Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417

Reliability of cricket databases
In the recent RfC on pump, the requester seemed careful to utilize similar phrasing to the previous RfC drafting pages created from database entries. The qualifying databases in cricket were CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo. I've read archives here and I don't see we've ever discussed these (originally crowdsourced) databases as to reliability. I'm not attempting to belabor any issue or start a disagreement with bolded assertions. I'm wondering how reliable these sorts of databases are considered, say compared to other sporting records. How do we know they are reliable? What's the metric? BusterD (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @BusterD, AIUI it's unusual to find any actual errors in any of the popular sports-statistics databases. The disputes over them have less to do with whether they get the facts right, and more to do with whether the resulting articles fit some people's conception of what Wikipedia ought to be like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confining my concern to our measurement of the reliability of crowdsourced (but privately-owned) databases upon which we might presume to mass-create or mass-address any subsets of biography pages on Wikipedia. How has such reliability been established by criteria we'd normally use? My interest is quite independent of the particular content area. My concern is analogous (but not identical) to one which might be brought if a user were to create Wikipedia articles for every biographical entry on IMDB or IBDB, also initially crowdsourced databases which are now held and maintained by corporations. My question isn't over there, at pump. It's here in the appropriate forum, a question of how we measure the reliability of the databases. BusterD (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Crowd-sourcing has nothing to do with ownership. If crowd-sourcing involves directly changing the database, then it's WP:USERGENERATED and (mostly) unreliable.  But if crowd-sourcing means there's a way to suggest additions/changes/corrections to an editor/employee/owner, then that's not user-generated.
 * The reliability of databases is measured the same way that we measure the reliability of any source. There's a handy summary of these at WP:NOTGOODSOURCE.  I wonder, though, if your question is really "How do we measure a source's reputation for accuracy?"
 * The answer is: by seeing what other people say about that source. For example, Donald Trump's tweets about the COVID-19 pandemic are deemed unreliable because of all the sources that said they were inaccurate.  However, this measurement can be very informal.  For example, if someone mentions sports-r-us.com in a discussion on Reddit, and several people say "Oh, don't use them, they're out of date and full of errors", then we'd consider that to be an indication that they don't have a reputation for accuracy.  We are working with limited evidence, so we may get things wrong, but we have to do the best we can with the information we've got.  If the world at large doesn't like this system, they are welcome to provide us with well-researched, peer-reviewed, independently published academic journal articles analyzing every source we might want to use.  Until that day, you really do have to exercise your best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In general we shouldn't be using sports databases, at best they're poor sources which carry no real weight. Databases in general (not just sports ones) are pretty useless when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The two webnsites in question are both professionally published sources - indeed Cricinfo publish Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. They are not crowd sourced. Both sources fully meet the requirements of WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not say they were crowd sourced, perhaps you don't mean to be replying to me? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've notified the Cricket wikiproject here, something that the people who want to disbar these sources have not bothered to do.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure what's going on here but either you don't know how to indent a discussion or you don't understand what I'm saying. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Some editors prefer to keep comments in chronological order, regardless of whether it's a reply to the bottom comment. Others don't.  Since you didn't mention crowd-sourced databases but someone else did, I think it's fair to assume that was a reply to the comment in which the words "the reliability of crowdsourced (but privately-owned) databases" appears rather than to your comment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That would explain the indenting on the first comment, but it doesn't explain the indenting on the second one. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some editors prefer to indent after each comment, to provide a visual separation. Up until the mw:Help:DiscussionTools were introduced (a couple of years ago, when you were a newbie), this was actually the most common approach.  Now we get strings of matching-level replies stacked on top of each other, and it makes it hard to tell at a glance if that long blob of text is one long comment or three shorter ones.  Nigel's been editing since 2006.  I'm pretty sure they've seen every indentation system we've ever used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a single other editor on this noticeboard using that form of indenting? Also note that it does not appear to have been the most common approach, if I go back into the archive for 2018 I don't see it being used either. Not sure what this adds to the discussion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As you are making it crystal clear that my presence here is unwanted and my comments are of no value, I will not comment further.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this one a reply to me? Not saying that at all, just confused. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most confused set of responses I've ever read. For any discussions that are not directly related to whether this source is reliable or not, please go somewhere else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Horse Eye's Back, if you think that all databases are "pretty useless", then you might want to take a look at User:WhatamIdoing/Database article. I created this from a single database entry.  I think some databases are completely useless, and others are enormously useful.  Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man is "just a database", and its typical database entry contains not only more facts but also more prose than most of our articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So you created a low quality stub which would only qualify for notability under the species exemption? A comparative article in the cricket topic area wouldn't be notable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The example species also already has an article:Entomocorus benjamini 2600:4040:475E:F600:343F:12B:EA7:1800 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I created a Start-class article, not a stub. It has 12 sentences and more than 200 words, which is too long for a stub.
 * Also, I believe the rule that notability is based on the sources published in the real world, rather than the sources cited in the article, is still in effect.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These cricket database-sites are widely cited on Wikipedia for basic facts about a player or team. The evidence suggests they are usefull in writing an encyclopedia. The OP was only concerned about their reliability as a source, or when used without other sources. In terms of reliability, the two sites are not crowd sourced, published by reliable entities, and there is no reputational problem. In terms of main source, they don't confer notability since their aim is complete coverage. Thus if they are the only or main sources, the page has a notability problem. --  Green  C  21:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the argument for reliability then, if the argument for reliability is that they only draw from reliable sources which can be easily verified why not just use those reliable sources? I agree that they don't confer notability, but thats because they don't constitute significant coverage (which may just be another way of saying what you're saying). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: notability: database sites are usually not notable by their nature, because it is all-inclusive, the mere fact of a player being included in the database is not notable, since all players are included. Significant coverage is often misunderstood to mean only word-count ie. a significant amount of coverage, but the guidelines don't say that. The word significant can have another meaning: of significance. Thus a source might contain a single-sentence on a topic - not a significant amount of coverage - but what it says is of significance towards notability eg. "most important Cricket player of the 19th century".
 * Re: reliability, is that the case the Cricket databases are only drawing from other sources which can be easily verified? Asking because I don't know. -- Green  C  01:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @GreenC, you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability, where the question has been raised about whether significant coverage means "coverage that says the subject has some sort of significance or importance" vs "coverage that is significant (i.e., there's a lot of coverage)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow what a thread, wish I had time. It's a recursive rule ie. it's notable if it has significant coverage, and significant means significant enough to be notable. Designed that way to give free reign to subjectivity and changing community norms. Those trying to pin it down will find a hall of mirrors. -- Green  C  16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean notable or do you mean counts towards notability? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the difference in this context I mean doesn't count towards notability in a AfD/GNG sense. -- Green  C  16:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For example the difference would be between "database sites are usually not notable by their nature" (meaning that the sites themselves do not usually meet WP:N) and "database sites don't usually count towards notability by their nature" meaning doesn't count towards notability in a AfD/GNG sense. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My main concern with these has been where they are used with no other sources. I would expect these to be accurate, especially for more modern data, but the older the data the more likely there might be minor errors. In general this isn't a problem, other then when it's used to prove someone existed. A minor error in someone's name from the 1880s who can't be otherwise verified could just be a spelling mistake by whoever wrote out the scorecard. But those aren't really RS concerns, I don't see a reason to suspect the data they have is inaccurate and I don't even feel the need to see if they are used by other reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Both are authoritative sources. ESPNcricinfo publishes Wisden, and CricketArchive is affiliated with the The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and both meet WP:RS. They are much more than stats sites too, both have biographies of players and profiles of venues. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per User:StickeyWicket, both these sources are reliable, but I don't think they should be the only sources used in any articles. They're certainly not enough to establish notability on their own. – PeeJay 21:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction - If a player is covered by an article on ESPNcricinfo, that could be enough to establish notability. My original comment referred to instances where the only source is a database entry. – PeeJay 19:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * These establish nothing for notability. If they are the only sources that exist in an article, then you can essentially consider the article to be unsourced. Also, regardless of their backgrounds, databases are the lowest of possible reliable sources to use and should be minimized in usage as much as possible. It begs the question of if the information in them can't be sourced to a higher quality source, then the notability of the subject is in major question. Silver  seren C 01:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The International Cricket Council tasks the ACS with record keeping and determining historical match status. When the global governing body of the sport entrusts them, I would not say they aren't reliable. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't.  They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, while both of these sites are used extensively here for their database content, they both contain content that could be used as a reliable source for cricketing articles. For example on ESPNcricinfo, on top of historical Wisden articles, they have a significant body of news and feature stories over a couple of decades as well as archived version of external news media. CricketArchive also has a 70-year archive of The Cricketer. Hack (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the above, both sites contain databases (which should not be used solely for notability), but have far more content than just databases - and this material can be used for notability, as both are reliable sources. Clearly, if the only content about a player on both sites is in the database, that's one thing, but both of these are more widely WP:RS. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Dzerkalo Tyzhnia
Hello, I propose to include this Ukrainian newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia in the list of reliable sources of information. My arguments are: Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (Ukrainian: Дзеркало тижня)was one of Ukraine's most influential analytical weekly-publisher newspapers, founded in 1994. On 27 December 2019 it published its last printed issue, it continued its life as a Ukrainian online newspaper. Dzerkalo Tyzhnia offered political analysis, original interviews, and opinions on 32 pages. Originally published in Russian, since 2002 it was fully translated for the Ukrainian edition. Since 2001, main articles are also published in an online English-language version. All three language editions and archives are available online. The paper is nonpartisan, while strongly liberal-leaning by Ukrainian standards. It maintains high journalistic standards. Dzerkalo Tyzhnia is partially funded by Western non-governmental organizations. The paper is widely read and highly regarded among Ukrainian business and political elites which largely explains its political influence. The newspaper continues to be published online. In 2014, Yulia Mostovaya, editor-in-chief of the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, received the Free Media Award.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzerkalo_Tyzhnia

