Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411

PLEBISCYT 1920 ROKU

 * Source: a Museum exhibition by the Institute of National Remembrance.
 * Article: Kwidzyn (But also other various Poland related articles)
 * Content: As a result of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, the district of Marienwerder was divided. The parts west of the Vistula were incorporated into the Polish Second Republic, which had just regained its independence. The parts east of the Vistula, to which the town of Marienwerder belonged, was to take part in the East Prussian plebiscite, which was organized under the control of the League of Nations. The Inter-Allied Commission with nearly 2,000 troops often favored the Germans, and its services towards Poles were often delayed and limited, while the administration remained under German control. The town was home to the Polish Warmian Plebiscite Committee and the Committee for Polish Affairs, which, however, had to operate partly secretly. On May 16, 1920, the largest Polish plebiscite demonstration in Powiśle took place in the town, and Poles had to organize defenses against attacks by German militias. These conditions combined with German electoral fraud... Afterwards, anti-Polish terror intensified.

The IPN has been extensively criticized by many scholars and people because they think it has been politicized by Poland's ruling party PiS. The controversial amendment by PiS passed in 2018, the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, outlined some controversial terms for the Institute's activities going forward. Saying something along the lines of "Protecting the reputation of Poland" 4 times in the amendment (full text in English here). Just go to the Institute of National Remembrance, or read this Columbia University article about them here. The academic freedom of the institution is limited, and it can be used as a tool to rally nationalism by PiS, without having much factual accuracy, neutrality. They've said some controversial stuff about the Holocaust and Poland, and anti-Semitism in Poland (We've just had a high profile Arbcom case regarding Jews in Poland during WW2). Here's an excerpt from the Columbia article "the Polish government passed the aforementioned 2018 Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, which amended Article 55 to outlaw any individual who “publicly and contrary to the facts attributes to the Polish Nation or to the Polish State responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes.” [10] Such acts ostensibly constituted an attack on the “good name of the Polish nation” and would be prosecuted by means of civil law—prohibiting the prosecution of Polish citizens who burnt alive nine hundred Jews during the Jedwabne pogrom 1941 or massacred five hundred of their Jewish neighbours in Radzilów. [11] The 2018 amendment transforms the 1998 Act on the Institute of National Remembrance from a statute that aspires to protect the truth to one that censors it, defeating its original purpose of preserving accurate accounts of history." Crainsaw (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking IPN issues aside, museum exhibit poster is certainly not an ideal source. There are books/papers about this subject, so using these is recommended (I assume you may find both German and Polish). I'm no expert in history of Poland, so can't say if Krzysztof Andrzej Kierski (author of the exhibit text) has any weight in their historiography, but at least he is a historian by education working at the IPN. Pavlor (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have some concerns with using IPN in regard to Polish/Jewish relations, due to the issue being politicised by PiS. But this isn't about that issue, this is Polish/German relations. Are there any particular parts of the content you have issue with, or is it just the source? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It claims stuff like German fraud in the elections when no evidence has been found, it also claimed German militias terrorized poles, when the Italian garrison battalion had disarmed Both the Sicherheitswehr and the Einwohnerwehr, and the police were under British control. It said the Poles didn't vote in the election because it was a "Farce" and they feared reprisals (In most places, almost everyone who could vote did vote, so no massive polish boycott, Reprisals and intimidation might've been true, but the Militias and Police were disarmed and under control well before the propaganda campaigns even started). The exhibition also claimed that the Germans transported ~20k people across the corridor to vote in the elections without being residents, but failed to address that the voting regulations said that anybody born in those areas before 1905 could vote. And on top of that, the results showed that the non-residents voters didn't even affect the outcome Out of 125,091 registered voters 104,941 votes recognised as valid were recorded. Of these 96,923 were for East Prussia and 8,018 for Poland. According to statistics controlled by the Commission 23,718 outvoters from other parts of Germany took part, proving that the result of the Plebiscite was not materially affected by extension of the right of voting to all persons born but not resident in the area." (This is for the Marienwerder voting region) There's a massive book commissioned by the British Government about their foreign policy documents between 1919-1939. It said the Poles claim election fraud but lack any evidence, which  haven't seen to this day (Documents on British foreign Policy 1919-1939, first series, Volume 10) Crainsaw (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And just to add a bit more, there were concerns over massive disorder after the results on both sides, but the British were surprised to see not problems in the aftermath, with no anti polish reprisals or terrorism. Crainsaw (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are close to original research here. I assume "Documents on British foreign Policy 1919-1939" is an edition of British Government documents, so primary source. As I wrote, best course of action is to find recent book(s)/paper(s) about this topic and use these. Pavlor (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read a few books about the Plebiscite, with none of them mentioning anything the exhibition is claiming, like fraud, terror, and more. The text about non-residents no affecting the outcome is directly quoted from the book Crainsaw (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What are these “few books about the Plebiscite” that you read? If there are other sources then we can use them, but just claiming “I read something once” is as, Pavlor points out, original research.  Volunteer Marek   04:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For what you guys are claiming is OR, the quote "the non-residents voters didn't even affect the outcome Out of 125,091 registered voters 104,941 votes recognised as valid were recorded. Of these 96,923 were for East Prussia and 8,018 for Poland. According to statistics controlled by the Commission 23,718 outvoters from other parts of Germany took part, proving that the result of the Plebiscite was not materially affected by extension of the right of voting to all persons born but not resident in the area." pp.806-808, the same is true for the Allenstein area, pp. 821-826. For books, I'd suggest Ostpreussen: Geschichte und Mythos, and Orphans of Versaille: The Germans in Western Poland, 1918-1939. I hadn't used to sources till now because I was still searching for more, and collecting more sources. Crainsaw (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * de:Volksabstimmungen in Ost- und Westpreußen lists some German sources that may be useful. In particular these two:
 * Walther Hubatsch: Die Volksabstimmung in Ost- und Westpreußen 1920. Ein demokratisches Bekenntnis zu Deutschland. Staats- und Wirtschaftspolitische Gesellschaft, Hamburg 1980, ISBN 3-88527-036-6.
 * Bernhart Jähnig (Hrsg.): Die Volksabstimmung 1920 – Voraussetzungen, Verlauf und Folgen. N.G. Elwert Verlag, Marburg 2002.
 * Unfortunately I could find neither online. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I found another source, Masuren: Ostpreussens Vergessener Süden, also written by Andreas Kossert, who also wrote Ostpreussen: Geschichte und Mythos. Crainsaw (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another source is the article "Polish-speaking Germans?" language and national identity among the Masurians, Nationalities Papers, Volume 27, Issue 3. It said "when Poland,
 * despite the failure to date of its efforts to win over the Masurians, laid claim to
 * Masuria (along with the rest of East Prussia) at the Paris Peace Conference. Roman Dmowski, representing the Polish National Committee, presented the accompanying Ethnographic map by Jakob Spett as evidence that most Masurians spoke Polish and expressed confidence that they would also come to feel Polish after a brief period of Polish rule.35 Dmowski clearly hoped that Masuria would be awarded outright to Poland on ethnolinguistic ground s, the views of the Masurians themselves carrying no more weight than those of Sudeten Germans and South Tyroleans. But France was the only major power at Paris prepared to accommodate this claim; British and U.S. representatives insisted that a plebiscite be conducted before they decided Masuria’s fate, and this became Article 94 of the Treaty of Versailles"... "In February 1920, an Inter-Allied Commission (IAC), consisting of British, French, and Italian officials and troops, took over administration of the Allenstein Plebiscite District (i.e. Masuria and southern Warmia) from German authorities in order to conduct a plebiscite"... "Masurians were to choose between Poland and East Prussia (rather than Germany, in order to preserve the option of an independent or autonomous East Prussia still favored by the French). Everyone above [the] age [of] 20 who had been born in the plebiscite area, regardless of where they now lived or how long they had been away, had the right to vote. Allowing such outvoters to participate in the plebiscite was originally a Polish idea; most such people were known to have been Polish-speaking when they left Masuria. As noted, however, they had undergone an even more rapid process of germanization than other Masurians."... "Midway through the plebiscite campaign (April 1920), with virtually everything going wrong, Poland cited several cases of campaign violence to denounce the plebiscite as a fraud and declare its suspension of campaign activities. IAC officials were not sympathetic, however. Colonel Ernest Rennie, its British chairman, responded that Poland’s problem was simply that its propaganda had apparently had little result among the Mazurs so far. They apparently refuse to be won over by Polish agents, which is no doubt a disappointment to their wooers. No more than a half-dozen Polish meetings had been broken up since the IAC’s arrival and in the view of his French colleague, Couget, the fact that only about twenty Polish heads had been broken so far did not imply over-keen political partisanship. In Rennie’s view, violent clashes had been the exception during the campaign; terrorism was not a very valid excuse in view of the comparative tranquillity that remains in the district."... "The IAC reported that tranquillity prevailed over all the District on election day and pronounced the plebiscite free and fair." pp. 438-442 Crainsaw (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with here: regardless of the reliability or not of the Institute of National Remembrance (about which I know essentially nothing) interpretation material for an exhibition is probably not the best source.  For such a well-discussed topic as the aftermath of the First World War, there must surely be scholarly books or articles discussing this topic.  Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Caeciliusinhorto-public, while the topic of the aftermath of WW1 *in general*, or in UK, France and Germany, may be well discussed, this here much narrower topic is probably under researched. If you know of any useful sources that you could suggest that’d be great. The thing here is that absolutely no sources have been presented which would contradict the claims made in this particular source, and some of the info is pretty straightforward (the occurrence of a large demonstration in May for example). I believe the source is reliable - material developed by historians and scholars in cooperation with a research institute - but sure since it’s just an exhibition we could definitely use something more extensive. But again, usually in cases like this, the person objecting to the material brings OTHER sources to the table, which contradict or dispute the text. Nothing like that has been done here.   Volunteer Marek   04:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit, the only comprehensive source I’m aware of is “Plebiscites since the World War : with a collection of official documents” by Sarah Wambaugh which is cited by a lot of other works on the subject, but… it’s very old. FWIW that source essentially says same thing as the source under discussion (in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the exhibition text was based on Wambaugh).  Volunteer Marek   05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * p.78: Il peut y avoir eu des actes de pression, d’intimidation, voire de violence avant le mois de juillet, mais pas une blessure grave, pas une seule mort d’homme, ni dans la population civile, ni dans les troupes alliées et les forces de police. Which means: There may have been acts of pressure, intimidation and even violence before July, but not a single serious injury, not a single death, either among the civilian population or among the allied troops and police forces. "Terrorism, the calculated use of violence" - Britannica, which would've certainly led to a few deaths, or serious injuries, right? Crainsaw (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember, this is from the French delegation, who were very openly pro-polish. Crainsaw (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pressure intimidation and threats of violence sure sounds like acts that could be construed as terrorism. The section you added at the start of the thread doesn't mention deaths. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe the German militias would've only used threats and intimidation, and no violence at all. Given the general atmosphere and the feeling of humiliation due to the loss of Colonies and Alecase Lorraine, they would've most definitely used violence, at least once if needed. Crainsaw (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's likely this article, and 1920 East Prussian plebiscite could do with a rewrite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking whether we can depreciate the source? Crainsaw (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course not. IPN is a reliable outlet, with some critism in the area of Polish-Jewish relations, but nothing definitive. Now, the cited publication (brochure) is arguably not an academic level work, but it is published for public education by scholarly institute. Its primary author seems to be one Krzysztof Andrzej Kierski who seems to be a historian (PhD in history, and more, see ). Reliable unless REDFLAG issues are raised, and you are not making a case for those, to say the least ("it also claimed German militias terrorized poles"...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't open the PDF you linked, my browser (Firefox) keeps saying "Secure Connection Failed". Anyone else having the same issue? And Piotr, you're an academic, you of all people should know how dangerous politicization of academic institutions can be, you can read the controversial amendment here. 2a) protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation; Section 6c Protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation; Article 55a. 1. Whoever claims, publicly and contrary to the facts, that the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich. Columbia Undergraduate Law Review: In February 2021, Barbara Engelking, founder of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, and Jan Grabowski, professor of history at the University of Ottawa, were accused of violating the amended Article 55 in their historical study on the fate of Jews in occupied Poland, Dalej jest noc. In a four-sentence passage, the authors summarized the testimony of Estera Drogicka, a Holocaust survivor, who stated that Edward Malinowski, the wartime mayor of Malinowo, led the Nazis to a group of over a dozen Jews in hiding, who were subsequently murdered. [12] The plaintiff, Filomena Leszczyńska, niece of Edward Malinowski, claimed that Engelking and Grabowski “slandered the memory” of her uncle and violated her “right to one’s national pride and identity,” grounding her claims on the basis that such allegations tarnished the “good name” of the Polish nation pursuant to Article 55 of the Act and Article 133 of the Polish Criminal Code. [13] Crainsaw (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I get a security warning, too, when I try to open the link. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The link is dead. You're likely being redirected to a page that doesn't have a security certificate, which causes a warning in most browsers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoever claims, publicly and contrary to the facts, that the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich. How does this affect a plebiscite between Poland and Weimar Germany? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ukrainians who killed Jews in concentration camps, were a) Nazis and b) declared their allegiance or operated under the supervision of the Third Reich. So their crimes weren't Ukrainian (As a nation) per se, and come under the Crimes committed by the Third Reich. The same logic applies with Poland. So if anyone even claims that one single Pole, collaborated with the Nazis, it's a crime. It doesn't have anything to do with the Plebiscite, but rather what message the IPN is trying to convey. Crainsaw (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and I said at the beginning of this thread that the IPN shouldn't be used for Jewish/Polish matters due to politicisation by PiS, but again how does that effect a plebiscite between Poland and Weimer Germany over a territory populated mainly by Poles and Germans? You are making arguments that have nothing to do with your original question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the 2018 law is only relevant insofar as it shows a politicization of history and impediments to academic freedom. More important in my opinion is this "Following the election of the Law and Justice party, the government formulated in 2016 a new IPN law. The 2016 law stipulated that the IPN should oppose publications of false information that dishonors or harms the Polish nation. It also called for popularizing history as part of 'an element of patriotic education'. The new law also removed the influence of academia and the judiciary on the IPN." (quote from the article) Add to that the director is a political appointee and you have a politically biased institution. I guess you could probably compare it to a partisan think-tank. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * True but the IPN is much older than the current problems, and the same issue could be used to dismiss most Polish sources. Leaving contemporary German sources with their own issues. Unfortunately Poland is not the only place where right-wing groups are trying to rewrite history, and East Prussia is one of those areas affected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I favor deprecating the IPN from 2016 onward and use a case by case approach before that. And it is certainly true that this is a topic area where you have to be careful with German publications. Often they are published by expellee societies and they can make neo-nazis look moderate. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is true in many cases, but the two books I've cited by, are Pantheon Books and . Both re part of Penguin Random House, and are well established Academic Publishers, especially Siedler. And the Journal article “Polish-Speaking Germans?” Language and National Identity Among the Masurians by Richard Blanke is published Cambridge University Press. Crainsaw (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, those seem fine. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If we have different sources saying different things the article should reflect that, attribution is useful in this situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most sources I've read don't mention anything about terrorism or fraud, The only secondary (Is an exhibition a secondary or primary source?) ones that do is a Museum Exhibition prepared by a questionable institution to say the least. The other is an article printed in a reputable journal, which debunks these claims about fraud and terrorism. Both of the primary documents, the British and French, more or less say there were concerns at first over fraud and terrorism, but when the election day came "Tranquillity prevailed", and no major disruptions happened. Crainsaw (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's WP:UNDUE unless more sources are provided. Crainsaw (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your french source states that terrorism was involved (terrorism doesn't have to equate to fatalities), and there are other polish sources in the main article that haven't been discussed. But this is becoming a conversation about what is or isn't due in the article, rather than a discussion about whether a source is reliable or not. If you have journal articles added them to the article as a dissenting oppinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The French source says there *may* have been some acts of violence and intimidation, but not a single serious injury, not a single death, either among the civilian population or among the allied troops and police forces. That has to be an incredible coincidence that terrorism didn't equate to anything serious. Crainsaw (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * single serious injury you're now misquoting your own sources. We come We're done here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Kossert mentions minor fraud (that did not affect the outcome). He also details societal pressure and intimidation tactics and some violence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Kossert mentioned intimidation, on which pages did he mention minor fraud and violence? Maybe I missed something. Crainsaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From Masuren: Ostpreussens vergessener Süden:
 * "Polnische Versammlungen wurden regelmäßig gestört, und nicht selten kam es dabei zum Ausbruch des organisierten Volkszorns und zu Schlägereien."p.249
 * "Unbestritten sind heute Wahlfälschungen in geringem Umfang, die allerdings das Gesamtergebnis nur wenig beeinflusst hätten."p.258
 * -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Politicization is unfortunate, but it is also common among many institutions. Usually that does not make them unreliable, and I don't think this is the case here. The Amendment law you cite was an idiotic political stunt that generated a lot of criticism, was watered down and has almost never been used, or used at all - at least our article does not seem to contain any instances of use. It seems like a dead law, forgotten by all except an occasional person bringing it up as an example of, well, idiocy of the PiS government - fortunately, clearly an ineffective idiocy. As for Grabowski and Engelking, IIRC, there is confusion - they were sued under a different law that has been sometimes mistakenly attributed to the Amendment (from what I see, this case is not mentioned in the Amendment article, nor at Jan_Grabowski). From : "A controversial 2018 law in Poland makes it an offence to link the Polish nation to Nazi crimes. It was not invoked however in the present case." So err, it seems your main "example" is incorrect, too (hint: "Columbia Undergraduate Law Review" is an undergraduate paper, not a scholarly publication, and clearly, given this error, it is much less reliable than a brochure endorsed by IPN that was written by someone whith a PhD degree, as is the case here) In either case, whatever law they were accused of breaking, they were found mostly innocent and the defendants "declared it a “great victory”". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the INR can not be considered a reliable source. It should definitely be deprecated from 2016 onward (when the full politicization by PiS started). There were definitely issues before that, but I am not familiar enough with the institute to say whether they are enough for deprecation or even rating as generally unreliable pre-2016. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that regarding the INR, case-by-case approach should be applied. The institute has a rather long history, had a few different Presidents who were appointed by the Parliamentary majorities of different political orientations. Quite a many historians who are now very critical about INR, were once its employees and published very valuable books and articles under its brand (Dariusz Libionka, Adam Puławski, just to mention a few). It would be shame to ban their works. Also, we should distinguish an INR's scientific books and articles from its promotional activities (like this one ), which are of course less reliable. To sum up: mark as unreiable only those books or articles, which recieved negative peer-review.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, any proposal that the publications issued by the IPN (which should be counted in the tens of thousands) should be considered unreliable as a whole should be considered illogical and unreasonable. Moreover, the report is written dishonestly. First of all, the 2018 law cited by the submitter has never fully entered into force, besides, it has nothing to do with the IPN's status as a reliable research center. The 2018 case, moreover, has nothing to do with the topic raised in the report. The rest is a discussion of content, and as such is not relevant to this noticeboard. @Crainsaw, however, states some facts in a way that bears little relation to the truth. He claims for example that's it's not true that German militias terrorized poles (btw I remind you that we write the names of ethnic groups with a capital letter) when in fact Polish gatherings were attacked, and during one such attack German militias murdered Bogumił Linka. I give this as an example just to illustrate my suspicion that this is about winning content discussion by removing inconvenient sources. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised the Bogumił Linka incident wasn't mentioned in the British sources, especially because the Allenstein area was garrisoned by 4 British Battalions, regardless German militias terrorizing Masurians deserves a mention. Although his incident happened in January, and by July most militias were disarmed. Also, an exhibition is not the best source, above I've collected scholarly sources about the Plebiscite, who should replace the IPN exhibition per WP:BESTSOURCES. Moreover, sources who have way more publications than the IPN have been deprecated at WP:RSP, and the 2018 Amendment did fully go into effect, thus far only one article has been repealed. Crainsaw (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The content at issue here closely mirrors what Benjamin Conrad wrote in Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 64 (2015) H. 2, p. 182:

(Translation: )

So the IPN source is good. As for the wider issue, I would be against any blanket blacklisting of IPN. If in doubt, attribute. If that seems insufficient, discuss. Andreas JN 466 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is for the Allenstein area, not the Marienwerder area, where Kwidzyn is located. Crainsaw (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It says specifically "Allenstein and Marienwerder" ...? Andreas JN 466 12:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies for or not reading correctly. Crainsaw (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Are these be acceptable sources for WP:DOB
Allmovie, TVinsider and Moviefone. I'm asking because I've sometimes come across these being used as a ref, however I've been removing them because I looked into them and they don't seem much different from Rotten Tomatoes as they may be acceptable for other departments, however also like Rotten Tomatoes they have the incorrect dates of births for some actors such as John Leguizamo, Tanya Roberts, Judith Hoag and Edie McClurg which makes their credibility questionable and not trustworthy for WP:BLP. It looks like that they're just web scraping content from other sites with no regard to the reliability or accuracy of that content. The real kicker is that Allmovie has Laverne Cox's birth year listed as 1984 even though her true birth year(1972) was revealed about 7 years ago.

I've noticed that Allmovie is listed among the perennial sources list, however there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I feel this research argues against its credibility as far as dates of birth are concerned. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:VENRS
There has been many discussions in the recent past about WP:VENRS and its content. Information about Venezuelan sources is extremely contentious and requires more than a handful of users to be involved. . With that being said, I have been attempting to spark dialogue and interest into WP:VENRS so more oversight and consensus can be established by the community and to avoid future WP:OWN issues.

With this section, I am centralizing discussions regarding WP:VENRS in an attempt to achieve more insight from the WP:RS community. In the next sub-sections are some issues that have persisted.--WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The introduction
In the introduction of WP:VENRS, I have attempted to place information provided by the International Media Support describing both Venezuelan government and opposition sources being more focused on polarization instead of accuracy. Not sure how equally describing both the Venezuelan government and the Venezuelan opposition is WP:UNDUE, but the current introduction only criticizes the Venezuelan government,

Is the proposed introduction with the International Media Support content appropriate or WP:UNDUE for describing the reliability of Venezuelan sources?--WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Description of listed sources related to opposition
In the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute, it was suggested (though with limited participation) that Venezuela sources described as being "opposition" on WP:VENRS should be placed on a case-by-case basis despite the existing inclusion of reliable sources providing descriptions of Venezuelan sources. There was also the argument that if the source was described as "independent" then it could not be described as "opposition", though there was no clear answer as whether the "independent" description was meant to describe independence from the government or from bias, etc. Assuming what the description of "independent" means without provided context is WP:OR and should be avoided. However, if as source is plainly described as "opposition" or something similar, then that is pretty cut and dry.

So after reviewing the previous concerns and recognizing that consensus can change, should the description of each source be determined by case-by-case consensus?
 * Yes
 * No

If answering yes, we can list each source below in this section and determine the proper description through consensus.--WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on listed sources?
A user asked if some Venezuelan sources have been previously discussed here on the WP:RSN.

Should we open an RfC on each individual source to actually determine reliability, or should the current process of a few users using the talk page to determine reliability be used?--WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Other suggestions?
If you have any other suggestions, please provide them here. Again, WP:VENRS needs as much interaction from the WP:RS community it can get. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments

I kindly ask you to strike your WP:OWN accusations. I have already asked you several times to stop casting aspersions, I really don't want to point out to other behavior and go in a circle with this, but most importantly they won't help at all having a constructive discussion on the issue at hand, specially regarding a topic that has turned so toxic now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To other users, for reference, see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Other projects do maintain reference lists. Projects can't maintain them at odds with the wider community, so if you have specific sources where you disagree with the projects accessment bring them here. Marking sources with political affiliation should be handled with care, unless the sources has publicly stated there support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do describe certain political affiliations, which you can see above in "Description of listed sources related to opposition".
 * WMrapids (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had sometime to go through the list in detail, and I'm not seeing real problems. If you disagree with the assessment of a source by the project, and you can't find satisfaction on the talk page, then open a discussion here. If after that the project maintains the entry on list the in opposition to any consensus, there would be more to talk about. I should also add that the last thing the situation needs is RFCs on every source. This is the third unclosed RFC in the subject, maybe waiting til some of them are closed will help form consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there is no participation from the "project", only one user. The discussion on the talk page, with the participation of other users uninvolved in the project, suggested that each source have their description determined individually. Also, what other RfCs exist related to WP:VENRS? WMrapids (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's two open on the VENRS (although I'll admit one is not marked official as an RFC even though it has the same format), which cover some of the same ground as this one, and one above for La Patilla. If you have specific disagreements about how a source is identified in the list raise that question at VENRS, or at this noticeboard. But having an RFC on each one would be a massive timesink.
 * The list has been editted by multiple editors, and multiple editors have taken part in discussions on the talk page. If you believe you can prove with diffs editors trying to take WP:OWNERSHIP then you want WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will keep your recommendations in mind if further action is needed to remedy these persistent problems. My only goal is to maintain an accurate and neutral project. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla, RfC closing review
With 1 editor opting to classify La Patilla as generally reliable, 3 with the consideration of additional considerations, 5 as generally unreliable and only 2 as deprecated, I think there should really be a reconsideration before giving the outlet the worst option considered in the RfC, specially considering that the two votes for deprecating were the last ones, did not add additional arguments to the discussion, and at least twice editors voted "Bad RfC", saying it was malformed (once here at WP:RS/N, the other time at Talk:La Patilla, by different editors). Talk:La Patilla was just divisive, with one editor siding with "generally reliable" (myself), one for "additional considerations" and 2 for "generally unreliable" (one of them being the nominator). As mentioned in the RfC, La Patilla is used in in the project, and adding a filter that removes all of them without proper consideration, in a topic that already has limited sources, can do more harm than good.

The main problem is that while it was established that La Patilla has republished content from a blacklisted website, Breitbart, but it was not demonstrated which content was generally problematic. For the greatest sample provided for republications, it was demonstrated at Talk:La Patilla that this type of republications were uncontroversial and did not have reliability issues. For comparison, in WP:TELESUR's RfC (a Venezuelan outlet also deprecated and whose discussion had more participation), examples were provided for conspiracies about 9/11, antisemitism, Hugo Chávez's death and other false claims. Knowing Breitbart's content, it should be demonstrated that La Patilla republishes conspiracy theories about climate change, vaccination, white nationalism, among others. The most troublesome example was a story by Breitbart about Maduro sending convicts as migrants to the US, something that was acknowledged at WP:VENRS and was retracted by La Patilla. In similar RfCs (such as Telesur's), the valoration of external sources has also been cited, including other reliable newspapers and books, which has not been the case here.

