dealings and influence peddling. Similar concerns have been raised with Media24 group, Planet TV, Večer, Dnevnik, POPTV/24ur ... I must again ask you if you're really oblivious of this fact, or are you intentionally playing dumb?


 * "Hate speech in Mladina is well known [...]" Oh, OK then, if you say so. But to play the Devil's advocate - how does supposed "hate speech" in the commentary section undermine reliability of the reporting section?


 * See also? One reference is a statement by a right-wing media association (BTW are you willing to accept them as honest actors and their criticism as legitimate when levelled against any and all parts of our "leftist media establishment"?) and mainly addresses a satirical column, and the other is a study authored by a Mladina employee (are you suggesting it's an admission of guilt? Are you really suggesting Mladina is a xenophobic magazine? How much of the study did you even read?).


 * The "damage claims" again refer to a satirical column with the plaint currently awaiting appeal at the constitutional court and the European Court of Human Rights based on freedom of expression grounds, to articles (not clear if opinion/commentary) published 25 years ago where the court agreed with the plaintiff that his taking part in Gestapo propaganda training courses as a German auxillary did not constitute working with the Gestapo which Mladina implied, and the third example is the same one as the one you mentioned before.


 * Regarding the pope-Orban meeting, it's clear from the quote that the pope himself suggested the meeting may be off and that this was reported by other foreign media organisations which was then pointed out by Necenzurirano in a tweet. The fact that the Vatican later changed course is entirely irrelevant. But are you really suggesting that all of their reporting is suspect because they didn't issue an update (or did they - did you even check?) for a social media post (!!!) that summarised contemporaneous foreign media reports that weren't even false? By the way, here's a headline from The Independent about the matter "Unlike Boris Johnson, Pope is refusing to meet Hungary’s Viktor Orban, reports suggest" - so is The Independent an unreliable source now? And here's Necenzurirano's response to the blog post that you reference, if you care to know.


 * Look, I have no interest in continuing this discussion any further because I do not intend to continue wasting my time with a plainly dishonest interlocutor. I'm not sure if you have some sort of personal animosity against these publications in particular or are just loathe to admit when your arguments have no merit out of pure gamesmanship, and I don't really care. But if no other editors weigh in, I will be removing the templates you added to the above mentioned articles as per Consensus since you're clearly not engaging in an honest and consistent line of argumentation.


 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I could reply in detail here, but let me just say the same: I have no further will to argue against a "dishonest interlocutor" who is unwilling at any cost to admit when they are mistaken. There are not only individual criteria questionable with Mladina, but the whole set of these intensely red flags, significantly more than with other sources, disqualifies Mladina as a single trustworthy source. Constructing a major part of a controversial article based on such a spurious source and claiming that Slovenia is an "extremist heaven" on such a basis is not what I call honest and dependable reporting. I don't consider this to be in line with WP:RS. Now as you see we will not be able to resolve this on our own, so I posted a request for a third opinion and am waiting for further input from the community. --TadejM my talk 01:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, you've given a bunch of weak examples, ignored my rebuttals, and now declare that even if they're weak arguments taken individualy, the fact that you've managed to list so many makes them valid on the whole. At the same time, because you didn't try to find or acknowledge any examples that may similarly impugn publications that you personally approve of means that those on the other hand are reliable. I see ...
 * Yet you still have not explained what claims in the article you find controversial, despite my repeated requests to do so. If anything, its the neo-Nazi - SDS connection, but most reporting on that topic comes from Delo (articles penned by Delić - now at Oštro). The only specific substantive objection about content that you've mustered beyond vague aspersions about sources is the one regarding a quote from a parliamentary investigative committee report cited by Mladina that you apparently still don't (or won't) understand (it refers to foreign attendance at far-right events/social gatherings which are forbidden in some neighbouring countries but tolerated in SLO - a preceeding sentence clearly states the far-right to be on the whole no more numerous in SLO, as does the very introduction), and which is backed up by other sources that I've kindly provided you. Again, the fact that you don't even acknowledge that I've clearly addressed this objection before and just keep repeating this clearly misleading claim leads me to doubt you're being an honest actor here.
 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and let me finally just point out one more crucial fact: editor-and-chief of Mladina Repovž served as president of the Slovene Association of Journalists (DNS) for 10 years, having been re-elected with overwhelming support, whereas editor-and-chief of Necenzurirano Cirman is currently serving as vice-president and board member of said professional association. The heads of both publications clearly enjoy the trust and support of their collegues from other publications. How can you reconcile this fact with your accusations?
 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your rebuttals are far-fetched and you find something wrong with any evidence, so I don't have any will to argue this further. It is clear that outside people and organisations have validly raised their doubts about Mladina and Necenzurirano. I have clearly stated what claim is the most pressing in the article. It is also written at WP:3O. I don't care about Repovž and Cirman at the head of the DNS, as it only confirms that DNS is a leftist society. And regarding your doubts whether I'm being an honest actor here, please note that you should assume good faith. -TadejM my talk 03:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm mostly addressing any third parties that may wish to evaluate your claims and mine.


 * "as it only confirms that DNS is a leftist society" Alright, so the bulk of SLO journalists are dishonest political actors that overwhelmingly choose unprofessional and untrustworthy collegues as their highest representatives. You must then obviously agree that most established/prominent SLO media organisations and their newsrooms are in fact leftist political activist institutions and are therefore not reliable sources, either. Just be honest and go ahead an say so and stop gaslighting us so that your overarching claim can be evaluated on it's merits. By the way, on the other hand, you yourself cited ZNP as one of those "outside people and organisations have validly raised their doubts" - ZNP is quite unabashedly a right-wing counterhegemonical journalists' association (which also claims that Nova24TV is a legitimate news organisation and that most SLO MSM aren't - so be consistent), so you clearly don't mind ideological "societies", you just personally agree with right-wing ones.


 * As to the good faith principle: I did assume it, but you've since proved again and again there isn't any on your part, and I think this will be evident to any neutral observer.


 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Here's a recent statement from ZNP about the state of the SLO media space:

[...] The media sphere is characterized by strong political unbalance since the majority of the journalists and editors more or less openly favor the political left option. [...]   [...] It is a fact that in Slovenia the political forces which were in decision making positions in the times of Yugoslavia along with their ideological followers, (re)emerged after the Independence war and after the fall of the dictatorship from the previous Communist regime. It is not uncommon that the journalists, who were before 1991 formally in the service of the only authorized party - the Communist Party- during the previous undemocratic regime, became journalists, editors, and executives of many media after 1991. Some of them who took over were even agents of the former Yugoslavian secret police. Another specific of the Slovenian media space is that the left-wing political forces control most of the country's capital and therefore directly influence media policy, to which the public broadcaster RTV Slovenia is no exception. It has become increasingly evident that the dominant media have been following as closely as possible the political agenda of the left-wing parties and those that were in control in the previous undemocratic system. [...]   [...]One common practice is the orchestrated dominant media launching of so-called "new faces", introduced by the left-wing political parties. Another is the uncritical willingness to support the interests of the left-wing political leaders, which is particularly outstanding in the Electoral confrontations. Topics discussed mostly follow the agenda-setting of the left-wing option. Another anomaly in the Slovene dominant media is the selection of guests on political TV and radio programs. The choice is in the strong disproportion between left and right-wing and independent political orientation of the guests. It is a rather common practice that the editors from dominant media tend to harass or even dismiss journalists, including members of our association, who act autonomously and professionally. On the other hand, those who are committed to the mainstream agenda are rewarded and gain more influence, despite severe slips and they are often in risky positions prone to corruption. The dominant media, under the control of the political left, have been often (ab)used for battling their opponents using false or fake news, which is very well documented in Jančič’s book. The profound lack of journalistic impartiality in the dominant media has become even more evident when in difficult times due to the outbreak of the COVID – 19, the government of Mr. Janez Janša took over. Much to our surprise the radical left-wing journalists along with the editors (including some of the most influential editors and journalists of national service RTV Slovenia ) frequently displayed their political views against the present government, mainly on the social networks and openly agitated against the new government. Least to say that such conduct is not very professional since we were in the middle of the government crisis (the previous has suddenly and quite unexpectedly stepped down) and health crisis. The work of those journalists and editors has not been focused on informing the public and offering impartial information, but they prefer to use spinning and other means, such as amplifying small slips of the government's officials or exaggerating unimportant information. Unfortunately, their media agenda is directed against the government and not so much to disseminate important information in the present situation regarding the health and economic crisis. The low professionalism of journalists and media producers in the dominant media has been mentioned already. Besides that, they are often highly politicized or even radicalized, many of them act as political activists or /and ideological agitators, promoting a particular ideology or political agenda, usually from the left political spectrum, on the various social media. It is also rather often that so-called dominant media, including public service RTV Slovenia, often respond in an orchestrated manner to events that ally them to left ideology. In that manner, they strongly affect the citizens' perceptions of the political and social situation in Slovenia and their evaluation of the policies, political actors and other stakeholders. The orchestration of dominant media and the lack of media pluralism consequently project a distorted media picture to the broad public. In the mentioned context it is particularly problematic the biased attitude of the public media, RTV Slovenia, the national broadcaster, which activities are funded by all of the taxpayers, regardless of their political or worldview. At the present moment, the broad public and the experts follow with the great interest strong polemics between the political actors who have been the victims of the dominant media lynch and the media workers that were actively involved. ZNP is not in favor of such polemics but emphasizes that to understand the media situation in Slovenia it is necessary to understand the historical events in Slovenia. The media ownership, lack of pluralism and low professionalism are not the only causes of the biased media in Slovenia. The anomaly is also in the System. For example, the Ministry of Culture has paid no or scarce attention to supporting independent media or independent journalists. In the previous one-party regime the journalists were classified as political workers and the pluralism was not allowed or it was sanctioned. Therefore there was no independent media. [...]   The anomaly in the Slovene media space is a burning issue and to overcome the present situation several changes have to be introduced, but as expected most of them are not to the dominant media liking.


 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I was specifically critical ahout Mladina as it is the topic in question. However, it is true that there is a left-leaning stance in the Slovenian media landscspe and ZNP is quite right about what they have written.
 * If you really believe I am acting against WP:AGF, you should report me at WP:ANI. Let the community judge. Otherwise you should continue to assume good faith.
 * Please note that I may also report you if you continue with tendentious editing and insertion of unreliable sources. --TadejM my talk 14:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as I've said, this is blatant hypocrisy and lying by omission on your part since you're assailing the credibility of particular sources you apparently personally dislike based on criteria that can just as soon be generally applied, including to sources that you do like.
 * OK, well, it's settled then. You agree with the SLO right-wing criticism that all prominent SLO publications are unreliable leftist political activist publications. Nice to know where things stand.
 * Yes, please go ahead and report me and let's be done with it. I eagerly await a boomerang.
 * P.S.: I'm deeply disspirited by the fact that an editor such as yourself has admin credentials since you clearly don't merit them.
 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Jay, I'm used to personal attacks. Just go on and remember that this can be used as evidence in any potential discussion of user behaviour. In any case, if you really suffer so much, you may always request the privileges to be revoked as described at Administrators. --TadejM my talk 15:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a matter of course, I try to abstain from lodging complaints myself as much as possible, however, I do strongly encourage you to do it yourself. I am quite confident I would be vindicated.
 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jay Hodec. No. --TadejM my talk 17:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jay Hodec. Another nice case of Mladina's standards of reporting. Therefore as we see again and again, Mladina has been reporting untruths, using hate speech, and finding itself liable in court cases. Mladina on the left is quite comparable to Nova24 on the right. It can't be trusted as a single source for controversial claims and constructing a major part of an article. No amount of bashing Wikipedia administrators can change that. --TadejM my talk 20:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * So they were convicted for protecting their anonymous source in SLO intelligence who would obviously be held liable professionally and criminally for leaking to the press if identified? Good for them. Though I do agree they may have been in breach of journalistic ethics if they didn't seek comment from the trio (I would like to hear Mladina's response to this, though).


 * By the way, this wasn't the last time Krkovič was "baselessly" implicated in an arms scandal. He successfully sued the state for damages for his "wrongful" conviction in the Patria affair (he was ultimately proved innocent by the statute of limitations). It's really sad to see how the Depala vas boys have been unjustly maligned again and again, I'm sure it's all without merit.


 * I'll be waiting for other editors to chip in. But you're free to let us know if you dig up any other 20 year old damages claims against Mladina.


 * Oh, and tell me when you get around to checking the additional sources for the "controversial claim" I provided you.


 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Jay Hodec, a number of other cases and discussions of Mladina's hateful speech were already brought forward above. That is enough for any reasonable person to understand that Mladina finds itself in breach of journalistic ethics again and again. For you, of course, citing the defense used by its lawyer is the most natural and convincing thing to do even if the judge found it had no merits.
 * I will have a look at the source that you mention and will use it to edit the article if it is of any good. However, I will add the following to the article to make it more balanced:
 * There is no strong far-right party in Slovenia.
 * An expert on extremisms stated that people associate such politics with Janša/SDS, which limits its reach.
 * The youth intensely dislikes extremism in Slovenia.


 * I hope this will make the article better represent the actual situation in Slovenia. I understand though that the said will cause you great anguish as it goes against what Mladina says, so please have a cookie to soothe yourself. You know, the world does not start and end with Mladina. Though it certainly seems it does for you given your excessive citation of Mladina in articles and far-fetched defense here.
 * To state the unavoidable, I wonder if there is some financial incentive about Mladina on your part. You should disclose if it is. --TadejM my talk 03:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you haphazardly pasted some links to documents that I don't think even say what you think they say, let alone prove what you think they prove.


 * Mladina has from the very beginning stated it obtained the information from sources in intelligence that wish to remain anonymous. This was not a post-hoc justification:

Po naših podatkih pa je Sova pri svojem delu v zvezi s to zadevo na prisluhih prepoznala tudi Darka Njavra in Toneta Krkoviča. Robert Suhadolnik pa je bil v tistem času zadolžen za varnost vojašnice, iz katere so orožje ukradli.