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Media_Awards

https://frittord.no/en/prizes/free-media-awards/yulia-mostava-ukraine Nikusha Magaria (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard is for discussing specific questions. Is there anything you wanted to write based on this source that has been or is likely to be challenged? Sources are added to WP:RSP once a few such discussions, more or less formal, have taken place. Alaexis¿question? 10:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am writing an article about a Ukrainian painter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Temo_Svirely
 * One of the principal sources is Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.
 * The draft has been rejected 2 times, because of lack of sufficiently reliable sources. One of the main sources in the article is Dzerkalo Tyzhnia. Maybe it could be included into Wikipedia Reliable Sources? Free Media Award is a significant indicator. AndreiMikhailov (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, ask a specific question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" The publication is/was a highly regarded news and opinion source, but what specific statements are you sourcing this article to? Because all the references in the draft article are not in English, I can't even figure out which footnote is to this source. Banks Irk (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft contains list of exhibitions of Temo Svirely. Three of them are described in an article in Dzerkalo Tyzhnia. ("Milky Bridge" in 1993, "Days and nights in the Unicorn’s garden" in 1996 and "Leaving the stage" in 1994.) The source should at least confirm that they actually took place. Besides that, the article contains a subjective description of his art, as presented in those exhibitions. AndreiMikhailov (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the fact that there was a long article about them in such a prestigious source, should contribute to notability. AndreiMikhailov (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Is https://sejarahbangsa-id.blogspot.com/ a reliable source for information on Indonesian history?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Please add the question body of the section, not just stuff it into the header. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ In general self published sources are only considered reliable if the author is recognised as expert, see WP:SPS. This would apply to all blogspot sites. This particular Blogspot site couldn't pass that requirement, as it is all posted by "Unknown'. So it's very unlikely that it's reliable for Indonesian history.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Opinions on this website
https://forbesport.com/the-martial-art-of-karate-a-history-and-the-evolution-of-the-belt-system/ 89.243.126.140 (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, this is explicitly a self-run blog. My goal in life is to earn enough money from blogging and my other internet ventures to purchase a home for my family and retire to Switzerland, where I can do both while living off the land and running my blog for as long as I can. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

But they also have news too
 * It's not about the type of content, but the source of the content. One person (or two people) is not considered editorial oversight. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the author's image in the example article is copied from another completely unrelated person, which refers to him as "she". This site is a garbage seo blog, and part of a larger ring of spam sites run by the same person. "They also have news too" does not, in any way, make this a reliable source. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the extra research. These types of things are only going to get more ubiquitous now that AI can write exponentially more SEO content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of BibleStudyTools.com
Is BibleStudyTools.com reliable? In a previous discussion (a few discussions above) an editor (ActivelyDisinterested) pointed out that the website hosts many different versions and translations of the bible, and that it could be useful as a helpful link. Eruditess (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to note that if you may want to look into the Bibleverse template, which does everything bible related. Also as per my previous comment the commentries that BibleStudyTools hosts are much harder to judge, and are probably best judged on an individual basis. I don't have the knowledge to offer any comment on them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's parent company is a legitimate media company and has an editorial staff. As the other editor pointed out, Bible verses have an existing protocol to use. What else would this site be used to source? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of a self-published (by expert in field) analysis of a dictionary?
I was trying to add a supplemental source to another already existing source at Puget Sound, for the name of the sound, , in the Indigenous language of Puget Sound, Lushootseed. Myself and another editor, @SounderBruce disagree on the reliability of this source. I want to use this modern analysis of an old dictionary by Dr. Zalmai Zahir. The original dictionary was published by George Gibbs in 1877 by the Washington Territorial Government, and is certainly a reliable source. However, the orthography used by Gibbs is not the same as the modern orthography used today. In an effort to avoid personal synthesis, I cited the aforementioned analysis by Dr. Zahir. The analysis mostly brings all attested words of the dictionary into modern orthography and offers some supplementary comments.

Dr. Zahir is a doctor of Theoretical Linguistics with a focus in Lushootseed. You can read his dissertation here. He is the more-or-less official Language Consultant of the Puyallup Tribe and offers his language consultant services under the company he used to publish that book, Zahir Consulting Services. He teaches Lushootseed classes at the Northwest Indian Language Institute at the University of Oregon and has also published several other works, including textbooks and other independent publications such as sdaʔdaʔ gʷəɬ dibəɬ ləšucid ʔacaciɬtalbixʷ - Puget Sound Geography (ISBN: 979-8750945764)

In my opinion, he is easily an expert in the field, as he is considered by the tribes to be an expert in the field. As someone who works with Lushootseed on a daily basis, he is a household name to Lushootseed learners and academics. But that's my 2cents. PersusjCP (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * sounds like an expert to me Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable for BLP?
I'd appreciate community input on if these sources are reliable for an article on a living artist Amy Karle. The article has had issues including ref bombs and I don't want to add to that. I'd appreciate editor input on which of these refs meet BLP standards, and which refs do not and could/should be removed. Thank you 174.197.64.203 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * To take one example, the link at ref 19 led me to this other link which I think is reliable but maybe not independent in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Karle's artworks have been exhibited in museums around the world including in Ars Electronica,  The Centre Pompidou,    FILE Electronic Language International Festival, Mori Art Museum,  Museum of Contemporary Art,   Nova Rio Biennal,  Beijing Media Art Biennale, The Smithsonian Institution,    and the Triennale di Milano.


 * See what you've done here? That's called original research or WP:synthesis. You have taken evidence from a number of sources to put together a statement that no source supports.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Many of these are primary sources, not secondary sources that are fully independent of the subject, thus no, they are not appropriate for a BLP. Netherzone (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Jmcgnh to be clear I didn't write this. Previously the article had both this section and a long list of exhibitions. Both were problematic and it currently has neither. Seems like the article should have mention of major exhibitions as long as they're correctly sourced, trying to sort that out.
 * Would it be appropriate to state "Karle's artworks have been exhibited at:" then the list of the top few exhibitions if verified by the proper sources?
 * Netherzone which are independent secondary sources? It seems some of them are, some are not. 174.208.226.150 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear: Only the "around the world" phrase is a case of WP:SYNTH. If we can say "The work has been displayed in Museum A." and "The work has been displayed in Museum B." with separate sources, then saying "The work has been displayed in Museums A and B" with appropriately-placed sources isn't really synthesis, just simplified display of information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor please share which sources in this paragraph need to be removed, and which are independent, secondary, and blp appropriate to use? 174.198.7.160 (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think 2,3,6,7,9,10,13,14,15,16,17, 21 are ok but the rest should go. What do you all think? 174.198.7.160 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The conversation on this topic was continued in archive 418:

What’s your view on this news website: OTS News
https://www.otsnews.co.uk 89.243.126.140 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like a standard hyperlocal news outlet. They do other advertorials but I'm unsure if they mark as such, so some level of caution should be used. Is there a specific issue or article you want to question? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it reliable


 * Depends on what you are trying to say. What information? Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The news they display overall yes or no is that reliable to be used in such referencing
 * No source is always reliable, and very few sources are always unreliable. There's no obvious read flags, but it would be helpful if you let use know if there is a specific news article you where thinking of using. It would also be helpful if you signed you posts, just add ~ after what you write and the system will do it for you .-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like a very weak reliable source to me:
 * "OTS News is an independent Southport news website. Updated daily from the heart of Southport with the latest local news, Southport FC news, Southport business and news in general. In 1999 ‘Onthespot reporter’ founded local online media website qlocal. In 2012 Phil Rodwell parted company with Southport GB then in June 2012 he formed OTS News which now attracts tens of thousands of visitors every day. In 2020, OTS News was purchased by the Blowick Publishing Company."
 * Maybe usable for non-controversial local facts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Opinions on this site: Associated Press
https://apnews.com/ 89.243.126.140 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Major news agency, presumed reliable.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For their authored material; note they also funnel secondary PR through the site. It's always very clearly noted as PR and they identify the ad/pr agency, but some of those are a little scummy. It would be best to provide a link to the article you're trying to evaluate.Sam Kuru (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a paradigmatic generally reliable source, although no source is perfect. I don't think it needs discussion unless there is a more specific issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability: newsX
https://www.newsx.com/ 89.243.126.140 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the Instructions! You're missing two of the three essential elements to a well-formed question here. Banks Irk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What specific reference, for what article and content?


 * Their website is so disorganized that it's hard to tell what it is. It seems to be an afterthought to their YouTube account, which doesn't provide basic information on who they are. Searching outside their own web presence, they're a television channel ITV_Network_(India).


 * Used 155 times as a ref. I'd refrain from using it until I knew more. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seem to be a lot of context-free questions from this IP, so these discussions should probably just be closed unless specific references and articles are supplied, but this looks like a really bad source whose use we might want to review carefully and perhaps purge. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Who's Who in Australia - Reliable, please?
I am looking at Jim May (chemical engineer) which cites it. I am concerned that it may not be reliable.

The specific volume is "Pearce. Suzannah. Who's Who in Australia, 1906-2006, XLII Edition 2006. North Melbourne. Crown Content Pty Ltd. 2005. p. 1350."