Lastly, I wanted to ask the closer for a moment for a clarification regarding the WP:USEBYOTHERS. From what I understood, "without comment" meant a value description of the citation, instead of just the direct citation. This is because the examples that I looked for were specifically of this format ("according to La Patilla") as the reliable sources cited La Patilla uncritically and, if I'm not mistaken, only two of the 25 examples describe it as an "opposition" outlet. If this is not the case, I would like to have the opportunity to include examples of referencing without this direct quotation. Kind regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the right place for a close review - the correct location is WP:AN, preceded by a discussion at User talk:David Gerard - but I will add that I agree that the discussion should not have been closed as anything other than "No consensus", as four contributors for a discussion with this level of impact does not meet the requirements of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; it is almost the definition of a "limited group of editors". BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistakes, I thought reviews were made in this noticeboard, thank you kindly. Should I strike the post above and repost it at WP:AN? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard I don't think it is likely that David Gerard will revert their close, but I would suggest opening a discussion on their talk page first regardless. If they don't revert it, then yes, repost this at WP:AN, although I would suggest adding what your proposed outcome is to it before doing that. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I left a message there, we'll see the status of the closure. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have suggested sending it for wider review, given the talk page discussion rapidly turned into trying to overturn the concept of deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Worth noting the closure review is in progress: Administrators'_noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is EIDR a reliable source?
On the Primos (TV series) page, a user added an EIDR entry to support a stated start date for the series. I asked this in a post on here last year, but didn't get a response then, so I'm trying once again, as EIDR was mentioned in yet another article I've been editing. I did a search and EIDR is currently used as a source in 22 articles.--Historyday01 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Who can register objects with the EIDR registry?
 * In order to maintain uniqueness and accuracy of records in the Registry, registrations are limited to organizations that are approved registrants in the EIDR system. Entities involved in the movie and television industry either directly in the production of content or in its distribution and related services are eligible to apply for registrant status. The EIDR organization reviews and approves candidates that meet criteria for registrants. Registrants pay an annual membership fee that depends on the size of the company as well as the annual number of registrations. Registrants must also conform to the rules and standards set by EIDR with regard to the quality of submissions." The information in the registry is provided by the companies. Each entry has a link to the Registrant's entry. In this case the information was provided by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. So I would treat it as a WP:PRIMARY source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that. That's very helpful. Historyday01 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

gov.genealogy.net
This is a standard user generated genealogy website. There was one short discussion about this previously (now in archive 368). But I'm looking to get all of its uses removed systematically, and replaced with citation needed tags as appropriate, so need a more attended discussion. The source is currently used is over 1,500 articles. A large part of which was added by a sock some years ago. Any disagreement that this is unusable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for opening this discussion. I didn't want my bot to delete all these citations, then later someone says "But..", because restoring them is really difficult technically, once they are gone. A couple more eyes on this before we proceed wouldn't hurt. It looks like a basic case of WP:UGC (User Generated Content). -- Green  C  16:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support replacement with CN tags. It should never have been used as a ref. (Its FAQ even says "No source needed") Schazjmd   (talk)  17:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support addition of "better source needed" tags or replacement with CN tags The entirety of genealogy.net, not just the GOV database seems to be user generated. But if the information is not removed I would prefer leaving the citations and adding "better source needed" tags to replacement with CN tags. I think it is better to have unreliable sources than no sources. (Btw. don't let the "GOV" irritate you it stands for "Genealogisches Ortsverzeichnis" ("genealogical directory of locations") it has nothing to with "government".) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear the content in most cases existed before the references were added, so the source doesn't add anything extra. In most cases it was added by a sock using automated tools to spam the same reference to roughly a thousand articles in 2017. It's then been picked up by other good faith editors to reference the same information in other articles, that's one of the reason I'd rather see it gone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who was the sock?  Volunteer Marek   22:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it just this account (and other Kaiser) socks? Or were there some others I missed?   Volunteer Marek   22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was deliberately avoiding naming the accounts, but yes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. If it was added in a questionable way, it's probably better to remove it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose replacement with CN tags, even though it's a wiki, all their entries have citations from the official censuses, it's generally reliable and better reading a 100-year-old digitized version of the census in Fraktur. The replacement with CN would also allow for the mass Scale removal of these names, done by the likes of Rockypedia and his socks (Mostly, and ). Of course, many of these were added by Kaiser von Europa, but not all his edits were harmful. That's why whenever I add the former German names for Polish settlements, I make sure to add a citation. Crainsaw (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed they host files that could be reliable, but these are not under gov.genealogy.net. Instead they have appear under (something else).genealogy.net (there about two hundred such links that should be reviewed separately). If the site is reporting other primary information, you should cite that rather than this site. Amateur interpretation of primary documents is never a good source for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you share a link where this has happened? The Verein has an entire page for books dedicated to documenting the German names in the former Eastern and Sudeten territories here. Also, I found a web service by the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy, where you can write the names of larger towns, and it tells you the German name and administrative history f the town, but unlike Gov, it doesn't mention all settlements in a Gmina or Kreis, rather only the larger towns. Crainsaw (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry share a link to what? You've lost me. The books (without checking each one) would likely be reliable, as would the government service. If the only place you can find the details is this site - well that's the problem. Note I'm not advocating for the remove of any German names, quite the opposite they should definitely be included. It's just they shouldn't be based of this site alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "I've noticed they host files that could be reliable, but these are not under gov.genealogy.net. Instead they have appear under (something else).genealogy.net (there about two hundred such links that should be reviewed separately)" what is the name of something else? Link needed. And you mightn't be advocating for the removal of those names, but as I've shown, no reference has been used as an excuse before to remove those names en masse before. Crainsaw (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wrote "something else", as there doesn't appear to be one denominator for everything. There's no link to give. Regardless of what has happened before using an unreliable source is the same as using no source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at a single example Gile, the source used by genealogy.net for 'Hilff' is "Gemeindelexikon für das Königreich Preußen [1905] I Ostpreußen, Heft I Ostpreußen, Aufgrund der Materialien der Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1905, isbn 3-9315577-26-0 (with links to ancestry.de and familysearch.org, both unfortunately paywalled). This is a reliable source, so use that rather than having an unreliable middleman. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The German Wikisource has it all Crainsaw (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, remember also there's no time limit on replacing the citation needed tags and if someone tries the names en masse I'll happily advocate against it in any discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll revert your citation removals. Crainsaw (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think keeping references to genealogy.net or any of its databases like GOV is an option. True, genealogy.net seems to be better when it comes to sourcing than most sites with user generated content, but it is user generated. We should either replace references with citation needed tags or leave them in but add better source needed tags. Maybe a compromise would be to have a transition period. We could post a list somewhere with all the pages that use genealogy.net to give people the opportunity to run down the original sources. And then after the transition period replace all remaining references with tags. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt we can call the compilation of historical names with their modern counterparts even "content", thus the applicability of WP:UGC. Crainsaw (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear this discussion isn't about whether the site is reliable, it's UGC - it's like Wikipedia it's content might be correct but it's not a reliable source for regencing in Wikipedia terms. This board can't do anything about WP:UGC only abide by it. This discussion is about whether using automation to remove it is acceptable. If the references aren't removed by automation removing the references manually would still be the right thing to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As the bot operator, if requested, I can replace the citation with, including a parameter GGN-X where "X" is a number from 1 to X. Thus if there are 3 CN's added to the article, they will have ids GGN-1 through GGN-3. The original citation and the unique ID are logged, 1 line per cite, like:
 * ,, GGN-1
 * What to do with this data I don't know, but at least it's available and would allow restoring the cites easily if required, or replacing them with something else. -- Green  C  00:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I like Random person no 362478479's idea, how about a transition period? Crainsaw (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with that, something like 3 months or 90 days. The list of articles effected is here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliability check
Are these sources 1 and 2 reliable for history related article like Assamese Brahmins ? Eduardo2024 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First one not, it is a really short biography, so general history topics are out of its scope. The second one looks useable (contributors are scholars from some Indian universities), but I'm no expert in Indian history and caste related topics are too contentious for my taste. Pavlor (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is History's website a reliable source?
There's somewhat of a consensus that History, the channel, is unreliable given the Ancient Aliens stuff and the like. However, what about History.com? Are they reliable, are they unreliable, or somewhere in between? I remember in the past that some of their articles about aliens and the like seemed to be at least not skeptical, but other stuff on the site when it comes to US and world history seem to be fine to me. I should also note that their articles have bylines (either by named authors or by the "History.com" team, whose members are named), they give sources, and they claim to have fact-checking, complete with a contact link. I have no idea how accurate that claim of fact-checking is, hence this discussion. Here are two examples of such articles: and.

Basically, is History.com, as opposed to History the channel, reliable at least as a tertiary source, or is it still not reliable just like the channel? I'm not sure if the source is cited on any article at the moment, but I'm asking here just for clarification purposes since WP:RSP makes it clear that the channel is unreliable, but makes no mention of the site.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 03:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the last major discussion about it was this one. It was never closed but the general sentiment seems to be that it's unreliable or should at least be used with extreme caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the case but I feel like the site must have changed since then since it's been a few years, like I don't recall the citations and fact-checking claims before. Or maybe I never paid attention to them in the past. I should also point out that most of the editors who said it's unreliable were largely focusing on the channel, rather than looking at the website on its own and independently.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * History.com is just the website for the channel and is mostly about what's showing. It's reliable for that and other information about channel. Are you confusing it with the History News Network? TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, History.com isn't only about the channel. They also talk about historical topics, see the links I gave above. What I'm asking if if that section of the site, the actual history stuff (as opposed to the show-related stuff), is reliable or not.  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Trail of Tears one has some generalized statements to watch out for - it doesn't mean it's wrong but watch out for hyperbole or generalized statements in any source. For example, the quote "Many of these whites" and the text that follows it is very general and open to interpretation.  "Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee" are known as the civilized tribes is nice and specific.  "Several states passed laws limiting Native American sovereignty and rights and encroaching on their territory" is a good example of something that is more of a summary then a generalization, it's easier to defend/understand, you could look up and see if several states did in fact pass laws.   The dust bowl article has the same thing, I'd be careful with the generalizations, but some of the more specific facts seem like they could be fact checked if they were contested with other resources.  Denaar (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would categorize it as “Meh… we can do better”… almost anything that could be reliably cited to history.com can be found in sources that are far more reliable. So we should cite those instead. And if history.com is the only site to support something, I would question it (on UNDUE grounds if not reliability). Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My main issue (and the reason I think it's fine for unexceptional things despite better sources existing) is that finding academic sources is, for many editors, fairly difficult. History.com is accessible and easy to cite; and we do need that ease of use for articles to expand through casual editing. So even if it can hopefully be replaced by better sources later, I think it's fine to use for "basic historical outline" things. My concern is that if we just say "no, never use it" the sources that end up used instead will likely often be news websites or magazines or the like, which I don't actually think are better sources for history. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the above, History.com, like most of the material published by the parent company, is Edutainment. They may try to be accurate, but on the flipside, the purpose is primarily to entertain and not to be an academic document.  For me, where it fails the CRAAP test is on the "Authority" and "Purpose" criteria.  The main purpose is to capture your eyeballs long enough to sell your attention to advertisers; or to be a quick source of information.  It's probably accurate enough, but accuracy is not the only consideration.  Insofar as it is accurate, everything would be better covered by more academic sources.  Use those sources instead.  -- Jayron 32 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is sometimes usable as a source, and is probably more accurate when it comes to history than most news media or most other random websites with sufficient reputation to pass the bare minimum of WP:RS. It does have editorial controls, and it does lists sources - but there's a notable absence of, you know, historians there. Its stories seem to largely written by, and fact-checked by, journalists or at best by authors of pop-culture histories. So it's not a top-tier source, and should be replaced by better sources when possible, especially for WP:EXCEPTIONAL stuff. But it's fine to use for unexceptional historical details. --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Pop history" sources of any kind tend to be terrible, regardless of whether they are associated with a TV channel that openly publishes bullshit. There is basically no reason to use it when other much better sources can be found for any given topic it covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are sources considered unreliable until proven otherwise?
A paragraph about the 14th Dalai Lama and Lady Gaga was removed by for a lack of "reliable sources". UNILAD has faced criticism, but Marca (newspaper), Janta Ka Reporter, and FilmiBeat do not appear unreliable. This is a question about these sources and similarly unremarkable ones in general. I have cleared up some controversies at the Janta Ka Reporter article, and you can verify my edits with the sources there. Vacosea (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No. If a source doesn't appear on the list of perennial sources, it only means one thing: the source hasn't been discussed yet. It's possible that the source is so awful that it doesn't warrant a discussion, or possibly a stellar source which also doesn't warrant a discussion (see here). Lack of a source having explicitly found to be reliable doesn't mean it's unreliable.
 * That said, it is reasonable to discuss an article that relies on uncommon sources. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with @Cortador here. I'm not familiar with the listed sources, but I would say it's okay to use them unless there are glaring issues that need to be addressed immediately, if other more reliable sources conflict (if it's a conflict between sources with both being of similar or better reliability, I would recommend phrasing coverage as "sources conflict on X, with some saying Y while others argue Z"), or if Wikipedians discuss about it.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a chicken and the egg situation... Remember that in theory in order to be used in the first place an editor had to assess its reliability and decide that it was in fact reliable. The issue with that is of course that everyone makes mistakes and some people are just incompetent. IMO this means that per AGF a source is to be considered reliable unless challenged, if challenged its reliability becomes undetermined until a consensus is reached. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but its also does not mean they are RS. What it means is that you use them, and see who objects and why. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, the information reverted was controversial information about a living person. BLP policies apply here; if a source's reliability is locally challenged and there's no evidence of a broader consensus, it's best to discuss the inclusion on the article's talk page. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking about whether or not a source is reliable(particular ones that've never been discussed before), I'd like to mention that I've come across editors using sites such as Moviefone or TVinsider for refs such as WP:BLP. I did some digging and those sites don't seem much different from Rotten Tomatoes. They may be okay to use for some departments, however they also have the incorrect DOBs for some actors, which like RT, makes them questionable when it comes to biographical information. We don't know exactly where they get their info from and for all we know they could just be listing down what other sites have listed. Allmovie is another site people often use for bio details, but that's actually on the list of perennial sources and there doesn't seem to be a consensus, but like the aforementioned sites, I did some digging there and I feel that's not a trustworthy site for bio info as well. I mean it has Laverne Cox's birth year as 1984 even though her true birth year(1972) was revealed about 7 years ago. Kcj5062 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that sources are either reliable or unreliable until proven otherwise. We should assume that if an editor cites a source, they believe in good faith that it is reliable, and if an editor challenges a source as unreliable then they in good faith believe it to be unreliable.  In the spirit of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, if an editor removes content on the grounds that they believe the source to be unreliable, the responsibility for demonstrating reliability should lie on those who want to include the content.  Personally, whenever I edit I always make a mental assessment of how reliable the sources I am using are, and how I would demonstrate their reliability if someone challenged them.
 * In this particular case, the text that the sources are supporting is a negative claim about a living person; the threshold for inclusion is thus fairly high. The Dalai Lama is a extremely well-known figure who has been the subject of a pretty substantial amount of literature; if the Lady Gaga controversy is an important aspect of his public image it will be discussed by unequivocally reliable sources. Compare the February 2023 child-kissing/tongue-sucking incident, which was covered by sources including The Guardian and BBC in the UK, and CBS News and CNN in the US.  If you think the content should be included and the sources are reliable, the best thing to do would be to make the case for inclusion on Talk:14th Dalai Lama. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * General Comment Also, what do we do about zines that are like Publisher lead singer of band, Editor-in-Chief his daughter, editor band member 2? Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a self-published source (WP:SPS). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about one person show, but one person writes, and others act as editors. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would still be self-published by Wikipedia standards. There is no independence of source and subject. It's equivalent to a company publishing information about itself. No matter how many people are involved the lack of independence makes it self-published by Wikipedia standards. Basically there are two reasons for a source to fall under WP:SPS, the first is lack of editorial oversight, the second is lack of independence between source and subject. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In one sense, but probably not in the sense you mean. A source is a WP:RS if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and ultimately there needs to be some reason to think that it passes that bare minimum threshold; in that sense, sources default to unreliable. However, that reputation just has to exist, it doesn't have to have been discussed or vetted by the Wikipedia community; so a source can be reliable (as you said, "appear reliable") even if it hasn't come up before - in that case the thing to do is to go over the guidelines and rules on WP:V and WP:RS to evaluate it and get a general sense of where it stands. Editors shouldn't challenge it just because it's not on RSP or something, because RSP isn't an exhaustive list. But if they do think that specific source is specifically not reliable, then once it's challenged you have to come up with some reason for why it passes those guidelines, which will generally mean pointing to things about it or which have been said about it. I think it's reasonable to say that per WP:BURDEN you have to present at least some rationale for why a source is reliable if it hasn't previously been discussed and is challenged in good faith - however, once you present that rationale, someone who disagrees can't just say "well it isn't on RSP / RSN", that's not how those things work; they have to explain why they disagree in turn (and then one of you can bring it here if the dispute is going nowhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Greek City Times
Greek City Times is a Greek online newspaper that engages in nationalist rethoric. It does not use serious journalistic language.