 * I totally endores the additions you suggest making to the article, and also think they are completely consistent with the present content of the article. I do however somewhat question the use of an interview as a source, since it still expresses only the opinion of the expert, and I tried to stick to statements of fact. I should also just reiterate I purposely abstained from covering party politics as such when writing the article (otherwise a section could be dedicated to parties with far-right leanings: SNS and DOM, and the role of SDS in coopting far-right movements which you have yourself alluded to). And finally, for the n-th time, the "far-fetched passage you find so objectionable refers merely to the regular attendance of foreign nationals at far-right events/social gatherings organised by their Slovenian counterparts due to the permissiveness of the authorities to such events (as compared to e.g. Germany/Austria) - that is all; the sentence even explicitly states: "Though neo-Nazi groups are not on the whole more common than in other countries and represent a relatively low security risk, [...]". The claim is further corroborated in other sources, and the quote itself is from a parliamentary investigative committeee report, not Mladina itself. I have already explained the "overreliance" on Mladina (open archive at the time of writing, and extensive coverage of the topic).


 * Ah, yes, of course I am well compensated for my efforts through an Udbomafia black budget funded by corrupt sales of medical supplies. Look, you'll see I worked on wiki articles about SLO media quite extensively because I find the subject interesting (are you suggesting I'm being compensated by Necenzurirano, too - including for the not so very flattering section I authored in their wiki article which you yourself cited?). In fact, when I get around to this expanding wiki articles on this topic in the future, I may use some of the sources you've cited to expand the articles, including litigation concerning Mladina (some of which you'll note I had already mentioned in on their wiki entry).


 * And, if I deign to address your false equivalence with Nova24TV:


 * Mladina is a left-wing magazine that does investigative reporting; Nova24TV is a de facto party publication that does propaganda toeing the SDS party line.
 * Mladina publishes satirical columns comparing family photos of a propagandistic SDS politician and propaganda minister Goebbles; Nova24TV publishes openly antisemitic/homophobic/racist/violent insurrectionist/.. content as news.
 * Mladina is owned by shady holding companies; Nova24TV was first owned by SDS politicians, members, and allies, and later additionally also by Orban's business cronies (until just after SDS lost this year's parliamentary elections).
 * Mladina's reporters are journalists in goods standing with their peers; Nova24's journalists are often just about 1 rung higher than Macedonian fake news factory workers.


 * Oh, and as to "admin bashing"; I'm refering specifically to your line of argumentation, and to your endorsement of the lying liberal mainstream media narrative which flies in the face of all wiki source standards. This narrative is familiar in other countries where most English-language news sources recognised as perennial on wiki are being discredited by with this same argument. I would expect a veteran admin to know better.


 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's examine this.
 * "I don't think even say what you think they say, let alone prove what you think they prove." Could you please be more specific? I don't get what you're objecting to. Are you saying that the judge did find their defense to have merit? The judgement certainly does not show that. And regarding your claim that "this was not a post-hoc justification," did you notice that this defense about an anonymous source from SOVA was only brought forward after the claim had already been brought to the court?
 * "It still expresses only the opinion of the expert, and I tried to stick to statements of fact." Fine, but this is a published scholarly opinion of a notable expert in a reliable source and we obviously should cite such statements (by attributing them). See WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I also find it strange not to include party politics when reporting on politics in a certain country. Political parties are an indispensable part of politics.
 * Could you please elaborate on the relation between "gatherings/parties/concerts" and "international activity and cooperation of extremists"? I'm opposed against any extremisms, but to me, this sounds solely as a statement to malign somebody. If they use parties for making political plans and plans for action, how is it then possible that such groups and gatherings represent low-security risk? If they don't gather to make plans, why is it then even necessary to report it in such a way and mention this as part of politics as we certainly don't care about private people having parties. Politics is "a set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups".
 * "Overreliance" is hard to understand when there are other news sources and scholarly articles available online. I've found them with a quick Google search. So you're saying there was no other incentive for using such a number of links to Mladina of all the possible sources than "interest in far-right politics in Slovenia"? Could you please be precisely clear on this?
 * "Mladina is a left-wing magazine that does investigative reporting". It also has a strong political stance, occassionally reports disinformation and uses hateful speech. I have already provided the links to the many claims where they lost precisely for this reason, but can gather them in one place if required. The satirical columns about Grims that you mention have been found by the Constitutional Court to have crossed the permissible boundaries. Mladina certainly is no angel.
 * Can you find an independent reliable source for the claim that Nova24 is a "de facto party publication that does propaganda toeing the SDS party line"? I would not be surprised if this was true in view of the recent change of ownership but remains only a speculation as long as there is no source. The company still presents itself as an independent media. [I've now added the claim by Milosavljević]
 * As to the Mladina's and Nova24's journalists, there are good and bad apples in both media. As is written here: "Do Mladina's journalists often vioate the ethical code? This can be only partly confirmed. All investigative journalists are by no means heroes, nor are they all villains." or here: "For me, there are only good and bad. I do not mind if I know that I am reading a left- or right-leaning media, there is nothing wrong with that, but I do mind if I am reading a bad, flat, false and manipulated journalistic story." For example a recent one from Mladina: "Article 1 of the Code obliges journalists to verify the accuracy of the information they have gathered and to avoid errors. [...] The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the journalist did not properly verify the information gathered. He also failed to apologise for the errors, as required by Article 1. The Tribunal therefore finds a violation of Article 1." or this one: "The journalist violated Article 3 of the Code of Conduct, as the claim that the Lafarge d.d. cement plant is "the biggest polluter in Zasavje" is unconfirmed information and speculation, to which the journalist did not draw attention." (The claim was found untrue.) There are other cases both for Mladina and Nova.
 * Regarding my endorsement of ZNP's statement, I don't know whether it is true that there has been a continuity from the past regime. For the most part the media report correctly, but they have a noticeable bias regarding certain topics: in reporting about the government, covid-19, Ukraine, etc. In addition, I don't think there was any good reason for daring me about my status or calling me a liar. And I find it incongruent from you to call me a "veteran administrator" and thank me in such a context. Have a nice day. --TadejM my talk 04:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In conclusion, I would agree that Mladina is a level or two higher than Nova24. Perhaps Insider would be a better comparison (it was also criticised by Oštro,, but I can't find the articles at the moment - were they deleted?). However, in view of above, Mladina is by no means a very reliable magazine and using solely Mladina to construct the majority of an article risks introducing severe factual mistakes and bias. In addition, the sentence mentioned at WP:3O needs to be rephrased and complemented with information from other sources as it currently raises eyebrows and questions. --TadejM my talk 07:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow this discussion as I'm interested in far-right (and far-left) sourcing, but the formatting is making that difficult. User:Jay Hodec, the code font on quoted sections is not easy to read; consider using Template:Talk quote inline and also translate to English where applicable. User:TadejM, I think I'm reading your replies correctly but they are consistently unindented by 2 spaces, making it appear that you're adding multiple replies to Jay Hodec from days before; you should always add 1 more colon when replying, or simply turn on quick replying in your preferences (Preferences > Editing > Enable quick replying) and use that instead. Woodroar (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I was saying that your sources on purported hate speech may not say what you think they say; am I right to assume based on a cursory overview of the college theses etc. you provided as evidence of Mladina's penchant for "hate speech" that your overview was even more cursory than mine before you adduced them as definitive proof?