I am more interested in the general reliability. The specifics in this article it cites are: I am concerned that the title of the media appears authoritative enough to justify anything, and the reference is left inaccessible to readers. Should this publication appear on the perennial sources list? It appears unrelated to the publisher/title that is there aleady 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Minerals Industry Research Association Limited (AMIRA) between 1968 and 1994
 * He worked there until 1968, predominantly at the HIFAR Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor which had only gone critical in April of 1958
 * In 1967, he was appointed Head of the Chemical Engineering Section of the Australian Commission but soon left in 1968 to become the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Minerals Industry Research Association Limited (AMIRA).
 * his role led to him working abroad with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1963. There, he completed a training experience for three months at the Harwell Reactor School. While in the UK, May worked on a number of confidential projects of interest to Australia. Following this, May went to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States in 1964 and 1965 as a guest scientist in which he studied for Australia's interest in manufacturing and reprocessing nuclear fuels.
 * I'd assume it's similar to the two entries in WP:RSP, but see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364 for a more general discussion. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hipal I agree with your assumption of "potentially (or worse) unreliable". Is there scope for inclusion in RSP, do you think?  The Jim May creating editor will dispute anything that is not chapter and verse. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xxanthippe please may I draw you into this conversation, since you consider this to be RS, at least in the context of the article at the head of this section. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As each entry is autobiographical (see the use of the first person in the sample entry of Ashleigh Barty), WP:ABOUTSELF applies, meaning it should only be used within those limits. As a tertiary, autobiographical source, it should not be used to ascertain notability. The reliability of each entry may depend on the individual submitting their entry, and if Who's Who (UK) is any indication, editorial control over the publication may vary greatly and perhaps even be unable to correct known inconsistencies. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a secondary analysis of Who's Who in Australia, so I cannot speak to the reliability of the publication as a whole. Pilaz (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there isn't evidence of secondary analysis, WWiA shouldn't be a standalone article... JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I did find some secondary SIGCOV in The Australian. Seems like it has been generally well-regarded, but also clearly ABOUTSELF and thus unsuitable for anything beyond basic details. Non-essential info from it is likely UNDUE/IMBALANCED. JoelleJay (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose further additions of these publications to RSP. Previous discussions of Who's Who publications (particularly A & C Black and Marquis) have been tainted by cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, evidence and facts. The reality is that there is a growing body of evidence that the information in these kind of publications is generally accurate and that they are considered generally reliable by the overwhelming majority of sources that discuss their accuracy and reliability. The content of at least some of these publications (and not all of their content actually is autobiographical) has been extensively fact checked by a massive number of book reviewers, journalists, library scientists, historians and etc, and, as far as I can tell, those fact checkers generally say that the reliability and accuracy is somewhere between acceptable and excellent. There are studies that say that autobiographees in the leading Who's Who publications generally do tell the truth about themselves: such as the study by Kiser and Schacter, and the other studies, discussed in Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment. (At page 394 of "Demographic Characteristics of Women in Who's Who" (1949) 27 Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 392, Kiser and Schacter say that, from fact checking of biographies, from a sample of 2,409 articles in the 1948 to 1949 edition, it appears that the number of errors in the American Marquis publication is "virtually negligible", notwithstanding the use of questionaires and practices similar to the A & C Black publication.) The feeling is that the case against Who's Who publications has been based up to now on a few sources expressing what appear at this time to be minority opinions (which opinions in at least some cases do not actually go nearly as far as the extraordinary claims made by RSP), and on a few biographies that appear at this time to be outliers, the significance and importance of which have been exaggerated out of all proportion, some of which have been found to be not actually errors, and some of which have been found to have originated in propaganda or negative advertising from business rivals. IIRC, a number of editors, including Atchom, Necrothesp and Piecesofuk have asked to be notified of further discussions of Who's Who publications, and have complained about the lack of notification in the past. They have actually been talking about bringing their own RfC against the present two listings at RSP, but unfortunately no one has time to prepare an RfC. James500 (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1949 was a long time ago. Business models change. Technology has changed dramatically. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The author of this sociology book said that the aforementioned findings of Kiser and Schacter were still applicable in 1996. James500 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a misunderstanding of the book's conclusion. It appears to me that the 1996 book (now itself 27 years ago) concluded that the biographies the authors reviewed from the 1948-49 edition of WWiA were mostly accurate. It tells us nothing about the accuracy of bios for the past 75 years. Banks Irk (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Banks Irk that you are misinterpreting that source=. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Pyle is clearly talking in the present tense when he discusses the findings of Kiser and Schacter. And he says amongst other things, that the reasons that the autobiographees generally do not make things up include (a) because they know the book will be read by people who know them personally; and (b) because they do not want a semi-official record to be inaccurate anyway. That is not something that would be likely change over time. (Most people would not be stupid enough to believe that they could get away with publishing lies in a book as widely read as that one, and most people are not Baron Munchausen and would not want to falsify the historical record in the first place.) He also cites other studies from 1966, 1979 and 1982 in favour the accuracy of Marquis Who's Who. James500 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether most people didn't do it, if even 1% are false the source is unusably tainted... 99% of CGTN is not disinformation, but they were deprecated for the 1% which is. There is a massive difference between good enough to use for original research (what historians do) and good enough to use on Wikipedia (where original research is banned). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If more than 99.95% of the entries in a book are accurate (and I am basing that number on the alleged errors in A & C Black), that book is not tainted or unusable. It is not original research to decide whether or not the information in a source is reliable for a particular purpose. Wikipedians do that with every source they use. You are doing it right now. In any event I happen to know that the even the New York Times is alleged to contain errors. Its coverage, in more than three thousand articles, of the Russian Revolution between March 1917 and March 1920, for example, was found by Lippmann and Merz to be full of errors. By your logic, we must now deprecate the NYT, because those errors make it "unusably tainted". James500 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not consider a NYT article from 1917-1920 to be a reliable source for much of anything, I believe few others would consider newspaper articles of that age particularly useful for our purposes here. Who's Who still doesn't check the submissions for factual accuracy BTW (they even publish what they know isn't true), that hasn't changed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there are a large number of books by historians that say that newspaper articles are amongst the best sources, or even the best source, for nineteenth century history onwards. You can start with volume 2 of "Historical Interpretation" by J J Bagley at pp 275 and 276 and elsewhere.
 * In any event, by your logic, if the NYT was tainted in 1920, it must still be tainted today (since the sources cited as criticism of Who's Who publications appear to relate to specific editions of specific publications from a specific period, and you are applying it to all editions whatsoever).James500 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the best sources for original research... Which those historians do and we won't. I get that you want to do original research and these sorts of sources are very valuable for that, but don't do it on wiki. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you know that a newspaper can be used as a source without performing original research. And if you elect to completely ignore everything that historians have to say about sources, you will inevitably end up writing (fringe) pseudohistory, which we are not supposed to do on Wikipedia, either. James500 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What historians have to say about these sources is irrelevant since, as HEB said, their use of sources is very different from what we use them for. Most newspaper content is primary, so should not be used by wikipedia editors except for very basic facts. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the British Who's Who is not fact checked is also misleading. None of the content of the pre-1897 editions of Who's Who was supplied by its subjects. The content of the Who's Who Year Book, and content of the tables in the pre-1904 annual volumes of Who's Who, was not supplied by the subjects either. Who Was Who is fact checked and corrected before publication, even if the deceased biographee objected to the correction during their lifetime (Cable-Alexander, The Financial Times, 1990). Biographees in the post-1896 annual volumes are not permitted to include libellous statements in their biographies (BBC News, 2001), the implication being that Who's Who must employ either "libel readers", or similar persons, to check the biographies, and remove any potentially libellous statements, before publication. Most importantly Who's Who has been extensively fact checked by a massive number of book reviewers, journalists, library scientists, historians and etc, and those fact checkers generally say that the reliability and accuracy is somewhere between acceptable and excellent. James500 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The era in which its based based on Mr Marquis's personal preferences is probably even less reliable as a source for use here on wiki. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the British publication. Marquis never had anything to do with the British publication. James500 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, at p 132 of the cited book: "All of this means that Who's Who listings are of less than precise validity." Not a ringing endorsement. Banks Irk (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are quoting out of context in way that is completely misleading. In the paragraph on pages 131 and 132 that you have selectively quoted from, Pyle is clearly talking about the validity of the selection criteria (too many clergy and academics, lack of objective criteria for the "eminence" of individuals, idiosyncratic personal preferences of Mr Marquis about who to include, etc). Pyle is not, in that paragraph, talking about the factual accuracy of the biographies (Pyle talks about their accuracy further down page 132) which is what we are actually concerned with in this discussion. And in spite of all that, Pyle still says it is the best source for determining "eminence" and the chracteristics of the "eminent" in 1996, which you have also ignored. James500 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes... A source for historians to use for original research... Which we do not do here on wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Pyle is talking about sociology, not history. Nor did I advocate that Marquis be used by us to determine "eminence". I was trying to explain that Pyle's comment had nothing to do with the accuracy or reliability of the biographies in the book, and that his comment had been taken out of context. I would be grateful if you would stop putting words into my mouth. James500 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, I am going to withdraw from this discussion, because I am tired of having my words twisted. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "have been tainted by cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, evidence and facts. " that is an extremely strong position to take without providing even a shred of evidence. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Are we anywhere near reaching a conclusion in this discussion such that (a) the reliability or otherwise is determined, and (b) that the outcome be included in the Perennial Sources list? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Law & Liberty
I'm not that familiar with this source, so I'm posting this query here for guidance. My gut tells me it is acceptable as a reliable source, as a basic CRAAP test demonstrates it meets the criteria, except for "Accuracy", but I wonder if this is my bias or otherwise. Other eyes on this would be helpful. The reason I bring this up is because an editor recently added this book review to The Founding Myth. I'm fairly liberal and open when it comes to these kinds of sources, but I wonder if I am too accepting of this source for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like a WP:NEWSBLOG to me, according to the about page: The opinions expressed on Law & Liberty are solely those of the writers and do not reflect the opinions of Liberty Fund. I take that as an indication that the publication is mostly Op-Ed-ish material, but the reception section is going to be mostly attributed opinion from opinion sources anyway, so it's more a matter of how much is DUE and which quotes best summarises the source, IMO. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a helpful response. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sportskeeda
Is Sportskeeda reliable? I've seen people cite it several times on India-related articles. Davest3r08 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't like to use Sportskeeda most of the time, and I do consider it to be a bit of a tabloid. Sportskeeda is a common result especially when I search Google News for gaming subjects like 2b2t, and its fact-checking remains to be proven as reliable. Don't use it to establish GNG compliance. There may be a few instances where it's okay to use, but I consider it a less reliable version of Dexerto, which recently did put itself as "Additional Considerations" on RSP.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 14:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment WP:VG/S considers it unreliable. Skyshifter  talk  15:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Came here to say this. And to take it further, that was partially influenced by Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 343 prior to that. I agree with the sentiments that it's unreliable. Sergecross73   msg me  15:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's weird, I can't find it on WP:RSP. I tried looking up the word "Sportskeeda" on word find and no results. How is it not on the list if the major consensus is "not reliable"? Davest3r08 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Sportskeeda should be added to RSP as generally unreliable, though I would prefer that we start an RFC discussion first where the community has wider input.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would this be necessary? Is there currently a recurring problem of people adding Sportskeeda links and then causing a huge ruckus by arguing that they're reliable? jp×g 20:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. A lot of it is user-submitted content posted on a revenue sharing model. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sportskeeda comes up in web searches pretty often when I'm trying to write about some current online event, or a meme or a viral phenomenon or something like that. They usually have an article written and published about stuff like that bizarrely fast, like within the day or even within a couple hours. Of course, this super-quick coverage is basically the same stuff you could find yourself by looking on social media websites or forum threads or whatever -- but isn't that usually the case when you're writing about extremely online topics? I try to use more solid references than Sportskeeda when I'm citing something, but I don't think that an entire source should be judged as completely good or completely bad. I'd recommend that people treat it the same way they treat anything else, and try to verify that what it says makes sense and is true before leaning on it as a reference. jp×g 05:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason it's up so fast is because SportsKeeda doesn't exert much editorial oversight over its content. It's sort of like WP:FORBESCON, but without any veneer of prestige. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, if I were doing a GA review and Sportskeeda was in there, I would immediately throw it out and demand a more solid citation, but RSN isn't GAN. jp×g 05:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unreliable Sportskeeda is already listed on RSP |RSP as unreliable - there have been several discussions previously and the source was ultimately deprecated. Also some useful discussion here Schwinnspeed (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is concertarchives.org a reliable site?
Rather than being ignorant I want to know if this website is truly reliable rather than assume. I also saw another user commented about it and was told it is user generated content. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It describes itself as a "social network & diary for concert lovers" and seems to allow anyone to sign up and list concerts they have been to. Looks like texttbook user generated content to me – and therefore not reliable Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of a book?
Does this book seem reliable for details about organbuilder Charles Brenton Fisk's life and organs? It is published by PublicAffairs, and this is what the author describes himself as. Ca talk to me! 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason why not. He's not a professional pipe organ historian (I doubtamy people are), but the work is published by a respectable publishing house. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are positive reviews in The Chicago Tribune and New York Times. Agree with AD: it's written by a professional journalist and published by a respectable publisher; I don't see any reason not to consider this basically reliable. In a relatively niche topic like this it's quite possible that this would be the best source available. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Veteran Tributes
The source veterantributes.com is currently used in, including some at GA or FA status. As far as I can tell, this website is run by one person, and its information is sourced from information provided by relatives of the subjects. Normally I'd dismiss this source immediately, but its use with GA and FA gives me pause. Is there something I'm missing here, or is this an unreliable source? Also notifying MILHIST of this discussion. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do we know about who runs it? That will help us assess the source against WP:SPS. The site seems to be used in about 20–30 books, judging by Google Books, and this AFA contact may help uncover who runs it. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on the site I could find that indicates who runs it, whether it has an editorial policy, or does any fact checking. If it is compiled from primary documents, we are relying on them being accurate reflected. No sources are given, and if tributes are provided by families, it is classic SPS and not secondary or independent of the subject. My assessment is that it is unreliable on face value, and its use should be deprecated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peacemaker67. It allows individuals to contribute tributes for themselves, relatives or friends, and though it says that the editor fact-checks the submissions, there is no indication that the apparent editor has any experience, expertise or prior independent publications - just that she heads the Gulfport MS chapter of the Air Force Association. Classic SPS. Banks Irk (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is a YouTube video with archaeologist Brad Hafford a reliable source for Baghdad Battery?
This is the video. Here are some of Hafford's papers. More about Hafford himself., Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Afaict not a copyvio, looks good, so sure. I have no idea how WP:DUE he is, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Likely reliable, the edit you revert doesn't look due though. His video doesn't invalidate other academic sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested Yes, it was a bad edit by someone without a clue how we write articles. Doug Weller  talk 15:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The only other thought I had was that heay be more glib in a YouTube video than he would be in a academic paper. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the channel is run by Brad Hafford himself, doesn't that make this a WP:SELFPUB? Those aren't normally RS. ApLundell (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Have I established this or not? Doug Weller  talk 13:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's an recognised expert in his field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the intent to cite the video like a publication or like an interview? If the source is something like ABC News or Nova then I would say we treat it as if it were a written article and the RS aspect comes from the video's publisher.  If this is a random video blog interview then we have to establish Hafford is a subject matter expert and then treat this like self published work.  Looking at the video it appears to be, the equivalent of a blog in video form.  So I would say treat it as a SPS including asking if it has sufficient weight for inclusion etc.  If he is an expert and we see that he contradicts another expert then I would be tempted to remove both. Springee (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on changes to the header of WP:Reliable sources/noticeboard
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to discuss a proposed change to the head of the Reliable sources noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Forbes Contributor Interviews?
So I'm curious on where the community stands for the usage of interviews conducted by Forbes contributors for both general and BLP stuff. Using this interview with the Revolt CEO as an example, it seems like that disregarding the general unreliability of Forbes contributors for general content per RSP, Forbes contributors would unreliable and this instantly disqualifies it from usage. However, say that I was editing an article on the company or CEO and wanted to include direct quotes from founders as a WP:PRIMARY source. Would WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:INTERVIEW override FORBESCON in this case, or would it not be includable in either a BLP article about Revolt's CEO or one about the company itself?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 01:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, it depends what it is going to be used for. I definitely don't think such interviews should count towards notability though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note the instructions for this noticeboard request an article and specific content.
 * As with BLP requires high-quality sources, WP:BLPPRIMARY applies as well.
 * FORBESCON states, Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons.
 * FORBESCON article are usually highly promotional in nature, with questionable encyclopedic value per NOT. --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hemi that this doesn't (or at least oughtn't) to count towards notability. Basically, common sense has to be used here. This website — which is a Forbes contributor piece — contains a transcript of a long interview with this guy, and so when we say it's unreliable, what do we mean by that? Do we really think that they falsified the entire thing? If so, why would they link to the guy's website? Do you think that, if we asked him if this was a real interview, he'd really say "no, I was impersonated, the whole thing is fake"? This seems absurd. I mean, maybe if the interview has him saying "I love to drive drunk and run over little children" or something we would want to err on the side of caution, but this is a very normal interview. He is saying stuff like "We're the ones who are bringing them all of the information and then letting them be empowered to make decisions"; I would call this a primary source for quotations so long as they're attributed to him as quotations (i.e. not just written as fact). Preferably they would be attributed to the interview: In an interview with Forbes contributor Stephanie Tharpe, Samuels said "Blah blah blah". jp×g 05:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Utterly fake interviews pop up in published sources with some frequency.... this year, for example, we've seen the Michael Schumacher interview at Die Aktuelle and FIBA's interview with Victor Wembanyama. Altering quotes for any number of reasons is possible even if the subject truly has been interviewed. Seems to me that this is a clear matter of WP:BLPSPS and not to be used, assuming the interviewee is still among the living. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be extremely cautious about using them for anything, and would treat it as falling under both WP:SELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF (as if published by the interview subject) - specifically, I would strenuously argue against using them for anything exceptional, anything unduly self-serving, any statements about third parties whatsoever, any statements about events unrelated to the people in the interview, and so on. I'd also argue against using them as a source for anything BLP sensitive (which in this case, because statements about third parties are already forbidden, would mean if eg. someone tries to add a quote from a Forbes contributor interview where the subject says something potentially damning or expresses some opinion that would plainly harm their reputation; I don't feel quote-mining primary sources for negative material is appropriate.) Forbes contributor pieces have AFAIK basically no editorial process; if we're going to treat it as usable as a primary source for the interview subject's statements (on the argument, presented above, that they'd probably object otherwise?) then we have to treat it as if it were published by the interview subject, since that is the only thing that would make it usable at all. It also obviously doesn't establish WP:GNG notability because it's not independent or reliably published. And, I'm going to say upfront, my presumption is that this is going to bar the vast majority of things that people would want to use it for; even for the very few things that ABOUTSELF allows, there's going to be WP:DUE issues if a Forbes Contributor interview is the only thing that mentions it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if using for WP:ABOUTSELF it should only be used if other sources can't be found. If you can find a book that says he was born at a certain place, there's no reason to tack on the WP:FORBESCON interview. Such can be seen as trying to promote the source or contents contained within it that has nothing to do with proving what it is placed to verify. Graywalls (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Give it the same treatment as published by the interview subject himself, obviously. No need for me to list an entirely redundant list of additional disclaimers here, since already such self-pub assertions have to face a small mountain of well-known policy restrictions. XavierItzm (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Another due diligence question for Russian invasion of Ukraine
No dispute about this content, but I have never heard of the source. It is used alongside a CNN cite so there also isn't a content question - just asking myself whether this would normally be in their area of expertise (maybe?) and whether it should be replaced by another source. Point of information, there seems to be consensus on the page that it currently has too many cites to the same few American and British sources; in other words, it should stay as long as it is indeed a reputable publication. Any opinions?