Examples include these articles  as if trying to delegitimize North Macedonia or this article  about a supposed Albanian-Romanian alliance to attack the Aromanians (just another Balkan ethnicity, as if it was the Albanians or the Macedonians) who are supposedly undoubtedly Greeks. The website also uses "Constantinople" to refer to modern Istanbul. It's pretty ridiculous. Also this article The Greek destroyer of Turkish drones is ready (not a quote). This article accusses Turkish national hero Atatürk of genocide and calls him an "an Albanian Jew born in Thessaloniki", a straight-up racist attempt at delegitimization ("how can Turks commemorate an Albanian JEW!?").

This is a trash source that shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. How can I proceed from here? I can just rewrite everything if I didn't format this properly. I'm not experienced in this proccess. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Is this source currently being used in any articles? If not, there is no problem to solve here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's used a lot . Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The last discussion about it appears to be this one from July 2021. The general sentiment seems to have been that is was unreliable. From appearance it appears to be a extremely biased source, at a minimum it certainly shouldnt be used for BLPs or exceptional claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is a RfC necessary for the partial or total deprecation of the source? I'll start one if so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not look like there is a dispute to settle here (so no need for an RfC). If there are inappropriate uses, you can remove them; if there is disagreement about that, you can bring discussion here; if the disagreement is intractable, an RfC can be used to resolve it.  I just took a look at a few uses of GCT, they were mostly innocuous; the emphasis on Greek ethnicity at Sartana, Ukraine (relying heavily on GCT) is over-the-top, but what is mainly needed is other sources without the Greco-centric POV. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP is a list of sources "whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed" - it's not meant to be a comprehensive list. This is a local Greek Newspaper with a clear bias, so how it's used matters quite a bit. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG both really apply here.  If they are reporting on a local event, they might have completely sound reporting and useful as a reference, perhaps they give a more detailed account of something local than other sources of the same event. Looking through how it's used, for instance, on Navagio Beach "In September 2022 another landslide occurred, after a 5.4-magnitude earthquake took place between Kefalonia and Zakynthos" - I think this is a pretty normal news report and not someone trying to push a POV by including it. Under Sartana, Ukraine it's being used to source "the majority is ethnic Greek and speak the Greek language fluently" - on first glance, that sounds like a fair use. The article it's from is clearly "Pro Greek", but the way it's being used is for cultural details about the city that flesh out the article and make it more enjoyable to read.  Denaar (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Laurier Undergraduate Journal of the Arts
About. From what I can see, this is a journal not only for undergraduate students, but by undergraduates (see their editorial board, googling for the names there suggests they were or still are students). On the other hand, it does claim that "all submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process". In the context of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says PhD thesis are ok but to be used with caution, and as far as I know our practice of being even more cautious when it comes to master thesis (which nonetheless are seen, I think, as reliable but with due concern to any REDFLAG claims), what's our take on "undegraduate journals" like this one? Allow but with extra caution, like master thesis, if they have a peer review system (and don't allow if there is no peer review)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's certainly more than the normal students magazine, or even other student journals I've looked into. We use far less reputable sources as reliable sources. As long as it's nature is taken into account when using it, in comparison to more established acedamic sources, I don't see why it couldn't be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few of these (mostly in the Humanities I think) and they are generally acceptable if there is nothing better to use. The accounts and summaries of previous "proper" academic literature are often especially useful, if the originals are unobtainable for those of us without access to uni libraries. Presumably the faculty try to ensure standards are high (so one hopes it is "peer-plus" review, not just more undergrads), as it goes out under the name of the university. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nelson Bocaranda

 * Related discussions at ANI

Regarding this text:
 * Bocaranda has received multiple awards including Venezuela's Premio Nacional de Periodismo (National Journalism Prize) and the Monseñor Pellín Award,  receiving an award for the latter's Person of the Year category in 2019.

wants to use this source: to claim that Bocaranda received only honorable mention. Besides the reliability question, I see no mention of honorable mention in the WordPress document, which is presented as if it's as a document of the Government of Nicolas Maduro, even though it's a WordPress written by two individuals. Separately, I haven't yet started looking at the list of awards at the bottom of the Runrunes About page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://lorenaalmarza.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/el-premio-cuenta-su-historia-1942-2019.pdf
 * Pinging uninvolved administrators and former administrators who speak Spanish: because the sources are in Spanish. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Vicsig
I'm reviewing Stony Point railway line for GA. One of the sources cited is https://vicsig.net/. From the about page, it seems to be user generated, but it seems that the class of users is curated and directed by the site's owner, and that they have some sort of process in place to verify information. I'm really not sure if this is an RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * combining the efforts of many volunteers under the co-ordination of Chris in entering sightings, photos, data, and other minutiae to the database certainly hints that this is UGC. Maybe it could be considered under WP:EXPERTSPS, but I can't find it's usage by other reliable sources. Without that I dont think it can be thought of as generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies
Is the "Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies" at https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/category/commiepedia/ a reliable source? Its use at David Ivon Jones is being discussed in a good article review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a self-published work, which would usually rely on WP:EXPERTSPS to demonstrate reliability. EXPERTSPS requires being written by "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I can't find any evidence that Stevenson has any history of historical work being published by reliable independent publications; I can't find any evidence that he had any formal historical training; I can't find any evidence of his work being reviewed or cited by unambiguously reliable sources. Regardless of how useful this is as a source, I can't see that it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Stevenson certainly appears very knowledgeable about the subject, but this is all self-published and I can't find anything to allow use under WP:SPS either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They seem to have published plenty of work in the more reputable British communist press, as would be expected of a British communist... Reasonably this is a needle we can thread... I think we can comfortably use Graham Stevenson (historian) with attribution primarily for events which he was directly connected to and the history of British communist figures. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally reliable:
 * I use the Graham Stevenson's Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies more than any other wiki editor, so I'll come to its defence.
 * The Liverpool University Press has published at least three journal articles by Stevenson, titled "James Connolly papers", "Radical Clerkenwell", and "The Russian Revolution and Britain's Shop Steward movement". Multiple published papers by a reputable University Press should be enough to satisfy WP:EXPERTSPS. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to having multiple articles published by a reputable University Press, his five decades of trade union activism, alongside his leadership roles within some of Britain's largest trade unions and the Marx Memorial Library, is more than enough to make him a subject matter expert in the field of British labour history. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The three papers in Theory & Struggle, published by LUP, certainly go some way towards demonstrating expertise in trades union history. I do not think that either a history of trade union activism or having been the treasurer of the Marx Memorial Library count towards demonstrating expertise as a historian or biographer though. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Debrett's a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?
There are 2600+ links to Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage on en-wiki and only one previous RSN discussion. There has been some disagreement at AfD on whether this source constitutes a secondary or tertiary source, in the context of the GNG. Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage  has received significant coverage from reliable sources in 2019 when it abandoned its print edition in favor of online publishing: The Economist ("a snob’s guide to Britain’s aristocracy), The Telegraph ("the longstanding reference book"). Other coverage of the publication includes Britannica, the British Library, and some reviews from the 1880s (10x "book of reference" or similar). To give an example of its content, here is the Debrett's Peerage entry for Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny.

Hence the question: is Debrett's a WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, or WP:TERTIARY source? Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's clearly tertiary, it's a listing similar to other tertiary sources. It is certainly far more reliable than a lot of the genealogy sources in use on many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would treat it as tertiary, like a subject specific encyclopedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tertiary, and generally, but not always utterly, reliable. They put my sister in one edition, wrongly, as she was merely the common-law wife (girlfriend) of the heir-presumptive to an Irish baronetcy, the lowest form of aristocratic life. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely tertiary. I would regard it as highly reliable. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Greentech Media and Business of Business on Danielle Fong
Is Greentech Media a reliable source for WP:BLP-sensitive claims about Danielle Fong? I've never heard of the source before (it seems to be now defunct), but it's being used for claims in the article on Fong: In May of 2016, Greentech Media published a highly critical piece on Fong's management of LightSail and alleged untruthful statements to media about the viability of the company's products. Reports surfaced that Fong was receiving a salary of "$225,000 a year, working on average just one day per week." Additionally, she was allegedly granted a company loan to purchase a Tesla Model S.

For what it's worth, I've noticed this from a TweetDeck search I keep active, where I noticed Fong complaining about the article: tweet. She seems to believe there is a campaign against her by this outlet, which I investigated a bit more to find this post. Whether or not that's the case or she simply doesn't want critical—but acceptably sourced—reporting about her to be included in the Wikipedia article, I'm not sure, hence why I'm starting this discussion.

There is also a source from Business of Business where they included her in a list (based on Greentech's reporting) titled "These fraudulent founders were once hailed as ‘the next Steve Jobs’ of their now-disgraced startups". That was being used to support the statement: She was ranked with Elizabeth Holmes as one of the fraudulent founders. LightSail Energy never went commercial and had run out of cash due to Fong's lavish lifestyle and a serious lack of work ethic. I removed that because it accuses her of a crime (fraud) without actually being supported by the article text, which does not allege fraud. It has since been re-added by Billpaul2001 with new wording: These accusations earned her a reputation from some members of the press as a fraudulent founder with a now-disgraced startup with a fall from grace similar to Elizabeth Holmes, Adam Neumann, Trevor Milton and Adam Rogas. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The latter (B of B) doesn't seem reliable in general, nor this article in particular. Greentech Media, if it's the same org that ran green energy and renewables summits during the heyday of the company, may be a reliable source for the sector and company, but its articles could still be a mix of reporting and op-ed, and that doesn't make it appropriate for sourcing original research or a hatrack of anonymous complaints. – SJ +  21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Greentech Media article is in a category called "Letter From Sand Hill Road". All available articles in that category are attributed to Eric Wesoff, "Editor-at-Large" at GTM. That together with the style the article is written in makes me think that it is an editorial article. As such I don't think it is appropriate as a source for allegations (whether legal or ethical) in a BLP article. The Business of Business list is certainly not usable for BLP accusations either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find more common sources for these allegations either, and there isn't much information about Greentech Media as a source for legal or general news. I think removing it is fine for now. Fong's article's Talk page can serve as future reference. CurryCity (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Columbia Undergraduate Law Review (CULR)
Is an undergraduate journal reliable? This one specifically: https://www.culawreview.org/ Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For what? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Websites of much less standard are used as reliable sources. I expect some care should be taken, especially if more established journals have articles taking a different stance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Very much agree with this. Certainly reliable for non-contentious things, and probably a bit beyond.  I will caution that I would consider it probably a notch or two below law reviews and journals from actual law schools, which focus on papers by scholars and professors (and sometimes curated pieces by law students).  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Presumed reliable, IMHO. Andre🚐 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not unreliable, but better sources should be preferred. The content in other law journals is written by actual lawyers, or at least actual law students. This source should not be seen as their equivalent. John M Baker (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As others have said... undergraduate sources are not as good as ones published by professors, and certainly not ones that undergo full peer review; they tend to get pushback because unless someone points out that they're an undergraduate source they might be given more diffidence than they ought to have. That doesn't mean they're unusable, especially for uncontentious points, but I'd avoid relying on them for contentious statements and would try to find better sources when possible. Also, I'm a bit concerned about their selection criteria, which says that We reject articles that do not discuss legal related matters, are not written by undergraduates, or otherwise fail to meet our basic criteria. Unfortunately, due to the large number of articles we receive, we also have to reject many submissions every cycle that do fit into the guidelines we set. Submissions that cover topics that seem to have a social science rather than a legal bent, for example, have a more difficult time being accepted in our journal even if they are well written. Generally speaking, we look for quality, relevance, and substance, but believe that there are many paths to creating a successful submission. They exert editorial control, but there's a noticeable absence of fact-checking. It looks like they mostly publish opinion, and underlying question is how WP:DUE the primary opinion of a law student is. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not even a law student. Pre-law at most. John M Baker (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

ch-aviation.com
A lot of airlines articles such as some Venezuelans ones has use https://www.ch-aviation.com/

The news sources is unknown for me because it requires a pro subscription membership and I do not have access to them.