 * The claim about the SOVA source was from an article published when the filing of the lawsuit was announced; it recapitulated the previous (ostensibly libelous) reporting. I hope we can safely assume they really did mention this in the reporting in question and didn't make this up out of full cloth there and then as a defense strategy - or am I supposed to pay for the access to the archive and hunt down quotes about sourcing from the original articles? As to the court's decision - I do think Mladina was very likely in the right here by not acceding to unmask an anonymous intelligence source, thus putting journalistic ethics above legal risk. And I'm sure you're disposed to think that Mladina just did some sloppy reporting (or even made the whole thing up) and then tried to cover up after the fact, but I hope we can at least agree a ruling hinging on a court's demand to interrogate an anonymous source from intelligence (who probably broke the law by leaking to the media and is therefore the least likely to concur to testify on Mladina's behalf) is a poor gauge of the veracity of Mladina's reporting.


 * I'm not categorically opposed to including the claim from the Delo interview or anything, I just have a predilection for avoiding interviews as sources and thus mixing opinion (even from experts) with dry matter of fact statements from secondary sources. Once you lower the bar to allow opinions (even from experts), the article can quite quickly get clogged with competing takes from this expert or the other.
 * As I've said, I've been contemplating revisiting the article, doing a more comprehensive review of sources and also including a /* Political parties */ section. However, the issue of far-right parties is rather more fraught and controversial than focusing on groups and movements, so it might be better to defer this content to the /* Ideology */ sections of the parties' articles and just include a brief general summary on the "Far-right politics ..." articles, if mentioning party politics at all.


 * Extremist groups/movements are not necessarily actively violent extremists; the far-right has/had hitherto not engaged in significant extremist activity in SLO. Even so, you can also interpret the passage to imply that continued cooperation can eventually lead to increased risk of violent extremism if it is allowed to continue simmering (consider the recent German examples regarding Reichsburgers/Day X). Gatherings can also facilitate the exchange of ideas and strategies - including on recruitment and "meta-political" strategies (as the "European New Right" likes to call it), and help them consolidate the groups/movements and their cooperation, strengthening them in the long-term. The passage is actually structured in such a way as to directly address your previous objection: while private neo-Nazi events/gatherings have been common in SLO, however, neo-Nazis themselves are not more numerous (as you seemed to (mis)construe the sentence), nor have they proved a significant security risk.


 * Regarding the use of "far-right politics": wiki uses the standard title of "Far-right politics in [country]" for the series of articles about the global far-right; the articles can encompass an overview of social movements/groups as well as political parties and prevalence of far-right actors in institutions. Perhaps a better title would be "The far-right in [country]" or "Far-right groups and movements in Slovenia", but I thought it better to stick to "tradition".


 * Look, I didn't have any hidden agenda and in fact feared this objection. These were simply the sources I came across when writing the article, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Mladina as a source so I didn't go about looking for a second source for every piece of information from Mladina. Mladina may be less prominent in Google searches now than at the time of writing as is has since paywalled its archive. Your free to add additional references to existing content as well as add additional content based on extra sources.


 * A strong editorial stance does not disqualify a publication from being a reliable source. The WSJ also has a strong editorial stance, for example, yet it's recognised as a perennial source. US publications recognised as reliable sources regularly endorse candidates. And I'd be a bit more circumspect about using the term disinformation (since that implies deliberate false reporting).


 * Yes, I'm sorry, you're correct, the SLO Constitutional Court already adjudicated the Grims v. Mladina case, so it's awaiting appeal at the ECHR (which has already ruled in favour of Mladina in a remarkably similar previous case). However, this is a disagreement about the definition of freedom of speech in the European context. I'm sure the New Yorker would be free to publish a satirical cartoon e.g. comparing Trump's family to a Nazi's family without it being taken off the perennial sources list on wiki. Mladina's stance on freedom of expression should not be pertinent to a discussion of the reliability of it's journalistic work. I do however find it highly ironic that you try to back up your "no angels" claim by citing statements from a right-wing party (including Grims himself - surely not an impartial arbitor here) as reliable sources on this matter, while at the same time complaining about Mladina's partisanship.


 * Didn't you previously object to Mladina's editorial standards? Isn't it the editors' (and ultimately the publications') job to correct/weed out bad journalists or at least their bad practices? Anyway, I completely agree that NČR rulings are a good indicator of a publication's reliability, and I tentatively accept the rulings that you adduced. However, to actually arrive at a comparative reliability for various publications, we would first have to establish how much original reporting they publish - more precisely, how much investigative/watchdog reporting (since comparing e.g. clickbait summarising social media posts of prominent personalities to muckracking reporting is comparing apples to oranges), and if their infractions are thus more frequent and/or more severe than those of comparable publications in a set time period, etc. You'll also notice that there have apparently been 3 cases where NČR ruled against Mladina in two decades, whereas Nova24TV accrued considerably more condemnations in only 5 years.


 * I'm sorry, but the ZNP statement clearly makes the sweeping allegation that that the "dominant media" organisations engage not only in deeply biased and politicised reporting (for which alone you deemed Mladina fit to be entirely disqualified as a reliable source), but even that they regularly engage in intentional, politically-motivated false reporting (see excerpt below). This is tantamount to saying that e.g. Trump is "quite right" about the lying liberal mainstream media being fake news, and, in so doing, effectively going against most wiki community decisions about ENG language Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And I still hold that such a contention is/should be beneath an admin.




 * I don't find that SLO media has been less willing to publish critical reporting about left-of-centre goverments than about Janša's government. However, a certain swath of SLO right-wing media has consistently pushed the narrative that critical reporting about left-of-centre governments is fair game because they're "actually bad", whereas reporting critically about right-of-centre governments is unjustified because they're "doing good work" and reporting anything else constitutes partisan propaganda, media activism, and "media assassinations" - the media should ostensibly instead focus on what the (right-of-centre) government is doing right - especially in such difficult times.




 * Personally, I found SLO media's reporting about COVID-19 and the conflict in Ukraine to be generally in line with expert opinion and reporting of foreign media.


 * I specifically accused you of lying by omission and dishonesty/hypocrisy after you repeatedly failed to address inconsistencies or faults in your line of argumentation that I repeatedly pointed out, instead just reiterating the original assertions. I still don't think you've addressed most, e.g. why Mladina's ownership structure is disqualifying, yet not that of e.g. Delo (despite evidence to the same effect from the same Pod črto investigative project that you youself cited to back up your claims). You just moved on.


 * Just to reiterate, I think Mladina's original/investigative reporting is generally reliable and does not need to be cross-referenced with additional sources as a matter of course. Still waiting for you to check the additional sources for the 3O passage (or even find some corroborating evidence yourself).


 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding hate speech and Grims, see e.g. where experts describe such reporting as hate speech. As stated by the communicologist Peter Lah, "As regards the use of the photograph, it can be said that it was used in a completely different context from the one in which it was taken, and that the authors of the Mladina article intended to defame Grims," he said. He also pointed out that both Goebbels' and Grims' children had been abused - Goebbels by their father and Grims by Mladina magazine. Even the Ombudsman in Slovenia started a process against Repovž at the Journalists Court of Honour and won it. I'm sure though that the ECHR will adjucidate completely differently (sarcasm). (Or this report on private doctors. Though it is not aimed at a certain person, I still find it highly ideological, objectionable and insulting.).


