Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404

Does WP:DAILYMAIL deprecate RSes reporting on interviews in Daily Mail?
The Craig Murray article had stuff about him claiming to have met the source for the DNC emails citing the Guardian and Snopes. Snopes responded to Daily Mail which was where Murray made most of his claims so its what most sources talk about. I added more information and cited The Hill and The Nation because they debunked Murrays claims in Daily Mail about when he said he met the source

Cambial Yellowing removed it with the edit summary Recycled Daily Mail bits remain not RS and Rmv Daily Mail content

I restored it and said The Nation and The Hill are both RS, and a quote from The Nation debunking Daily Mail isnt recycling it and added Assanges comment on Daily Mail from The Hill

Cambial removed everything again but left The Hills response to Daily Mail, saying It’s still the deprecated Daily Mail. Seek consensus - highly unlikely - for an exception to that side-wide view

The Nation has their own editorial standards and is an RSP, and was reporting on and debunking Daily Mail content. Why would that make The Nation or their response to Murrays claims in Daily Mail deprecated? Or the Hill

If notable people say controversial things to fringe outlets or ones that arent reliable and that gets reported by outlets that are reliable, do we include that Softlemonades (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally, we ascribe reliability to the source you are citing. If, say, the BBC is writing something, their endorsement carries, even if the same information was also published in the DailyMail or another unreliable source.  -- Jayron 32 12:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think one of the points raised in the case against Daily Mail was the claim that they have on multiple occasions fabricated quotes and statements, which is why people wanted to take such a strong stance further than just calling it generally unreliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't trust quotes from deprecated sources. So, no - stop trying to use the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I wasnt trying to quote anything from the Daily Mail or include quotes from the Daily Mail that The Hill or The Nation re used Softlemonades (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both sources use explicit in-text attribution to the Daily Mail, which remains the only source for the ostensible claims by the article subject. No source has stated this in their own authorial voice. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nation seems clear that Murray said it to Daily Mail, and then questions if the meeting happened. I quoted the second part. The section Last December, Murray, who is a close associate of WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange, told London’s Daily Mail a fanciful story: that he himself received a package containing the purloined e-mails “during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University.” Murray also claimed that “neither of the leaks came from the Russians.” But Murray’s secret rendezvous—which no one has ever corroborated, and for which Murray himself provided no details—supposedly happened in September 2016, long after WikiLeaks published the Guccifer 2.0–linked DNC e-mails, which surfaced months earlier.
 * What I quoted from The Nation was in their voice and questioning Murrays claims According to The Nation, the alleged meeting "supposedly happened in September 2016, long after WikiLeaks published the Guccifer 2.0–linked DNC e-mails, which surfaced months earlier." Softlemonades (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that's judgement call territory. I'd think that if even they're calling it fanciful, I'm not sure it's due for us to note - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Im glad it makes more sense, thanks. I wouldnt have added it if it wasnt already included because of him telling The Guardian about it, but not when. I thought if we included his claims we should include RS debunking, even if they refer to an interview in a fringe outlet Softlemonades (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When discussed back in February 2023, which also involved two reliable sources quoting from the Daily Mail, there was a consensus that we can use quotations from an unreliable/deprecated source as long as the material cited to a reliable source. Whenever this is done, it is under the assumption that the reliable source which is quoting from the unreliable source is staking their own reputation on the line with regards to the quoted content. To quote from Reliable sources regularly cite things Wikipedia considers to be unreliable sources all the time; it's a basic way that journalism operates. (emphasis from Hawk)
 * With respect to the content that was removed/restored prior to this discussion, I think the quote from If the WP:RS cites a non-RS in a way that is clearly skeptical or cautious, we have to be careful to reflect that in our wording fits. When looking at the paragraph being quoted from The Nation, they are quite sceptical of it. Last December, Murray,..., told London's Daily Mail a fanciful story, and But Murray's secret rendevous - which no one has ever corroborated...supposedly happened in September 2016. If that content is to be included, then our own coverage of it would need to reflect the scepticism that's implied from the source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that content is to be included, then our own coverage of it would need to reflect the scepticism that's implied from the source I agree and was trying to reflect the scepticism with the quote from The Nation. If the phrasing needed editing to make that stronger, that sounds like a good edit Softlemonades (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking that tack, however, means we are putting more faith in an RS's evaluation of what's an RS than we are putting in our own. We moved Daily Mail to the deprecated status despite knowing that it was at times cited by RSs, I think taking a "fruit of the poisoned tree" attitude is reasonable here. Dealt with a similar thing a few years go where a blog called Gossip Boy had reported that a certain actor said they were gay, then ABC reported that the actor had told that to Gossip Boy, but consensus (though not unanimous) was that it could not be used. (That case wasn't helped by the fact that other normally-RSs had reported that the actor had told it to ABC, rather than to the obscure and short-lived blog.... but at least in that case Gossip Boy was simply presumed not to be an RS, as opposed to the Daily Mail, where we have specifically found it not to be one.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Murray already made the claims to an RS, Guardian, and gave more information to Daily Mail. Theres no reason to doubt that the interview happened. Should we believe his claims? No, thats why I tried to add The Nation quote. But hes said the same thing to RSes, the only detail that The Nation responded to that wasnt in Daily Mail was when Murray said it happened. But he says the same thing in an audio interview and says that WikiLeaks already had the DNC emails, but The Nation is an RS and uses text so I cited that Softlemonades (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If a given piece of information has originated from a deprecated source, then it's automatically unreliable for Wikipedia. The fact that it's not automatically unreliable for some other public media doesn't make it more reliable for us. It's the source that's unreliable for us, and not the number of times that the information has been repeated elsewhere. Linking to republished info instead of the actual source sounds like an attempt to game the system. —  kashmīrī  TALK  18:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 wp:agf
 * 2 not the number of times that the information has been repeated elsewhere The key information I added wasnt The Nation repeating what Murray said in Daily Mail, it was The Nation debunking Murrays claims Softlemonades (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true. If the NYTimes quoted a DM interview, then we absolutely can use the NYTimes as the source, we just cannot use the DM directly. M asem (t) 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If a given piece of information has originated from a deprecated source, then it's automatically unreliable for Wikipedia That seems to be an unworkable standard to me. Not only would that rule out a fair amount of content published by reliable journalistic sources, it would also have us discarding a not insubstantial amount of scholarly research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. The "original origin" of a piece of information has no bearing whatsoever on its reliability; only the final, proximate source matters for WP:RS purposes, since we presume that a RS does appropriate fact-checking and verification. Otherwise we're second-guessing an RS and performing OR. As someone said below, it's entirely appropriate for us to cite an RS that is discussing eg. random messageboard postings by anonymous people, or man-on-the-street discussions with random nobodies, or other things we could never cite directly ourselves - in fact, part of the purpose of an RS is to take those unusable primary sources and, through their fact-checking and verification process, turn them into something we can use. If we rejected sources based on the "ultimate" source of their information, there would be no usable sources at all, because everything ultimately comes down to someone doing original research. Now, there's an important caveat here - if we cite the Guardian's description of something that the Daily Mail said, we have to be careful to base our article on what The Guardian says, not on what the Daily Mail says. So if eg. the Guardian had an article saying "the Daily Mail said this ridiculous thing and they're clearly wrong and crazy" (or even if they just attributed something to the Daily Mail in a more staid manner) we would have to reflect that attribution and overall treatment in our coverage.  The Guardian in that situation is a valid source for a statement of "the Daily Mail said X" (WP:DUE permitting, which is a whole different question), not for "X is true" in the article voice. But it is usable for that - newsworthy things do happen involving the Daily Mail sometimes; how else would we report them? --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A similar issue was discussed in August last year, see archive 382. Attributing to "the Daily Mail as reported in the Guardian", would appear to be the suggestion from that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source believe an information is valid, we have to go by what the reliable sources say no matter where the information was originally published. Mottezen (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems very straightforward to me. It’s clearly usable. We’re not using the DM as a “source”, and neither really are The Nation and Snopes, which are both very carefully reporting about a story involving the DM. This doesn’t mean it’s noteworthy, but if a few RSs are reporting on this then it probably is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly usable. For people trying to apply the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine, let's extend this logic. Some random guy raving online about how the US Treasury might make a trillion-dollar coin is unreliable. If a journalist writes an article using this person's claims as a source, is that automatically unreliable because all of this conversation stems from some guy's Internet blog comments? Or what about TMZ claims being repeated, or CoinDesk breaking the news on FTX? The job of someone writing a secondary source is to take the endless sea of varying quality information, and to condense the high quality information into something we can read. Our encyclopedia's WP:RS policy is based on outsourcing that task to journalists/academics/etc as much as possible as they are better at filtering info than us, and based on the description of the dispute above, it sounds like editors want to usurp the role of filtering/sourcing primary sources for the sole reason that "Daily Mail bad any source that discuss Daily Mail content also bad", which is illogical considering we don't apply this standard to secondary sources that discuss literal anonymous comments on blog posts. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 01:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source quotes a statement made in an unreliable source, we can accept that the statement is accurately reported. However, distinguish between "X told the Daily Mail" and "According to the Daily Mail, X told them."
 * Reliable sources frequently use sources that Wikipedia would not consider reliable. Presumably, their authors are able to assess the veracity of statements made. It's similar to what historians do. They assess a wide variety of evidence about events, and determine what happened. There are for example no written records from the Roman Empire that would meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Nonetheless, books about the Roman Empire may be reliable sources for Wikipedia because we assume the historians are able to analyze the existing records and form conclusions.
 * TFD (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ripley's Believe it or not
I was surprised to find no (substantial) mention of Ripley's Believe it or not in the archives, so I'll go ahead and ask. In Articles for deletion/Mihailo Tolotos, Ripley's was put forth as a WP:RS. Yea or nay? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ripley's by its very nature is a sensationalist source designed to sell books rather engaged in rigorous fact checking. It's very marginal, and I would place no weight on its accuracy. I'm very unimpressed with the article honestly, the primary sources are a bunch of international non-greek newspapers from the 1930s regurgitating the same claims from each other without any independent corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be correct, Ripley's was designed to sell newspapers rather than books; what is being cited is the original Ripley's Believe It or Not newspaper panel, particularly one that ran in many papers on May 9, 1949. So this is material that ran in plenty of papers that we would normally consider reliable sources -- The (Spokane, WA) Spokesman-Review, The Miami News, The Ottawa Journal, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, etc. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've only known Ripley through their books, it still seems like a source even back then, that would be prone to sensationalism regardless of if they were trying to sell books or not, so my view still stands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not a reliable source. Usually found on the comics page. Its purpose was/is entertainment. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Newspapers treat this as a syndicated comic strip and give it no fact checks, so I would consider it historically and presently unreliable in all cases, even when used by a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Yahoo! News, Noticel, El Mundo, Home News Tribune, and Hartford Courant
Are any of the following 5 bulleted sources not reliable? I am trying to add sources to Jorge Otero Barreto (JOB) but 2 editors (btw, the first editor WP:CANVASSED the second here) object to my adding the 5 sources claiming the sources are not reliable. The sources are:
 * Yahoo! News wrote that Jorge Otero Barreto is "among the most decorated soldiers in the Vietnam War".
 * Noticel calls him "one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War.".
 * El Mundo. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1989.05.29. p.4. "Un heroe sin haber querido." Obed Betancourt. ""He is considered the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War in all of the United States"
 * Home News Tribune. Somerville, NJ. 10 Nov 1996. p.2. "Heroes get honors: Perth Amboy pays homage to Puerto Rican veterans." Sean P. Carr. "Jorge Otero Barreto...was awarded an unmatched 38 citations."
 * Hartford Courant. Hartford, CT. 28 Mar 1996. p.A16. "Puerto Rican March to Strive for Equality." Mike Swift. "Jorge Otero Barreto...decorated 38 times"

The article Jorge Otero Barreto already had other RS sources but, having stumbled upon more sources recently, I wanted to add them to the article. The RS conflict started when I removed material here that was irrelevant to the subject of the article as it talked about soldier Robert L. Howard (RLH). The entry was, in fact, WP:OR via WP:SYNTH. Some back and forth reverts took place here, here, here and here until an admin here protected the article. Discussion occurred, but the 2 editors (User:Intothatdarkness and User:Mztourist) are in denial, i.e., refuse to admit the 5 sources above are reliable. So it was until it became clear that the 2 editors had an "old ax to grind" and that what really bothered them was something else: (1) the mere existence of the article, which Intothatdarkness have opposed before (here), and (2) the fact the statement "most decorated U.S. soldier" was in the article, which Mztourist had opposed before (here). Their old sentiments then carried over into our discussion as evident here and here.

Thus, although the initial issue for the reverts was the irrelevant material about RLH in an article about JOB, the 2 editors soon stated here ("If the 'unsupported' claims about Barreto being "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War" are removed, there is NO NEED to mention Howard") and here ("Intothat and I have made it very clear that all references to Howard can be removed from this page if the non reliably sourced claims that Barreto was the "most decorated soldier" of the Vietnam War are removed") that they would agree to the removal of the irrelevant RLH material from the article if the statement "the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam war" was removed from the article as well. I had two problems with that: (1) It's plain common sense that we don't add irrelevant material to articles, and (2) If there are RS sources to support content that was already in the article, there should be no reason for anyone to object to the addition of such sources. IAE, I never agreed to that deal but, in the spirit of reaching a resolution, I looked for additional sources still, to share with the 2 editors. Once found (the 5 above) I shared them, but then they changed their tune to [start arguing] that sources from "[[Newspaper#Geographical_scope_and_distribution|'local' papers]" weren't RSs because "'local' papers aren't subject to the same level of verification or fact-checking." Up to that point our discussion had been mostly factual and carried in good faith, but at that juncture it turned purely argumentative, thus opinionated, thus POV, thus one of the main reasons I came to this Board.

IAE, as another way of seeking a resolution, I had also suggested that perhaps the problem was it should read "among the most decorated" (i.e, "one of the most decorated") here but the 2 editors wouldn't agree to that either. That is, both editors were determined not to allow into the article even something that said as little as JOB was "among the most decorated US soldiers in the Vietnam War" and even if it was supported by the 5 sources above because they felt the sources weren't RS source. Thus a reason I am also coming to this Board. The discussion is found here.

Thus, my question, are the 5 bulleted sources above NOT reliable sources?

Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the false accusation of canvassing (the page was on my watchlist and I have been closely monitoring it since first finding it and being surprised by its extreme claims and weak sourcing) and the endless wikilawyering by User:Mercy11, I refer any interested reader to the source assessment table I prepared, which addresses my issues with each of the sources: Talk:Jorge Otero Barreto. In summary: Yahoo news! copies a Military Times story which contains numerous factual errors about Barreto's decorations and so cannot be regarded as reliable; Noticel is an online Puerto Rican newspaper and so of questionable objectivity when discussing a local hero and story contains minimal details apparently copied from other sources; the El Mundo story is not available online and El Mundo apparently shut down in the early 1990s; Home New Tribune is a RS (I never said otherwise), but the story is not available online and the quote provided has been proven to be incorrect; and Hartford Courant is also a RS (again I never said otherwise), but the story is not available online and the quote provided does not support the claim that Barreto was “the most” or “one of the most” decorated soldier[s] of the Vietnam war. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The post is but a rehash of the unsupported claims at the discussion here:
 * "The source assessment table I prepared..."'......The table alluded to above is of your creation and lacks the support of any cites; it's your own opinion; it's WP:OR. You made your assessment based on your judgement; not a single source is provided to support your judgement calls there. Besides, we don't need a table to determine if a source is WP:RS or not.
 * "Yahoo news! copies a Military Times story which contains numerous factual errors about Barreto's decorations"........Is there a cite for that claim? No, of course, or when the claim was preseneted at the discussion, a cite would had been given. Again, failure to follow WP:V.
 * "Noticel is an online Puerto Rican newspaper and so of questionable objectivity when discussing a local hero".........local heroes are almost always best covered by local papers where most readership interested in the person would be located. It also sounds a biased that you point out it is "Puerto Rican", when you don't point out Home News Tribune and Hartford Courant are New Jersyans and Connecticut paper. Again failure to follow WP:NPOV.
 * "apparently copied from other sources".........More speculation; failure to follow WP:V.
 * "El Mundo story is not available online".........Does that make it not WP:RS? Seems to me that only shows you have no WP:RS to rebutt the cite is valid.
 * "El Mundo apparently shut down in the early 1990s"......What does that have to do with anything? Not only does that fail to equally point out the paper was in business 67 years (arguably, far more than the bulk of American newspapers) but it also seems to imply that stories from papers that shut down aren't reliable and, for that matter, consequentially, that old stories from current paper (NYT, WAPO, etc.) are unreliable. Failure to follow WP:NPOV.
 * "Home New Tribune...the story is not available online"...That is no defense; if I found that story, I was expecting anyone attempting to challenge it would also find it too -- or else not argue it baselessly.
 * "Hartford Courant...the story is not available online"......ditto on my comment above.
 * "the quote provided does not support the claim that Barreto was “the most” or “one of the most” decorated soldier[s] of the Vietnam war."......Excuse me? I am sorry but the quoted word there, "unmatched", has one and only one meaning in English: that no other person matches it.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "he's one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War." Not independent, but I think it can be considered reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are basing factual errors on in your analysis? For anyone that can read Spanish here is the El Mundo article. WikiVirusC (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, and this link to the same El Mundo article take you to the precise wording which, when translated yields "The most decorated Vietnam War soldier in all of the United States".
 * Mercy11 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It a brief summary of the paper, the same source says "Founded in 1919, El Mundo was a  respected , conservative newspaper from Puerto Rico and was widely considered a key source for news". (the emphasis is mine).
 * Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yahoo! News is on the list of perennially discussed reliable sources. Many of this outlet's publications are re-publications from other sources, though.  In the example cited, it appears the content was first published via Military Times.  I think it would be preferable to refer to the original source via https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2023/03/29/the-puerto-rican-rambo-who-went-on-200-combat-missions-in-vietnam/ ... my opinion.  Mztourist has taken issue with this particular article, though, based on factual errors I can't myself vouch for.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When a source re-publishes from elsewhere things can get tangled. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree better to use the original than the Yahoo News version. I presume Military Times is generally reliable (willing to be corrected on that). If Mztourist has identified errors in the article, that feels like original research to me; if other reliable sources contradict this one isn't it better to give both accounts neutrally? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its very hard to view this as an actual source reliability question and not a content dispute which was mistakenly escalated here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have to agree, this appears to be a content dispute. If the discussion can't be resolves on the article talk page editors should look into the other options available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the content dispute is about the reliability of the sources then it seems appropriate here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As per Gråbergs Gråa Sång comment this is less about reliability than about the exact wording (the defence.gov source although primary would be reliable for "one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War" or similar). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without calling the reliability of these sources in question, I question the reliability of this statement in each of these sources. No one is counting how many decorations each soldiers got in each wars, this information is tabulated nowhere. The statement is thus not evidence-based, and therefore not a fact. It should thus not be mentioned in his article. A quick glance at Robert L. Howard's article shows he received more decorations than Otero Barreto. When I read the Yahoo News! article, I got the sense that this statement was merely an urban legend in his family and home community. Mottezen (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand by everything in the source assessment table. As User:Mercy11 has finally provided a version of the El Mundo article, we can all now read what is says. "The most decorated Vietnam War soldier in all of the United States." is factually incorrect as has been repeatedly explained to Mercy11 previously in 2012 and again in the recent debate (Sidenote: this whole debate started when Mercy11 decided to remove competing information about other more decorated Vietnam War soldiers here:). Barreto apparently received 38 decorations, the highest of which were 2 Silver Stars, the 3rd ranking US award for valor. Robert L. Howard received over 50 decorations, including the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross, the 1st and 2nd ranking awards for valor, so both more and higher-ranking decorations. Hugh L. Mills Jr. received 3 Silver Stars and over 80 other decorations. So as the claim is demonstrably incorrect, the El Mundo story is not reliable (Sidenote from Mercy11's details about El Mundo says it closed in 1986 "the newspaper never fully recovered from the debilitating strikes of the 1980s and ongoing union difficulties." It did reopen in January 1988 before ceasing publication permanently in 1990). Home News Tribune's "an unmatched 38 citations" claim is also factually incorrect and so not reliable. As to whether Barreto was "one of the most decorated" that is open to debate, as there were numerous other soldiers awarded higher decorations (261 Medals of Honor and over 1000 Distinguished Service Crosses) and numerous soldiers awarded numerous decorations e.g. Joe Hooper (Medal of Honor) and David Hackworth. The most that can be said about Barreto is that he was "a highly decorated soldier", but Mercy11 will continue to wikilawyer and obfuscate this pushing obscure sources to try to keep the demonstrably wrong claims. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are counting decorations to arrive at whose "the most decorated". That's WP:OR. That's not how WP works.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There would be nothing wrong with having a passage like "several sources claim him to be the most decorated, which is in conflict with sources that provide an accounting of those decorations" or something along those lines. It's best not to ignore sources from reliable outlets outright, but rather put them into context ... in my opinion.  This is an encyclopedia, not a 'world fact book'. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that 100%, as I think every reasonable participant would, but with the condition that the other soldiers mentioned here (Howard, Mills, Hooper, Hackworth, etc.) also be equally qualified with similar "context" statements in their respective articles if they currently read the same "Most decorated of the Vietnam war" nonsense. That is, let's not pick on Jorge Otero Barreto alone and be fair across the board. All articles should mention all the RSs that say such as such and such and such, but any claims to "most decorated..." need to be in the context of "he has been called..." as opposed to "he is..." Ideally, no soldier should be called "the most decorated" but simply "among the most decorated" because that's basically where most sources are in agreement. Notwithstanding that, if a RS says the Mr. ZYX is the most decorated, then the source should, IMO, be included but preceded by a clear qualifier that source XYZ "has called him the most decorated such and such" in the context of the other soldiers as well. My point is let's include all RSs regardless of what they say, unless there exist another RS that directedly states that, for example, Robert L Howard is NOT the most such and such. To summarize, IMO, if we are going to use "the most decorated..." I don't see anything wrong putting them all (Howard, Mills, Hooper, Hackworth, Barreto, etc.) all in equal context. If we are not going to use  "the most decorated..." nonsense, then we don't even need to put any of those soldiers "in context" because it's obvious that, if they are all considered "among the most decorated...", then no placing "in context" is needed.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mercy11 has repeatedly objected to or removed "claim" from the article, along with any attempt to clarify or qualify the statements about "most decorated soldier." They appear to be intent on retaining the inaccurate information. Further, earlier versions of the article contained at least two badges/decorations that didn't even exist when Barreto was in the Army, so it's possible those two were included in the count (since no source provides a source for the tally it's difficult to say, but it does call the tally into question). Intothatdarkness 20:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs, not just allegations. Your insisted (my diffs for this are on my opening paragraphs herein) on keeping stuff about Howard in the JOB article unless I provide RSs, but once I provided the 5 RSs in this RSN above you changed your tune and then started making claims that "local" newspapers aren't valid RSs (I paraphrase). In addition, you too are, now, violating WP:OR; WP is no place to count any medals so we can make comparisons. That's WP:OR, sir/ madam.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 *  Note:  As an FYI, I have reverted a participant in this discussion, User:Mottezen, at Jorge Otero Barreto for unilaterally making changes to the article in question that directly impact this discussion yet s/he did not wait until this discussion closes.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mercy11 No. Howard, Mills and others demonstrably received more decorations than Barreto as shown by RS and you trying to put Barreto on the same basis as them is factually incorrect and misleading. This is RSN, you came here to argue that 5 sources are reliable, I have proven they are not given their factual mistakes. You claim that counting decorations to arrive at who is the most decorated is WP:OR, but it is WP:BLUE that numerous other soldiers received more and higher ranking decorations and accordingly that the sources claiming that Barreto was "most decorated" or received an "unmatched 38 citations" are plainly wrong and so are not reliable. Look at the Robert L. Howard page to see what RS looks like supporting Howard's status. There are no equivalent RS for Barreto. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Mztourist What you call "proven" isn't based on other RSs stating the 5 Reliable Sources here are wrong in their publication, but merely on your own counting of medals. If those 5 reliable sources (6 with Military Times) were wrong, certainly a journalist, researcher, or some other authority would had already provided a rebuke rather than waiting for an WP editor to do his own original research as you are, and publish such Original Research for the first time in WP, wouldn't you think?
 * Your tendency to original research --rather than merely reporting-- is again evident in your invitation to the Howard article as your Howard-related text above shows. But, yes, I have taken a look at the Robert L. Howard article and among the things I found is that within hours of my requesting RSs for the claims there, you entered the article and made changes. Two days later, I again entered the article and requested RSs, and again within hours you reentered the article and made edits. That's not bad. What's bad is that when an anonymous IP changed the first line of the Howard's article's lede from "a highly decorated..." to "the most highly decorated..." on 25 July 2021 (yes, 2 years ago), you turned a blind eye and, to this day 2 years later, you have done nothing about it. How do you explain that for an article you have invited me to perhaps a dozen times in that last 2 weeks? So your preference for Howard is what's clearly WP:BLUE and your discriminating against Otero Barreto is evident by your desire to leave the Howard article unaffected instead of treating all such highly decorated soldiers equally, that is, without the claim of "most highly decorated" from the ledes. That information, for Howard, Barreto and any other soldiers, should be left to lower, much, much lower in the body of the article, with little prominence, and preceded by a qualifier such as "he has been called the most decorated" (as opposed to "he is the most decorated"), with RSs to the quotes.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mercy11 50 decorations (Howard) is more than 38; 80 decorations (Mills) is more than 38, it doesn't get any Bluer. You came to RSN for views of 5 sources and those sources have been easily proven wrong on the facts. The suggestion that "certainly a journalist, researcher, or some other authority would had already provided a rebuke" is a nice idea, but unless there's a specific reason to do so, such research won't be undertaken and journalists will likely just crib from WP or accept whatever AI tells them. Its abundantly clear that you want to conflate your local hero Barreto with other more highly decorated soldiers, but you have failed to provide RS to support that. Mztourist (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Mztourist, If there is a local hero in anyone's town who deserves credit, I am 110% for it no matter what "local" may entail, whether is your town or that of any other editor here, wouldn't you? Apparently not. Military Times, a respected publication on military matters, calls him "among the most decorated" (although not "the most decorated") as well. Your WP:OR goes against the findings of experts at Military Times which you, then, dismiss as "unreliable" on the basis of your WP:OR. Sorry, but that's not how WP works. Let's talk about RSs, OK? Who has RSs? I have those 6 RSs. What RSs do you have that DIRECTLY disproves the 6 RS's on JOB? What RS do you have that says something like "Military Times is wrong in saying Otero Barreto is NOT among the most highly decorated"? I am not sure why this simple question is so difficult to get across to you. Your only "reliable source", so far, is yourself: comparing and doing your own counting and drawing your own conclusions based on your own counting, and then calling all other true RSs (the 6 above) unreliable on that allegation that your comparisons (aka, your WP:OR) demonstrates the 6 RSs I presented are all wrong.  Mercy11 (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mercy11 As already detailed in my source assessment table, Yahoo News (one of the sources that you brought here to RSN), copied Military Times, so Military Times is not a 6th source. As also detailed in that table, the Military Times story contains factual errors about Barreto's decorations, so its not reliable. I am not sure why you are unwilling to accept documented facts and plain numbers that show that Barreto was not the most decorated soldier, apparently insisting that an RS must explicitly state that in order to satisfy you. Rather than continuing to debate and berate me, why don't you stop and see what other Users have to say here? Presumably that's why you came to RSN, because you weren't convincing anyone on the article Talk Page where there is a consensus against your assertions and non RS. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that extra explanatory note. It seems Military Times isn't viewed in as high esteem as I regarded them and I am good with that. Mercy11 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To pull out a point from this discussion: in deciding whether a source is reliable, obviously editors can do their own research to reach conclusions. This is totally different from the kind of original research that is forbidden by WP:OR, which is about article content.  If Mztourist wanted to write in the article "Credulous news reports have repeated the legend that Barreto was the most-decorated soldier in the Vietnam War, but Howard and Mills received more and higher decorations", that would be a massive violation of WP:OR.  But there is absolutely nothing wrong with arguing, on a talk page or noticeboard, that an article published by a standard news org is not reliable, based on personal research into the background and context of the article.  (And of course other editors might or might not find such an argument compelling.)  --JBL (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The Hartford Courant is a very old and as far as I am aware well-respected newspaper. I am a little perplexed as to how it could be called fundamentally into question. Of course the question is reliable for what. Reliable for the statement that someone is the "most decorated" - why wouldn't it be? That seems like a statement that an editor would've reviewed doesn't it? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Courant article appears to no longer be available online (at least through the link contained in the references section of the article), but the article doesn't cite if for the "most decorated" claim. It only cites it for a tally of awards. Intothatdarkness 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Evening Standard
Emma Loffhagen's 4 May Evening Standard article Matt Healy: The controversies and love life of The 1975 singer and Taylor Swift’s rumoured new man copies wholesale from Matty Healy. I've emailed the publisher to alert them of said plagiarism, but should its reliability be reviewed? Laun chba ller 20:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think a discussion is required, the article can't be used as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. So reliability is moot. Earwigs analysis for anyone interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant for the Evening Standard generally.-- <u style="color:#00F">Laun <u style="color:#00F">chba <u style="color:#00F">ller 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not only poor journalism but also shoddy editting, and Evening Standard articles should certainly be held with more skepticism due to it, but one instance wouldn't be enough to change the rating of the whole source. Saying that this article is part of Insider the ES's gossip section, using such articles in BLPs is questionable. I suggest waiting to see how they handle this, and if this is a one off or a trend. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * News sources print dozens of stories a day. Finding one that is a problem is such a tiny problem, it doesn't bear dealing with.  Now, if you have evidence, in the form of outside analysis by others, that a source like this is regularly doing problematic things (and not just "I found a second bad story" but "Here's an analysis by someone outside of Wikipedia that does these kinds of analyses for a living, and this is what they had to say), then I think we have reason to have a discussion.  Playing "gotcha" with sources one bad story at a time is not a great way to deal with them.  We shouldn't be doing our own analysis of sources, we should rely on the status of the source outside of Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron32 and ActivelyDisinterested: it's good to log this issue and we should watch out for a pattern but not enough in itself for a policy change. In general, the "Insider" section is made up of gossipy pieces that mix opinion, speculation and reportage and are not good material for BLPs. Note: the Standard's political content has long-standing bias issues relating to its proprietator and editor-in-chief, as well as a recent scandal relating to corporate paid-for coverage, so it's not a strong source, but remains borderline generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: EurAsia Daily/EA Daily deprecation
While multiple pro-Putin disinformation sites are included in the deprecated sources list (Sputnik or RT as examples), I've noticed one glaring omission: EurAsia Daily (also called EA Daily), known for promoting disinformation and outright falsehoods that benefit the Russian government's positions, is not included and is used as a source on some articles. I believe that it should be deprecated, and have a laundry list of articles from other sources describing it as uncredible, listed below, with the specific examples of problems:

Sources describing information by EA Daily:
 * Fake: Ukrainian cities Kharkiv, Mykolayiv and Odesa Want to “Return to Russia” (31 July 2020) StopFake.
 * Claims support among Ukrainians for annexation into Russia.
 * Манипуляция: сказочная жизнь украинских беженцев в Европе обернулась борьбой за выживание [Manipulation: fabulous life of Ukrainian refugees in Europe turns into struggle for survival] (31 August 2022) Delfi.
 * Promotes various falsehoods about Ukrainian refugees.
 * Сеанс с разоблачением. Как в России готовят информационные фейки о Сирии [A revealing seance: How Russia prepares fake news about Syria] (10 May 2018) Radio Liberty.
 * Claims chemical attacks in Syria were fabricated.
 * Bill Gates: The Georgian version of conspiracy EAP Fakes.
 * Various examples of disinformation regarding Bill Gates and the COVID-19 pandemic, including calls to kill Gates.
 * ŽINIASKLAIDOS STEBĖSENA SEIMO RINKIMŲ METU I (EN) [Media Monitoring During Seimas Elections I (EN)] (9 October 2020) Vilnius Political Analysis Institute.
 * Disinformation about COVID-19 and elections in Lithuania and Belarus.
 * Russia spreading propaganda during COVID-19 pandemic: Canadian study (1 April 2020) CTV News.
 * Fake news regarding COVID-19.
 * Standoff Between Armenian Government and Former Regime Continues; Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 16 Issue: 128 (19 September 2019) Jamestown Foundation via ecoi.net.
 * Accuses George Soros of seeking to reorient Armenia into a pro-western direction alongside the CIA.
 * Фейк кремлевских СМИ: в Германии украинские беженцы сожгли дом, пытаясь сжечь российский флаг [Fake Kremlin media: Ukrainian refugees in Germany burn down house trying to burn Russian flag] (19 May 2022) The Insider.
 * Falsely accuses Ukrainian refugees of arson in Germany.
 * Russian War Report: Russian forces use incendiary munitions in Mariupol (20 May 2022) Atlantic Council.
 * Falsely accuses Ukrainian refugees of murder in Poland.
 * Fake: Ukrainian Orthodox Church Canonizes Assassinated Nationalist Leder Stepan Bandera (21 June 2022) StopFake.
 * Claims Stepan Bandera was canonised by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
 * 'Inevitable' Conflict: In Daghestan, Kremlin's Mobilization Inflames Ethnic Tensions (2 October 2022) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
 * Claims Ukrainian and American involvement in the Dagestan anti-conscription protests.
 * FAKE NEWS: Chișinău is negotiating with Kyiv a territory exchange: it offers a military depot in Transnistria in exchange for a part of the region of Odessa (21 November 2022) Veridica.
 * Falsely claims Ukraine and Moldova are negotiating a territorial exchange.
 * EADaily; a worker bee in the Kremlin’s information war (1 December 2021) Propastop.
 * Several examples of disinformation regarding Estonia.
 * Fake And Manipulative News About Armenia And Not Only (30 April 2020) media.am.
 * Claims about American biolabs in Armenia.
 * LRT FACTS. Are Lithuanian resorts doomed without Russian and Belarusian tourists? (12 July 2020) LRT.
 * Falsely claims the Lithuanian tourist industry is in crisis due to a lack of Russian and Belarusian tourists.

Sources describing EA Daily's pro-Putin position:
 * Пропагандисты Кремля раскручивают пророссийский «Альянс патриотов Грузии» в преддверии выборов в стране [Kremlin propagandists promote "Alliance of Patriots of Georgia" ahead of the country's election] (24 August 2020) Sprotyv.
 * Expressing support for a pro-Russian political party in Georgia.
 * «Бессмертный полк» в Беларуси терпит поражение [Immortal Regiment defeated in Belarus] (9 May 2019) Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies.
 * Advocating for a "pro-Russian lobby" in Belarus.
 * В Минске задержали еще одного автора российского издания Regnum [Another author of Regnum Russian edition detained in Minsk] (9 December 2016) Tut.by.
 * Criminal case against an EA Daily journalist who referred to Belarusian as a "dialect" of Russian and claimed Belarusians were Russians.
 * "С этническим белорусским национализмом не по пути". Как доцент БГУИР стал адептом "русского мира" ["There is no way with ethnic Belarusian nationalism." How an associate professor at BSUIR Became an adept of "Russian World"] (9 December 2016) Tut.by.
 * Same as above.
 * Авторам Regnum дали 5 лет за разжигание национальной розни [Regnum authors sentenced to 5 years for inciting ethnic hatred] (2 February 2018) DW.
 * The above journalist being sentenced.
 * Tuesday's papers: EU election race, bump in govt talks, pink house hassle (21 May 2019) Yle.
 * Described as "pro-Kremlin".
 * Belarus should join Russia — EADaily (3 July 2018) BelSat TV.
 * Support for Russia to annex Belarus.
 * Russian disinformation related to biological weapons, 1998-2021 University of Maryland.
 * Described as a "Kremlin proxy media site" spreading disinformation about American biological weapons.

Overall, I think that the sheer breadth of coverage on the site's activities establishes a solid case for deprecating EA Daily. However, any further input on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Mupper-san (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know this site and have never used it, so I've looked at the first two examples. In the first one (Fake: Ukrainian cities Kharkiv, Mykolayiv and Odesa Want to “Return to Russia”) EA Daily quotes Putin's advisor Sergei Markov. While the claim itself is false, Markov definitely has been saying it a lot (likely affecting Putin's understanding of the situation) and EA Daily reports it correctly.
 * The second example is about the Ukrainian refugees in Europe . They only mention EA Daily as an example of a pro-Kremlin media that does report on the successful integration of refugees ("Даже российские медиа порой сообщают об успехах в интеграции украинских беженцев в местные европейские рынки труда (см. ниже пример статьи на EADaily, пересказывающей содержание нидерландского NLTimes).") contrasting it with the dominant narrative of the failing integration.
 * Maybe it would be better to provide 2-3 really obvious examples which prove that it needs to be deprecated. Alaexis¿question? 07:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's indeed fair. However, that being said, I'd argue that the second StopFake article and the EAP Fakes page both indicate significant examples of pro-Putin fake news, as does the reference to George Soros and the CIA plotting to overthrow Robert Kocharyan.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, the Bandera canonisation piece is a real fake news. Definitely should be at least Unreliable. Alaexis¿question? 09:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, to fully deprecate would be a step too far. It I oppose fully deprecating as the source may still prove useful for references to material that is not controversial, political, or geopolitical. The use of the source in Mihai Eminescu is an example of a non-controversial use. Jack4576 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Deprecate per the above, as propaganda, conspiracy theories and fabrication. We shouldn't use this source for anything, including ABOUTSELF. We have 125 uses in article space at present, so it's not a hypothetical problem - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we should mark the sources as unreliable instead. A full deprecation would be excessive, I think. Some of the article space uses are uncontroversial and are seemingly okay. See for example the use in Mihai Eminescu to merely reference the location of a memorial bench. If we are to fully exclude sources on the basis that they contain propaganda, etcetera, English Wikipedia will struggle to obtain references to non-controversial information regarding that sphere of the world. Wikipedia's well-documented systemic biases are already bad enough as it is. Jack4576 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Deprecate per the above evidence. And kill with fire any of 125 uses. USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 12:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not all of the 125 uses are sinister. See for example the uncontroversial use to note the location of a memorial bench in Mihai Eminescu. Perhaps it would be best for any references in relation to politics, geopolitics, or the war in Ukraine to be removed however. Jack4576 (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair, I didn't thought about that. Of course, such uses are mostly ok. I tried to find some other source about that Spanish memorial, and it's pretty hard. So I'm leaning more to downgrading to Unreliable for anything controversial+political. USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 14:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are, indeed, other sources on Eminescu's memorial in Spain, however; notably one from RRI and one from the Romanian embassy in Madrid. So, more reliable sources in this case do exist, and I think that EA Daily does not exactly meet standards for reliability given the flat-out false claims about a Moldovan-Ukrainian territorial exchange and the canonisation of Bandera.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding onto this, I'm going to note the first addendum to point one on the "Effects of Deprecation" section of WP:DEPS: "Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist." This applies for the Eminescu statue, as not one, but two more reliable sources indicate it. Additionally, it makes outlandish claims even further from what one would normally consider politics; this EADaily article (which is currently cited in the article domestic violence in Russia, I will note) is used to cite the claim that the statistic of 14,000 dead women from domestic violence is widely-circulated. This is evidenced by the Wikipedia article in the next paragraph by listing multiple examples, while the EA Daily article uses this as an example of "proof" that "Western press" is exaggerating domestic violence in Russia. The matter is similarly discussed by Radio Liberty, a more reliable source than EA Daily, and is not used as basis for an outlandish claim.
 * So, broadly speaking, this is not simply a problem with politics (at least in what I would think is commonly regarded as politics by Wikipedia users), but it includes issues like domestic violence, and this is the vast majority of cases in which EA Daily is sourced. The Eminescu example is more of an exception, and even then, it's not the sole site which notes the existence of the Eminescu statue in Spain.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest I would regard domestic violence as a political issue. Particularly in the context of comparisons between Russia & the west, or responding to criticisms by the west. That conflict in narrative is inherently political/controversial. As I'm sure you appreciate, the line as to what is political and what's not isn't a bright one.
 * The statute example is but one example. I'm sure there is a fair volume of non-controversial information about Russia that could be gleaned from EADaily; however use of it as a source must be qualified as unreliable especially on controversial topics. It would be overkill to impose a general prohibition on its use. Intelligently being able to parse unreliable sources is one of the core functions of Wikipedia's volunteer editors and I think it is one that is best left to the community on a case by case basis. Jack4576 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're exactly correct that domestic violence is a political matter, and much more in the former Soviet Union than the west, which is what I was getting at. But on your bigger point, could the same not be said for other Russian publications, such as Sputnik and RT, which are both deprecated? Generally, if something is truly significant, One would think that other, more reliable sources would report on it, which is noted by the "Effects of Deprecation" (though I do admit that there are exceptions, such as exclusive pieces). Furthermore, I don't think that that Russia is particularly starved of media coverage; much of what EA Daily discusses could likely be found on other sources if it's true. This, in part, loops back to the previous point, and it must be questioned whether or not we can trust EA Daily for information on Russia, given it has a track record of lying about other nations in Russia's "near abroad".
 * Moving away from that, A quick glance at the usage of EA Daily as a source indicates that most examples are less like the statue of Eminescu and more politically-focused. There are certain instances where one could justify using it, just as one could justify using other deprecated sources, but I would argue that this is adequately covered by the fact that registered users are able to publish edits that contain deprecated sources, following a warning. Deprecation wouldn't totally stop the usage of the source, as blacklisting would, but rather prevent it from being proliferated and abused by bad actors on English Wikipedia, such as Russian government IPs.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concede your comparisons to Sputnik and RT, and while its of no relevance here, I also oppose the full deprecation of those sources too for the exact same reasons as I oppose full deprecation here. (I note that such decisions aren't a binding precedent). I wasn't an active Wikipedian during those discussions.
 * Russia may not be 'starved' of media coverage, but that is not the point. The point is that a substantial English language source for non-controversial information would be effectively lost, which would be a loss to the Wikipedia project. It is better to qualify the use of such sources; both for the avoidance of bias and to maximise the amount of relevant useful sources that can be used by good faith editors.
 * The problem is that a full deprecation means that these sources can no longer be used to demonstrate notability, and is -generally- prohibited (even for registered users). If we are to deprecate the source, it should be made clear that the deprecation is only in respect of political matters, or in respect of matters that might intersect with propaganda efforts. Jack4576 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a page's worth of the 125 uses. Most of them seem to be in controversial areas (Nordstream, Wagner, the Syrian war...) and the few where it used for uncontroversial material could easily be sourced elsewhere, so I support the "kill with fire" proposal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Deprecate - as a shady propaganda outlet for Putin's regime, known to publish falsehoods. What it prints simply can't be trusted, and it's therefore an inappropriate source. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a lot of examples to go through, so I picked one, "LRT FACTS. Are Lithuanian resorts doomed without Russian and Belarusian tourists?" (Lithuanian National Radio and Television). Considering that according to Tourism in Lithuania, over 25% of their tourists came from those two countries in 2016 (the last year reported), it's fair comment that banning their entry into Lithuania could seriously hurt their tourist industry. In fact, according to the European Travel Commission, "The slowest destinations to recover were in Eastern Europe due to the war in Ukraine and lack of Russian visitors to destinations heavily reliant on this market. Sharpest declines are observed in Finland (-38%), Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania (all -42%)." (16.02.2023) TFD (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if the general thrust of this EADaily story might be true; it matters if it uses made up facts. The LRT piece alleges that EADaily quoted a mayor who categorically told LRT he hadn't spoken to EA and the thing he was quoted as saying wasn't true. The fact that it's plausible makes it more dangerous not less. Clearly unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

MIA: Encyclopedia of Marxism
Is the MIA (Marxists Internet Archive) Encyclopedia of Marxism a reliable/good source for the following text in Marietta Shaginyan? "She was one of the 'fellow travelers' of the 1920s led by the Serapion Brotherhood and became one of the most prolific communist writers experimenting in satirico-fantastic fiction." Link to page being cited: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/s/h.htm#shaginyan-marietta After looking around here (on RSN), there seem to be mixed opinions on the quality and reliability of this source. These bios in particular appear to be written by volunteers with no declared editorial process, and this specific bio is quite short, but it seems to be reasonably accurate. I’ve not edited at Wikipedia for a while and am hoping to clean up this article to jump back in, so taking the very first source here to double check before embarking on a deep dive. Thanks in advance, postleft  on mobile!   postleft  on mobile!  21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * MIA isn't top tier, as it doesn't make clear its editorial process or authorship of its contents, but I find it to be consistently reliable: the authors of its own content are subject matter experts on areas where mainstream coverage is usually missing. Unless there is reason to doubt specific material, I'd give it benefit of the doubt. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the about page (which also offers some clarity on its authorship) contributions have to be submitted, and this makes it clear the editor has final say over contributions. The current editor is Andy Blunden, who appears to have published several works in the subject matter area. It obviously has a particular bias. Overall it seems reliable, although a better source should be found if the details are contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist these two sites
"China Anti-cult" and "Kaiwind" have spared no effort to carry out a large number of politically derogatory propaganda activities against groups disliked by the CCP authorities, especially Christian groups. At least it's a serious violation of Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP.