The sentence: "By evening, the Russian Navy began an amphibious assault on the coast of the Sea of Azov 70 kilometres (43 mi) west of Mariupol. A US defence official said that Russian forces were deploying thousands of marines from this beachhead."

I have a couple more that I am questioning merely because I am not familiar with them, but that is all for now. Thanks for any input Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the reliability of the Maritime Executive but there are other sources that reported this (CNN US Naval Institute) citing unnamed US defence officials. Alaexis¿question? 10:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks, that makes sense. I'm just looking for sites that might have had an RFC or a consensus somewhere that I didn't notice,but don't come up enough to be on the Perennial sources list. (like Andalou or Jewish Virtual Library) I agree that it seems very plausible. They are used a couple more times, always for something naval about the Black Sea theatre. Appreciate the brainpower. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

ZMINA
There doesn't seem to be a dispute about, just doing some due diligence. Ukrinform is fine of course, but what's a ZMINA? It seems plausible, from its website, as a small non-profit or an independent journalism outfit, but I wonder if someone can give us an opinion that is based on a little more than that. This is for the casualties section of Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't call them independent given that one of their donors is the US Department of State. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are unreliable, of course. Considering that they are cited by Ukrinform and that their civilian casualty numbers are not too different from other estimates, I think they can be cited with attribution ("according to a Ukrainian non-profit..."). Alaexis¿question? 11:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for the opinion. The thing about hoaxes is that they do look plausible. And that link is heavily cited at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. As for independent, good point. I actually meant "not drawing a salary from a large news source" but yeah, I will find another way to word that. And you would call them a non-profit rather than journalists? Elinruby (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sure it's not a hoax. Their chief editor used to work at UNIAN . So their reporting is definitely affected by the wartime restrictions on press freedom but that's true for all Ukrainian media outlets. They call themselves a "center for human rights" (Центр прав людини). Alaexis¿question? 10:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK thank you. I was always inclined to trust Ukrinform to spot an obvious hoax, but given that there are state actors with many resources in the topic area, I would prefer to ask a stupid question here to avoid giving oxygen to a good hoax, shrug. The Unian thing history is reassuring.Elinruby (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre mass-redaction in Palestine-Israel conflict news reports
Hello, I've came across the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant's remark regarding the assault into Israeli territory by the Palestinian militants, of which a part was redacted in brackets: Some other sources claim that the minister rather used the phrase "human beasts":
 * I have given an order — Gaza will be under complete siege,” said Yoav Gallant, defence minister. “There will be no electricity, food or fuel [delivered to Gaza]. We are fighting barbaric [terrorists] and will respond accordingly. (Financial Times)
 * "I have given an order - Gaza will be under complete siege. There will be no electricity, food or fuel [delivered to Gaza]. We are fighting barbaric [terrorists] and will respond accordingly," Gallant was quoted in a statement as saying. (Deccan Herald)
 * Gallant added, "I have given an order - Gaza will be under complete closure. There will be no electricity, food or fuel [delivered to Gaza]." "We are fighting barbaric [terrorists] and will respond accordingly." (Israel National News)
 * "We are fighting barbaric terrorists and we will act accordingly," Gallant said. (ABC News)
 * "I have given an order — Gaza will be under complete closure," Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said in a statement. "There will be no electricity, food or fuel [delivered to Gaza]. We are fighting barbaric [terrorists] and will respond accordingly. (Texas Public Radio)
 * "I have given an order — Gaza will be under complete closure," Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said in a statement. "There will be no electricity, food or fuel [delivered to Gaza]. We are fighting barbaric [terrorists] and will respond accordingly." (NPR)
 * Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on Monday that he instructed the military to place Gaza under a total siege. "There will be no electricity, food or fuel," he said. "We are fighting human beasts and acting accordingly. (Ynet News)
 * "Israel orders TOTAL blockade on blitzed Gaza banning food & fuel to starve out ‘human beasts’…with invasion ‘hours away’" (The Sun)

Main request
Does anyone have access to the text of the original transcript of the speech made by the defense minister Yaov Gallant? And does that multiple sources redacted the speech in the exact same way fail WP:INDEPENDENT? Are those sources reliable to use in articles related to Palestine-Israel conflict? Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently a video in Hebrew. There is https://twitter.com/yoavgallant/status/1711335592942875097, idk if that's the whole thing though. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, translations are always tricky, as words can have different connotations in different languages and this may have caused these outlets to redact Galant's words, but basically the Ynet's translation is accurate, the original phrase being "אנחנו נלחמים בחיות אדם" (literally, "we're fighting human animals"). The Sun is being their usual selves, it's best to ignore them. No opinion on what we should write, as we're supposed to follow the majority of RS. Alaexis¿question? 08:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that so many sources haven't included the literal translation makes me wonder if it's an idiom. It would be helpful to have who speaks Hebrew involved. However there are more sources quoting "animals" Guardian, Huffpost, Washington Post. NB The WP uses "animals" not "human animals". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

IntheKnow.com by Yahoo
https://www.intheknow.com is used in 50+ articles. I'm not sure what to make of it, other than it's extremely promotional.