 * Regarding Krkovič etc., the High Court even raised the damages from 5000 to 8000 euros. "It should be noted that this is a precedent in our judiciary, as the courts have not awarded such high damages to victims in media cases before." Here is some more content on the judgement. It is for example stated that they did not ask for comment the defamed persons and did not use conditionals (as would be expected in such reporting). I find it funny that you say Mladina was "very likely in the right here" and also don't believe that the ruling was "hinging on a court's demand to interrogate an anonymous source", or there must be something severely wrong with Slovenian courts.


 * Regarding media bias, there has been a report about left-wing media being significantly more prominent in Slovenia. Please see this report by the Faculty of Media in Ljubljana. I guess the researchers must be Trumpists too. Regarding Ukraine and covid, in my opinion certain media give too much prominence to Russian views  and have by politicising the pandemic contributed to non-complaince with precautionary measures at the height of the pandemic.  Anyway. This is not precisely on Mladina, so I will not further delve into this.


 * Regarding the ownership, the ownership of Mladina is non-transparent while the ownership of Delo is known. The ownership transparency is one of the factors that contribute to the general trustworthiness of media. I consider Delo a reliable source though they have fail occasionally too. Of course if there is some known conflict of interest regarding Delo, it should be taken into consideration when choosing the relevant source for an article. Here, we were discussing Mladina, so I did not focus on Delo. I would prefer this conversation stays focused on Nova and Mladina. Regarding editorial standards and the editors' (and ultimately the publications') job to correct/weed out bad journalists or at least their bad practices. Yes, of course this is their job. Mladina has evidently failed to do so on several occasions.


 * In short, due to the editorial standards, the often inflammatory manner of Mladina's reporting, and the already mentioned judgements (by courts and the honorary tribunal), I consider Mladina's investigative reporting to be generally less reliable than for example Delo's and believe it should be cross-referenced with additional sources. As I have stated above, it is better than Nova but still not very reliable. I will appreciate if you revisit the article, do a more comprehensive review and include diverse sources and also include a /* Political parties */ section. However, you should preferably cite academic articles and the opinions of established experts, cross-check Mladina with other sources and be particularly careful regarding the sourcing of any accusations against living persons while doing so. Interviews are a reliable source if the claims are attributed to the interviewee and of course they can be put forward as a view of a significant minority as per WP:NPOV unless there is evidence the view is more widespread. The far-right in [country] would certainly be a better title. --TadejM my talk 03:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me, as someone who is generally familiar with the Slovenian media landscape but who only speaks Slovenian very poorly, that we are discussing a bad source and an imperfect one. It is my impression that Nova24tv is comparable to Fox News at best and more likely to Breitbart/similar, and that it is between "use with great caution" and generally unreliable. Mladina appears to me to be more generally comparable to Vox, or perhaps Mother Jones. According to WP:RSP, these comparison points are both reliable sources, but require care for political topics. I suggest that the same may apply to Mladina. As usual, opinion pieces should be considered separately from news pieces. Delo has also been mentioned above. I regard Delo as being the paper of record for Ljubljana and more generally for Slovenia. One should keep in mind that the greater Ljubljana area has a population of about half a million, while all of Slovenia is around 2 million. Thus, Delo might sometimes bear more resemblance to the Youngstown Vindicator (another newspaper serving a metropolitan area of about a half million) than to the New York Times. Further comment that notable topics are generally covered by _multiple_ independent reliable sources, so it should not ever be necessary to build an article that is sourced solely to Mladina (nor to any other single source). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Russ. Thank you for chiming in. This is a reasonable and fair assessment. I agree that Nova24 should be used with great caution, as they have a poor record of hate speech and fabricated reporting. However, we should also be cautious with Mladina. It has surprised me upon the review of claims against them (both in the court and at the journalists honorary tribunal) how many times they have been found in violation of journalism ethics due to poor fact-checking. For this reason, I believe it is much good to cross-check them. While this may not be critical for some general reporting, it certainly is when discussing accusations of various people and organisations. --TadejM my talk 11:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yet again: a satirical column is NOT "reporting". But I'm glad we at least aren't adjudicating the reliability of Mladina based on Lavrič's comics. And as repugnant as one may find a (counter)cultural publication's satire, or comics, or culture, or even comment section, this should not impact one's judgement of it's journalism section - I would gladly advocate the same for e.g. Nova24TV if they had a reputable and clearly delineated straight news section. And I remember the brouhaha about the "amphibian" Mladina cover page - I seem to recall various physicians' professional organisations that expressly advocate for the interests of both public and private sector physicians (bringing them in conflict with the stance of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption which has condemned such employment arrangements as representing a conflict of interest while using the exact same term) being the loudest in condemning this in my opinion rather inocuous cover, but I digress (see above argument). Once more, I must point out the irony of you condemning Mladina by referencing a piece by a (former) Nova24TV journalist (though Perš was admittedly someone who most approached something resembling an investigative journalist there - his chumminess with the very subjects of the wiki article in question notwithstanding).


 * Regarding your sarcasm:


 * I have said that I did find the part about Mladina ostensibly not asking the defendants for comment troubling (I assume the lack of conditional clauses may be a second-order infraction hinging on the court's ruling that the reporting could not be proved factual), however, I haven't seen Mladina's response to the court's ruling, and don't really understand how determining professoinal ethics infractions can be in the purview of both the judicial system and the professional association (NČR) (is the court competent to adjudicate this here?). Let me also remind you that Anuška Delić was herself meanwhile prosecuted for publishing reporting about neo-Nazism in SLO ostensibly based on leaked intelligence information and pressured to reveal her source(s), so I'm sorry if I don't have that much faith in the SLO court system's respect for journalism and journalists' professional ethical obligations.


 * The "Media landscape study" you cite was indeed conducted by the political right's counterhegemonical warriors (some of the same that head the ZNP) - the report was commissioned by Janša's government, and one of the trio of "media experts" that coauthored the study quoted in the piece you adduced is a regular contributor to Nova24TV. The report has been criticised as methodologically flawed. Anyway, anyone who is half-way up to date on SLO politics knows that the private university and the study's authors are allied with SDS, and that this "scientific study" served not only as a cudgel for the Janša gov't to bludgeon the "oppositional media" with, but morover also as the government's crude pork-barrel 24.000€ reward to its allies in "civil society" (how many authors of the study have been appointed to the board of the public broadcaster by the former gov't again?). For more on the study and its authors, let me recommend you this Necenzurirano piece:. As to the authors of the study and Trump - I'll just leave you with this 2016 piece where one of the coauthors reveals his preconcieved notions about media bias in SLO and the U.S.:


 * On COVID, you again cite Nova24TV as proof (not really an impartial source here), as well as a "civil iniciative" of anti-vaxxers and health conspiracy theorists complaining about hate speech directed against COVID "skeptics" (again leading me to wonder whether you've actually even checked what you're adducing as your evidence). Anyway, I don't really think anyone expressing COVID/vaxx "skeptical" views should be banished from appearing in the media - especially interviews and the yellow pages however much I may disagree with them (and I don't think they were in other countries, either, nor that they were particularly more prominent in SLO), but this can in any case be chalked up to sensationalism and yellow journalism rather than unreliable reporting (since it's still presented as opinion while straight news is in line with the scientific view). And critically covering a government's stewardship during a pandemic should obviously be fair game.