Links to both sites are listed below:

ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * China Anti-cult
 * Kaiwind


 * Where are the two sources being cited, and what are they being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * kaiwind.com has been blacklisted in enwiki. But the problem with the other site seems to be much more serious than the previous one. For precedents prohibited for violating the BLP, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  09:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked a question. You haven't answered it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone will add this article to an article related to "Falun Gong", proving that he is a "cult". But the Falun Gong group is actually being persecuted by the CCP authorities. For now, Falun Gong is legal at least in countries or regions such as Taiwan, the United States, and the European Union. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  09:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I am against the ideology of Falun Gong, because I am a Protestant Christian. But freedom of religion is a basic human right, including Falun Gong. And this site goes out of its way to belittle or attack this group. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be asking that a website be blacklisted just in case someone tries to cite it? I don't think we do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We cant deprecate a source simply because you believe someone may use it to call a group, which opposes race mixing, believes their leader is a living god who can fly, and believes that invisible other-dimensional copies of their leader monitor them, a cult. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia of Latvia a reliable source?
The Encyclopedia of Latvia (Latvijas enciklopēdija) is the national encyclopedia of Latvia. An English version of this article has not yet been created. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source? This is the link to the electronic version of the encyclopedia and the home page of the website. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Also I want to create an article named Torņakalns Memorial to Victims of Communist Terror. Because the main source for this article is this encyclopedia, there are some other sources, you can refer to the Latvian version. I'm not sure if this article meets the criteria for inclusion in the English Wikipedia? ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  00:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, check the about page. As a national encyclopedia under the banner of the National Library of Latvia and with a full-time professional editorial board of experts, I would say it seems pretty clearly reliable. As usual, even reliable and academic sources may have a bias/bent, so just be aware of extraordinary claims which promote a national mythos. Curbon7 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's assessment. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and the Swiss Bankers
The Ratlines (World War II) page heavily cites Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and the Swiss Bankers by Mark Aarons and John Loftus as a source. Is this book reliable? John Loftus is a verified conspiracy theorist who has been called a fraud and a liar by academic historians. However, the book has been cited by many academic historians, like Michael Phayer (also cited in the article). Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The good thing is that we clearly attribute it in text. I spent a few minutes searching for a source which explicitly calls Loftus a verified conspiracy theorist or a "fraud and a liar" although there does seem to be widespread recognition that his framing of history is "conspiratorial" and heterodox I'm not finding anything that strong in a RS. You are right though that they do appear to be considered a marginal (but not fringe) part of the historical conversation so some use is likely warranted. IMO its more of a due weight question, it seems like it would be important to note Aarons and Loftus' view but I'm not sure how much more than that is appropriate. If you find those academic sources ping me and I will be happy to reevaluate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So I found an academic review of the book published in the Catholic Historical Review. It says that the book uses many questionable sources, like intelligence reports based on fabricated news items. It also states that the book is distorting the truth by making it look like the entire Vatican was involved in the ratlines. The review further states that the book claims that the Soviets were involved without much evidence. Altogether, the book is definitely a controversial one and its claims shouldn't make up half the article. However, the book isn't completely fabricated nonsense, even the book reviewer admits that the book "like other studies of its kind, it explains much", but we should definitely treat it with caution. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Catholic Historical Review is a conflicted source given its published by an institution ultimately responsible to the Catholic Church. It's a Catholic journal and I doubt it's going to agree with the accusations towards a literal saint (Pope Pius XII was canonized) of running Nazi ratlines especially when the catechism of the church considers speaking against saints to be blasphemous. This particular book review shouldn't be given any weight in light of that. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 02:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very true, but the fact that the book itself is controversial is undeniable. I also mentioned another book review in Slovene below. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; Pius XII has never been canonised. gnu 57 14:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For our purposes here there is no difference between Saint and Venerable, the conflict is the same. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Pope Venerable" links to List of canonised popes, so apologies for that incorrect exaggeration. I'm not a subject matter expert. Regardless, there's still a conflict of interest even if it's not as strong as I said. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 23:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also found a longer academic review of the book in Slovene by Janko Pleterski. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't read Slovene and the translation software I try to run freaks out at the unorthodox number of spaces in the document. What are the highlights? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I poked around JSTOR and Project MUSE and didn't find many reviews (note, the original edition has the subtitle How the Vatican's Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets). It doesn't appear that the German Studies Review reviewed it at all. I'd be interested to know what academic works have used it, in what context, and what, if any, source commentary is included. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Michael Phayer's Pius XII, The Holocaust, and the Cold War (heavily cited in the article) uses Unholy Trinity as one of its crucial source. Interestingly, the only negative review listed in the article for Phayer's book is by the same person that reviewed Unholy Trinity in the Catholic Historical Review, Vincent A. Lapomarda, but this time the review was published in the New Oxford Review, which isn't an academic journal and doesn't even claim to be unbiased. (From its website: "Keep High-Voltage Catholicism Alive") Mucube (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would never use a book that was not written by experts or not published by an academic publisher. Also, age matters and it was published in 1991. While it probably meets rs, editors should choose best sources. TFD (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that there are better sources out there, like Gerald Steinacher's Nazis on the Run, which is more recent (published in 2012), and published by Oxford University Press. (And of course, Steinacher is a real academic.) Mucube (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a long review essay in the Journal of Modern History in 2010. . It doesn't discuss Aarons and Loftus, but it does discuss two works by Phayer. On the question of ratlines, Patch says this:

"It remains unclear whether a few rogue priests took advantage of the naivete of their colleagues in an enormous charitable organization or whether the Vatican had decided that SS and Ustasha officers were a valuable resource in the struggle against Communism. Phayer embraces the latter interpretation but provides no direct evidence that high officials at the Vatican knowingly assisted war criminals in their flight from justice."

Patch's overall tone (he devotes several pages to Phayer, there are other instances) suggests that Phayer is advancing an interpretation that has not been widely accepted in the academic community. This doesn't go so much to reliability (although there is a suggestion that the sourcing for Phayer's arguments is thin in places) as to dueness and weight. If a review essay says that about Phayer in 2010, we shouldn't use Aarons and Loftus (originally from 1991) for anything other than attributed opinion. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. I don't know this book, but I know these authors. They are conspiracy theorists of the most unreliable kind. I met them first in their book "The Secret War against the Jews" which claims that British Intelligence keeps track of every Jew in the world, and similar bullshit. In addition, it has a long sequence of elementary facts wrong (one I recall is that Folke Bernadotte was "head of the International Red Cross"; nope). Loftus used to work for the US DOJ but was pushed out for his unreliability. Somewhere on the www (can't find it at the moment) is a very damning official report about him.  The Slovenian review points out some serious problems, including claims about the contents of documents that are not supported by the documents (check the final paragraph for an easy example). Zerotalk 00:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Daily Game
Is Daily Game a reliable source? — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 10:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I could not find any reliable sources discussing that mention this website. also does not give me much hope. The people mentioned are not journalists nor are subject matter experts. Plus, the bylines are pseudo-anonymous. I don't see any reason to consider this relatively unknown site as a reliable source. Carpimaps (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

National Health organizations and news sources for Endemic COVID-19
Discussions have been ongoing regarding the use of national health organization statements and the commentary provided by news organizations over at Endemic COVID-19. More participation would be appreciated. SmolBrane (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And already being discussed at WT:MED. Not sure why it's being raised here as "reliability" is not under discussion - the article is, rather, tagged for POV issues. Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it's not about the Steere Williams quote, it's about national announcements and WP:V.
 * Here Talk:Endemic_COVID-19 and
 * here Talk:Endemic_COVID-19 and
 * here Talk:Endemic_COVID-19.
 * - SmolBrane (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - the Steere-Williams quote is a separate matter and largely seems to be resolved in favor of inclusion. But the country-specific examples keep getting sporadically deleted, others get added, then some get deleted, etc. It's confusing and needs more eyes. Crossroads -talk- 22:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for citing this claim?
Here is the source:

Claim I am trying to cite is "Since 1994, Orvis has annually donated five percent of its pretax profits to conservation projects in cooperation with the Atlantic Salmon Federation, Nature Conservancy, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Ruffed Grouse Society, and Trout Unlimited among others."

in the article Orvis. Carpimaps (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Is anyone disputing this? The only problem I can imagine is a conflict of interest in case Orvis is a major sponsor of Trout Unlimited, whose site you want to use. Alaexis¿question? 12:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That source doesn't mention almost anything in the sentence you are citing it for. It's about a single, time-limited program Trout Unlimited from 3 years ago.  It doesn't say anything about 1994, nor does it mention any specific group except Trout Unlimited's Embrace a Stream, and it doesn't make it explicit that the Trout Unlimited program was part of that that 5% or in addition to it.  You can confirm that, for a few weeks in 2020, Orvis donated some $10 reimbursement coupons for people who donated to Trout Unlimited, and that Orvis as something called a "5 percent-for-conservation commitment" but doesn't elaborate on what that means.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Indian Times/Indian Times Express
I've been getting concerned about stuff like this. It reads like an extremely repetitive press release, and we're using it as an RS at Saurabh Khamar. Are we sure this isn't paid coverage? Valereee (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Almost surely paid coverage. From what I could find: the Indian Times Express site apparently cropped up sometime in January 2023, plays on the names of two established Indian newspapers, has no available information about the publishers etc, and seems to publish mainly fluff, which is then cited by the subject on their social media. Shouldn't be used as a source anywhere on wikipedia, let alone BLPs. Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Three other "sources" used at Saurabh Khamar have a similarly problematic profile: Hindustan Pioneer (again playing on two well-established Indian newspapers), Times Ticker, and Prime 247 with the first two "articles" being essentially copies of the one published in the Indian Times Express. IMO the article stinks of UPE and is speediable. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Commentary that calls out UGC in reliable sources
We know from WP:UGC (and by extension, MOS:FILMAUDIENCE) that user ratings published on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are not considered reliable. That much is clear, and these guidelines date back as far as 2013. What isn't as clear is how we treat this data when a significant number of reliable sources pick up on the scores and discuss them in detail. This is becoming increasingly common with newer films, where the disparity between critics and audiences (when it occurs) is getting called out.Please see the discussion at WT:FILM. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Is 1905.com considered a reliable source?
It is a movie website under CCTV-6, and it is currently a relatively authoritative movie website in mainland China. Can it be considered a relatively reliable source if it does not involve politics or conflict/controversy with the Chinese government? ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 08:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Care should be taken as films that are in sync with propaganda efforts might be buffed, and that extends beyond politics. The CCP take efforts to influence the perception of China, both in China and by the rest of the world. So the site might be useful for basic data (cast/release date/etc), but reviews would need to be handled more carefully. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Is Tweakers.net a reliable source?
Which of the following best describes Tweakers.net articles?


 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable

AFAIK Tweakers.net has not been discussed here. It has been cited a lot. Concern was expressed here: Draft_talk:Privacy_Guides, but the declared COI editor and I did not agree. Although Tweakers site lists editors and appears to have editorial staff, I found a article like this to be troubling because it was submitted by a person with obvious COI, and that person was extensively quoted; it was cited in Draft:Privacy_Guides. Without extensive review of the website, to me it appears similar to Reddit, or a large group blog. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * News are written by Tweakers staff. Sources like other sites or press releases are cited.
 * Reviews are written either by editors ("reviews door de redactie") or users ("gebruikersreviews"). They are clearly marked.
 * The specific article you mention was written by Olaf van Miltenburg, at the time news coordinator ("Nieuwscoördinator") for Tweakers (he is now Planning Editor at Wageningen University).The article is based on information posted by PrivacyGuides team members on Reddit. The "Update" was written by the founder of PrivacyGuides. So it definitely is not independent.
 * I can't comment on the general quality or reliability of the news or the editor reviews. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This RfC is malformed; it's not proportionate go straight from a 1-on-1 draft notability dispute to an RfC here (especially since Tweakers was only discussed in two posts, in total, in that "dispute"). Talk page disputes can be brought up here, in normal discussions (not RfCs), and discussed by the wider community. Generally, RfCs are only held after several non-RfC discussions have been held, or if the source is very obviously unreliable (as in, written by AI, not this site). DFlhb (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above that this RFC is premature, this looks to be generalizing from a single use in a single dispute. We should probably have some evidence this source is frequently under dispute before considering it in the general.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tweakers.net has been discussed almost a couple dozen times over the years. I was mostly going by what Tweakers says about it, although Wikipedia is not reliable, and the one questionable link I spot checked. Wikipedia does not describe Tweakers as a news publishing organization; it is described as a technology website featuring news, etc. It also gives "Tweakers Awards" where members choose the best products, which is thus user-generated content. Of other Discussions, there is a mix of positive and negative comments by editors, although it is not always clear on reliability opinions. This was the most detailed discussion I saw, and it looks like Option 2 - Additional Considerations or worse because of affiliate links etc. I was hoping someone with more familiarity with Tweakers and reliable sourcing would have more informed opinions to give here. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claim "as been discussed almost a couple dozen times" is not borne out by your link. It shows that the text string "tweakers.net" has appeared a couple of dozen times on pages in the Talk: namespace.  A quick spotcheck of several shows that the vast majority of the times that text string appeared was as a bare external link, with no "discussion" about reliability, and that most of what is left seems to be naming the site without discussing its reliability.  I'm not going to comb every link there to find perhaps an actual discussion, but my quick check says that such discussions have happened rarely and/or superficially if ever.  Can you indicate some specific discussions where the site's reliability has been discussed and where it is a point of contention?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My "your link" is to the wiki-standard "Discussion" search. Please interpret my "has been discussed" as your "has appeared on Discussion pages", then look at the other links I already provided above, particularly the last one, which had more lengthy discussion, or commenting, or whatever semantic representation is preferred. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll add some of my observations here. More for future reference than for the RfC, which doesn't seem to be taken up.
 * Their editorial statute ("Redactiestatuut") looks good to me.
 * Editor reviews ("reviews door de redactie") and user reviews ("gebruikersreviews") are clearly distinguished.
 * Their news are written by staff and sources are appropriately cited/linked. As is normal for this kind of page a lot of the news is information of the type "company x has announced the coming release of product y" which are basically reports about press releases. Obviously this has to be taken into account to determine the independence of news articles on a case by case basis.
 * I see no reason to consider Tweakers generally unreliable. Obviously the user generated content, e.g. user reviews and forum posts are unreliable, but they are clearly marked. News has to be checked for independence on a case by case basis by looking at the sources which often are press releases. To evaluate overall quality and reliability we would need people who are more familiar with the site to weigh in. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good summary of the situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians
Hi, this is about. Mind you: I don't dispute the claim, I dispute the source.

Let me be very clear: the regime would not have published that book if it didn't overtly support National-Communism. We don't use that book for the same reason we don't use Russian propaganda outlets, or North-Korean propaganda outlets. The Romanian National-Communist regime is dead, its propaganda machine is dead, and it is highly ridiculous to get offended by such reality. Many of the facts from that book could be accurate, but generally speaking National-Communism has heavily corrupted historiography and the social sciences. So, that renders the source unreliable. Since even works which had little to do with official ideology were censored of any ideologically inconvenient idea. That's what "totalitarianism" means: very thorough ideological censorship.