So I am not quite sure if they are reliable or not. There was one topic about it here, but it was 2008 so it seems to have changed. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like a trade publication and data provider. I see no obvious issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Has been cited at least three times by cnn:
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/africa/ethiopia-arik-airlines/index.html "industry analyst CH Aviation"
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/11/europe/russia-plane-crash/index.html "ch-aviation, which maintains aviation industry data"
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/africa/jet-west-nigeria/index.html "industry analysts’ CH Aviation"
 * -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Use of Rotten Tomatoes for biographical information
Can Rotten Tomatoes be used a source for biographical information, such as the date of birth, for film and television personnel? 14:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Rotten Tomatoes)

 * Background: The question has been discussed several times on this board (Jul 2023, Apr 2023, Sep 2022, Nov 2022) but the discussions have been sparse and the opinions mixed. The aim of this RFC is to reach a firmer conclusion and update the Rotten Tomatoes entry at WP:RSP accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes because Rotten tomatoes wouldn't be held in such high esteem if they get the bare basics wrong or take "unnecessary risks" that can deem them forever seen as untrustworthy. It is not some small set-up in someone's basement but a major serious company that won't accept phone calls from random people or just anybody on basics about a movie release date or actor bio. If they do such things, they wouldn't be held in high esteem in the entertainment industry and so it rely on protocol and verification and trusted sources like publicists and movie studios, who are willing to talk to them, and their reputation so far has been stellar. Major media corporations wouldn't invest so heavily in them, if they had a rep of being unprofessional and untrustworthy and no minimal editorial oversight. GUPTAkanthan (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. If we are talking about using RT for citing birthdates (or other personal info) for BLPs, I'm not seeing a process for checking and repairing any errors. Since much of the site is crowdsourced and opinion, I'm reluctant to stamp RT for reliability for fact checking (such as is necessary). I'd be happy to be corrected. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may be mistaken on how they work. The reviews may be user-generated but not the bio. Otherwise anyone can claim to be an actor and have a page on Rotten Tomatoes. Instead the bio are being added in by the Rotten Tomatoes staff who are professionally required to verify whatever it collects and add that info in, and can't accept just anything. I imagine they must have rules where since their reputation is based on their accuracy, they would rather leave a bio incomplete or empty, rather than allow it to be filled with poorly sourced or unverified info. And if they make mistakes, it's likely to be a typo and not because of bad sourcing, like when a movie studio rep accidentally sends them the wrong data. Though that's always a possibility, it's a very slim one that would likely be corrected over time as they obviously have professional editorial oversight.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @GUPTAkanthan, do you have any sources to support that? I cannot find any information on their website about how they obtain or verify biographical details.AboutFAQ Schazjmd   (talk)  17:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's self evident. You don't need a source to show you that explicitly. If it was possible for someone like me to add changes to an actor's information then it's user generated. Except I can't change it. And as Slatersteven pointed out, outside parties can suggest or alert to changes BUT it's obvious that the staff editors will have the final say on whether it will be accepted. I mean this is the same company who seems willing to go the extra step to verify if even the reviews are genuine. in order to preserve their trustworthiness. So I imagine that their business model is about the same as IMBD.  IMBD welcome alerts from public for correction or submissions of new info to help make their job easier but they always have a process of verification to ensure accuracy. Similarly Rotten Tomatoes is not some small time personal blog. It's a serious corporate level company, with a legal department, and  who obviously hires editors to fact check their site. And they emphasize on their website that they work hard to ensure the Facts are correct, and I see no reason why they would cheap out on a fact verification department when their hundreds of million dollars reputation relies on this.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on our feelings that they must be reliable because "it's obvious" or that it's "a serious corporate level company". Schazjmd   (talk)  19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No, as far as I know it uses user-generated content. "Submit Movie Information Tell us about missing or incorrect movie or TV information." tells me that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't rely on user generated content for making the bio. They allow the public to email them in case they innocently make a mistake. But they will read that email and the staff editors will have the final say on whether it will push them to make the changes. It's no different to IMBD who is open to corrections but they will only accept to make such changes at their discretion. GUPTAkanthan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMDb is considered an unreliable source. See WP:RS/IMDb. —El Millo (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there proof that they are proven to be unreliable when it comes to specifically the (bio) details. I can understand if people say the user-generated reviews are not to be trusted. But I imagine the bio is a different matter altogether. What's relevant is has IMBD ever made many mistakes in the bio or specifically the birthdates of the celebs? If they often make mistakes in those department, then I would agree it's unreliable. But I never heard of IMBD being untrusted for the details that aren't inherently promotional are are just plain hard facts like DOB.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @GUPTAkanthan, imdb is not acceptable for date of birth. Please read WP:DOB. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See also WP:IMDB. There's been over 30 discussion regarding IMDb's reliability and there is community consensus that it is unreliable. —El Millo (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @El Millo I had read your link. The summary says info in IMBD is "user-generated" but I think that's incorrect . As according to IMBD, they say they source their info from on-screen credits, press kits, official bios, autobiographies and interviews. They actively gather information from and verify items with studios and filmmakers. So it seems unfair to summarise that IMBD is plainly user generated when it's more than that.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Any streetwalking hack can submit a bio, date of birth, "trivia," filming location, or anything else to IMDB, and 99 times out of 100, IMDB rubber-stamps it with zero fact-checking or oversight. This is the definition of useless user-generated content. Rift (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rift give me facts and not loaded statements hyping the unreliability of IMBD. You written that; Any streetwalking hack can submit (any changes) that will be accepted 99 times out of 100 because of zero fact-checking or oversight? And what proof do you have to support that unsourced odd statement? And if it was ever that extreme, then it should be easy for you to go to Brad Pitt's profile, suggest to change his birthday to 1997 but obviously you cannot as staff will reject that submission outright. It dispels your claim to me that IMBD have "zero fact-checking or oversight" and is an extreme obvious WP:LIE.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Might I propose that this thread is out of scope of the discussion? We're talking about Rotten Tomatoes, not IMDb. If you want IMDb's reliability to be reevaluated, you're welcome to start an independent thread for it. DonIago (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I first mentioned IMBD to explain an example but others focused on that part of my comment and I replied. Going off a tangent wasn't intentional. I am aware that the consensus here is virtually against Rotten Tomatoes however I only disagree with the numerous users unfairly stating that RT info is lazily user generated. And consensus should be based on balanced facts and not wrongful assumptions. So I explained the only way you can submit changes, is to email Rotten Tomatoes and then staff will read that email. Idell's comment down below, explained it better than me, and noted how RT is in fact becoming less and less permissive of user submitted content. And I see no indication that the website info is primarily user generated, and or doesn't rely on paid staff. Yes, they sometimes make mistakes but I think overall, they are "generally" reliable as the company has an editorial oversight department, if they allow the public to email them for corrections.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No it has been shown to be unreliable in this regard and there is no information about where they get their information for bios other than user submissions and no indication of fact-checking. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPs should be using high quality sources. If doubts exist about the reliability of RT and there is no obvious details showing how they obtain and maintain there information, then better sources should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Rotten Tomatoes biographies do not indicate where they obtain information from, and it is the kind of condensed information that one would expect to find from the amalgamation of multiple sources. The pages also do not list their contributors. It would be better to find sources external to Rotten Tomatoes that provide the same information. Someone mentioned above about them using user-generated content; I don't believe that specifically applies here, not that that changes my opinion. Esteem as a company is not a reasonable metric to determine if a source is reliable or not. Rman41 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No to give some examples of the incorrect DOBs RT has listed here's John Leguizamo. Here's Tanya Roberts. Here's Ric Ocasek. Here's Judith Hoag. Within the past five or six years, all of them have had their true DOBs revealed. And as I've mentioned before, they're actors that have age disputes on Wikipedia(especially voice actors), however they have other bio info such as what high school or college they attended and what year they graduated(with actual legit sources) and the DOB that's listed on RT doesn't match up with their graduation year. So we don't know exactly where RT is getting those DOBs from. For all we know they could be just putting those down because that's what a lot of other sites have listed. Many sites these days web scrape without doing any fact checking and this is why actors have falsified DOBs online.Kcj5062 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Surely, it is not user generated in the way WP:IMDb is. Claiming that it is is just speculation. Let me attempt to expand on GUPTAkanthan's argument. On its FAQ page, Rotten Tomatoes' editorial staff claims that it works hard to make sure the actor information is correct. Users are allowed to request edits and addition of content only by email, backed by some "link". RT staff exercises caution, carrying out its own checks before putting the content up. Although, any lack of resources may mean a delay in page creation and correction. (How frequently do we found their biographical data to be incorrect? Does it get rectified?) For information reported as inaccurate, they claim to check their sources (do we expect that to be an aggregate of random webpages? I don't think we require every source to disclose its sources before relying on it, rather we just establish a historical pattern and trust the process.) and may even contact the person's publicist. RT is becoming less and less permissive of user submitted content. In February 2019, they disabled public comments in addition to reviews on unreleased items. Whether it is reviews, comments or edit requests, they claim to have strong editorial oversight working to protect their "data and public forums from bad actors". Idell (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Even if I knew nothing about Rotten Tomatoes, I'd say "No" due to their lack of transparency about the editorial process, who is writing/editing/fact-checking the bios, what their education and backgrounds are, where their data comes from, and so on. They reference "data import" in the "movie/actor information" FAQ, which suggests that at least some information is added automatically, possibly without any fact-checking. That plus their history of factual errors (as mentioned above) gives me no reason to trust any biographical information found on RT. Woodroar (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lean No - if I find a dob on RT, then I use that as a starting point for research, because I figure if RT has the dob, then reliable sources have it too. I have never found a wrong dob on RT. Having said that, I always use the higher quality source for the dob, right, makes sense.———<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 02:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. We shouldn't use a film aggregator for info on BLPs.  See Ric Ocasek's bio.  Infobox says born 1949, prose bio says born 1944.  This kind of sloppiness is fine for writing a sarcastic one-liner summary of a film's reception, but it's not acceptable for a biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No I'll add to this snowball. Not a reliable source for this kind of information. No clear editorial oversight. Birthdates should at the least be sourced to entertainment industry magazines and such. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the information submitted to it has to be " backed by some "link"", why woud we not use that instead? If this information is published in an RS, use that RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No - One thing to look at is the editorial process. Rotten Tomatoes has a team of "curators" and a place to submit "missing or incorrect information" on their "About" page.  That, combined with the examples above of incorrect birthdays on the site, make it seem untrustworthy for birthdates. Denaar (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really- I wouldn't consider a review aggregator site a high-quality source with expertise in the area. Birthdates would better be sourced from well-regarded on-topic magazines or books from reliable publishers (like what DIYeditor said). Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for facts and figures except its own. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Too much evidence of errors, and a "submit your alleged corrections here" form is a bad sign. Seems like IMDb all over again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Even if we allow the source, because of the issues others have raised, we'd need to attribute the source inline, which is a non-starter for DOBs, etc. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No While I regularly see the Rotten Tomato score cited in reputable sources, I have never seen any other content from the site cited. I would be reluctant to consider it reliable for credits, release dates etc, nevermind biographical content. Beyond its function as a review aggregator everything else appears to be an afterthought. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No Fine for movie reviews but not for contentious BLP claims.LM2000 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No - Given the apparent inaccuracies linked above RT shouldn't be used for DOBs etc movie reviews would be fine but not for DOBs. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No Rotten Tomatoes focuses on movie and TV reviews, not comprehensive biographical data. It lacks details about background, education, and personal life. Its user-generated content might lack accuracy and privacy. Reviews are subjective, unlike verifiable biographical facts. The platform's purpose is to guide entertainment choices, not to provide extensive biographies. SpunkyGeek (talk)
 * No - While I find RT to be a useful tool for film review collection, it's not something I trust for reliable information. I have seen a few pieces of information on that site that was incorrect and likely scrapped of other non-reputable websites. Nemov (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Two local alternative newspapers in the San Francisco area
I recently asked in AfD about the article The Crux (band)—specifically, whether it meets WP:NBAND under criterion 1. My concern is that "the vast majority of citations are for one alternative newspaper from the North Bay: the North Bay Bohemian. There are also a few citations for The Press Democrat, another North Bay alternative newspaper." Indeed, these two papers constitute perhaps the only non-trivial, reliable sources for a WP article about The Crux. I got a response from Iffy that suggested I ask here about the reliability of those two newspapers. In addition to their reliability, I would also like to know whether the coverage from these papers satisfies WP:NBAND criterion 1. Knowing this, I can decide whether to edit the article based on this coverage or to nominate it for deletion. I would appreciate any help or further information on where else I can ask about this. Thank you! AnAbandonedMall (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * From our articles about them, they're established papers and have each won non-trivial awards for their coverage. That would put them in the reliable category for me. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both seem reliable. They are very local but I don't see any requirements in NBAND about reach of press circulation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Is World War II German propaganda RS for Soviet tactics?
Is this archive of German propaganda reliable for the claim that Soviet troops used human wave attacks during the Battle of Stalingrad? An editor has been repeatedly adding it to the Battle of Stalingrad and human wave attack articles. To me it seems obvious that such sources are unusable, but trying to get consensus that this is in fact the case. Kges1901 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for this kind of use. There is so great wealth of sources about this war/battle/war propaganda, so use these. Pavlor (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for such claim. I would likewise not use an archive of Soviet propaganda for a factual claim regarding German tactics. However, if one were to find a WP:SECONDARY source which uses these primary sources to describe German propaganda towards Stalingrad, then inclusion could be considered, perhaps in a different section and always giving it proper WP:WEIGHT (the weight given to a secondary source describing the German propaganda's description of Soviet tactics at Stalingrad should much lower than the consensus of historians towards Soviet tactics at Stalingrad). Pilaz (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I've been trying to make this point at Talk:Battle_of_Stalingrad, but questionable source interpretations continue to be inserted repeatedly. Kges1901 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Utterly unusable. No question. And why on earth would one need it given the sheer amount of quality secondary sources? This isn't exactly an obscure topic where you have to scratch the barrel for any source out there. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have said I was amazed anybody used that as a source for such claims, except it was apparently supported by The Daily Telegraph. To be sure, I don't consider a non-specialist writer at The Telegraph to be reliable for this topic either, but I can at least understand the attempted use. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