 * And, regarding the Ukraine conflict coverage, I don't think an honest investigation of Russian allegations regarding neo-Nazis in Ukraine is tantamount to endorsing the Russian line (though I have been rubbed the wrong way by Sajovic's pieces before), or even a dishonest one if you can only point to a single piece/journalist (or even a couple), and not a systemic practice. And Putin's pronouncements etc. are obviously newsworthy and regularly reported by foreign media, too. I have however come across instances where e.g. RTV regurgitated reports from the Russian press that materiel donated by SLO to UA had been swiftly destroyed, which is obviously just Russian government propaganda intended to undermine support for further materiel donations (I'm sure they make bespoke reports for every individual country that donates materiel).


 * Delo's ownership structure has allowed its various owners to interfere with its editorial and journalistic independence on multiple occasions - this has been widely documented. And Delo is far from the only major publication where it's ownership structure is a concern - here's just one recent example:. So, if you're trying to disqualify Mladina based on it's ownership, surely the reliability of Delo, POPTV/24ur, Večer, Dnevnik, Media24 etc. must also be brought into question. If not, Mladina shouldn't be, either. If you wish to conveniently sweep this fact under the rug as not pertinent to the discussion at hand, that's hypocrisy and lying by omission - as I've repeatedly noted.


 * If I'm not mistaken, there are 3 instances where the NČR ruled against Mladina in 20 years, and you've mentioned 3 such court cases (I leave the latter to be judged on their merits); it might be good to do a similar review for other prominent publications to put this in context.


 * As a general rule, I try to either leave out serious "accusations" against individuals or organisations that are not widely reported, or at the very least do in-line attribution of the source of infomration.


 * I'd finally just like to note that even Jacobin is recognised as a reliable/perennial source, even though they - as far as I know - do little original reporting (mostly publishing reflective essay-style articles) and as far as I can tell their opinion/commentary is not clearly delineated from reporting.


 * I obviously agree that first-tier publications are e.g. Delo, Dnevnik, Večer, STA, RTV, Finance, N1, Žurnal, 24ur, SiOL (though with big apostrophes for many of these due to evidence of editorial non-independence from ownership). I'd say Mladina, and Svet24 are second-tier; Reporter, and Slovenske novice being third-tier (or 2nd-3rd); and Nova24TV and Insajder bottoming out the list/barrel.


 * I hope/think I will eventually get around to refurbishing this article, though I don't know when exactly this will be. Your concerns are duly noted - I like to add multiple unrelated references to individual claims in wiki articles anyway. I'd of course prefer to use more scholarly sources (excluding college theses), but for current affairs you'd be hard-pressed to find any.


 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Since you've cited countless opinionated pieces to bolster your claims, let me just leave you with this commentary from Boris Vezjak in Mladina about the first time a Janša's government commissioned a "scientific study of the media landscape" from the "usual suspects": (I hope you'll enjoy their scientific recommendations about how to remedy the unfortionate situation as much as I have).