National-Communism destroyed my country and tyrannized my education. I didn't forget and I didn't forgive. Thus, I have no mercy for its ideological propaganda. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Read wp:soap, even you accept the source might be accurate, so you seem to only object to its politics. That is not enough to declare it not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it is basically a propaganda book. I did not know those would amount to WP:HISTRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it, according to who? Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to everyone who knows what sort of books were published in the Socialist Republic of Romania. WP:BLUE.
 * See e.g. at Teahouse/Questions/Archive 948 how it ended for someone pushing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
 * Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Der Braune Meyer &mdash;I see no real difference, all propaganda works. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Slatersteven! I can show you an example: The national-communist Romanian government celebrated the 2050th!!! anniversary of Romanian state in 1980 in North Korea style :D In the school the history books had this title "The Ancient and Medieval history of Romania" (Ancient times = Sumerians, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans…) In the first page: "The Romanian communist party appreciates history, the education of the young people...we learn to appreciate and love even more the achievements of our socialist present" and of course it was in the first page the picture of Comrade Ceausescu the communist dictator (his wife had only 4 elementary school and was awarded several titles like professor titles, and this incident happens in the UK regarding her: ) This fake map was made in 1980 by the national-communist Romanian academy: Title: "Romania 800-1300", we can see half of the Kingdom of Hungary until Tisza river is part of this Romania state in the map, which is clearly a distortion of Hungarian history if we google international history maps: International history maps do not know about those Romanian state in that huge area between 800-1300:1, 2, 3 First Romanian states, Wallachia was established in 1330 and Moldavia in 1345: 4. The existence of that example fake map (there are many more) testify how unreliable the national-communist sources.
 * British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant write in his book: "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos.
 * Unfortunatelly some user want to put fake maps which created in the same spirit in the English Wikipedia in 2023: OrionNimrod (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh now if historians question it, that is different. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that everything from these three books is a lie, or that these are completely bereft of every genuine historical fact. But these are not the sources we should WP:CITE for WP:V historical claims for Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that are not RS, correct? As it seems historians have agreed they are not we can'tuse them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am saying these are not WP:RS. And I have attacked them at the highest abstraction level. attacked the book in respect to its factual claims.
 * The truth is that for a large chunk of the history of the Romanian people written evidence is from poor to non-existent. That makes all historical reconstructions of some periods equally fanciful. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of new sources that do not fall under the category of WP:DEPRECATED and WP:BIASED that we could use instead of this. For example From Latin to Romanian by M. Sala. Not to mention the theories in the Communist source are largely inaccurate, no longer used or not of academic interest. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Use newer source. Although some Communist era books about history/other societal subjects can be considered as reliable sources (I don't know the situation of Romanian historiography, so only general Czechoslovak POV here), any information concerning the regime mythology (which seems to be the case here) is entirely unusable (in short, then scholars were obliged to shut-down their brains and repeat the regime dogmas, or face consequences). Pavlor (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Unreliable - Anything of a political nature (including all of Romanian history) published under the Ceaușescu regime is highly dubious, since such books will have been heavily censored and edited to fit within the communist ideology of the day, and include highly fanciful stuff designed to praise the then-leaders. This no different. If the claim is true, find a better source saying the same thing. If the claim can only be sourced to a book like this one, then it is not reliably sourced and should not be included.
 * tgeorgescu correctly identifies the issues based not just on their lived experience of the Ceaușescu years (which should be respected, if not regarded as decisive) but also on historical grounds. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Wccftech articles
Seems to be used across a wide range technology articles e.g. Zen 5, Template:AMD Ryzen Mobile 7040 series, Tesla Autopilot, iPhone 7, Nathan Drake (Uncharted), Music of Rocket League, Kiki Wolfkill. But afaik they have a reputation for a lot of their articles being based on rumours, others appearing to be a direct copy and paste from other sources  - but others are direct interviews with the person in question. They also appear to be considered unreliable and have been banned from some subreddits. - nathanielcwm (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC) - nathanielcwm (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Nathanielcwm
 * I would agree with you and other commenters here. Wccftech is known to be a rumour mill and many of their articles are based on speculation or "leaks" - basically unverified information. The whole purpose of Wiki is to publish reliable info. I guess we can consider WP:SELFPUB but this would be for well known experts in a field, not speculative information...
 * Starlights99 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Prior discussions have mentioned it as being situational with some editors considering it to be a reliable source and others as an unreliable rumour mill: Articles for deletion/Xenia (emulator), Articles_for_deletion/GeForce_11_series, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_19, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_21, Articles_for_deletion/Fudzilla_(2nd_nomination)