Example 1: used in for "Following release, the company received a lot of backlash on social media, with people saying that the products were poor quality and impractical, saying that they should only be used for Instagram photos." with reference:

Example 2: used in for "Sommer Ray was born on September 15, 1996, in Colorado." with reference:

I'm leaning to it being a reliable source in these cases, but other policies apply to their useage that may require changes to content or removal (especially in Kylie Jenner). - Hipal (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Historical Marker Database
It has come to my attention that the website, the Historical Marker Database is not a WP:RS. I would like to propose listing it on your project page as a source not to use for the following reasons:

Greg Henderson (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One example is here, upon reading it, it becomes evident that this is user-generated content, where registered users can submit and customize their contributions.
 * When you read its "About Us" page, it explicitly states: "Anyone can add new markers to the database and update existing marker pages with new photographs, links, information and commentary.


 * There's no need to list this, that's only for contentious sources that have had multiple previous discussions. This is clearly WP:UGC and so unusable for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggested RSN to Greg, but I am not sure why this was posted, because there was no disagreement among editors about the suitability of the source. I would like to add that WP:UGC applies in a broader sense, meaning that if bloggy looking website Stevensblog.org gets discussed, a similar Gregsblog.org that shows signs of user generated contents is assumed the same. If one is turned down, it's not to say that other one is acceptable. The other shouldn't even be brought up for discussion unless it is a topic of disagreement and there's an exception to be discussed. Such predictable matters brought here for discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the discussion has already been created, I want to ask about this. hmdb.org site has a team of editors with positions like board of editors, publisher and titles similar to that of a legitimate newspaper. This strays away from the specific source in question but a common to ask about a source quality is does it have editorial process? A band can simply appoint each member as editorial board and write up an editorial policy mimicking a legitimate publication. If the band was to establish its own zine and start writing about music topic, I wouldn't consider band members talking about other bands and music in general a good source. In all these online-only publications that keep coming up, how do we determine what is actually a reliable source as opposed to just a group of people calling themselves "editors". ? Graywalls (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

freepressjournal.in and tvpworld
More source checking for Russian invasion of Ukraine and Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. There is no dispute about these sources at the moment. I questioned them simply because I didn't recognize them. Then I found and decided to see what the editors here think. If possible would like an overall assessment, but will dig out examples if needed. Most likely they cited mentions of individual deaths in the Ukraine war, since that is what I have been working on recently. TVP does have a *very* high number for total civilian deaths in Ukraine, but I'm not planning to use that anyway, since I've only seen there and on Euromaidan Press. I suspect it may be close to correct, but article editors were recently balking at much lower numbers.
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411, and noticed
 * TVP seems to be part of Telewizja Polska

My best guess

 * freepressjournal: came up in the above RFC due to some suspicions about paid content placement. It's possibly located in Mumbai. Did not find an About Us page but the site looks professional, middlebrow and established. Most of its home page however is regional politics. Nothing wrong with that, but I know too little about that to assess the factuality or slant of the publication, and am hoping someone more familiar will make a quick assessment. Offhand, it seems harmless enough if it's sourcing something like a local news cameraman getting shot in Ukraine, but ideally I should find another source?
 * tvpworld has language versions, but apparently English isn't one of them. Having trouble even navigating the site to find an About Us page. Site is professional and well-tended, though, afaict. Google says it's a very old government broadcaster that lately has been accused of unconditional support for party positions. The Ukraine war article does touch on the "Nazi=Ukrainian=Nazi" trope, so this source may not be reliable in articles about the Ukraine war except for extremely uncontroversial data points?

Does that sound right? ^ might be interested in the question.


 * You need to ask a specific question about how these sources are being used in context. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article. Banks Irk (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * SIGH:: Are the above sources reliable for one of the dozens maybe hundreds of table entries (reference only) being compiled at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War? I thought I said that, but fine. My answer is now in the form of a question. And it turns out that TVP a)also sources the sinking of the Moskva b)has been publishing some xenophobic refugees-taking-over-Europe stuff so I am going to declare it shaky for anything more complex than news agency blurbs (casualty count) and replace in the Moskva context. There's no way there aren't *much* better sources for that. I would still like to hear opinions, particularly about freepressjournal.in

I also have a question about TASS but that's more complicated and this post is already long. I will start a fresh section on that in a day or so Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason that we ask for specific questions in context is that it is often impossible to opine on the source otherwise. Freepressjournal is a long-established newspaper in India that would ordinarily fall under WP:NEWSORG. But, according to its page on editorial policy, its online publication includes user generated content that would not fall under NEWSORG.  TVP World is the long-established State broadcaster in Poland. So, it would also fall under NEWSORG. But, I don't see Freepressjournal or TVPWorld listed as a reference in that article. Perhaps I missed it. But what specific story at the source is being used for which specific purpose in which specific article is vital to answering the question. Banks Irk (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

CN tagging fiction for citations for basic plot points in the fiction
I'm not going to get into a protracted edit-war over this. I have explained at great length to that works of fiction are, by definition, the most reliable sources for their own basic plot elements (absent any analysis, evaluation, interpretion, or synthesis regarding those plot points; I mean just the fact that something happens in the plot at all). This editor nevertheless insists on -tagging at Carom billiards, demanding inline citations for the fact that a number of films and TV episodes do in fact feature the game in them. The editor obtusely claims they are "challenging" that this it is true, and refuses to accept that citation to the films/shows in question at all already satisifies WP:V, and will not go view the materials on their own time and dime to do the verifications they insist are necessary. (If you doubt that The Hustler features a game of carom billiards, then you go watch the film and find out for yourself.) I have reminded the editor that no one is obligated to do all this work for them or to fill out templates for them, but they are revert-warring with me anyway and just repeating the same demands robotically. I believe this is disruptive and needs to stop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As per this RfC, secondary sourcing is required in the context at issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They're reliable for their plot... On their own page. Nikkimaria is 100% right that you do need a secondary source in order to include anything in the popular culture section of that article. Not sure that CN is the right tag though, its more a due weight issue (a complete and utter lack of due weight to be precise). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a weight issue not a RS issue. Whether Wikipedia wants these trivial factoids is something their supporter would need to gain consensus for. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's just a weight issue. There's a potential WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issue in relating a work to a particular topic - adding it to those lists implies a degree of meaning and intent that may not be present; it's a situation where the implicit assertion of relevance often has implications that go beyond what a bare WP:PRIMARY reference can support. eg. if the Napoleonic Wars showed up in a story, and you dropped that story into a hypothetical "Napoleonic Wars in Popular Culture" article, you're making an implicit assertion that the story has a degree of broader relevance to the topic (and is actually based on the real-world Napoleonic wars) rather than just a brief mention or a shallow reference. That's the sort of thing we need secondary sourcing for. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Without a decent secondary source that bothered to notice, fails WP:PROPORTION. And probably WP:FANCRUFT, but that essay is an essay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For a WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison, see Metatron and discussions on that talkpage. Talk:Tardigrade/Archive_1 is another example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:IPC (essay) and MOS:POPCULT (MoS). I recall a few discussions about "In popular culture" sections earlier this year (didn't bookmark), and general opinion on them was negative. I especially like "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject from WP:IPCV; DFlhb (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether there should be "In popular culture/Media references" material in this sort of article is a question to whether an inline citation is required to prove that a work of fiction contains the plot element that the work of fiction contains, so most of these reponses have basically been off-topic. The danger here is that if Suriname0's wikilawyering/system-gaming is taken seriously and given imprimatur, it would allow them to go around and apply literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of pointless CN templates. E.g., one for every single claim about any plot point at any article about or mentioning any work of fiction. A typical "List of [show] episodes" article, some of which are among the longest articles we have, could easily end up with 1000 or more CN templates, since they consist of almost nothing but point-by-point plot summaries. And any bio on a writer, actor, filmmaker, playwright, etc., could end up with dozens at least. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I hope Suriname0 does so forthwith; perhaps we can start cutting out the tonnes of cruft on the pages at Special:LongPages. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is less an issue with WP:V source requirements, and more towards NOR and NPOV issues that come when talking about pop culture, because we know (using TV Tropes as the example here) that without the rigors of sourcing for this area, we'd flood article with every tiny reference or perceived connection to works of fiction. By requiring sourcing here beyond the work itself, we keep inclusion of references to what is noted by sources (DUE) and devoid of wo editors' own asserted connections (NOR). M asem (t) 13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure, as (for example) to say that Nevil fights of vampires is stated in text. No OR and it passes wp:v To say Nevil fights mutant humans would fail both. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "And any bio on a writer, actor, filmmaker, playwright, etc., could end up with dozens at least." we should not be using such primary sources for much of anything at all on such pages, you're acting like thats reasonable for some reason? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A list of episodes articles will be subject to the plot exception, but bios of filmmakers should not contain plot details unless they are significant enough for secondary sources, so I don't see a problem with asking for citations. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * can you provide examples of bios of "writer, actor, filmmaker, playwright, etc." which use plot summaries like this? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Any such bio anywhere that mentions any plot point in any work of fiction pertaining to that author.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Outside of mentioning an actor's roles in works /hey appeared in, do you have a specific example? Because I know what you claim is definitely not the norm. M asem (t) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just spot checked a half dozen of my favorite authors, none have uses like that. Thats the good faith on my part, now you need to provide the bios on which you are basing this statement or retract it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple things being discussed here, including much confusion between WP:V and WP:DUE. Works (of fiction or otherwise) are always reliable sources for the content of that work, including plot points. No secondary sources to demonstrate that major aspects plot are DUE on an article or section about that work, secondary sources are ideal for more minor points and should be included if there is a dispute about whether something is or is not DUE (but the work itself is all that is needed if there is a dispute about verifiability). Secondary sources are not needed for factual claims about a work (e.g. this story contains vampires) but are required for claims about the work that interpret the text/film/whatever (e.g. claims that the vampires are actually metaphors for something). Inclusion in "In popular culture" sections does require secondary sources, in cases where the inclusion is based on matters of fact (e.g. Vampires#In popular culture) they are required only to satisfy DUE otherwise we will be flooded with trivial mentions (c.f. xkcd 446); but in cases of interpretation (e.g. Vampires as metaphors#In popular culture) secondary sources are needed to verify both the interpretation and DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, cn is technically not the correct tag here for Suriname0's objection, but it's pretty clear what issue they are bringing up: once they had explained that at User talk:Suriname0 you could have simply replaced the tag with page needed and explained that this was a more appropriate tag. But as Nikkimaria et al. observe, we do have various guidelines which do suggest that self-sourcing is not sufficient for inclusion in "In popular culture" sections: in addition to the pages everyone else has mentioned there's also MOS:POPCULT. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (And I haven't seen the films in question so I can't judge if such an objection is valid, but I can absolutely imagine someone in good faith querying whether the cue sport being shown in a particular film is in fact carom billiards rather than some other similar game; in such a case a secondary source may well be necessary) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Op-Med
I've come across a site called Op-Med used in an article and cannot find a previous discussion. I'm leaning unreliable based on the description "Op-Med is a collection of original articles contributed by Doximity members", but wanted to get others' views.