 * -J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A satirical column is not reporting. Ok, true. However, this column that was adjudicated to be insulting and below the journalist standards does show the general attitude of the magazine towards the people that have different political views than the editors. I don't believe it is possible to fully separate reporting from other sections. There is only one Mladina and it has only one board of editors. Mladina's reporting and satirical writing reflect the same house mentality.
 * Regarding the "amphibian" cover, you evidently are not acquainted with the general medical situation in Slovenia where private medical work has been alleviating at least partly the burden of state healthcare which is unsustainable as it currently stands. In my opinion, it will not be possible to reform Slovenian medical system without allowing doctors to also work in their private practices. Yes, there may have been some abuses that were highlighted by the KPK but it was focused on specific groups such as doctors using the public healthcare equipment and those that advertise their business at their public post, not on all who are also active in private practices in their free time as Mladina did. The KPK mentioned that "the task of regulation is to seek a modus vivendi between public and private interests." Mladina's claim that private doctors cause queues in the public system is nonsense as the truth is just the opposite.
 * I find it shoddy that you are equating a photo depicting an opposition's politicians, wife and children as Goebbels and his family with a journalist's statement "Prijatelj je svojo imenitno domislico pospremil s kavarniško mimiko, ki naj bi verjetno nazorno ilustrirala pravoverno pojmovanje nekega tipičnega poženščenega in prenarejenega pederuharja, v resnici pa je izpadla kot normalni domet cerebralnega bankrotiranca" [Prijatelj accompanied his brilliant quip with a café mime, which was probably meant to illustrate the orthodox conception of a typical effeminate and overworked faggot, but in reality came off as the normal range of a cerebral bankrupt.]. These two are not moral equivalents. The first is a direct journalist attack on some family, while the other is an expressive condemnation of someone's insulting statement. It is also subpar to compare the Krkovič and co. case to Delić's case. Delić's case was brought forward by the prosecutor's office due to alleged disclosure of confidential documents and the process was stopped before any conclusion. In Mladina case, the court never requested Mladina to reveal some name, but only adjudged that there were no verifiable sources for the published allegiations, that the claims were not checked with the claimants and that some unverifiable statements were published as facts. As the historian Grieser Pečar said:
 * It is regrettable that the conflict of interest was not disclosed, however can you provide some research or independent confirmation showing that there is no prevalence of political bias in Slovenia? See for example also this report by the independent Mirovni inštitut which support the view that the media do not report neutrally:
 * Or see for example this comment by the former US ambassador in Slovenia Johnny Young::
 * See also the above-cited article by Griesser-Pečar.
 * Anyway, these people must all be Trumpists.
 * I find it out of scope to further discuss covid and Ukraine under this heading. If I ever get to writing on this in the article Mass media in Slovenia, rest assured I will look for better sources. I insist though that the media have not contributed positively to the adherence to the recommended measures for covid. In a statement by M. Krek, the former head of the National Institute of Public Health:
 * PCT was found to be highly efficient by the Institute "Jožef Stefan".
 * Similarly for Ukraine, I frequently notice sympathy for Russian viewpoints (Insider being the most extreme here, but also STA and others).
 * Regarding the ownership, the fundamental difference between the ownership of Mladina and the ownership of Delo or other media is that the former is unknown and the latter is known.
 * For the said reasons, I would assess Mladina as third-tier. I am glad that we agree regarding the first-tier media (Delo has recently lost some credibility in my opinion though particularly as they have reported on some fringe science).
 * I look forward to you getting around to refurbishing the articles as discussed and adding multiple unrelated references to individual claims in the tagged wiki articles. Also including a /* Political parties */ section in 'Far-right politics in Slovenia' and preferably citing first-tier sources and the opinions of established experts. Also cross-checking Mladina with other sources. This will be a major step forward. Some 3 months should be enough time to get this done, otherwise I may take it up. --TadejM my talk 05:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Satire, cover page illustrations and cartoons have nothing to do with "journalistic standards" or journalism in general. At this point, you're basically saying that you don't trust Mladina because you personally find them uncouth (what respectable journalist would associate with such filth?).
 * Neither your opinion about the state and workings of SLO healthcare system nor mine is of any concern here. I'm just pointing out to you that if using the "amphibian" analogy should in itself be considered some sort of racist hate speach against physicians or whatever, then the KPK and many others should be equally faulted.
 * As the article you cite clearly explains, the court did not dismiss the Delić; instead, the state prosecutor did so after public outcry. Therefore, we don't know which way the court would have ruled, however, the fact that the court did not dismiss the charges outright can be indicative in itself. In the Mladina case, I read it as the court quite likely punishing a publication for sticking to their professional ethics by not burning their source(s) (who could then face professional and criminal repercussions) to the court.
 * You're again citing a piece by a conservative commentator in a conservative opinion magazine (Griesser Pečar) that claims that the SLO dominant media are actually political activists spreading "fake news" to undermine right-wing governments and support left-wing governments (see the Časnik piece you've cited). The (two decades old) embassy cable similarly claims that SLO media are unreliable and unprofessional in general. So again: which one is it - are the major SLO media generally reliable, or are they the lying liberal MSM spreading fake news???
 * And as I've said at the very beginning, I do think that in SLO as well as in most other developed countries, journalists tend to lean to the liberal/left side politically, but I still think their reporting is generally reliable and in line with journalistic standards.
 * Not gonna go into an abstract/vague general discussion about Ukraine/COVID coverage.
 * The fundamental difference between the ownership of Delo and Mladina is that Delo's owners are known to have repeatedly interfered with editorial and journalistic independence, whereas there is no evidence this has been the case with Mladina's owners. I'll let others be the judges as to which is worse - opaque ownership, or known "concentrated" owners with known political and economic conflicts of interest who expressly dictate a publication's coverage. I recommend you go ahead and read the rest of the investigations from Pod črto's media ownership poject.
 * The science sections of non-scholarly periodicals are not reliable sources for wiki anyhow.
 * I rate Mladina as less reliable mostly for their editorialising and somewhat polemical writing style which can occassoinally make it hard to discern what the dry facts are (though the "first-tier" publications have also been known to occasionally write in such a manner).
 * Look, as I've said, I don't really have time for editing (anything other than MED related articles) right now, and I certainly don't intent to work on your time schedule. As said - you're obviously free to expand and improve the article starting today if you like, I just don't agree with removing content because Mladina is used as the source.
 * Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. It will be enough for you to leave the articles alone while they get fixed. The issues have been tagged. Of course some content may get removed if it is dubious and only sourced to Mladina. Thank you for confirming that journalists tend to lean to the liberal/left side politically. I also think their reporting is in general reliable but as you say, not all media are of the same quality and there is not only reporting. Though Mladina is better than Nova24, it remains dubious as a source due to its editorialising and occasionaly insufficient fact-checking. Which has been confirmed in the court and in front of the journalist tribunal. --TadejM my talk 17:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, I said as much at the very outset of our discussion (you free to check).
 * Of course there's not only reporting - but it's the only thing that's pertinent here in regards to source reliability. A good counterexample here would be the Wall Street Journal (re: "general attitude of the magazine towards the people that have different political views than the editor").
 * Again, court and professional association's rulings are a good indicator of reliability, but must be examined on their merits (specifically the court rulings) and taken in context (compare frequency and severity of infractions to other publications).
 * I'm just a bit concerned about your judiciousness as to what constitutes dubious claims (3O demand is still unanswered I think, and you clearly misconstrued the passage you specifically point to as objectionable).
 * Since I don't think we'll get any further here - how about we call it quits for now? I look forward to revising your revisions during the summer. Anyway, I'm off to try to somewhat improve the abominable state of WP:Anatomy articles - you're welcome to pitch in.
 * Take care. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course there's not only reporting - but it's the only thing that's pertinent here in regards to source reliability. A good counterexample here would be the Wall Street Journal (re: "general attitude of the magazine towards the people that have different political views than the editor").
 * Again, court and professional association's rulings are a good indicator of reliability, but must be examined on their merits (specifically the court rulings) and taken in context (compare frequency and severity of infractions to other publications).
 * I'm just a bit concerned about your judiciousness as to what constitutes dubious claims (3O demand is still unanswered I think, and you clearly misconstrued the passage you specifically point to as objectionable).
 * Since I don't think we'll get any further here - how about we call it quits for now? I look forward to revising your revisions during the summer. Anyway, I'm off to try to somewhat improve the abominable state of WP:Anatomy articles - you're welcome to pitch in.
 * Take care. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinion on use of map
I have this godsent book about the ethnic, religious and linguistic composition of the settlements in Mardin Province that I've been using in around 210 articles by now (and more to come). The book is ''Turabidin'den Berriye'ye. Aşiretler - Dinler - Diller - Kültürler'' by Tan. Now frustratingly, it does have omissions as it does not mention some villages at all. The book however comes with a detached map where these omitted villages are indeed shown with valuable info. I've been using this map in few articles and I'm planning on using it for settlements that are neither mentioned in the book or mentioned in other works.

I need opinions on the use of the map. How can I make sure that using this map does not create verification problems? It does have a title, but contains no page. I've cited it as such: Is this sufficient? Semsûrî (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just cite it to the map, if it was published with the book (and is listed in the book index) the fact it does not have a page number is not an issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The map is not listed in the index. There are however many news articles about the publication of the book where the map is depicted, . Semsûrî (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would Template:Cite map help? It has fields for citing maps in larger works, including books, ISBN details, etc. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the template I've used, but I could always add more to it. Semsûrî (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

the map
 * Thank you. Will be using it. Semsûrî (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I advise caution in use of maps as sources. You can use the map to show what existed on the day of the survey but you can't make any dynamic inferences without sliding into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 27, where I was eventually (and reluctantly) persuaded of this need for care. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I use it only for villages that are explicitly depicted, so I'm not really worried about breaching OR/SYNTH. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point. For example, even though the position of this village is deep within the lightblue territory illustrating its affiliation to the Surgucu tribe, the author has chosen not to illustrate this village, so I refrained from adding that info to the article. Semsûrî (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I didn't intend to suggest that you had done (or were about to do) anything wrong, but just that there is a trap for the unwary. I got into trouble for inferring that a railway line was under construction when the (static) information on the map only showed a fence line and a partially built embankment; the next edition showed the line in place. So I guess that equivalent in your case might be to infer from a change of colour between editions that something specific must have happened in the meantime. Best wishes. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

New York Times (Medical Claims)
While recently looking through the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, I notices this under The New York Times summary:

"The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims."

My question and, depending on others opinions on the matter, request is that The New York Times have a warning about avoiding the source for scientific referencing and citations as we see with the likes of news and op-ed outlets such as Fox News (where we see a "(news excluding politics and science)" label, as well as a separate field for both exclusions), HuffPost (an "(excluding politics)" label and separate field), Insider (an "(excluding culture)" label and separate field), and Rolling Stone (a "(politics and society, 2011–present)" label and separate field for culture), as well as many more listed under Reliable sources/Perennial sources?