News Corp (Australia) inaccurate AI-generated articles
News Corp (Murdoch) runs a lot of local papers in Australia. We've tended to treat these as just ordinary WP:NEWSORGs. Unfortunately, they've been pumping out text generated by some unspecified AI process - "3,000 Australian local news stories a week" - without disclosure (the usual byline is Peter Judd, the head of the AI initiative). News Corp staff had no idea this was going on. News Corp claims that all output is reviewed - but, of course, they're pumping out a ton of errors. News Corp doesn't care, they're making a ton of money and they credit their bots. So we'll need to keep an eye out for this content - we literally can't trust any particular detail from the bots - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like we need to say these outlets canot be RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what the AI is - it's not literally ChatGPT, for example. But just publishing about traffic accidents in the future, uh, yeah.
 * Use in Wikipedia may be a bit limited - the sites are almost all paywalled, and I didn't spot anything cited to Peter Judd in a couple of quick searches - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the Guardian article only says that "many" of the stories are attributed to Judd, the fact that they don't carry his byline isn't necessarily evidence that they're okay. I would be inclined to say that anything which may have been generated by AI is inherently unreliable, and thus anything published by a "hyperlocal" News Corp paper since 2023 should be considered unreliable unless we can show that it was actually written by a real journalist. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In general I agree, with the caveat that the current generation of AI is inherently unreliable but in theory that might not always be true. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I fail to see anything alarming about GenAI use for "Where to find the cheapest fuel in Penrith" / "Check out the latest on Penright roads" / "Here's what you can expect with today's Penrith weather". The OP has given us nothing to indicate what in Wikipedia (which by the way is an encyclopedia) has been affected by possibly-ephemeral local trivia. The accuser (Guardian) (of course) does some bugling about their virtuous intent, but let's see how long that survives if it has to produce weather and traffic reports for Penrith, New South Wales and many similar places every day or more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan has hit the nail on the head here. This sort of Chicken Little hand-wringing over the use of AI in these situations has failed to address the main "so what?" question.  Unless and until someone tries to use an article written by AI as a source, it's pointless to worry so hard about this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are given fake bylines how will we know? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. If AI generated news stories about a car wreck in East Bumblefuck, Oregon have a fake byline who cares?  Why is Wikipedia including information about a random car wreck in East Bumblefuck, Oregon?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understand the point is we do not know they are only doing this for trivial stories. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All the reports describe the generated stories in question as covering formulaic local minutiae like weather, petrol and traffic. If you have evidence generation extends to other types of stories, please post it. – Teratix ₵ 17:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jayron and Peter that this is largely irrelevant to RSN, since the stories implicated concern hyperlocal trivia like petrol prices, traffic reports and weather – we're not going to be using these in Wikipedia articles in the first place. Certainly we should not throw out these papers altogether. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater – actually, since we're not even using the offending stories in the first place, it would be like putting the baby in an empty tub and throwing it. – Teratix ₵ 17:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press has been using AI for earnings coverage for several years now. Apply the standard equally or not at all. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 21:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As an aside I'd like to see a more fleshed out discussion about News Corp because I don't see them as much better than their US equivalent, which is Fox, insofar as they have an obvious political bias and most of their offerings are tabloid journalism. TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Three sources from Articles for deletion/Aryen Suresh Kute
The following three websites were called out in the above AFD as needing a discussion here regarding whether they should, in general, be considered RS or not. Provided are the specific links used in the article, but the three sites overall are in question. If this list should be split into 3 separate discussions, that's fine. - Courtesy ping based on the AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ZeeNews India
 * Daily Pioneer
 * ABP Live


 * All three sources are clearly and unambiguously paid-for promotional flimflam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anytime you see brand-wire (and similar phrases on other Indian sites), it's a paid marketing article. The writing alone on all three is so over-the-top it's obvious this came from a PR team.  The lack of a name on the by-line, but just "Agencies" or "Bureau" is another red-flag.  All are junk sources that should be removed from the article.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem with most Indian newspapers and news-webites, and not just the three mentioned here, is that they publish sponsored content without labeling it clearly. For example, all the "supplements" published by The Times of India; the "Special" section of the Daily Pioneer; the "Brand Wire" section of ABP Live etc. And this is apart from articles that are potentially not paid for but are quick rewrites of press-releases nevertheless. Ravensfire has noted some other features to look for.
 * Unfortunately this practice is so ubiquitous among the organizations that also cover regular news legitimately that we cannot simply tag all these sources as "unreliable" and be done with it. So eternal vigilance, and not relying on WP:NEWSORG blindly, is perhaps the best we can do. Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Should add that most of such article creations are done by editors with a WP:COI or as WP:UPE. Abecedare (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we list them at WP:RS/P noting that while the sites themselves aren't banned, there are some indications of sections of the sites which should not be used? Something we can point to so that article/draft writers can be alerted. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections from me if someone has a concrete proposal. The only problem may be that this applies to dozens, and possibly hundreds, of Indian newspaper and TV channel websites. Maybe we can make a single entry pointed to by (say) WP:NEWSORGINDIA that mentions this intermingling of regular news and sponsored content. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be most excellent. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've drafted a proposal below based on the discussion here (and heavily cribbing some of your verbiage). - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ungh, those articles are obviously PR, with the flowery language. I'm not sure we can label the entire website as non-RS however. We could perhaps slap a label on the citation tool that when they pop up, it gives the user a gentle nudge to double check (I know we have certain sites that are black listed, but I'm not sure we can put a "warning" on sources). Best would be to perhaps list them as case-by-case here with yellow background. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I'd like to see happen. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Yellow/warning triangle for "Various India-based websites"
Many India-based news-style websites offer a mix of actual news and sponsored content. Caution should be taking in using such sites without a close examination and determination if the content is news or sponsored. Examples of sponsored content include "supplements" published by The Times of India; the "Special" section of the Daily Pioneer; the "Brand Wire" section of ABP Live etc.


 * Support in principle; open to any tweaking of format, language, examples etc. This issue is well known to regulars at RSN but it would be good to have it memorialized somewhere especially for the benefit of WP:NPP and WP:AFC responders. See some previous RSN discussions (1, 2, 3 among many). this discussion, and this related writeup by for more background. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a great start. I would include some of the other clues - is there a disclaimer on the article that the story is provided by someone else and they are not responsible? Overly promotional in tone? There's certainly more, will add over time. And second that excellent page by Ms Sarah Welch, which should be linked as a helpful page.  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Having such quick guidance would be very helpful in evaluating sources, with the added benefit that use of such sources can be an indicator of UPE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems that some guidance would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC).
 * Support this proposal as a good starting point; I'd like to have each source evaluated individually for the list of RS, but that seems like a monumental task. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A perfect example popped up today, sourced to a press release, but the source bot tags it as a "green" source simply by where it was published. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This could be expanded beyon India eventually as well, but I believe it is needed for Indian news websites right now. I was linked to this discussion from Articles for deletion/Rajesh Rajan. As noted in that discussion, I am currently unsure on freepressjournal.in (especially articles with byline of "FPJ Web Desk". &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose with the wording "various India-based sources". No other country has been collectively yellow-tagged. The category listing is good enough at WP:RSP. I'd rather not designate entire countries as having unreliable media landscapes as that's rather discriminatory and will entrench systemic bias as we'd have to come back here to RSN for any Indian source to be exempted in the future. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 21:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're a little late to the game. The discussion evolve the text already. See below and the RFC below that for its acceptance. This is where the category listing at RSP came from. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Taking a stab at expanded guidance: "Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press-release-based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in articles about celebrities, reviews, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline-notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style wesbites.

Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article; its placement in the publication; use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer; overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, etc. Example of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook India; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on the Indian Express etc although the problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard."

Feedback welcome so that we can refine the content, language and placement of such guidance. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd print that directly, excellent wording. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bravo! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where would this go.. as a bullet point under WP:NEWSORG or somewhere in an India specific page? Pardon me, it's the Friday afternoon cranking me to make Feierabend — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:RSP page has a Categories section. This type of guidance can perhaps go there, with a shorter entry in the RSP table (something akin to the "Peerage websites" entry but in yellow). How does that sound? Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe a subsection "Sponsored content" or something like that with a text maybe a bit generic so it would cover the topic in general. Having a section/text on Indian news websites at RSP might be too specific. Under the See also, Topic-specific pages lists some lists. I think it would also be a good idea now to start a dedicated page for IN, maybe at a subpage of WP:IN, and compile these observations going forward, similar to WP:ICTFFAQ / WP:ICTFSOURCES. Your text would go there, further expanded if you're willing to — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think for the RSP page, its good to be specific and since improperly disclosed sponsored content in Indian media has been a regular topic at this board I think a specific mention would be justified and helpful. That said, I would also support (in addition, not in place):
 * A short mention in WP:RS or related policy/guideline page that sponsored content is not independent and therefore not considered reliable (with possibly narrow WP:SPS exceptions) if this is not mentioned already.
 * Writing up a lengthier source guideline/FAQ in the WP:IN space that incorporates or links to concerns about sponsored content; other concerns raised by the MSW essay; sham "newspapers"; sham book and journal publishers; WP:RAJ; WP:ICTF guidelines, etc.
 * Any volunteers for (2)? :) Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yupp, makes sense. MSW's essay is quite a great start, never aware of it — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Venezuelen WikiProject advice page may serve as a good example for number 2 (lengthier source guideline)- why not start by moving the MSW essay to the WP:IN space and build from there? Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My only concern as someone who edits frequently in the ITN and ITN/RD space is many of the news articles reporting on recent deaths would technically violate above 'criteria'. Just taking the most recent example with Sudakshina Sarma (currently nominated at ITN/RD, not ready for posting on the main page yet):
 * - This article from TOI reporting on her death does not have a specific reporter in the byline - a watchout mentioned above
 * - This article in Indian Express is written by PTI "agency"- highlighted earlier as a red flag
 * - Most of the news orgs reporting on her death have very similar, generic language, clearly copied from a centralized news feed or press release
 * I support the guidance outlined above, but examples/exceptions like this would be a daily occurence at ITN/RD. Would suggest including a caveat in the extended guidance, wherever it is ultimately published. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any hindrances this guideline would cause to your said situations. The guideline is infact a watchout, to excerise caution; not a criteria to disbar and slap red flags when there's no by-line or by an agency. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to what Dax said.
 * But fwiw, the TOI obit for Sudakshina Sarma appears to be plagiarized from this longer obit in the Frontline, which was published a day earlier and does have a named author. Would be a good idea to cite the latter piece instead. Abecedare (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on the Frontline vs TOI reference; have updated the Sudakshina Sarma accordingly. The 'plagiarism' is highly prevalent when it comes to death announcements in Indian media - need to carefully track down if its actually plagiarism or just regurgitating a press release, which becomes challenging during the time-sensitive RD process. Good reminder regardless.  Schwinnspeed (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How do we handle it when someone openly offers to sell articles on these sites, claiming they will be published without a sponsored tag (FIVERR dot com/premiumsite/publish-your-article-on-techbullion-with-do-follow-backlinks)? I think it is troubling because this is only one of many I have found offering to publish with "no disclaimer, no paid/sponsored post tag?" This takes away from the overall reliability of sites when they allow this. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is indeed concerning but not surprising. I think this is more of a generic problem and happens everywhere where malicious intents are overlooked for an ROI. One approach we can take is to note them in the dedicated guideline (see Abecedare #2) and writeup on how to identify them; they mostly have same patterns of language and grammar. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems this has stalled out. What's the next thing to do here? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Should I go ahead and update WP:RSP or should a formal RfC be started? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally would like to see a RfC on the wording proposed by above. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea. May as well get it nailed down. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Wording wrt questionable news sources
Should the following text (crafted in the Discussion portion of the section above) be added to the WP:RSP section? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC) "Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press-release-based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in articles about celebrities, reviews, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline-notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style wesbites.

Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article; its placement in the publication; use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer; overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, etc. Example of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook India; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on the Indian Express etc although the problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard."


 * Support as the crafter of the verbiage, which IMO reflects the gist of the numerous previous discussions at RSN and other locations (see the above discussion for links); some of the linked examples may be new but should be self-explanatory. As before, no objections to any tweaks in the exact language. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, today I came across this table maintained by an editor on their userpage of sponsored content in Indian media and links to their use on wikipedia (I haven't verified all the table entries but a spot-check indicates that the editor's assessment is correct). Just re-emphasizes how widespread the problem is. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I've encountered continual problems with India-based news sources when it comes to working on and PoV-policing articles on Indian public figures and organisations. There is frequently a clear bias that borders on press-release regurgitation or paid placement. Addressing this is overdue here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. But would a list format for examples work? Either way, this will definitely improve AfD discussions around Indian news sources, see also my comment in above proposal. &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Abecedare. -sche (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - as per my experience on Talk:Holi whereby a TOI source turned out to be right, a general caution is better than complete disregard of sponsored IN sources. Perhaps bolding the kind of content users should take special note of - "celebrities, reviews, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline-notability." As per the suggestion above, a list format won't hurt.Chilicave (talk)
 * Support - Based on discussion and the many sources from these outlets I have seen that are questionable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 19:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as discussed — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with a few additional considerations
 * Suggest adding the following between the first and second paragraph to emphasize the extent and widespread nature of this issue and link to relevant reading elsewhere on wiki: "Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media"
 * Add WP:NEWSORGINDIA shortcut for future easy reference (something referenced earlier in the above discussion) Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This should help eliminate many of these paid placement articles. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This gives some badly needed guidance and pointers on dealing with the morass of India-related sources. A few times I've had someone at an AFD challenge comments about paid/sponsored articles, it will be nice to be able point to something like this when it happens.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Much needed . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Providence magazine
I noticed that a number of citations in the contentious article Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) are to the magazine Providence. From its about page:

"Founded in 2015, Providence examines global statecraft with Christian Realism. We are inspired by Christianity & Crisis, the journal Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr founded in 1941 to argue for the moral and geopolitical imperative of American leadership against totalitarian aggression. We believe American Christians have a special duty to interpret America’s vocation in the world today. We seek to uplift the best of historic Christian political theology, to foster wider conversation about spirituality in politics, and to create a community of serious Christian public thinkers serving America and the world."

Maybe it's just my personal aversion to organized religion, but that sounds to me more like a blog with an agenda than a reliable news source. ("Do they have an agenda?" is one of the questions at WP:RSVETTING.) These are the statements for which this magazine is cited in the article:

The linked articles are full of POV formulations – "Azerbaijan has escalated its aggression against the Armenian land and people of Artsakh", "Artsakh is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe that Azerbaijan intentionally created", "The Biden Administration also spent most of its first two years trying to reward Iran".

According to his LinkedIn page and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,, one of the authors, Alberto Fernandez, is Vice President of MEMRI. The Wikipedia article on MEMRI lists strong accusations of bias and agenda; WP:RSPSOURCES says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Middle East Media Research Institute or the accuracy of their translations. Editors are polarised between those who consider it to be a reliable source and those who consider it unreliable." (Count me among the latter.)

My impression is that this magazine shouldn't be treated as a reliable source – what do others think?