Source Article: Lydia Kang Content: "She has helped other writers with medical accuracy in their fiction."

Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if this source were impeccable (no opinion, haven't looked into it) that's an inane sentence describing an activity of minimal significance to the subject's biography, I would remove it per WP:UNDUE. (What would change my mind is if it were a thing that got mentioned in multiple secondary sources or brought up repeatedly in interviews; and in that case there also wouldn't be any question about relying on the reliability of this single source.) 50.207.165.66 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

North East Secretariat on Human Rights
The book Massacres of Tamils (1956-2008) published in Chennai, India by Manitham Publications in 2009 under the name of North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESOHR), with its copyrights owned by NESOHR; has been used as a source in several controversial topics associated with the Sri Lankan Civil War, namely the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. As per Amnesty International (AI), NESOHR was formed in 2004 by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (a rebel non-state actor that has been labeled as a Terrorist organization by several countries including Sri Lanka) to operate in parts of Sri Lanka which at the time was under LTTE control. AI has claimed that NESOHR lacks autonomy. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the Australian Parliament has stated that the LTTE formed the NESOHR to "counter the dominant discourse on LTTE’s human rights record" and it lacks formal recognition or representation in international human rights forums, only functioning as "an intermediary between international human rights organisations and the LTTE" and its primary function is "advocacy on behalf of the rights of Tamils, directed mainly towards non-local actors" and also local advocacy as well as maintaining records of rights violations. Its autonomy has been questioned. Finally, the Pro-Rebel website TamilNet has stated that in 2005 NESoHR was given the additional task of " documenting past atrocities against Tamils to its program". By who this task was allocated, TamilNet does not say. It is likely that that it would have been from the LTTE. The TamilNet goes on to say that "NESoHR released two detailed reports on past atrocities and a statistical report on the people who were forcefully evicted from their land." and shares a detailed report compiled by NESoHR, which appears to be the basis for the publication in question. Therefore, given the serious and controversial nature of the content this document is used to support in Wikipedia, it has been discussed in, where principle contributors to the article in question have argued that NESoHR can be used as a credible source to list killings claimed to have been carried out by the Government of Sri Lanka and its forces that they have extensively listed out in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. I would like to know if NESOHR and/or its publication can be used as a reliable source on allegations against the Government of Sri Lanka in this article in particular or in general in child articles linked to this list. Cossde (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As mentioned to you yesterday, I would be submitting this particular source for discussion at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources which is a Wikipedia project dedicated to this topic.
 * See below link:
 * NESOHR discussion Oz346 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

CIA Tiananmen Square massacre conspiracy theory
Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a question of WP:DUE, not reliability. The Vancouver Sun is a reliable source, but a claim like that needs a firmer foundation. One newspaper report, from 1992, quoting some anonymous officials, without follow-up, isn't sufficient. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't just a Vancouver Sun story, it's an Associated Press story, and searching newspapers.com for its opening phrase, seems to have appeared in over 90 papers. So, yes, it is a presumed reliable source, and it is being used to state merely that one official said that, rather than that things were actually supplied. (Whether the CIA is a reliable source for the activities of the CIA is, of course, a different question.) WP:DUE is something for discussion consensus. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Dead links to Al-Manar
I try to reduce the dead links backlog. In the Article 2007 Lebanon conflict there are 2 links to Al-Manar (which is owned by Hezbollah), where archived versions are aviable. Considering the nature of the source, should the archived sites be added or is it better to leave it alone? Gehenna1510 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That source should be removed. It is unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”
For the article Holodomor denial, the LOC gives authoritative definition statements that are used by English-language libraries worldwide to catalogue bibliographical materials.



Are these reliable sources supporting the definition of the subject of the article as follows?:
 * Holodomor denial is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made faminethat killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur, or the diminishment of its scale and significance