I feel that, as Wikipedia is intended to be a fair an unbiased online encyclopedia, as it is overall, that NYT be treated in the same manner as other outlets? I'm sure this is a simple oversight, but I wanted to bring it to the forefront and see what more experienced editors than myself have to say. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No mainstream newspaper should be taken as the ultimate source for novel scientific claim, but can be taken as reliable when covering science published in peer reviewed journals. M asem (t) 00:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agreed, but the question at hand is why NYT isn't labeled in a similar fashion to others of its likeness (separate fields/rows, warning symbols, etc.) UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the same thing applies to every such newspaper and news organization. The New York Times is being used as an example only because it is a typical mainstream newspaper: it is not being singled out as especially unreliable for medical claims. The same is true for the BBC, Times of India, Washington Post, Reuters etc. etc. We don't (or at least shouldn't) use any mainstream news organizations for medical claims. See Identifying reliable sources (medicine). CIreland (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally, we rely on peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, etc. for medical claims, for a variety of very good reasons. But note, of course, that not everything touching on healthcare or science is a "medical claim." So that would be a judgment call based on the situation. Neutralitytalk 02:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Medical claims and science are two different arenas. Presumably a reason that Fox has a warning about science and NYT doesn’t is because Fox has so many climate denial claims. Anti-vaccine as well, but that’s medical, depending on how it's reported. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant medical, not science... I don't know why I wrote that. That said, should there not be a warning or separate field for this, as we see with the other outlets? UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with M asem that no newspaper should be the lone source for a medical claim. Usually newspapers such as The New York Times cites a source for the medical claims in their articles (excluding opinion pieces). If the NYT isn't citing a source for a medical claim it most likely doesn't belong on Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, but I feel that every source of their level should be treated equally. For example if, say, Fox News has more warnings that NYT for similar violations, it should have the same restrictions and warnings. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fox News has more warnings because per community consensus, it has restrictions that don't apply to good media sources. The NYT currently does not have any such restrictions on its use. It only has the restrictions that apply to every other media source. It's unlikely to be useful to repeat these restrictions as warnings for every single media source we list. Actually I'm certain it will make the table more confusing if we add a new column for every single green media source we currently list to mention limitations on their use for medical information. If things change then yes, we should make clear that NYT has additional restrictions that do not apply to other media sources probably by adding a new column, but until that happens there's no point in discussing it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But it DOES have a "warning", so I fell that, like other listed sources, it should have a no consensus/Marginally reliable, at the very least. Again, it's all about neutrality. I get that most of us seeing this understand what to do with this, but most editors are very novice, and any visual aid helps. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it does not have any specific warning. Can you show me where a specific warning for the RfC was established in the RfC? I'm not going to read the entirety of the RfC, but from what I can tell it did not establish any specific restriction on the use of the NYT. The only thing it did establish is that we have existing consensus on the use of all media sources that was likely relevant to the particular issue being discussed. Note that the RfC is somewhat atypical of many RfCs on media sources. Although it was about the NYT, it was about a highly specific issue. Because it was about the RfC NYT it was felt useful to mention it in RSPS under the NYT summary which I'm not going dispute but this does not establish there is any warning unique to the NYT. As I said, as far as I can tell it  the RfC didn't establish any particular restriction or "warning" on the use of the NYT, instead it only established that we had existing consensus on limitations surrouding the use of all media sources for certain issues. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC) 09:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @UnorthodoxyAC I agree that this would mostly help novice editors. However, I believe that most Wiki articles that contain medical claims are usually watched over well and other editors can help with any facts added and with reliable/unreliable sources. Like I said before, I would find it hard to believe that the NYT is not citing a source such as a medical journal, case study, etc. for a medical claim. I believe leaving it how it currently reads on WP:RSP suffices. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Carla Rossi and "Receptiogate"
See. We have a few articles on medieval and early modern European literature that cite an author by that name; if the story turns out to be true, those citations may need to be reviewed to make sure they comply with WP:COPY and WP:RS. François Robere (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * English language source . I agree that any works by Rossi are suspect and should be removed in preference to reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just another +1 here. The whole thing has been just bananas to watch unfold.  I was especially amused by Rossi's claim that she hadn't copied Peter Kidd, she had just drawn from the Sotheby's catalogue.  To which Mr. Kidd replied that he wrote the Sotheby's description.  Really something.  Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Professor Rossi appears to be ignorant about the law of holes. That said, I agree that her scholarship is suspect and shall be replaced by better sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Behind the Voice Actors
See the most recent previous RfC on this source here. There is another "RfC" on this page created by me; this is because this is my first time starting an RfC and was confused on how to do so.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the website Behind the Voice Actors?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Behind the Voice Actors)
I believe BtVA should be reclassified to Option 3. How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Sun (Malaysia)
Someone told me The Sun (Malaysia) was unreliable but I think they may have been thinking of the other Sun, or something: I can't find much on this publication either way. Is this a reliable WP:NEWSORG or a tabloid? Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To the extent that any publication out of Malaysia (a country that does not have free speech) can be considered reliable, I suppose the tabloid The Sun sort-of-kind-of-maybe is. It isn't state-owned (e.g., The Star) but Vincent Tan will never, ever rock boats in the Malaysian government, no matter what party is currently in power, so I would only use this source for decidedly uncontroversial/bland topics. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Does a PhD or similar expertise obviate the need to supply reliable sources?
User:RogierBrussee argues that because he claims to have the qualification of a PhD he has enough expertise not to be required to support his edits in that topic with reliable sources. Do editors think this approach is acceptable? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC).
 * No. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone with a PhD should know that citing sources is always required. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * maybe, but not the place. 12:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear me, No. - Roxy the dog 12:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia editor, regardless of their qualifications, can be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps suggest they take a look at WP:EXPERT (or On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog) DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly fair, I don't think that he was arguing that he need not cite sources. I read his comment to state that his edit was clarifying and non-controversial and that sources could be found and cited, but he hadn't gotten around to it, as real life intervened. I agree that reliable sources are always needed, though in highly technical areas, it is helpful to have editors who are expert and can actually understand those sources, and translate them into clear encyclopedic prose. Banks Irk (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the impression I got as well. He mentioned that he has a PhD, he certainly didn't claim that it exempted him from ever needing to cite sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 The opening post of this thread substantially misrepresents the situation. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. Having read the discussion, the OP claims seem to be a clear mischaracterization of the conflict.  Nowhere does the user in question state that their PhD exempts them from having to cite their sources.  From what I can see, their claims amount to the WP:CALC exemption.  Whether or not the WP:CALC exemption to explicit sourcing is valid here or not is outside of the scope of this discussion, but the OP's complaint that started this thread is not true.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Obviously, a user claiming to have a PhD is not a reliable source. However, I agree with @Banks Irk and @Thebiguglyalien that the user was not arguing that at all. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That appears to be true, still one cannot add material without a source and then hand wave the problem away. Personally I would first tag cn and if no cite forthcoming in a reasonable time, delete the uncited material. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They may not be, but it looks like others maybe trying to argue that we should allow uncited content from self-declared experts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a recent experience with a so-called "expert". Of course them simply saying so is not enough for wikipedia - everyone is anonymous and impostors do exist too. The best way to resolve such issues is to provide sources making such a claim or derivation or show in source showing the final formulation. Other wise it is WP:OR. We are not in the business of advancing science, just reporting what the currently available sources say. What would help is letting them know about WP:EXPERT.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)