Joriki (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have to take a closer look at this article later, but having gone through the entirety of sources at Republic of Artsakh last year, I can tell you that for lack of mainstream international interest and reporters on the ground, there are almost no neutral sources reporting regularly on the ongoing conflict.
 * That said, analysts who are not on the ground are a dime a dozen. However, Fernandez seems to be a subject matter expert on U.S.-Near East policy, among other related topics. And I don't see anything disqualifying about Providence as a source -- The Economist has an explicit POV yet gives respectable and RS analysis of international politics. If you're concerned about Fernandez, you can say "According to Fernandez...". However, if there's a few bits of Fernandez's analysis that aligns with that of other subject matter experts, then there's no reason not to just say "Some analysts said..." -- in fact that would be preferred as not UNDUE. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this source being reliable or not, but for the claims it's backing, it seems perfectly fine. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla discussion appeal archived before it could be closed
My closing of the La Patilla discussion was appealed to WP:AN, where there was pretty clear consensus against my close. However, that discussion was archived before it could be properly closed.

Speaking as the guy who made the original close of La Patilla as deprecated, I'm not actually sure it should stand after that WP:AN discussion! OTOH, I probably shouldn't touch it myself. Anyone else want to act according to the WP:AN discussion? - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You can vacate your close of the La Patilla RFC, it's a common outcome of appeals at AN if the closer feels the communities consensus is clear. If you do it might be worthwhile recovering the La Patilla RFC from the archive. It could get messy if someone else does it without the AN discussion being closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, appropriate action for David to reverse the close and reopen. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry you had me confused, it was the discussion here about a review that was archived. That discussion was always at the wrong forum, the review at AN hasn't been archived. My advice still stand though, if you feel the consensus at AN is clearly against your close you can vacate it on your own initiative without waiting for a formal close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Know Your Meme
Just to preface this, I know that WP:KNOWYOURMEME has been discussed multiple times in the past due to many of its pages being user-generated and thus being unreliable; this specific request, however, is something I couldn't find discussed in the past (the closest discussion I could find is this one as it was, like the one I will be discussing, an editor-exclusive article on the site, however as shown by that past discussion it was deemed unreliable due to the contentious nature of the topic.


 * However, is this also the case for non-contentious topics as well?

Participants in the past discussion had seemed to have only really minded the contentious topic part of the editor-only KYM articles (which I would also support, KYM is definitely not reliable enough for contentious topics, even by their own editors), but I wasn't really sure if I was able to get a clear answer on what I was specifically looking for. Although the discussion participants absolutely disagreed with using KYM for contentious topics, they didn't really seem to mind the usage of it for non-contentious topics, a couple quotes highlight this:


 * "If someone wanted to include a link to a meme explanation page due to the memes relation to the subject, then maybe it's not really that important."
 * "If KYM is cited in an article about some goofy internet meme, meh? Okay? It's probably not the worst thing."

Now, with this information laid out, I would like to know if there is clear consensus on using editor-written KYM articles that are non-contentious. Is it okay? Is it not okay?
 * If it is okay, the specific article I'd like to use an editor-written KYM article on is Nick Eh 30. I'd like to use this article as a source, and I only have plans on using it to add that Amyoony (Nick Eh 30) has been the subject of multiple internet memes, I'll probably make a summarization of a couple of what exactly he has been the subject of to add more detail, but I wanted to know if this was okay to use in the first place.

Again, this is for non-contentious usage, and I couldn't really find that much of an answer to this type of question previously. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The KYM article reads like a advertorial, I wouldn't consider it usable for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment and reasoning for rejecting a source like KYM on an article about some streamer. Almost any timely pop culture write-up will look something like that.
 * However, the article is on a pop culture phenomenon from just this past month. Consider WP:RECENTISM, and the likelihood that any such event will be utterly forgotten before the year is up. (4 months is a fair timeframe of significance for a subject like this, perhaps?) No need to jump on bandwagons right away. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: We're to evaluate the source, not necessarily this particular article. A KYM editorial seems to be going for a fact-based feature style over an WP:RSOPINION. An issue may be that the facts are often coming from KYM's own user-generated content. However, if those particular facts are being cited by a staff writer, then that writer is now accountable for the veracity of those facts at the time their article is published. The question is, then, what is the extent one trusts the editors of KYM to actually put effort into writing decent quality articles? Given the longevity of the site and the resources they seem to have, and pending evidence to the contrary, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they put in effort comparable to most any pop culture feature writers for RS e-zines SamuelRiv (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If other sources read like adverts they shouldn't be used either. And discussions on source should be based on what they are going to be used for. KYM might be reliable for the details of a meme, but statements such as Nick Eh 30's growth was insane and after his meteoric rise are exceptional claims and would need a better source than this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be calling anything "insane" or "meteoric" anyway. casualdejekyll  14:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also for claims about living people the criteria under WP:BLPSOURCES need to be taken into account. KYM doesn't even rise to the level of tabloid journalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * According to this 2022 Bloomberg editorial, Know Your Meme’s work has been included in the Library of Congress and is frequently cited by web researchers, and has 17 full-time staff and dozens of volunteer moderators. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  10:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't read that source due to a paywall, but that seems like a pretty good indication that Know Your Meme's editorial work is a reliable source (for non-contentious topics, and non-BLP, although I do wonder how often their work actually isn't about a living person) casualdejekyll  14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Redrawing the map of Ukraine and Russia in a war zone: more eyes needed
At Federal subjects of Russia, Oblasts of Russia, Krais of Russia, Autonomous okrugs of Russia, Republics of Russia, and Federal cities of Russia, new maps have recently been inserted which incorporate parts of Ukraine into Russian territory. Previous maps either did not include the regions that are recognised as part of Ukraine, or used shading to indicate the regions invaded by Russia but not recognised nor under their control.

These changes elide the distinction between parts of Russia and parts of Ukraine invaded last year. It's been claimed that the Russian constitution is a reliable source for these new maps.

While few would dispute that the Russian constitution is reliable for the views of the Kremlin, it seems doubtful they would be seen as a reliable source for maps (especially maps which incorporate parts of another state). Views and more eyes will be welcome. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * None of these should be used, contested territory should be shown as contested as is done in many other articles about contested territory. This seems like an issue for WP:NPOVN rather than about reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's related to this noticeboard, this sounds like a WP:NPOV issue. Having said that, I see that the disputed areas are shown with diagonal stripes, so not sure what the problem is. Alaexis¿question? 16:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Posession is 9-10ths of the law. Eventually if you control somewhere long enough you just own it. Just like the U.S. Constitution is what's used to lay claim to Navassa Island in the Caribbean. CaribDigita (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but that saying is zero tenths of Wikipedia policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's establish consensus
I've come across Encyclopaedia Metallum a lot in External links. Is it ok to manually remove them? Kometalgreat (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * External links do not need to be Reliable Sources, so this is not the place to discuss that. Raise the issue on the talk pages of the articles from which you wish to excise these links. Banks Irk (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * External links/Noticeboard is the venue for discussion if you believe an unacceptable external link is being used. But as Banks Irk said, external links don't have to be reliable sources. External links gives some info about what should and shouldn't be linked. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:ELNO which discusses what external links should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand all these concerns. However, isn't Encyclopaedia Metallum a WP:UGC? If I understand correctly, if a page has no sources except to Encyclopaedia Metallum, would it be permissible to be removed?Kometalgreat (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different question. But, based on your edit history, it appears that you know your way around AFD. Which, as an aside, raises interesting questions about potential sockpuppery. Most brand new users don't start by going straight to AFD. But, I'll ignore that concern for the moment. Banks Irk (talk) Banks Irk (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Banks Irk - please don't cast aspersions on other editors. It's very possible to gain competence in AfD simply by lurking around and not editing. One of your very first edits was an AfD comment! And, frankly, it's just really mean to randomly accuse people of sockpuppetry casualdejekyll  14:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be UGC so it would be no good for referencing. You should try replacing the references before considering deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and everyone and anyone else: I've moved the discussion to External links/Noticeboard. Kometalgreat (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking for feedback on several Portuguese media outlets
Hello! Having recently come back from World Youth Day in Lisbon, I'd like to help improve and expand the article for the event, and I'm planning to retrieve sources mainly from Portuguese media, since they likely provide the widest and (hopefully) most accurate coverage for the whole event.

Having taken a look at the sources used on the related article on Portuguese Wikipedia, I've identified various media that could be useful and reliable enough, including newspapers (Expresso and Público), TV portals (CNN Portugal, RTP, SIC Noticias) and media hubs (SAPO and its fact-checking branch ''[https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/bordalo-ii-acumula-mais-de-700-mil-euros-em-ajustes-diretos-com-entidades-publicas-desde-2019? Poligrafo]). I've also noticed that the aforementioned SAPO article was originally published on another website, 7MARGENS'', which describes itself as:

"an independent online publication guided by the principles of journalism and independent from any institution, religious or otherwise, [which] publishes information on religious issues, in the broadest possible sense, and it is not confined to any established faith or religious persuasion."

That being said, I wanted to ask if anyone had already any kind of experience with at least some of the sources I've mentioned: if so, how would you rate them? While I think most of these news outlets should be reliable enough, I actually tried to look at WP:NPPSG to get some more context, but there are no mentions of Portuguese media over there, so that's why I've decided to start this thread. Who knows, maybe it could be an useful starting point to reach wider consensus on each of these sources!

[P.S. This is the first time I've ever started a conversation on the noticeboard, so if I'm doing something wrong, feel free to clarify it!] Oltrepier (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no particular knowledge of Portuguese sources, but Expresso appears to be a respectable mainstream newspaper, Público is apparently a newspaper of record for Portugal, CNN is a mainstream broadcaster which is generally considered reliable, RTP is a public service broadcaster, and SIC Notícias is a cable news channel with no obvious red flags. I would assume that they are reliable in the same ways as other mainstream broadcasters and newspapers in other languages.  The SAPO source is just a republication of the 7Margens source, so the question is whether 7Margens is reliable.  We don't have an article on them and nor does pt.wikipedia, which doesn't automatically make them unreliable but does suggest that they're not a major mainstream news source.  Their About Us page mostly says all the right things (though I would like to see some explicit corrections policy). The director of 7margens, Antonio Marujo, seems to have had his work published in other reliable sources (e.g. a bunch of articles in Público).  I can't find any particular reason to doubt that this would also be a generally reliable source for news. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto-public I agree with everything you wrote, thank you for going through the double-check process!
 * I've taken a look at the list of Marujo's articles you retrieved, and I've discovered that 7Margens was born in January 2019 as a replacement for Marujo's previous blog, Religionline, which was distributed via Público itself. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any additional details about their transparency policy (except for this page), but still, I think both Marujo and his portal should have a sufficiently high reputation. Oltrepier (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Romania
This is about. Is https://www.macrotrends.net a reliable source? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * From what i heard yes,but lets wait for more people to see Historylover233 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hint: there were two previous RSN discussions about it, but none was conclusive. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They take the population data from the UN. So the data should be fine. The question is why not cite the UN data directly? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they are right because they have the right population of many countries and we recieved many immigrants last years so it would be logic for it to increase, but that is only my opinion Historylover233 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For Wikipedia purposes reliable doesn't just mean that it looks correct. WP:RELIABLESOURCES explains what's expected, and importantly starts Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I wonder whether macrotrends has that reputation. Although it's more of a pain to access I wonder whether using the UN sources directly isn't a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Macrotrends is a self-published website. The publisher, John Schmertz, has a business degree and experience as a manager at a telephone company. He is not a subject-matter expert in population data (or any of the other data on his website). His work in charting has not previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As our verifiability policy states, "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". In this case, the better source to use is the United Nations Population Division. By default the scaling factor is millions, and per MOS:LARGENUM that's what Wikipedia should display, but you can change the scaling factor to zero to see where Macrotrends obtained the number 19,892,812. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of Blockchain Magazine
I am trying to use this magazine as a source for a new entry on one article (source here), but I am not so sure whether it is reliable. Furthermore, I couldn’t find it on WP:RSP or the archives. Here are the options:
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Thanks!  Brachy 08  (Talk) 05:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This magazine seems unreliable. First, I see next to no reliable sources citing this source. The editorial system is opaque and there is no byline. It is also cryptocurrency-related so that is also a cause for concern. I don't know why a publication about blockchains would report on a random Roblox event? This seems like a cheap SEO magazine. Ca talk to me! 08:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to make this a formal RfC, please remove the tags. The source you linked is barely press release quality, as far as I can tell. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Junk. No RfC needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * lol, trash - use mainstream RSes. If none exist, perhaps the thing doesn't warrant mention - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 3, per everyone else above. If this is the best source you've got, pretend you don't have any sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC. Per "There is no reason to make this a formal RfC" and per "No RfC needed". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They have an editorial policy, but it's written with questionable grammar that really makes me wonder. I don't really have any grounds for this, but the vibe is just wrong. Option 3. (All RfCs are good RfCs as long as they are asked neutrally, IMO.) casualdejekyll  14:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 3. There's been so much hype and nonsense written about blockchains that we should be extra careful about sources. NightHeron (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * More generally: per Notability_(organizations_and_companies), the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject for the purposes of WP:ORGCRITE. The notability of such projects must therefore be established on the basis of other sources, such as mainstream reliable news sources. That's "notability" rather than "reliability", but also addresses the reliability problem. Crypto sources are fundamentally promotional publications masquerading as trade journals. See also the Notability (cryptocurrencies) essay. We have enough coverage in clear mainstream finance RSes that we shouldn't be resorting to promotional trash - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I read through there editorial policy yesterday, and it wasn't until I read you comment that I remember something struck me as odd. So I went back and check the wording, Blockchain Magazine can invest and have stakes in a blockchain startups or cryptocurrencies operated in Fintech industry. So about as independent as people with direct investments in what they are reporting on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a problem that's through the entire crypto press, too - all of them allow their writers to hold the assets they're writing about. CoinDesk actively encourages it as "skin in the game" - or, as we would call it, "massive COI" - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Saito Oniwakamaru on a Carp LACMA M.84.31.432.jpg
 * Ancient crypto-bro hodling onto their massive coi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So about as independent as people with direct investments in what they are reporting on. So potentially as independent as the most respectable financial publications, such as FT? (Stakes are allowed per FT editorial policy, and not all stakes have to be disclosed.) In future please support your claims about journalism with some sort of sourcing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish to show that FT journalist have been shilling to boost shares that they own, you going to need some sources and I suggest you open another thread as it would be a serious concern. If you want sources for the opposite statement read all the previous discussions on the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC: If it's for one article or even 10 articles (or in this case, zero articles) and nobody's complaining, then there's no need to make an authoritative ruling. The source may well be terrible -- it probably is. If anyone has trouble figuring that out then we can revisit it. Maybe in the two years it takes for that to actually happen, the magazine gets better? or worse?
 * What you seem to be asking, instead, is whether to use this specific source item for this specific article. In this case, no, it's neither a news source nor an analysis source nor a feature nor an opinion -- it may as well have been written by an under-trained AI. All its linked citations are to wikipedia and wikia. There are no interviews and no indication that there's a reporter on the ground. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 3 - We don't have to hold an RFC to know this source is terrible, but since we're here... It's an SEO clickfarm or similar. Source utterly fails to demonstrate reliability. The site shovels out dozens of articles, attributed to the same author, a day. All of them are redundant, vague, and hyperbolically optimistic about cryptocurrency. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Filter Mag in topic around drug abuse
Such as


 * https://filtermag.org/overdose-harm-reduction-vancouver/ in Naloxone


 * https://filtermag.org/samhsa-methadone-criteria/ in Methadone (author profile: Helen is Filter‘s senior editor and a multimedia journalist. She is on the methadone, vaping and nicotine train. Helen is also a filmmaker. Her two documentaries about methadone are Liquid Handcuffs and Swallow THIS. As an LCSW, she has worked with people who use drugs for over two decades. Helen is an adjunct assistant professor and teaches a course about the War on Drugs at NYU. She lives in Harlem.