The inclusion of the phrase “or the diminishment of its scale and significance” has been tendentious, and is part of the subject of the latest discussions on talk:Holodomor denial. —Michael Z. 16:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about titles or catalog entries, no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, but we are talking about the definition of the subject Holodomor denial. —Michael Z. 18:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that these are titles in a catalog entry, so for all we know they may say (for example) " Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress, This contains a list of all falsehoods that claim there was a...". Like headlines hey do not tell us the whole story. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, use an academic source focused on that, not a library's definition.  nableezy  - 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s an authoritative reference. As far as I know, academic sources are not critiquing it.
 * And what about Dobczansky 2009? —Michael Z. 22:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell that is mostly focused on the Library of Congress and its collection and what other works are available. Get a source about the topic, not a source covering another sources coverage of the topic.  nableezy  - 20:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't find a better source I do not think that anything sourced to these would be WP:DUE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we've ever actually decided that it's UNDUE to define the subject of an 2400-word-long article.
 * These sources (which say things like "Here are entered works that discuss the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur") are convenient, and it seems unlikely that anyone would disagree. A glance through Talk:Holodomor denial suggests that there is a  concern that the opening sentence previously referred to genocidal intent, and the Library of Congress definition does not explicitly name genocide, though presumably "Sure, they all starved, but Stalin didn't mean to genocide them" would count as "the diminution of the...significance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that if this particular definition of Holodomor denial cannot be found in mainstream academic sources, I do not think it should be included in the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What definitions of Holodomor denial are found in mainstream academic sources? —Michael Z. 03:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I recall other discussions of LOC entries, where it's reliability was found to be poor. Has anyone searched the RSN archives? --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the Dobczansky article? —Michael Z. 14:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe, what is wrong with the Dobczansky article? You tell me I need to find better sources, and you say you’ve seen mainstream sources that define the subject. Please cite them. —Michael Z. 14:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * For questions like this, I find it sometimes helps to look at the question outside of the immediate issue. So… are their other subjects that we would source to the Library of Congress catalog in the same way some of us wish to do with “Holodomar Denial”? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And the Dobczansky article? —Michael Z. 14:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a suitable secondary source for the encyclopedia, per Reliable_sources and No_original_research. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Dobczansky 2009 is a secondary source. Its subject is the definition of the subjects of Holodomor denial and Holodomor denial literature. It is about the subject in question, not about the Library of Congress. There is literally not a more directly relevant source to the definition of the article’s subject possible. —Michael Z. 21:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The question at the top of this thread was: Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”, and the answer is an obvious 'no'. Dobczansky appears to be a secondary source discussing LOC's entry, and it replicates the index in the appendix. so the question remains, is the LoC subject heading a reliable source? The answer is still no, imo. is this is the best source for such a definition, and no other sources, that directly tackle the subject of holodomor denial, exist? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say definitely not; there's all sorts of problems. For one thing there's no real indication that these have an editorial process or editorial controls. Beyond that, the problems here strike me as the same ones we run into when people try cite dictionaries and other tertiary sources to present issues that are complex and heavily-debated as clear-cut and settled; this is a source that lacks depth and nuance, on a subject that has numerous extremely in-depth sources of higher quality which at least partially conflict with the unambiguous statement presented here. Why would we cite a brief one-sentence guidance, intended for a totally different context, when we have highly-cited academic sources that go into much more depth? --Aquillion (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Holodomor Studies journal is a secondary source. It was edited by Roman Serbyn (UQAM). In the Editor’s Forward in v 1 n 1 (winter–spring 2009) he writes it “is intended to be a scholarly, peer-reviewed, semi-annual publication.” —Michael Z. 22:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not a reliable source. Libraries, of necessity, have to adopt some sort of structure to their collections, and assign labels. Such labels are there for the convenience of those looking for material, they are not intended as summaries of the content therein. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree LOC catalog entries are not reliable on their own. However, looking at Dobczansky pages 159-160, it specifically addresses the LOC entry under question, supporting the definition given by the LOC - it literally says "the LOC approved two new subject headings" and the uses the words diminuation and diminish. As such all three sources are justifiable for use, as a single cite supporting one another. Michael keeps asking us: "What about the Dobczansky", and nobody responded. So I took the time to actually read Dobczansky, and would encourage others for the same reason.  --  Green  C  22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a well-researched topic, why can't we use the definitions used by normal scholarly sources? The proposed definition is somewhat controversial as it's not clear whether saying that Holodomor was a part of a wider famine that affected Southern Russia and Kazakhstan amounts to denial. Dobczansky does not think so (p. 162) but the definition can be understood this way. Alaexis¿question? 20:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources? —Michael Z. 20:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know this topic well, but I imagine there are plenty of books and articles written by scholars about it. Alaexis¿question? 20:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the Dobczansky paper seems to fit your requirement of a normal scholarly source, which explicitly and specifically defines and describes the subject. I don’t know what else you’re asking for, but if these things you imagine do exist then citations are most welcome. —Michael Z. 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please blacklist and ban herbertscukurs blogspot and all publications by Mark Weber
herbertscukurs blogspot is a Holocaust denialist anti-Semetic website that incites hatred against the Jewish people and commits every single anti-Semetic trope imaginable. It celebrates Nazi war criminal Herberts Cukurs and uses phrases like "alleged gas chambers", says that the Jews should be punished for "slandering" Cukurs, usual Nazi stuff. Author Mark Weber is a notorious Holocaust denier. Shockingly there are people on Wikipedia who think this blog is fine.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Where is this source cited as a reference and for what purpose? Has this site ever been discussed previously at RSN? Read the instructions above. Banks Irk (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * People at Latvian Wikipedia say that it is a reliable source and think they have the right to use it if they develop a "consensus" that it is a good source. Would it be possible to ban it fully to prevent revisionists from voting in a Nazi source?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What goes on in Latvian Wikipedia is outside the scope of English Wikipedia, and any such blacklisting here would have no effect there.
 * I suspect that you may want to escalate this to whatever the Latvian equivalent of WP:AN or WP:ANI is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the person promoting this blog has powers on Latvian Wikipedia and many other Latvians think that the only thing wrong with the source is that is it s blogspot, not the actual content of the source. He insists that it would be fine to use the source if Latvians agreed that it was a good source and that they felt it was fine. They editwarred to restore the link before finally protecting the page with the link to the article so that I couldn't try to remove it anymore and it as only removed by another editor because they knew that blogspots aren't allowed who felt that the blog was only "prejudiced" (very odd word choice) not Nazi propaganda and, the restorer was never punished for promoting the link (or accusing the Hamas rockets of being my "Muslim missiles" for that matter because the admin felt that I "provoked" him by "insulting" him so much (obviously I called him a Nazi apologist for promoting the blog and refusing to admit that the blog was Nazi propaganda even after being told about how disturbing the other articles on the blog were). They apologize for the "your muslim missiles" remark but not for promoting this vile blog and I am very afraid that once the spotlight is off of them they will restore the link to the blog since. It's the fox guarding the henhouse there, they think it is hate speech to say that Latvian celebrations of Cukurs are disgusting but don't think that the blog itself mocking holocaust survivors and promoting violence against Jews is hate speech. Is there some way we can issue an injuction to order Latvian Wikipedia to prohibit all use of the blog and all Mark Weber stuff? They would never come to that conclusion without outside pressure.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The blogspot link was already removed 6 days ago during the first discussion, and it was made pretty clear by the remover that it was removed not only because it is a blogspot, but also because it contains personal opinions and speculations about his role in holocaust. How many more discussions and noticeboard reports (one, two, three, four) over different Wikipedias do we need? –Turaids (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Until Egilus admits that the gas chambers were not a Jewish hoax and apologizes for promoting the blog after being clearly told that it was Nazi propaganda (which he denied being Nazi propaganda). I am very afraid that as soon as this discussion is over Egilus will restore the link because he is in a position of power to protect the page and still hasn't personally admitted that the content of the blog was wrong. I also think that you Turaids should be far more worried about the text of the blog that your friend Egilus was promoting than my "insults" provoked by that very Nazi blog. I'm starting to wonder if Egilus himself is a contributer to the blog itself considering he hasn't responded here, but either way, that blog is a piece of shit (and yes I am using profanity to describe the blog, it is accurate for describing the blog).--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That blogpost is long gone from the extenal links of the Latvian Wikipedia article, but what still remains is you, someone who even after being blocked for making personal attacks continues to go around beating a dead horse for the sake of making a point, while carrying on to make false and defamatory statements about Latvians (many other Latvians think that the only thing wrong with the source is that is it s blogspot, not the actual content of the source and People at Latvian Wikipedia say that it is a reliable source)? Who are the "many Latvians" or "[p]eople at Latvian Wikipedia" (plural)? You interacted with exactly 2 people on Latvian Wikipedia, one of whom agreed with you and removed the blogpost link one minute later, plus me and I've also made myself very clear that a blogspot like that doesn't belond on Wikipedia. Which part about contains personal opinions and speculations about his role in holocaust is not about the contents of the blog? And the fact that you call Egilus my "friend" when I've very much been at the receiving end of his brash communication style myself, just continues to show that you keep on making things up as you go. I'll leave it up to the other editors to decide whether your activities already constitute an intentional misuse of the noticeboard. –Turaids (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * KazyKazyKazakhstan, I hope you don’t mind I am removing the link as links from this project are used for search engine algorithms in ranking hits and for the reasons you brought this here it should not get any links from this project. I agree it should never be used by us. There’s no need for new discussion as I’m pretty sure Weber’s websites are already considered unusable but if it helps to have a clear steer here I’m happy to affirm it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with BobFromBrockley the source could never be consider a reliable source, it doesn't need discussion. Whether other language wikis consider it reliable or not has no impact on that judgement, and the opinion here has no effect on them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We can't control other language wikis, but this should never be used here. Doug Weller  talk 11:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for agreeing with this. I have facing up a mob of angry Latvians for saying that that blog was a Nazi blog and shouldn't be treated as a reliable source and but they kept reverting me to keep it because they insisted that the Latvian community had the right to view it as reliable. Surely there has to be some sort of Wikipedia rule on Holocaust denialism that forbids promotion of sources like this (without exception even if experienced editors decide it is "reliable" and "useful"--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Kazy - unfortunately, you are arguing your case in the wrong venue. We here at the English version of Wikipedia have NO say over what sources are accepted or rejected at the Latvian version. It’s like two countries having different laws. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What am I supposed to do then? We can't have gas chamber deniers editing on Wikipedia and controlling content of articles, and if we discuss the issue with more Latvians they'll just mock Kazakhstan, Islam, and Jews, and then call Cukurs a hero even more, maybe even subscribe to the that disgusting blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan, I'm sure we all agree with what you say, but you also need to WP:HEAR what others are telling you. Admins on English Wikipedia have no say in how other language Wikipedias are run. There's no point in reposting the same over and over again. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well can somebody at least make a public declaration that the blog is a prohibited Nazi source? "We all agree" about the blog being horrible does not include many active and powerful people in Latvian Wikipedia, some of whom are still defending the promoter of the blog and think I need to "learn a lesson" but not the promoter of the blog who is wholly and completely unrepentant about their promotion and praise of the nasty blog. How can wikipedia function if insulting the blog is "hate speech" but calls for Jews to be punished for discussing the holocaust are considered debatable?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Specific citation by independentaustralia.net
Hello, do you think that this specific citation by independentaustralia.net is reliable and can be used? After first asking this at the Reference desk yesterday, I learned it had been listed as "generally unreliable" by CodeTalker. I believe the citation doesn't make any bold claims though, and wanted to double check if this article particularly could be used as coverage for the Draft:Denys Davydov I'm writing. Cheers!  Johnson  524  15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A previous RSN discussion here is generally pretty critical of the publication. Their about us page claims that they require "rigorous fact checking" which seems promising, but the previous RSN discussion seems to contradict that. I'm not overwhelmingly encouraged by the fact that none of their editorial team apparently have any previous journalism experience either.
 * Re the specific article you cite, apparently the author is a PhD researcher at the Centre for Media Transition, which makes me think that they are likely to have relevant expertise in the topic – though they probably won't yet meet WP:EXPERTSPS. If it hadn't been flagged as unreliable I doubt I would have questioned its use. It's been a few years since the last discussion though, so editors more familiar with it may be able to weigh in on whether things have changed since the last discussion... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto: Sorry for the late response. Thanks for looking into this! I saw the "rigorous fact checking" bit and assumed it was fine, but you make a good point with EXPERTSPS. If another editor doesn't chime-in, I believe I will still use it, but I'll definitely be weary in potentially using it in future articles. Cheers!  Johnson  524  11:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sexual addiction
This is about. Please chime in. It was discussed here before, but AFAIK no judgment has been passed upon the WP:RS. If it is a US-centric conclusion, we may state that in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source that was removed in the linked edit is reporting on the opinion of the interviewee, Apryl Alexander, without attribution. It is not reporting in the voice of the author or publisher. Alexander looks like a subject matter expert; whether her opinion is WP:Due or not is something to be discussed at the article page. But, without opining on that issue, I see no problem from a RS standpoint is using the source, so long as it is accurately characterized as her opinion. Banks Irk (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPathtalk 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

sweetwater.com (music retailer)
I suspect https://www.sweetwater.com should not be used as a reliable source for information on music technology, as it's a retailer with no established editorial oversight. (The consensus was the same for reverb.com in previous discussions.) Am I right there? Popcornfud (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, we're wondering if this page can be used in the synthesizer article to support an explanation of linear arithmetic synthesis. I would prefer not to use an online retailer as a source, but perhaps I'm being overcautious. Popcornfud (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is a retailer, not a publisher, and the article author is anonymous. It's a SPS that meets none of the exceptions needed to qualify as a RS. So, you're not being over-cautious. Banks Irk (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Vendors have an interest in promoting products, this shouldn't be used for anything except attributed quotes about sweetwater Cursed Peace (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

NoeHill.com
I am seeing it used in over 400 articles, but I do not think it meets reliable source standards and I believe it falls under run of the mill anonymous personal website which would be WP:UGC and amateur self published source. Do you all feel it adds useful value in the way they're used in many of those articles that use it as as source? Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly an anonymous self-published blog. Just a personal travelogue and not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked this site, this is clearly not reliable for statements of fact Cursed Peace (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Morocco World News and The Munsif Daily for reporting that Islam has reached 2 billion followers
Recently, statistical updates I made across a set of articles have been challenged by an editor (courtesy ping ) who claims that Morocco World News (source) and The Munsif Daily (source) are unreliable for reporting that Islam has reached 2 billion followers. My view is that they're reliable sources for this context, what do others think? Left guide (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't they be reliable? What would a "reliable" source for the claim look like? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As of 2020, it has 1.9 billion adherents, or 24.9% of the global population. According to data from the Pew Research Center, the global Muslim population was estimated to be around 1.8 billion in 2015, and it's projected to reach 2.2 billion by 2030. Some sources indicating that the number reached 2 billion but not reliables, unless someone shares reliable sources. Morocco World News The Munsif Daily, based their data and claims on "the Global Muslim Population website".
 * Global Muslim population website, is the website that these sources based their claims on it, and this website is not a reliable source. Durziil89 (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Think about it differently. Is this source reliable for this claim. Nobody can accurately count the followers of any large religion. 1.8-2.0 are reasonable estimates. But realistically, why would a daily paper be a reliable source on when Islam gets its 2 billionth follower? It probably isn't objectionable to attribute it to the paper, but this isn't enough to use wikivoice Cursed Peace (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't see any problem attributing it to the papers in question. But I wouldn't use Wikivoice, or change any tables/infoboxes based on these alone. Although, given that "nobody can accurately count the followers of any large religion", it's not clear what source would be "reliable enough" to say in Wikivoice that Islam has over 2 billion followers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd need most reliable sources to agree to use wikivoice for this claim. For most topics, someone will almost always dissent. But this claim isn't clearly true with just this source. This paper, obviously, didn't count every Muslim alive. Once most sources say there are over 2B, it won't be controversial to use wiki voice. Until then, its probably the most informative to use a range with multiple sources. Cursed Peace (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources stating in their own voice (without attributing to 'Global Muslim Population' website) that there are 2 billion Muslims

 * Anadolu Agency (source)


 * The Times of Israel (source)


 * The Kansas City Star (source)