- nathanielcwm (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Uses as a source seems to be used over 400 times as a source across the en Wikipedia. - nathanielcwm (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's an unreliable rumour mill but I've occasionally found it useful for stuff. Rumours of pay for play. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using it as a Wikipedia source if there was the slightest contention about a point, or as evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are sometimes a source for rumors. Before adding something to perennial sources, let's see specific examples of questionable articles. Right now I'd lean toward "situationally reliable, not reliable for contentious or extraordinary claims". Tech fields are not rife with contentious material but certainly we don't want to state things as fact that are only rumors. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be listed as inconclusive on WP:VGRS - nathanielcwm (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I dread finding Wccftech sources in articles because it usually means there wasn't anything better. They'll basically cover anything, which raises concerns about pay for play. The site is such a mixed bag, with some experienced journalists but plenty of amateurs repeating other, more reputable outlets. But I hesitate to call them "situational" because it's mostly bad. I'd consider citing an article written by a recognized expert, essentially a WP:SELFPUB carveout. But they're generally unreliable and shouldn't be used for contentious claims or to establish notability. If the author cites another outlet, use them instead. Woodroar (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 for treating this as unreliable. Woodroar is right that there is almost always a better source when referencing something reliable. When this is the only source, they're usually reporting rumor or primary sources without any critical thought. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Alderney UFO sighting
A deletion discussion is ongoing regarding the page 2007 Alderney UFO sighting which may be relevant to the topic of this board. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Masalha source
In Masalha book Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History, he makes it out that the Jewish people are not indigenous to the land a through Zionism, they colonised Palestinian land, this is obviously not a great source as yes while you may have critique over how Zionism led to the eventual creation of the State of Israel in how Zionism got the State of Israel created and as well all know critique is a good thing, it is dubious to say that Jewish people have colonised Palestinian land as there is plenty of archeological evidence which gives evidence of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, the book also makes it out to claim as a uniquely Palestinian City while neglecting the fact that it was under the Hasmonean Dynasty and is where a part of the Jewish revolt takes place, I give an extract from his book: The capital of Byzantine Palestine and of Palaestina Prima was Caesarea-Palaestina, 'Caesarea of Palestine' (von Suchem 1971: 7, 111; 2013; Gilman et al. 1905). This city was also called 'Caesarea by the Sea', or Caesarea Maritima. Since the creation of Israel in 1948 historians in the West have tended to avoid referring to the historic name of the Palestinian city, Caesarea-Palaestina, and use only the name Caesarea Maritima. This seems to imply that Caesarea was only a Palestinian City when in fact it fell under multitude of kingdoms, in fact the inhabitants to Caesarea up to 1948 only arrived in 630-700 CE in the Islamic conquest who claim the name of Palestinian. I shall provide you of a source where before this current ‘Palestinian City’ was established in fact the name Palestine in contrast to his book is not referring to a people when referred to academics but is the Greek name for Philistine which was eventually applied to the whole of the Land of Israel/Judea. The source I shall provide gives evidence that it was not a city belonging to a Palestinian People, but a Jewish City when it was established by King Herod. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/vie-caesarea There is also archeological evidence to back this up. While such Masalha’s book may have some legitimate criticisms of Zionism this extract in particular is twisted in a way but those who source it that seems to suggest Caesarea was a city belonging to a unique Palestinian People and that it had no Jewish history. As such I propose that source be removed from the Caesarea article as it seems to be twisted in this context to suggest that Jews have no history in Caesarea. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, the sole source that you have quoted here to make your case is itself an unreliable source. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nur Masalha is a reliable source, even if biased. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is that? Salandarianflag (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as the result of a past discussion at this exact same venue. That's how it works. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What words do you have to this? Can you really use Masalha’s source to claim that there was never a Jewish population in Caesarea. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that a claim that has been made? I'm not aware of it, and you haven't sourced it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the claim I’m making is that Caesarea had been inhabited by Jews and was not colonised. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, but my question is, where have you shown that Masalha says otherwise? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source currently claims that Caesarea was a Palestinian City belonging to a Palestinian People, this is not true as par the sources. I don’t know if that’s what exactly was quoted in his book but that’s how is formatted as and I have been trying to remove it as such. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You say it calls it a Palestinian city in the sense of being in Palestine. If that's the extent of the problem, then I think the actual problem might be your interpretation, not the source itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No my concern is that his book is about Zionism being the new colonialism to the average reader when clicking on such a source, they may think that the city belonged to an indigenous Palestinian people that where chucked out by Jews. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that Zionism is a form a colonialism is a viable intellectual position, so if Masalha held that opinion (still needs establishing), I'm still not sure what the problem is. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn’t meant to hold positions though, it’s meant to be neutral, while he may be an academic, Wikipedia needs to stay key to its principles of being neutral and cannot come from a position of Anti-Zionism. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about a source, which you are meant to be raising concrete problems with, not moaning about the fact the author has opinions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ... refusing to cite sources that may be anti-zionist is inherently a condemnation of anti-zionism and an endorsement of zionism. It would also lead to us citing only zionist sources (which Im sure you would prefer, but wouldnt fall under nuetrality) Googleguy007 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll offer another compromise, how about we also include the term Land of Israel as well if we are to include Palestinian in referring to the land, which will clear up any issues about the context it was issued in. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread is about you questioning the source's reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we compromise, you can keep the wording but find another source from another more neutral academic source. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve brought in a different source instead https://www.historyhit.com/locations/caesarea/ proves the same exact point what more do you want? Salandarianflag (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Something not sourced straight from a pop history website would be a good start. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then check the Encyclopaedia Britannica source, I find that you never look at the source and you always have a precedent to dismiss them without checking which I find is very arrogant. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing with yourself. You have not actually shown in the first place what Masalha is supposed to have said that you actually believe is problematic. That is where this needs to start off. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like you to know that I have not made my claims of baseless reasons and that I have sourced everything that I have said it’s all there for you to go and read if you wish to. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that his book basically says Zionism is Colonialism as such I find this a highly problematic wording which seems to violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view IN THIS CONTEXT, while it may not do so in other contexts in this particular one it breaks Wikipedia’s neutral view ‘historians in the West have tended to avoid referring to the historic name of the Palestinian city’ since the context of the book is based around a history of a Palestine and rejects many Jewish texts, from this point of view it seems to suggest a Palestinian People living in the city which is just plainly wrong. This is why I am so vigilant about having the source replaced. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not required to be neutral; no source is neutral. That's not what WP:NPOV is about. Neutrality is maintained within article's by balancing reliable sources. This is a noticeboard for questioning a source's fundamental reliability, not its biases. And you haven't presented sources doing that. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but the context in which the source is quoted in is biased. ‘Not mentioning the City by Caesarea Palestina since the establishment of Israel’ is a clearly biased statement which is branched out of the source and as such because the source is used in that context it violates Wikipedia’s NPOV. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that's your opinion. No one needs that. What you need to do is find a reliable sources, i.e.: an academic review article, raising problems with Masalha's work. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it’s not my opinion since I didn’t edit that Wikipedia section. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.tarb.co.il/the-distortion-of-palestine/ Now actually read and don’t dismiss it again without a reason like you did last time. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Find an academic review, not an irrelevant blogger. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are so arrogant, he holds a degree in this and is a trained academic, why are you so arrogant that you cannot even spare a time to look at source when I have done what you asked. Is this just laziness? Salandarianflag (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He has a masters; he is not an academic. Spare me the mock outrage, and hold fire on the insults - those will get you in real trouble, WP:NPA. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that I have two academic sources that throw the reliability of the source in question into question I suggest that source and context is removed until sufficient compromise is found otherwise. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now what you need to do is find a justifiable reason to refute this critique. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source cannot be reliable because of the context it is placed around is my basic point which requires the removal of the source and the context, since the two didn’t correlate as was mentioned the source refers to a Palestinian City and this context refers to the City’s name being changed in modern interpretations. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you been under a rock this entire time: I sent you an article by Alex Stein who was an academic but you rejected it without reading it and regurgitated another user’s statement claiming he wasn’t an academic even though he is, as par with his biography. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he’s reliable enough don’t you think? Alex Stein holds a First-class honors degree in History from the University of Manchester and an M.Phil in International Relations from the University of Cambridge. Salandarianflag (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, an academic source means one published on an academic platform, i.e.: not a self-published blog. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh when was this a definition of an academic source, did you just make that up now? Salandarianflag (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I am actually thoughtful I have found another platform if you are not satisfied but given your precedent I doubt you will be satisfied with this too http://heebmagazine.com/lyin-of-judah-review-of-nur-masalhas-palestine-a-four-thousand-year-history/58307 Salandarianflag (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes and the reviews also supporting him were on blogs so are you going to discredit that as well? Salandarianflag (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. Heeb appears to basically be Nuts for Jews. "Our newsletter is a mishmosh of culture, religion, and crack cocaine." Real scholarly stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, for the love of God, stop scraping desperately at the bottom of the barrel and just read the academic reviews that I already provided:, Iskandar323 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you with the lines I am concerned about in the source. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * it was rebuilt and enlarged in 22–10 BCE by Herod the Great, king of Judea under the Romans from Britannica, also btw Herod practised Judaism. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia really this low where I have to bring encyclopaedia Britannica as a source https://www.britannica.com/place/Caesarea Salandarianflag (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself shows the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate who was the Governor of Roman Judea and is mentioned as such in literature by ancient sources such as Philo of Alexandria and Pontius Pilate is literally inscribed on Caesarea’s Roman Theatre so to suggest that Jews have no history there is ludicrous. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Is somebody seriously challenging the editor of Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, published by Edinburgh University Press, and author of a number of widely cited books and articles on the history of Palestine and Israel? Personally find that to be evidence of either a CIR issue or a POV-pushing one, Masalha is a clearly reliable source. If he says something that other sources dispute, attribute them both. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Somewhat my fault. I did tell them to take it to WP:RSN, but I meant it in the largely rhetorical "try your ridiculous line of argumentation at RSN" sense, not the "please do blithely take it to RSN despite not understanding source quality" sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Pre-empting the question about whether this source is relevant to the topic of the article we are discussing, see the index references of what is a 386-page book: In other words, the topic of our article Caesarea Maritima represents a very significant component of this book, including the subject of a number of detailed sub-chapters. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Caesarea Maritima (Qaysariah): 4, 15, 37–8, 40–1, 48, 65, 68, 86, 93–4, 96–103, 105–9, 111–13, 115–16, 120–2, 124–6, 128, 130, 137, 140–1, 146, 158–9, 162, 165–8, 170, 178, 187, 194–5, 197, 199, 368, 424n15, 426n6; capital of Palaestina Prima, 40, 93, 99, 102; first capital Jund Filastin, 96; home of the Founding Fathers of the Church, 100–3, 106–7; largest and most important city in Byzantine Palestine, 94, 102; library of, 101; seat of classical learning and cultural centre, 48, 94, 99–102
 * Caesarea‐Palaestina (‘Caesarea of Palestine’), 4, 37–8, 40–1, 68, 86, 93–4, 96–103, 105–9, 111, 115–16, 122, 124–6, 141, 162, 168, 195–7, 201–2, 217, 274, 368
 * Library of Caesarea‐Palaestina, 40–1, 93, 101–2, 121
 * See of Caesarea‐Palaestina, 106, 113, 116, 162
 * Unambiguously a strong and relevant source. Published by Bloomsbury, plus the author is an established subject matter expert. If the concern is that it only represents one viewpoint, the solution is to find different views published in equally reliable sources, not to remove this one. It might be helpful for the proposer to read the guidance on what makes a source reliable – it's not what you personally think of it (or even whether other sources contradict it, as sources can disagree). Jr8825  •  Talk  05:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree but just to pedantically note it was published by Zed Books, not Bloomsbury, in 2018. Zed had a strong reputation but was not an academic publisher. Like Verso or Pluto, it was a radical publisher with a strong perspective (although of course bias is not unreliability). Bloomsbury took on Zed’s list in 2020. I don’t think this changes the case, but just wanted to clarify. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Pretty much a top level source, a history written by an academic with a relevant specialsation, who is employed by SOAS. SOAS is probably the most prestigious university in the UK when it comes to questions relating to the Middle East. If the original poster has problems with a particular statement appearing in the article, they best they are going to get is attribution. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This query appears to be entirely based on the fact that the original poster doesn't like the conclusions that the source comes to. On the other hand, the author, Nur Masalha, is an academic in the relevant field who works at a globally-recognised university, is the editor of a relevant academic journal, and several books published by reputable presses. This particular book is recent and published by Zed Books, an imprint of Bloomsbury's academic division, a reputable academic publisher.  This seems like an excellent source for claims about the history of Palestine.  As the subject is so contentious, there may well be cases where other viewpoints need to be included for balance, but the claim that this isn't a reliable source in general would need extraordinarily strong evidence. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Zed books is an ideology-driven publisher that describes itself as having “the common goal of giving voice to people, places, issues and ideas at the margins.” Sources published under that label should be viewed with skepticism, as should any source published by an openly ideology-driven publisher. (For a right-wing example, DW Books). Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If Masalha wrote this on a soiled piece of toilet paper it would remain a reliable source based solely on his qualifications. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no ... Giving voice to marginalized subjects ... The horror! Seems like a rather admirable mission. Not sure how it's an ideology, or how having a perfectly reasonable scope like that would be a reliability issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Ideas at the margins” aka WP:Fringe, and to be specific, they’re a leftist publisher and the margins referred to are the margins of leftist thought. They’re not publishing the equivalent “marginalized” right-wing authors. Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim above re “margins of leftist thought” is an incorrect characterization, unsupported by sources describing Zed Books.
 * The publisher focuses on the developing world; in global academia the voices from the developing world are unfortunately underrepresented. Per WP:WORLDVIEW, helping to counter this underrepresentation is an important part of Wikipedia's mission. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is someone’s essay, it is not part of Wikipedia’s mission. It’s also factually incorrect to say Zed books is focused on the developing world. It is a leftist publisher, it is not focused on the developing world, nor are most of its titles. Drsmoo(talk) 22:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You write It’s also factually incorrect to say Zed books is focused on the developing world. It is a leftist publisher, it is not focused on the developing world, nor are most of its titles.
 * When Bloomsbury bought Zed, they wrote: The acquired Zed titles are a good strategic fit with Bloomsbury's existing publishing lists, whilst strengthening its offerings in African Studies and Development Studies. With the combined lists of Zed and I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury is now a leader in academic Area Studies publishing. The Acquisition also enhances Bloomsbury's Politics and International Relations list… We are delighted to become the new guardian of the prestigious and progressive Zed list... Over 40 years, Zed has built up a unique presence in African and Development Studies, an area we wish to grow.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=_AtkDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT205&dq=%22zed+books+is%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPy_3B3fT-AhUgMlkFHQ0wDOwQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false -They describe themselves as committed to “progressive social change”
 * https://thisishell.com/interviews/847-jonathan-maunder-huw-lemmey
 * An interview with two directors of communication at Zed Books - “We want some radical, progressive and leftist ideas to spread. That’s our real imperative.”
 * That is how they describe themselves. Their top two tags on librarything are “politics” and “radical thought”. And it’s self-evident looking at their catalog. Drsmoo (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There seems to be clear consensus that Masalha in this book is reliable for this statement. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://thisishell.com/interviews/847-jonathan-maunder-huw-lemmey
 * An interview with two directors of communication at Zed Books - “We want some radical, progressive and leftist ideas to spread. That’s our real imperative.” Drsmoo (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A book about ancient history is radical, progressive and leftist. Really? Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not “misrepresenting” themselves. Anything published by a publisher whose stated goal is to advocate an ideology should be viewed with scrutiny and not implicitly accepted as reliable.
 * In the case of this book, it’s a work advocating a viewpoint, not simply a book on history. With that said, Wikipedia can and does handle sources with conflicting viewpoints.Drsmoo (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This section is about Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History by Nur Masalha. If youd like to try to deprecate anything published by Zed Books I wish you good fortune in that quest, but kindly stay on topic here. There is consensus against your position, that should plainly obvious to all, including you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo is right that Zed (like a Pluto or Verso) is partisan. But bias is not unreliability and Zed is not fringe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And indeed if there is a countervailing right-wing position on the topic which can be supported by equally reliable sources that can also be included in the article. But the fact that Zed Books is a leftist publishing imprint is not sufficient to rule Masalha's book unreliable.  Nor does the leftwing/rightwing binary uncomplicatedly map onto views on Israel/Palestine, so even the fact that Zed Books claims to be leftist does not necessarily demonstrate that they are inherently partisan in a way which is relevant to this article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per RS, sources can be assessed for reliability in terms of individual work, author, and publisher. In this comment, I will address the publisher, Zed Books. My rough conclusion is that Zed lends a work neither positive nor negative weight with respect to the RS question: they seem to play a curatorial, not editorial, role in their editing process, a typical arrangement for general-purpose publishers. Unlike some of the higher-tier academic or general publishers, Zed does not seem to do fact-checking or peer review beyond the author's say-so. Assessing Zed's process seems useful because 1) there is considerable consternation above regarding Zed, and I don't see clear communication about this question, and 2) because Zed has not been assessed at RSN, so we lack precedent. Here are the components that underlie my determination:
 * Zed describes its editorial process as of 2018 on this page (PDF) and its manuscript guidelines on this page. These guidelines suggest that most editing and fact-checking is the responsibility of the author, and that the role of the Zed editor is to check in and ask whether the house style guide has been followed. The house style guide mostly concerns layout. Where it concerns factual accuracy, it is in the context of the 'libel guidelines' section. Here as well, the guideline puts responsibility mostly in the author's domain. The guidelines suggests that the the most extreme case--potential defamation--Zed recommends that the author communicate with their editor about factual issues.
 * Of somewhat lower importance than the actual editorial process, a publicly-described editorial board with good credentials is a plus. After poking around the archived site, I found only an acquisitions contact on the About page. I seem to recall mention somewhere that this publishing house had a fairly small pool of editors, maybe five, prior to its acquisition. Unfortunately, I can't find where I saw that description.
 * This suggests that this work is better assessed in terms of the author and specific work, rather than in terms of the publisher, since the publisher lends a fairly neutral valence to assessment of this work's reliability. Freelance-frank (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming this thread remains open, I will add comments regarding the author and specific work in coming days. Freelance-frank (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Kings and Generals YouTube channel
I recently removed several references to the Kings and Generals YouTube channel, and associated podcast, a couple of examples. I didn't think this was controversial, however started a thread on my talk page that has me in two minds. So I thought I would bring it here for me input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So who it is by? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely clear on that, but as NL post here show it has garnered more attention than I would expect of a history YouTube channel -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested I appreciate it! I should add that I personally nominated Kings and Generals for deletion in September 2022: Articles for deletion/Kings and Generals. My argument then was (in part): Although Kings and Generals itself most probably qualifies as a reliable source (and I have used it as such on occasion), it (unfortunately) is most likely not mentioned in enough other reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV) to be notable enough for its own article. That happens all the time. A source may be reliable enough to be used as a source, but not notable enough for its own article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * September 2022 was also before the 2 reliable sources that reviewed K&G positively were published, and of which I've cited excerpts on ActivelyDisinterested's talk page. I'm not arguing we should re-create the article now, I'm just saying Kings and Generals is reliable enough to be used as a source. It won't be as accurate as a journal article or a scholarly book (those should be preferred if available), but it definitely will be more accurate than your average mainstream newspaper article about historical events, developments or situations. I'd never use just K&G alone, but it's a valuable resource that can complement other reliable sources to paint a complete picture. E.g. details that a scholarly book or journal paper might have missed about the same subject, but we have no reason to doubt as to accuracy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For completeness, this is my explanation copypasted from ActivelyDisinterested's talk page:
 * Andi Stix, Frank Hrbek, Walking Through History: Constitution & the New Government, Westward, and Civil War (2023) Taylor & Francis. A standard work for the education of U.S. students, and Kings and Generals is one of the recommended YouTube educational channels that can teach students about history.
 * Martin Nikolov, Is YouTube History an Effective tool for Teaching History to Secondary Schoolers? (2022). Tilburg University. A bachelor thesis comparing the educational value of 5 popular YouTube channels, with K&G as the most popular one. Nikolov wrote: In the field of accuracy Kings and Generals make sure to research their videos by having the writers of each piece be also the ones who research it, as shown by them often answering questions in the video comments. In case of the artwork, the content creators present the art team with historical information so that they are able to make it in the most accurate manner possible. This can be confirmed by comparing it to depictions of clothing, armour and other in encyclopaedias and academic papers. (...)
 * Furthermore, it is important to mention the fact that Kings and Generals attempt to portray both sides in cases of wars. This may take place in a single video or by making several videos on the same topic from different points of view. An example for the latter would be their series on the first crusade, in which they give the western, Muslim and Byzantine sides of the conflict with their respective accents in the same manner and detail. (...) When a contradiction in sources is apparent, they specifically state all alternative interpretations while stating which is which in an attempt to give viewers all possible sides and allow them to weigh the elements for themselves. They also motivate their own chosen version of events with an explanation to why. (...)
 * Stemming from the previous point about accuracy, arises K&G’s biggest problem – their lack of sourcing. This is especially visible in cases where they compare contradicting sourcing or cite a researcher as these are usually the only moments when viewers get the opportunity to know where the information comes from. Besides them, there are no in-video sources provided in the form of annotations or pop-ups, and no sources in the video descriptions. (...) One other case where sources can be discovered are when their research team go into a video’s comments to answer questions or to give additional information or corrections to the video itself. (..)
 * This is in line with my experience of K&G. They don't always say where they got their information from, but when they do and you look it up, it's accurate. If you compare what they say without mentioning their sources to a reputable source, it's usually also very accurate (with some mistakes here and there, of course). I've never caught them making a big error. I only sometimes find them basing themselves on otherwise reliable sources that may not have faithfully translated the primary sources into English. Like, Urban's Letter to His Supporters in Bologna, September 1096 First Crusade in Bologna was quoted as saying : Nor should young married men rashly set out on the journey without the consent of their spouses. This is evidently quoted from University of Pennsylvania emeritus professor Edward Peters (scholar), The First Crusade: "The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres" and Other Source Materials (1998) [1971]. I knew that the words "consent" and "spouses" would probably be an anachronism that wouldn't be used in 11th-century Latin, so I checked the original source, which is actually on Latin Wikisource, Epistolae_et_privilegia_(Urbanus_II)/5 ("CCX"), and it said: Juvenibus etiam conjugatis providendum est ne temere tantum iter sine conniventia uxorum suarum aggrediantur. Being the Wikipedian-historian that I am, I went to create s:Translation:Pope Urban II's letter to Bologna to make it more accurate just for this sentence alone, which I translated as: Care must also be taken for young married men not to rashly embark on such a journey while turning a blind eye to their wives. "Wives" rather than "spouses", "not turning a blind eye to" rather than "without the consent of". That means: women didn't get a say, husbands didn't need their "consent" (approval, permission) to go on Crusade, they just need to arrange that they be looked after if they went on Crusade anyway.
 * That's it. All these years, this is one of the biggest errors I managed to find in all of Kings and Generals documentaries. And it's not even directly their fault, they trusted a translation of an emeritus professor of history who we find so important that we've dedicated a BLP to him: Edward Peters (scholar). It's only because I know Latin and have specialised so much in the term "consent" that I happened to spot this error. That K&G should better indicate their sources is something Nikolov and I agree on, but that the content itself is reliable, accurate, NPOV, educational, etc. is not really in doubt. (/copypasted from ActivelyDisinterested's talk page). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source, as far as I can tell there are no experts involved in the YouTube channel and they produce low quality content. Kind of shocked that someone would try to use them as a source. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * on AD's talk page you claim that the channel is run by "a team of historians" but I'm not seeing any credentials associated with these guys. The founders/producer/writers Nolan Karimov and Ilkin Gambar aren't historians. The voice actors who do the narration aren't historians. Their artists aren't historians. So where on this team are the historians? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The historians who researched and wrote each script are always mentioned in the credits at the end and usually in the description. The most common ones are Matt Hollis and Leo Stone. The current series on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is researched and written by Turgut Gambar. Peter Voller also appears to be a regular. Ivan Moran & Craig Watson are co-authoring the Pacific War series. Occasional historians/writers have included Chris Stewart and David Muncan. And so on. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The IMBD pages don't have qualifications for those two. Turgut Gambar is not a historian nor do they claim to be on their LinkedIn. Peter Voller has a degree in history but isn't a practicing or published historian. Not able to find info on Chris Stewart and David Muncan. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as they have publicly accessible profiles on LinkedIn, they are highly qualified historians. Turgut Gambar and Peter Voller in particular are more qualified than I am, actually. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something, what qualifications does Gambar have? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Master of Arts - MA, Theory and Practice of Human Rights from the University of Essex. Link is here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And that makes him a "highly qualified historian" how? The only real "qualification" I'm seeing is that he shares a last name with one of the two founders. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well not in history in general, but human rights and contemporary history are closely related fields of study, as are law and history in general. The study of legal texts and the legal aspects of events and institutions are very closely related. As a historian I work with or use the texts of jurists all the time, and vice versa. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but you made a claim that they were a "highly qualified historian" not that they were an expert in human rights. So far you've established that only one member of a team which you claimed was composed exclusively of historians is a historian. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Hollis, Stone, Voller, Moran, Watson, Stewart and Muncan share a last name with Gambar, too? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I shouldn't have implied they 'are a team of historians' as if every single crew member is a historian. They have a team of historians. Better? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One does not a team make, who are the other historians besides Voller? The others who get writing credits in the IMDB link are Ilkin Gambar, Matt Hollis, Leo Stone, Ivan Moran, Johan Melhus, and Ilkin Turgut. Of those Hollis is the only one who looks like they might be a historian, although the commonness of the name leaves that question open (there are in fact two practicing academics named Matthew Hollis, but I can't find anything that links either of them to Kings and Generals). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're correct that the narrator, Officially Devin, is not a historian. He is a Master of Physics. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. There are a number of popular history, science, math youtube channels and podcasts that can be perfectly good for edutainment purposes but that doesn't make them reliable sources on wikipedia. If they cite their sources (scholarly articles and books), look them up and cite them instead. If they don't, ever more the reason not to rely on such media for creating encyclopedic content. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Edutainment, not reliable I was a bit shocked at their series on Julius Caesar, which reeks of the pop-history trope (one might say, Caesarian propoganda) of "look how great Caesar is". I'm not knocking them, because I think people who make history accessible are great, but there are just too many flaws for use as a reliable source. I'm assuming they get their research from reliable sources (I would hope), just use those sources instead. Curbon7 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up my post, I removed the original references without consideration (thinking it uncontentious). I've watched King and Generals videos, and they're good although I've had doubts with a couple of them. The posts to my talk page made me wonder if I should have given them some consideration, but I still don't see them as a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Unreliable  I can't believe we need to have a discussion about this. YouTube channels for the purpose of entertainment are not reliable sources. There are a multitude of other entertainment-focused history sources that are unusable for similar reasons. Any topic covered by K&G is going to have a multitude of academic or news sources covering it, so I don't see why they would be used to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason to cite them. For anything that would be cited to them, either the fact is so broadly accepted it should be trivial to source to a much better source, or alternatively it is not broadly accepted at which point an edutainment youtube channel is not going to cut it as a source. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol wut? Kings and Generals make interesting videos, but I can't imagine there is anything in their videos that cannot also be found in the academic literature. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well... I must concede. As the editor who raised the assertion that Kings and Generals would be reliable enough to be used as a source, I must say that this inquiry is a bit of an embarrassment to me. I thought it was going to be relatively easy to demonstrate K&G's reliability. I'm a long-time but critical follower of this channel, and have seen them grow and professionalise over the course of years. I've been cautiously using some of their more recent documentaries with exact timestamps as a source, always in conjunction with more scholarly sources. I regarded the two reviews that I posted on ActivelyDisinterested's talk page as a vindication of their increased reliability, even if Nikolov is still very critical of their sourcing practices. But I never really delved into the production team's relevant academic/scholarly credentials, and although Horse Eye's Back's sharp critique in this regard was at times uncomfortably snarky, it was on point.
 * The general commentary here that it should be regarded as "edutainment" rather than "educational" is probably the most reasonable assessment. I guess I should try harder finding scholarly sources that support the same claims that Kings and Generals documentaries are making instead of trusting them as a source. In the meantime, my hope/expectation that they will one day be professional enough to be regarded as RS shall remain wishful thinking as long as it cannot be demonstrated by reviews or credentials. I should thank especially ActivelyDisinterested and Horse Eye&#39;s Back for challenging me to be more critical of a fascinating historical documentary series that I really appreciated, but overestimated as a reliable source. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. I watch the channel and enjoy it, but it is clearly edutainment, and it doesn't really have the hallmarks of a reliable source.  Its videos don't really have anything not widely available elsewhere, nor do we know much about the bona fides of the channel's producers or writing staff.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A pretty clear "no". Meets none of the usual tests for reliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Request filter for bilibili.com
Almost the same pattern as YouTube, per RSPYT. ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source, unless it is an official account of an institution such as VOA, NOAA, and NASA on the platform. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  04:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's kind of an irrelevant question, Bilibili is not a source, it is a hosting service. The source would be the entity that produces the video.  It's impossible to assess the entire service, because it doesn't produce content, it merely hosts it.  Reliable sources can, of course, host content on Bilibili, so if you want to use a Bilibili-hosted source, you would need to asses the creator of the video directly.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Theanine
I am mediating at DRN and so am officially neutral. The question is about the reliability of the sources for a sentence, and therefore whether the sentence should be retained or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Should the sentence 'The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy' be retained with all of its accompanying sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it, all of these are primary sources (that is, research papers or experiments themselves, not secondary treatments of other experiments and research papers). The sentence constitutes a medical claim, for which the relevant guidance states Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials. (emphasis original). I don't think the sentence can stand, and given that (from the same guideline) Determining weight of studies requires reliable secondary sources, and we don't have any of those, my reading of the guidelines and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is that sentence needs to be deleted unless a review article or similar can be found. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline for assessing medical claims is WP:MEDRS, which states "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." (bold in original). Later also "Many papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made."  In other words, the initial papers written by the researchers who performed the experiment are not generally sufficient for medical information; they may be used as additional sourcing, but all statements about medical topics should have a clear, unambiguously secondary source.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Old primary sources, at the opposite end of what is required for claims (let alone assertions in wikivoice!) on human health. So, unusable. Why this stuff is being scraped up when we have solid and more recent MEDRS (i.e. ) beats me! Bon courage (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only are sources #1-5 & 7 primary research, but the studies were on the combination of caffeine and theanine (titles), with most of the outcome measures attributed to caffeine, rendering the sentence unverified and WP:UNDUE for specific theanine effects - the object of the article. Where available in these 11-15 year old studies, subject numbers were 16-44. There isn't (shouldn't be) a Wikipedia medical claim anywhere supported by such minor primary research. Source #6 is a 2008 review of small studies in the 90s-00s, making one general conclusion about theanine in isolation: "there were virtually no positive effects of L-theanine alone on cognitive performance." Old, small-study primary research + unverified claims + UNDUE weight = unusable content and sources. Zefr (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I think that answers that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Request filter for baijiahao.baidu.com
Baijiahao (Chinese: 百家号) is a semi-user-generated, semi-official website. Officials (such as well-known Chinese media outlets) put their own content on it, but also allow users to upload their own content, similar to YouTube. The Chinese Wikipedia has reached a consensus that Baijiahao should be used with caution (w:zh:Wikipedia:可靠来源/布告板/存档/2021年11月, w:zh:Wikipedia:可靠来源/布告板/存档/2022年7月, w:zh:Wikipedia:RSP) - only if it can be identified as a reputable media report or government, and there is no other choices (reviewed case by case). I think the English Wikipedia should also set filters to prevent new users from adding the source, as it is might be harder here to identify whether official content has been added or user-generated content has been added. ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Baijiahao should be banned, because it is a content farm, and a large amount of content involves infringement (especially a large number of works stolen from outside mainland China) ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  04:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Baijiahao is User Generated Content. In particular, Baijiahao misappropriated a large number of media, information and other sources outside of mainland China. And the way it basically works is as a content farm. Using this source is very likely to violate copyright, so Baijiahao should be blacklisted on enwiki. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Baijiahao is WP:UGC and full of WP:COPYVIO. There should be some filter put in place. Amigao (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose filtering Having a lot of UGC and COPYVIO problems isn't a reason to ban, Youtube also has this problem and we don't ban it (the UGC/COPYVIO problems are explicitly stated in WP:RSPYT). As long editors are careful to ensure the account posting it is an official account (and thus inherits the reliability of the publisher), then Baijiahao is fine to use when its the most accessible version of an article. Jumpytoo Talk 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Jumpytoo, one needs to be careful to distinguish a source from the place that hosts the source. Sites like YouTube and Baijiahao are more like libraries than any particular source, and just as a library may hold books that are themselves not reliable sources, YouTube and other similar sites can host videos that are from unreliable sources, but they also host material from reliable sources.  Assessments should be made on the source level, not on the host level.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I decided to go a little deeper on this one. I selected the first 20 sources obtained via Special:LinkSearch/https://baijiahao.baidu.com/ that are located in the main space and created a table. Note that I am only analyzing here whether the source itself is generally considered authoritative - in general, a formal news organization with an editorial team (according to NEWSORG). Whether what the source describes is factually correct or not is not analyzed:

Except for one invalid source, 14 of the 19 sources should be avoided, and even with the lowered criteria, there are still 11 sources that should not be used to describe a fact.

While it is true that YouTube was not given a filter in the previous RFC, Facebook was given a filter in the previous RFC. Considering that Baijiahao is also a platform that publishes a lot of text content rather than video content, a more appropriate comparison should be between Baijiahao and Facebook.

In addition, I am concerned about whether anyone is able to check the sources, and from the results in the table above, it appears that most of the content has never been effectively verified. Considering that most of the videos in YouTube are in English while the two platforms I listed are in Chinese - I think this would lead to YouTube links being more susceptible to verification, which is not the case with the latter two - I still stand by that filter is necessary. ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 00:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Routesonline.com
Routesonline.com is used as a source in 807 articles on Wikipedia, almost universally for airline destinations according to this search. Is it reliable or not reliable as a source for airline destinations?

Poll

 * Not reliable - All of the links I have clicked on in this search were 404 so it is not possible to assess the status of the website at the time it was cited, however we can see from the "about us" page of this website that it is run by a firm whose main business is organising forums and media coverage for the airline industry. Moreover their team includes a dedicated "airline relations team" but no actual journalists dedicated to airline coverage. What coverage they do have appears to simply be relayed announcements of the airlines themselves. As such, it can hardly be said to be independent of the airlines whose destinations it is being cited for. Moreover much of the coverage is about future developments in the airline industry ("XXXX is opening a route to YYYY" -see, e.g., here) so much of it is essentially WP:CRYSTALBALL coverage.FOARP (talk)

Discussion

 * This is important since we have a very large number of articles about airline destinations and airlines that rely on this source or sources much like it to fulfil the requirements of WP:NCORP. For the avoidance of doubt, even if this website were somehow found reliable, it would still be specialist press and so not fulfill WP:AUD. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the wrong tack is being taken here; airline routes are mostly ephemeral matters that veer clearly into the WP:IINFO end of things regardless of where the information is coming from. Could I see occasional use for knowing when and where a specific flight flew?  Sure.  But most of the uses seem to be WP:IINFO type data dumps.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support curtailing this information, both in terms of which route an airline flies and which route an airport supports (for example, Heathrow Airport). I've always felt that while there can be reason to provide this information, it should be in the form of prose and not an exhaustive list but instead a descriptive section - using the Heathrow example, the article could explain how the number of routes expanded as the airport was developed, as well as detail significant changes such as the impact of COVID on the number of routes supported, which would provide considerably more benefit to a reader while also complying with policies such as WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTRAVEL. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though things like "how the number of routes expanded as the airport was developed" should be something readily available in well-written sources about Heathrow, and not cobbled from data-dump websites of questionable reliability. I would generally discourage doing such an analysis on one's own; if another reliable source has done the analysis, that's good, but it veers a little too close to the WP:OR line for me when people are building timelines from what is essentially raw data like this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jayron32, I entirely agree. My issue here is that this is a very old problem. There have been at least three bundled AFDs of airline destination list articles ( 2006, 2007, 2015) which all failed. A 2018 RFC found consensus to effectively get rid of them but a subsequent AN discussion said that these then had to be sent through AFD in "orderly fashion". This means effectively "not in one go", and as I understand it basically blocked the issue from ever being dealt with. What we now have is a very low-quality corpus of articles based in large part either on airline company websites, or on the websites of ticket agents, or industry press like the site under discussion. Addressing these articles one-by-one leads to repeated re-litigation of the reliability of sources used in them of the kind that RSN is here to help avoid. FOARP (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2015 is 8 years ago. Just in case you thought it was still relevant.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on the same page as you here, my issue is there's every sign the same thing would happen again if another bundled deletion of all the airline-destination articles were attempted, at least without running a representative portion of them through AFD individually or in small groups first (which requires discussion of the sources, primarily routesonline.com). This impression is based particularly on the AN discussion after the RFC, which did not overturn the RFC but said instead "AFD has to do this individually/in small lots". If no-one wants to discuss the reliability of routesonline.com website, that's fine. FOARP (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think running one or two through AFD to do a temperature check on the community feeling on this, is probably a good thing. The site is shit, FWIW, shouldn't be used.  But again, if we got rid of the need for using it, we'd solve two problems... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron32, there's ~10 or so already up at AFD now. just 1-2 keep !votes and most where there's been !voting look headed towards delete, though so far only one has actually been closed. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Just feel the need to point out that if the concern is that the site is insufficiently independent to be considered third-party, that there is nothing wrong with using first-party sources for verifying basic facts that need no interpretation (WP:PSTS). oknazevad (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Which in this case means literally linking to the airline website. That's defensible for simple information, but not for indicating notability. FOARP (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. No reason to use anything other than the airline's own site for these things. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources for UFO sightings in Thailand
I would like to know if the following sources are reliable for this content:

In 2019, UFO seekers began visiting a Buddha statue on a hilltop outside of Nakhon Sawan, three hours north of Bangkok, who believe that they can telepathically communicate with Buddist aliens.

Sources: Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * CNN - The UFO seekers flocking to a remote Thai hilltop in search of Buddhist aliens
 * Insider Inc. - UFO seekers are flocking to a huge Buddha statue in Thailand saying it is home to a wormhole that aliens use to travel to different dimensions
 * Bangkok Post - The truth is out there ... in Nakhon Sawan
 * Hindustan Times - Alien enthusiasts flock to see huge Buddha statue in Thailand. Here’s why
 * CNN and Bangkok Post are definitely reliable sources, anything in their articles can be paraphrased, with attribution if necessary. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can some more editors weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd leave out the Hindustan Times and Insider because they're just paraphrasing CNN, but the other one looks fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They seem RS, what is the objection? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainly, WP:SENSATION. See WP:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Thailand for full discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Are womenwriteaboutcomics.com and sophia.stkate.edu reliable sources?
I ask because a user suggested the following sources be added to Steven Universe:


 * Sophia, hosted by Libraries of St. Catherine University


 * Women Write About Comics, which has a page at WomenWriteAboutComics, and is cited on at least 20 pages

Pop Matters is also mentioned, but it is my understanding, from reading through previous discussions on this Noticeboard, it is considered a reliable source.