Filtermag profile:

"Filter launched in September 2018 and is based in New York City. Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights. Filter is owned and operated by The Influence Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. You can read about The Influence Foundation’s structure and funding here. You can follow Filter on Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for our daily or weekly email newsletters here."

It seems to be it's a non-neutral source that's strongly left biased. As far as factual reliability, I am wondering if it's something along Forbes Contribtuors/Huffpo Con.

If this source is to be allowed, how do you suggest it to be used? Would it have any weight in establishing notability?

Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Rfc: World Population Review
World Population Review (WPR) has come up for discussion here at least three times, and the discussions always seem to end with the advice of "don't use it".

The problem with WPR is that the data it claims to aggregate is often (but not always) uncited, unverifiable and possibly original research. This makes it similar to Statista. Most of the citations of WPR on Wikipedia are for national and ethnic population projections, which need to be cited with the highest quality citations available, especially given that these topics can be politically sensitive.

However, WPR has also been cited for content that should be held to WP:MEDRS standards, such as at Obesity and the environment, where we learn that According to World Population Review, in 2022 all of the top ten countries with the highest percentage of obese adults are found in the South Pacific. Several theories attempt to explain this fact, including the popularity of unhealthy fast food, the use of frying as a means to prepare food, and possible genetic predispositions.

WPR not only serves the reader statistical data, it also offers medical insights without citations for this non-statistical wisdom, or even an author name.

There are probably hundreds of WPR citations on Wikipedia, but apparently less than 500. I'd like to hear your thoughts about these proposals:


 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Reliable under certain circumstances
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Thank you for your time and advice, as always. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 *  Option 4 Option 3 No information about who is behind the site. No information about editorial policy. No author attribution on articles. Treat as blog or WP:SPS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) updated -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 3: We don't have any information that they deliberately lie or spread misinformation, which is what deprecation should be reserved for, but I also see no evidence of where they do get their information. More lazy and unreliable than actually spreading lies, so option 3 seems best.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 3: should not be used but I don't think they're publishing disinformation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Bad RfC: I get that it's been brought up before, but each time it's been uncontroversial. Where's the dispute? Who's dying on a hill for its inclusion? If nobody cares, there's no consensus, and you don't need consensus here anyway because you already know what you're doing. To comment on the votes above -- it can't be deprecated because there's no deception, malice, etc.; it's not "generally unreliable" until there's evidence of consistent inaccuracies -- so far none have been proposed. It cites its sources and it seems to do so faithfully, but that particular article shows no expertise and I have to dig into World Obesity's publications to check if that fried food line comes from anywhere other than the editor's ass. But just because it's not a good source doesn't mean it's "generally unreliable", especially seeing as its purpose is data visualizations, for which the example shows that it indeed reliably reproduces data. (If some admin insists that this needs an "official ruling", then 2.) SamuelRiv (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of Metal Storm as a genre source
Metal Storm is considered reliable per WP:MUSICRS, but I think only some reviews are considered reliable, cause per WP:MUSICRS it's said that only staff review from 2009 onward are usable and guest reviews should not be used. Metal Storm has been used many times alongside Metal Kingdom, as you can see here. Similar to Metal Kingdom, its genres are clearly user generated, the album reviews were not used, but only the genres on the main page like these. In my opinion these genres work like those in the Allmusic sidebar. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that user generated, or automatically generated genres, should be treated the same way as AllMusic sidebar genres. The question is how the main band page genres are determined: are they determined by staff and experts, or user generated, or automated? Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about this They are determined by users since you only need to create an account to edit the band page. If you create an account you'll be able to edit the page and thus modify the genres. Therefore, genres are user generated. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Read my last comment SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Democrat News/Demokrat Haber (Turkish)
Not knowing much about Turkish news sources, could use opinions on Demokrat Haber and its reliability/independence. It appears to self-designate as a leftish news source, but I don't know if that's "left like the guardian" or so much so as to make it non-independent on any right-wing topic. Reliability wise, again, I've struggled to indentify much detail about their processes. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nosebagbear I've tried to do a quick internal research to see whether and where the newspaper was cited on Wikipedia; from what I understand, they have extensively reported on Kurdish and Armenian communities, as well as Syrian refugees, and the discrimination these minorities face in Turkey, with topics including anti-Armenian racism and military operations against Kurdish Syrian militant groups. So, Demokrat Haber definitely seems independent from the national government on those fronts.
 * However, I don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to rate the source as a whole... Oltrepier (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mccapra @CeeGee @Tamburello Did you ever come across this news source? If yes, how would you rate it overall?
 * [I'm tagging you because of your frequent involvement in the creation/editing of Turkey-related articles.] Oltrepier (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I’ve come across it before but it’s been going for more than a decade and is certainly independent in the sense of being extremely unlikely to toe the Ankara government line on anything. See https://norskpen.no/eng/nyheter/trial-report-case-of-editor-mehmet-gokceli/. I’d assume it was generally reliable for internal Turkish news. Mccapra (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

LinkedIn post deleted, secondary copy available in a quote - can it be used?
I looked through the RS archive and didn't see anything that resembled this, so I'm throwing it out there.

A relaticely unknown actor (but notable individual for other accomplishments) recently decided to run for a government office, and was interviewed by several media outlets regarding how they would do things if elected. In one of the interviews, a comment was posted by an unknown person who stated "According to X's LinkedIn profile, 'quote'. Whoever posted it also noted they were not the actor nor associated with them, but were one of their donors.

The problem seems to be that the actor deleted the post it was attached to, and as I learned today, there aren't achived copies stored with linkedin like other services (Twitter, Facebook, etc). While they echoed the majority of the original quote in several interviews, it was a more in-depth discussion.

Since I don't believe in using quotes I cannot attribute to a source, I contacted this person's publicity team who forwarded the message to them. There was no response from them on where I could view the full post that the quote came from.

How would others handle this? The person running for office has a tendency to remove tweets and posts on a regular basis for other social media services, so im not sure what is usable and what is not if the original copy is no longer available.

Awshort (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest against it, it would appear to be a WP:VERIFICATION issue. As there is nothing to show the quote every existed. Could you give some more concrete details? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What we have is an unknown commentor's reporting... and an unknown person is not a reliable source. They could be misquoting or inventing the quote, that happens even when commenting on the message that is supposedly being quoted. So without a reliable source, avoid using the quote. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek magazine article link to add in article external links
I was just contemplating to add this investigative journalist news report link in external links section of the article Shakil Auj for further reading, since news report seem to provide info about inconclusive investigations into the Auj's death. Prima-facie reading of news report seems reasonably neutral but WP:NEWSWEEK indicates post-2013 articles need to be considered on case to case basis. Hence requesting inputs.- &#32;Bookku   (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Not my area, but the piece is by a freelance journalist who publishes extensively in decent sources - see Muckrack, Twitter - but mainly on cultural topics rather than news reporting. (Nb: Muckrack seems to aggregate an aviation reporter of the same name too, so lots of false positives there.) This seems to be his first Newsweek piece. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * External links have there own set of requirements, separate from reliability. I suggest taking this to WP:ELN -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, that's not an investigative report. That's a first-person news-feature. Second, Preston seems to only be able to make a similar claim in one mainstream source: The Guardian 2015-02-15, which is not nothing, but the mention of Auj specifically is rather brief. It's also in the Books section of The Guardian and not News, and still the editors seem to be cautious to keep the story in a subjective voice, preventing accusations of wrongdoing from being statements of definitive fact.
 * Either way, any form of reporting like this is entirely inappropriate for an external link. If it is worthy of mention and citing in the main article, then do so, and see what kind of backlash you get from other editors, if any. It definitely requires attribution to "Preston, in a 2015 feature story in The Guardian and/or Newsweek" (not news, not an investigative report, and which outlet you choose depends on the content being referenced). If you can find independent coverage from another strong RS, like the NYT or WaPo or BBC, who will independently verify any facts they cover, then that'll be definite justification for inclusion. There are also some local and regional Pakistani sources who do admirable investigative work that you should check out for coverage. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

== Notice of RfC on whether journals indexed in databases like Scopus are inherently notable/do not need secondary independent SIGCOV ==

Editors are encouraged to participate in this discussion at WP:NJOURNALS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Attorney at Law magazine, attorneyatlawmagazine.com
After Draft:Christopher Madel was dropped in fully formed in one edit by an editor with no other edits (including copy-paste copyvio), citing
 * https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/stories/attorney-feature/chris-madel

I noticed besides the advertising tone of the magazine, that Attorney at Law magazine sells services to attorneys seeking exposure (that is, advertising) and solicits submissions:


 * https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/claim-exclusive-lla-directory-listing
 * https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/about
 * https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/submit-news

An External link search turns up at least one example on Wikipedia of dubious notability: but others may have gotten through.
 * Articles for deletion/Valerie A. Johnson

Is a source reliable for bios if it sells article space for promotional purposes? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another example is at Jonathan Melton; a city council member whose bio of dubious notability is beefed up by Attorney at Law magazine with otherwise local coverage. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And William Shernoff. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Upgrade options" on the submit news page is pretty damning. The Chris Madel article appears to be the $70 option as he chose not to add a weblink, which would have cost an extra $100. Might be reliable for non-exceptional claims in a primary way, not independent for notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly and self-evidently pure Churnalism. Such sources are of limited utility anywhere on Wikipedia and absolutely cannot be used as a sign of notability.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

in following up on the links to attorneyatlaw, I came across user:Spearhead43, from which seems to be a WP:UPNOT issue; I have no idea where to take that. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Another one at User:OklahomaLawyer/Oldest Law Firms; don't know where to put these. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing a lecture transcript
I am currently improving an article to GA, and I got a researcher, Dr. Liam Andrews, to send me a transcript of a 2016 lecture he gave to PRONI in 2016 titled "The founding of the Fáinne Association in 1916 and its influence on the Irish language revival in Belfast". I am afraid that this transcript is not available anywhere online I found a video of the lecture, which was given in Irish with English subtitles on the whiteboard. Is this source usable in any way? 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  20:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This would come down to the reliability of Dr. Andrews, something at least partially proved by the fact he was asked to give that lecture. It would fall under WP:EXPERTSPS. He's also been interviewed by the BBC and other in relation to the Irish language. So I don't see a reason he shouldn't be reliable, it could be a good idea to attribute detail to him, so "Dr. Liam Andrews say..." From a technical stand point you can use cite av media, as:
 * Which will display as:
 * The paramter time can be used to specify particular timestamps in the video.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to citing the video with timestamp and quote (per any combination of WP:EXPERTSPS, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:PRIMARY as noted above), consider asking Dr. Andrews whether he would consider publishing the lecture transcript himself, using any license or restriction he likes, on something like ResearchGate or Academia.edu. An awful lot of youtube videos vanish within a few years and most don't get archived. (It would be nice if IA endeavored to archive to archive all the interlinked videos' automated transcripts; perhaps they already do?) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just sent the email. Thanks for the suggestion. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  06:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with lectures (as opposed to edited written works) is that people misspeak easily, and spoken words are easier to misunderstand/misconstrue than more formal communication. None of this is disqualifying of a lecture given by a subject-matter expert being used as a source, but it is one reason written sources are preferable. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a similar problem with translations, but we often provide those (typically for headlines and titles, or if giving a quotation at a footnote). As long as the original can be independently vetted it's no more of an issue (in fact it's less) than our summary/paraphrase style of writing in general. As for misspeaking, a lecture usually follows some sort of script or prep, as opposed to a Q&A, interview, discussion, or informal debate.
 * And since academic lectures especially are subject to regular oversight, feedback, and criticism from peers and one's department chair, and colloquia may well be given reviewing one's own papers in print, I would argue that it's actually a step above a self-published source like a blog post. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

nationalworld.com
Alright, here we got nationalworld.com. I found them after looking for sources on IShowSpeed's, uh... junk slip-up. There's not many reliable sources covering the incident but I saw this one on Yahoo! News before realizing that Yahoo! News aggregates its news, at least some of it. Any thoughts on these bad boys? IncompA 03:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yahoo News also breaks stories and does typically respectable journalism. An aggregator is a separate service. National World is a company, not an outlet. Assets like The Scotsman are respectable. And the "thoughts" of this board seem to be frankly meaningless unless you have a specific question of usage or dispute or have some RSN proposal. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I should have clarified that this is about nationalworld.com but since they don't have a Wikipedia article I linked the next best thing. I noticed the high praise Yahoo! News typically receives and I'm aware they do their own journalism, but the source I found was aggregated by Yahoo News. Good to hear that The Scotsman is respectable, because it means that nationalworld.com probably is as well. IncompA 06:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yahoo news journalism and the news it aggregates need to be thought of separately. If you find an article aggregated by Yahoo news find the original source and use that. Also reliability is not inherited, there are many respectable news organisation who are owned by companies that also own sources that publish complete nonsense. As to nationalworld.com it certainly appears to be a reliable source, baring any problems I haven't heard of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)