With that, I look forward to your comments on this before I add them (or not) to the Steven Universe page. Historyday01 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WomenWriteAboutComics.com has repeatedly won the Eisner Award, which is voted on by comics professionals, indicating a strong degree of respect within the field they are covering. (And at this point I should admit a bias not on WWAC, which I may have read a couple articles on but not regularly, but the value of the Eisner Award, as I am among this year's nominees.) Animation is not precisely comics, but they are overlapping in the pop culture realm. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source is an article in Research on Diversity in Youth Literature which is apparently a peer reviewed journal. It's editorial board is made up of apparently legitimate academics. Seems like a reasonably reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Women Write About Comics is pretty close to the best you can do on the subject outside of the academic literature. SOFIA isn't a source, it isn't hosted by the Library of St. Catherine University it is the hosting service of St. Catherine University. The journal in question would be Research on Diversity in Youth Literature. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Rfc: RepublicanChina.org
I've seen republicanchina.org cited in a few Wikipedia articles (Mo Teh-hui, Alphonse Favier, Suicide Attack, Zhang Xuezhong (general), Operation Nekka order of battle), mostly related to China. Reading the front page of the website it seems to some sort of blog or self-published website with strong political opinions about Chinese history. Most of the content it's cited to support appears relatively innocuous, but I honestly don't think this website should be relied on for even basic facts. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You could see vaccination misinformation at its homepage, so not even should the opinions for me. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 18:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From the site: Heed the sons & ministers' agony and sorrow of our ancestors who died or lived through the Mongol, Manchu and Soviet-Chicom conquest and the Yongjia, Jingkang and Jiashen cataclysms ! and Note Barack Hussein Obama's half brother 'adopted' China or was adopted by communist China, setting an example for numerous Africans who came to China and worked as coyotes engaged in the operation of smuggling the illegal Africans to China. No idea what this is, but it shouldn't be used for referencing anything. I would suggest removing it on sight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, you should have a sense of déjà vu to it. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WTF are you talking about? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, what you're quoting happens to be the counterparts of the conspiracy theories in the West. In the two sentences you quoted, the first one alludes that there is a non-Han Chinese institution that created the "Mongol, Manchu and Soviet-Chicom conquest and the Yongjia, Jingkang and Jiashen cataclysms" (reuse & combination of the Deep State and the Great Replacement), the second alludes that one of Obama's relatives is somehow related to the modern Chinese government and communism, and has caused the Africans in Guangzhou (reuse & combination of the Jewish Bolshevism, the Deep State and the Great Replacement). I'm sorry if the lack of clarity above scared you. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Asian Boss
Asian Boss a YouTube channel is cited for a section in the Otto Warmbier article:. Is this reliable? Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's cited for claims made in an interview with Asian Boss. It's obviously reliable to support the fact that those claims were made in that interview – and the article does an okay job of attributing these claims.  I would be more concerned about whether or not the claims of one anonymous man are due weight if they haven't been reported outside the interview with Asian Boss. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would use it with caution. Their coverage of North Korea seems more like propaganda than factual reporting. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Academic paper finds flaws in the practice of evaluating reliability at the source level
News story about the paper here. The underlying paper appears to be this one, though I haven't yet found the full text. This was in the context of AI evaluations of reliability, but it is still likely relevant to us. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Why? Wikipedia has no automated/algorithmic assessment of source quality. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * They're right about the problem, and they're right about the solution (algorithms).
 * But note their methodology: they blinded articles, and assessed their factual accuracy based on Snopes, PolitiFact, WaPo, WSJ, etc. In other words, by design, all the accurate claims they found in sources we classify WP:GUNREL or deprecated, were claims already made by sources we classify WP:GENREL. We're doing fine, by their metrics.
 * I'm very hopeful about algorithms, to identify contradictions between sources, factual inaccuracies in sources, text-citation mismatches, and do comprehensive source surveys instantly with no effort. That's the future, and I hope we'll get there within a few years. But first, we need these algorithms to exist. All their blinded evaluations were done manually. DFlhb (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the full article, freely accessible. Shells-shells (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article. I do think the concerns raised are legit and apply here.  I think the RSP mindset is inherently problematic and moves away from the RS idea that we should be evaluating based on the claims being made and the way the source supports the claims.  Currently we take a relatively blind approach that any claim in a green source is good and any claim in a red source must be bad.  That doesn't seem really in line with the spirit of RS nor does it seem like a good way to present a comprehensive picture of a topic. Springee (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But RSP is just a Dummies Guide, useful for newbies in a Lies to children kind of way, but of no use to the clueful editor. Which is why it's not part of the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is how it's used at all. In practice, a red line on WP:RSP means a publication is going to be systemically purged from all articles, and a yellow line is a go to jail, do not pass go, card in any content dispute. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Joe's take is generally what I've seen. Editors have been hauled to ANI for suggesting a yellow or red source might actually be reliable for a non-controversial claim.  Certainly when sources disagree editors use the RSP color rather than quality of the arguments provided by the source to decide content disputes.  I understand the original intent but it's evolved into a monster where editors try to get a source banned as good or bad rather than evaluating on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed… the fact that we keep having to explain that RSP is supposed to be limited to perennially discussed sources (and isn’t supposed to be a definitive list of “good/bad” sources) should tell us a lot about how the page has suffered from mission creep. We seem to have lost the nuanced idea of evaluating whether source A is reliable for verifying statement B in the context of article C. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong: I'd delete WP:RSP in a heartbeat for myself (or just limit it to an index of RSN discussions and lose the silly colours, icons, etc.). But I suspect Project-wide it might save more explanation than it generates? Not sure .... Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is likely an accurate assessment, I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to add fringe content sourced to the Daily Mail, infowars, or something like that and instead of having to spend half an hour discussing with a new editor on the talk page about how Alex Jones probably isn't the best source to use I can just link WP:RSPDM or WP:INFOWARS and if they're a competent good faith editor they can do all the work themselves. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most often because user A thinks source B's claim is obviously factually true, despite the fact only that produce claims it. RSP (and indeed RSN and even RS) exits to stop us from claiming our profered source is obviously correct based upon our wp:or. So yes, it saves a lot of time and effort. And I suspect the real issue is that "truth" (rather than facts) are what motivates this. The false balance argument that "all opinions are valid". Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the inference from "we keep having to explain this" to "the page has suffered from mission creep". We keep having to explain lots of things, from basic policies on down. (How many times have we had to say that the "N" in "NPOV" doesn't mean saying one good thing for every bad thing? How many times have we reverted the addition of redlinked names to List of people by Erdős number despite the page itself saying, quite prominently, that it includes "only those who have existing Wikipedia articles"? About 1 in 5 edits in that page's history are cleaning up after people who just can't read the directions.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would not an algorithm only be as biased as the person who wrote it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's dozens of papers on to show that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. An algorithm is at least as biased as the person who wrote it.  Sometimes an algorithm may introduce a bias that its coder did not have, for any of various reasons.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just explicit coding, biases are also introduced in training data and for systems which are active learning systems (i.e. gathering training data all the time) they will reflect the biases inherent in their data; and yes, AI systems are well known to not just reflect such biases, but amplify them (i.e. make them worse). This overview, and especially to the documents it references and links to, is quite relevant.  As just one example I can think of, there's been proposals to use AI to direct police efforts to cut down on crime, as it supposedly "removes" the human element in that potentially racist cops maybe won't be making the decisions that lead to poor outcomes.  However, insofar as "crime data" largely reflects what police are already doing, it will tend to overemphasize, for example, neighborhoods that are "overpoliced" as being "high crime areas" and will direct police to further overpolice the area, leading to more crime reporting.  AI is highly susceptible to such positive feedback loops.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A book that gives many examples of similar biases is Cathy O'Neil's "Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy". NightHeron (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The rs policy does not depend entirely on source reputation. Analysis and opinions in rs news media are not usually considered rs. Extraordinary claims cannot be added to articles without strong support. Medical claims cannot be included without peer reviewed sources. Also, editors can challenge sourced material if other rs say something else. In particular, if Snopes or other fact-checkers rate a news article as false, we can use that to remove it.
 * Also, the paper says that the algorithm is no better at finding false information in rs and non-rs. But the fact is that non-rs is more likely to contain false information, which is why it isn't considered rs.
 * RS, particularly news media, will always contain false information due to both error and malice, which will end up in articles until corrected in rs. I don't see any problem with this since all readers can expect is that articles summarize rs, not that they fact check them.
 * TFD (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That article is about completely automated algorithms, which has no relation to what we do. In particular the obvious problem is that they don't have any automated way to tell whether a statement cited to a source actually reflects what the source says. It's hardly surprising that that would be ineffective. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is native-languages.org a reliable source?
Do people think http://www.native-languages.org/ (run by a charitable organisation called Native Languages of the Americas) is a reliable source suitable for using for citations? It seems like, it has an extensive archive of material on various subjects that it's difficult to get references for (e.g. mythology, and of course languages, and things like the fact that a large number of Americans believe that one of their ancestors was a "Cherokee princess" when there never even was such a thing), they seem a bit one-horse but make an effort to run the site in a scholarly way and get things checked by native speakers of the languages involved if they can find any, and they got a good review from this site https://worldhistorycommons.org/native-languages-americas. Wombat140 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems very much like a WP:SPS/WP:USERG source, and possibly abandoned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't assume abandoned, certainly -- they last updated their updates page a year and a half ago, but had gone years between updates at times in the past. They do, however, indicate that they accept all submitted materials on languages ("We also occasionally publish original articles about Native American culture, history, and experiences. Unlike the language materials, though, we do not accept all articles which are submitted to us.") So, not the strongest editorial policy in those regards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The same page Nat Gertler links to also says that We publish original writing by both native and non-native authors, but if the author is not native the article will be checked by a tribal member before being accepted for publication. There's no evidence I can see that original writing by native American authors is checked in any way before publication – even if it's written about a culture with which they have no particular connection. I would want to see more evidence of reliability before using this site. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is relevant, but in my personal research, I have discovered that a lot of its information is faulty or wrong in some way. I have come to completely avoid it as a source. I wouldn't cite it anywhere, for this reason and those already mentioned. PersusjCP (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have found that their language data varies widely in how good it is: for some languages it matches what more reliable sources have, but for other languages their data differs (missing important diacritics, etc) or is unverifiable. I find it useful for getting "leads" and search terms to use when looking for more reliable information. -sche (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info all of you. Wombat140 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Groong.com
This source is cited at the WP:BLP Garnik Asatrian page. The source is supposed to support some pretty strong claims and assertions supposedly said by him in a 1998 interview. I think we should be careful with interviews. What is said could mean something to one person and something else to another. Also, would it qualify as WP:RS, especially in a WP:BLP article such as this one? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Their intro page suggests that this is just a group blog ran by couple of students. Defo shouldn't be cited in a BLP or any article in general. Carpimaps (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Javad Nazari
Hello friends, I will name some of the sources in Javad Nazari's article below. Please, are they valid or not? While in the same article, which is related to Mr. Goldie, the English actor and composer, make a comparison so that at least the fairness option is observed. Such databases were documented in Javad Nazari's article imdb Google knowledge panel Amazon cinematographer Web movie set list Myanmar TV channel TV channel 21 Indian Movie Database Iranian film database Provincial news base Local newspaper Base of Iranian theater actors Radio Times etc... are these valid and reliable?! ThanksMiladtanhai (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * IMDb, Google knowledge panel, Amazon, are definitely not reliable sources. After that is difficult to understand exactly what you mean, the names need to be separated with commas so it's possible to know where one name ends and another starts. The last one, Radio Times should be reliable but it would be helpful to know the exact details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Vande Bharat reliable and/or major?
In a discussion in Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, there is a debate as to if a specific candidate should be included as a major candidate. The consensus there is that the candidate needs 5 major and reliable news sources with national reach to talk about them explicitly for them to be included in the major candidate list. Two articles by Vande Bharat, a news source with no Wikipedia article which seems to focus on reporting about the news of Indian trains, was brought up talking about a specific candidate. These two articles are here and here. Every bone in my body wants to say this doesn't count as a major reliable source, but I would like to confirm this for good measure. Scu ba (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like a blog to me. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliablity of Sources on Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974
I'd like to ask about the verifiability and applicability of these sources as pertains to the article in question.

For the purpose of context I'm providing them as they would be used in the article.


 * 2 July 1974 – Makarios writes an open letter to the figurehead president of Greece, General Phaidon Gizikis, complaining bluntly that "cadres of the Greek military regime support and direct the activities of the EOKA terrorist organisation". He also releases to the press a harsh and provocative letter accusing the junta of masterminding the campaign of terror in Cyprus.


 * 13 July 1974 – A conference under the presidency of General Gizikis is held in Athens. It is attended by the Greek Chief of Staff of the armed forces, the Ambassador of Greece to Cyprus, the Commander of the National Guard and other officials, for the purpose of discussing and planning the coup.


 * 14 July 1974 – More than 100 Greek Army officers, dressed in civilian clothes, boarded an Olympic Airlines 727 for an unscheduled flight to Lefkoşa. They were seen off by Colonel Michael Pylikhos, a top aide of Ioannidis.


 * 15 July 1974 – Operation President: At roughly 08:30am numerous soldiers, armoured cars, tanks, mortars and other sections of the Greek Cypriot National Guard, EOKA B and forces under the command of the Greek Junta surround the Presidential Palace. They launch a coup and overthrow the democratically elected President, Archbishop Makarios III, with the goal of Enosis (annexation of Cyprus into Greece). Roughly 190 presidential security forces resist the attack. The defenders knock out the lead tank in the main frontal assault with bazooka fire. All tanks open fire on the Presidential Palace. Commandos attacking from the rear are accidentally shelled. Some of the tanks malfunction, causing confusion among the attackers. Makarios discards his clerical garb and sneaks out of the presidential palace from its back door with two aides, passing an unguarded position through the National Guard lines and escaping the battlezone. The presidential security fight on for nearly three hours. The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation is occupied and exultantly proclaims: "Makarios is dead. Long live the National Guard! Hellenism lives in Cyprus!"


 * 15 July 1974 – At roughly 14:50pm Nikos Sampson, also known as the Conqueror and Butcher of Küçük Kaymaklı (Omorphita), is appointed president by the leaders of the coup, Kombokis and Georgitsis. His appointment is greeted with alarm and dismay by the Turkish Cypriots, who note it is "as unaceceptable as Adolf Hitler would be as President of Israel". The Greek Cypriots show their approval for the coup through roughly 15,000 telegrams of support over the course of the week.


 * 15 July 1974 – The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation continues to air martial music exulting the demise of Makarios. The National Guard occupies Kykko Monastery and the Greek quarter of Limasol after stiff resistance. The supporters of Makarios in Baf attack the naval station, forcing the National Guard to flee. Makarios addresses the people from a local radio station in Baf, informing them that he is alive and asking them to oppose the new regime. A Civil War erupts between pro-Samson and pro-Makarios factions on the island. Bodies litter the streets. There are mass burials. People told by Makarios to lay down their arms are shot by the National Guard. The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sends Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict between Makarios, Sampson and Greece. Greece sends a further 100 soldiers to the island. Not only were the 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard involved, but also the 950 officers and men of the Greek army contingent on the island. Moreover, as Newsweek reported on 29 July 1974: "On the night before the coup... more than 100 Greek army officers, dressed in civilian clothes, boarded an Olympic Airlines 727 for an unscheduled flight to Lefkoşa. The men were seen off by Colonel Michael Pylikhos, a top aide of Ioannidis. Another flight carrying an additional 100 men followed them 24 hours later."


 * 15 July 1974 – Rauf Denktaş, the Turkish Cypriot leader, issues a plea for calm and calls for UN intervention. He also tells his Bayrak radio audience that "Our duty in this situation, which we believe is a matter between Greek Cypriots, is to protect our international security, to take defensive measures and not to interfere in any way in inter-Greek Cypriot events".


 * 16 July 1974 – The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, sends a letter to the British government urging it to cooperate with Turkey in enforcing the Treaty of Guarantee. A procession of armoured cars and tanks move towards Baf (Paphos) while a small warship begins shelling the Bishopric where Makarios is taking shelter. The British manage to retrieve Makarios by Westland Whirlwind helicopter and fly him from Akrotiri to Malta in a Royal Air Force Armstrong Whitworth Argosy transport aircraft.


 * 17 July 1974 – Makarios is flown from Malta to London in a de Havilland Comet. He holds talks with the British leaders, counseling them against the use of force. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, also flies to London for talks with the UK Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and the UK Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan and colleagues. He tries to persuade them to join Turkey in a military operation to preserve the independence and neutrality of Cyprus. The UK says it favours a cautious approach. The US government shows signs that it is going to recognise the Sampson regime, convincing the Turkish government to act with haste.


 * 18 July 1974 – There are tortures and executions at the central prison. An old man who asks for the body of his son is shot on the spot. Lefkoşa (Nicosia) International Airport is temporarily allowed to reopen to civilian traffic. It becomes the site of chaotic scenes as holidaymakers and other foreign nationals try to flee the ongoing chaos and civil war. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, sends the Greek government an ultimatum through Joseph Sisco, the Deputy of the US Undersecretary of State, demanding: "1) the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, 2) the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, 3) the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, 4) equal rights for both populations, and 5) access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots."


 * 20 July 1974 – After lack of international support against the Greek-led coup d'état and the Greek-installed puppet president Nikos Sampson, Turkey invades the island of Cyprus. Turkish jets bomb and strafe Greek strong points in and around the port of Girne (Kyrenia) on the island's northern shore. Two Greek Cypriot Navy motor torpedo boats, the T1 and the T3, are sent out from Girne to engage the Turkish naval flotilla approaching the shore. Both ships are sunk by combined Turkish air and naval attack. The Kekmak Special Strike Force Landing Brigade, consisting of one battalion of the 6th Amphibious Infantry Regiment, the 50th Infantry Regiment, and one company of the 39th divisional tank battalion, the 39th infantry division, combining for a total of 3,000 troops and 12 M47 tanks, lands unopposed in Pentemilli, a few miles west of Girne. Greek and Greek Cypriot forces launch an organised counter-attack against the Turkish beachhead at Girne, supported by T-34 tanks, but this ultimately fails to dislodge the Turkish landing force. Four Greek-Cypriot T-34 tanks and two armoured vehicles are destroyed by Turkish infantry and air attacks. The Greek Armed Forces and Greek Cypriot National Guard, supported by all available T-34 tanks, as well as Greek ELDYK forces, launch a massive attack against the Turkish Cypriot enclave at Gönyeli (Kioneli), attempting to prevent Turkish forces from forming a bridgehead to Lefkoşa (Nicosia). The Turkish Cypriots, who were able to fortify the area with defensive and anti-tank structures, repel the attack. The attack fails and two Greek Cypriot T-34 tanks are destroyed. Turkish paratroopers land in the area for additional support. More than 90 of 120 paratroopers are killed by Greek and Greek Cypriot forces still in the area. The Turkish 399th battalion counterattacks inflicting significant damage to the Greeks. 4 Greek tanks are destroyed...


 * 20 July 1974 – Limasol is overrun by the Greek Cypriot National Guard. Turkish homes and businesses are rushed, broken into, their inhabitants are captured, women are raped and then shot, the buildings are looted and then burnt to the ground. Greek soldiers fire indiscriminately in the streets. Women and children are shot down, children's bodies are left draped dead in the streets, and other atrocities occur.


 * 20 July 1974 – The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution 353, demanding the immediate withdrawal of "foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements" and urged negotiations between Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom to take place.

...

Thanks in advance. Nargothronde (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This appears to be in relation to an ongoing content dispute. So I'll start by pointing you to WP:ONUS, the short version of which is that just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it should be included. If you're additions have been reverted you should try to get consensus for the changes on the articles talk page, and if there are problems look into the other options described at WP:Dispute resolution.
 * Getting that out of the way and having a general look over the refences BBC, The Times, Newsweek, UN speeches, New York Times, Time magazine, and works published by established and academic publishers are all very likely reliable. However your language in using them is very emotional and not of an encyclopedic tone. I suggest working with other editors on the articles talk page to come to a compromise version of the text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I will certainly try these suggestions. Nargothronde (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Is volcano.si.edu a reliable source
The site lists most of the world's volcanoes, including their type, location and when they last erupted. For example, the details of Mount Pavlof in Alaska. But it's not clear to me if it belongs to a reliable source? -- ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 06:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So I did double check, just to make sure, but this is very clearly the Smithsonian Institute. The Global Volcano Program is maintained by active volcanism researchers, and appears to be the primary global repository for volcanic activity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would consider almost anything published by the Smithsonian Institute to be scrupulously reliable, without reservation (with the standard caveats that everyone gets something wrong occasionally, etc.) I would have no problem using the source for any information it publishes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)