Any thoughts about the reliability of this group of sources? To me, they all seem reliable for this application. Left guide (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to replace a comprehensive study about the Muslim population that relies on a clear methodology - Pew study - (it cites different sources for the numbers it relies on, whether they are from statistical institutions or an official population census, and its estimates include fertility, age, religious conversion and other factors), with news sources that mention that number in articles about Muslim celebrations?. The latest global estimate of Muslims was that made by the Pew Research Center in 2015 which put the number at c. 1.8 billion. Durziil89 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * mainly because with demographics and population constantly growing non-stop in real time, 2015 (or even 2020) data in my opinion is relatively outdated. It seems best for the readers for them to have the most up-to-date information we can offer, so long as it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about reliable sources, thanks for asking. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a comprehensive study on the Muslim and other religious population from 2015, Published by made by the Pew Research Center in in 2017, which put the number at c. 1.8 billion:.
 * We have "Religious Composition by Country, 2010-2050" by Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project, which put the number at c. 1.9 billion (2020)
 * We have two sources Morocco World News The Munsif Daily put the number at c. 2 billion (2023), based their data and claims on "the Global Muslim Population website" (Global Muslim population website not a reliable source).
 * We have 3 news sources about Muslim celebrating Eid-al-adha (1), (2), (3), cited superficially that there is 2 billion Muslims celebrateing Eid al-adha.
 * I believe that the priority remains in using the Pew studies in these articles, it includes population numbers in all countries of the world (and includes different sources for each country), and includes fertility, age structure, religious conversion, etc.Durziil89 (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Islam article currently says 1.9b, the reference for it says 1.8b, so use the range "1.8 – 2.0 billion" add the references for both and find something else to do. Both are based on estimations not head count, and the difference is minor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion Durziil89 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this idea. Left guide (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can Instagram be used as a WP:ABOUTSELF if it is the person’s Instagram account?
To add someone’s birthday specifically. Can an Instagram post of them stating it’s their birthday on their birth date work as a reliable source? Thatsoddd (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For basic biographical information, that's usually okay. Obviously replace it with a better source if one ever becomes available. Though that won't give you the birth year, will it, unless they said how old they are? Silver  seren C 21:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The post does say that. Thatsoddd (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is relevant: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_245. Additional, there should be no doubt about the authenticity of the account. If it's the Instagram account listed on the subject's website, that's probably a safe bet. It's preferable if you referred to a secondary source, for example, a news paper that discussed the Instagram post and connected to the subject's birthday. Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's actually clear on year + date, and if it's verified, see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's 2021. The blue checkmark's meaning has changed a lot since then. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022/11/14/twitter-parody-accounts-cause-chaos/10696646002/ Graywalls (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes can be used, but do be sure the subject posts regularly. I used it just this way for Maya and Yehuda Devir, for "It's my birthday" posts, and the subjects wrote to me and said the dates weren't actually accurate. Seems they post weekly, so the actual birthdays were a few days off from when the posts went live! Now the article just gives month and year, which they are fine with. --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Inferring DOB from posting date is not a good idea. There are instances like your example, but if the article in general looks fluffy yet has an exact DOB, it's often an indication of public relations editing activity. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's about Twitter (which got messy, acknowledged), is it the same with checkmarks at Instagram/FB/etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The closer (that's you, @Valereee) stated "verified social media account", so Twitter is not the be-all here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think replying to birthday wishes is an indication that the person is okay with their full dob being included here. @Thatsoddd, do we have a link to the actual post? Valereee (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about this? I would say no, that's not the same. She's saying she's 25, maybe out celebrating her 25th, but I don't see her saying "Today is my 25th birthday." Valereee (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay so there’s two other posts from different years on the same date. One that just says “23 🥳” in 2021 and another that says “happy Jenny day #24” in 2022 so it comes down to either one. The ‘happy 25 years’ one can definitely come off misleading as she’s not specific. So feel free to tell me which of those are the better option. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The ‘happy 25 years’ is more recent, it’s from this year, 2023 so that’s why I used it out of all those. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh...are any of them really enough? Full dob just isn't that important for the reader. I'm kind of on the fence, here. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I just put all three then it’s okay? Thatsoddd (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But see WP:DOB. Is the exact date really needed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, for me, I'm on the side of no, probably not okay even with all three. I'm not convinced this person is clearly stating they're fine with their full dob appearing here. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not something she has ever hidden and she is very much fine with it appearing here. Thatsoddd (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thatsoddd, how do you know she is very much fine with it? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most people have their birth date put here and she’s also very vocal about her birthday as well. I also think this helps the reader understand how old she is and is helpful to the reader. I don’t see anything wrong with keeping her birthdate there. I also added a reliable source which is not invasion of privacy. This source though isn’t a direct link so that can pose a problem. Thatsoddd (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this as the addition of a reliable source? It's not, and in fact it says it's sourcing its info to Wikipedia. Please do some reading about what constitutes a WP:reliable source. Valereee (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless its something explicit "Happy birthday to me, X today!", anything else is verging into OR territory, verified or not. Taking 3 separate posts from different years, none of which are explicit, is certainly OR. It is of course, almost certainly the case that that date is their birthday, but our rules on BLP and sourcing dont have that much leeway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is her replying to someone wishing her a happy birthday on Twitter good enough? She’s replying thank you to someone wishing her. She’s not saying it herself but you can tell that’s her birth date by her response. Thatsoddd (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not enough that she replies to birthday wishes. I reply to birthday wishes on the wrong date multiple times per year without correcting the well-wisher, it feels only polite. And no, her exact birthdate doesn't help any reader understand how old she is; the birth year is plenty for understanding the age of any adult. How could it possibly matter if she's 24 years and 360 days old vs 25 years and 5 days? And most living people should absolutely not have their exact birthdates included unless those birthdates are widely published in reliable sources. I remove full birthdates from pop culture figures regularly because of this. Valereee (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valereee BLP rules say we must be able to show a full dob is widely known in reliably published sources before using it. We can give the year however. I see nothing that would allow us to use the full dob. Doug Weller  talk 11:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, @Doug Weller, been travelling. We did have a discussion here that concluded a very clear statement by a non-minor on a verified social media account could suffice. Personally I still think we should err on the side of caution (and that exact dobs could almost be argued trivia), but for some reason there are any number of editors of pop culture BLPs who think the full dob is somehow more useful to readers than just the year. (I mean, I could see how it's important for, say, a 19-yo college football player; a year's growth could be very important information. But we almost always have exact dobs widely published for them.) Valereee (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valereee Good way to get people to believe you're younger than you are. WP:DOB does reflect that decision however so I have to accept that. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree w/re: falsely claiming a different age. If the information is controversial -- if some RS is saying it's not correct -- I'd argue it becomes something we can't accept a self-source for. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Tech-Gaming and notable figures using Medium
It looks like a decent portion of the development info for AI: The Somnium Files is sourced from interviews, one from Tech-Gaming and one on Medium conducted by a professional Play! Pokémon commentator. I'm looking to bring the article to GA status, so are these sources acceptable or should I get rid of them and find information elsewhere? — hoopderscotch  12:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither source is reliable Tech-Gaming is basically a prolific blog, by an anonymous person, who is its sole employee, so it is a WP:SPS. Medium is all user-generated content, so it is WP:UGC. Banks Irk (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Need better for GA, their addition in the first place is questionable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Elsevier topics again

 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/

Special:Diff/1179986483 once again brings the automatic "topic overview" pages at Elsevier (Search: "sciencedirect.com/topics/" ; "ScienceDirect Topics"; "Sciencedirect" AND "an overview") into spotlight. My opinion is that it is not acceptable as RS because:


 * The pages change without notice.
 * The page only ever contains quotations of actual published articles, so it's always better to cite from the source. (It clearly lists which Elsevier article it's quoting from, it's not difficult at all!)

The automatic "topic" page occasionally contains a definition in the top area. It is not visible in the grated cheese topic, but glut1 from last time has it. In any case, the machine does not generate anything or write any new combination of words; it just looks for "(TOPIC NAME) is/are/comprises/etc. ...." and puts it in the top area as a definition. The previous discussion assumed that the machine was actually making new sentences.

-- Artoria2e5 🌉 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah given that the page is not static, it's effectively like citing a Google search. The actual source should be cited instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is just like citing a Google search. The actual source should be cited, not the search result. Banks Irk (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs an edit filter. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we use Professor Watchlist's website as a source for academics it "watches" or do we need a 3rd party
raising this because I don't know. I think we can but perhaps with attribution and wording such as "allegedly". Here's the rfequest for a 3rd party source  Doug Weller  talk 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:ALLEGEDLY or any more common form of in text attribution is too useful here. It's obvious enough that inclusion in the (TPUSA) list means that TPUSA put it there, and TPUSA and the list are reliable for the mere fact of "being on the list", but it would not be clear why we would choose to include or not include any specific individual mentioned without secondary (or at least third-party) coverage. WP:SOURCELIST doesn't specifically require that the sources be third-party, nor is this specifically covered under a narrow reading of "contentious" of WP:BLPREMOVE, but I think the WP:ABOUTSELF#2 and WP:BLPSPS issues are sufficient for removal without a clear reason for inclusion for each specific person listed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, funny coincidence Doug, but you're actually mentioned at Talk:Professor Watchlist because of a smaller scale removal 5 or 6 years ago. Obviously, specific circumstances have likely changed since then, but it usually amuses it comes up for me, so I thought I'd point it out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alpha3031 Yes, I saw my edit. Of course that was a secondary source, but yes, I think that without an independent source we shouldn't list them. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. The issue is not reliability but significance. $FASCISTS put $BLP on a list of people that $FASCISTS think discriminate against fascists, source, $FASCISTS.com" is self-evidently inappropriate without independent commentary on the validity and significance of the claim. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we use a polemical website as the source for the fact that a bunch of polemicists put something on their polemical website? No, of course we shouldn't primary source this stuff. Even if it were a site of peerless neutrality we'd want a third-party source to establish the significance of inclusion, and TPUSA sure as hell isn't a neutral website. They don't so much have a dog in the fight, as they are the dog.
 * I strongly suspect that the people pushing this crap are the same ones who refuse to allow primary sourcing for inclusion on SPLC's lists of hate groups. Primary sourcing is lazy, and where it's controversial statements made by controversial groups, it's unacceptable.
 * Also: hang in there, Doug :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this newsletter from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a reliable source for figures in Mormon handcart pioneers
It's this which is based on their database here.[istory.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/landing?lang=$lang]. It's used for "about 5 percent of the 1846–1868 Latter-day Saint emigrants made the journey west using handcarts". Doug Weller talk 10:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The author of the article, Keith A. Erekson, has appropriate academic credentials, and been pretty widely published by a variety of independent publishers, including academic journals, on American, and more specifically, LDS history. (I have in the back of my head that he had been previously discussed at RSN, but I can't find it in the archives. I guess my recollection is faulty.) So, even if this particular newsletter were treated as a SPS (which I could argue either way), he appears to be a previously-published subject-matter expert that would qualify as a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It also appears to say that "currently serves as the director of historical research and outreach for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also sits on the editorial board of the Church Historian’s Press." so they wouldn't qualify as an independent subject-matter expert at all. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this invokes WP:Independent sources and WP:NPOV as well as a self-published work (I worry about such tone as "...the idea of pioneer death has been perpetuated in popular culture."). This article also effectively cites itself as evidence--the database is the very Church (history.ChurchofJesusChrist.org) and is not independently verified by secondary sources. While potentially true, this nonetheless falls under WP:VNTIA. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can use it with attribution, neither the author or the publication are independent of the Church. Not sure its due though. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he can qualify as a subject matter expert, notwithstanding that he and the newsletter are affiliated with the Church. I say that because he has previously been published by independent, reliable publishers, including academic journals, within his area of expertise. I agree that proper attribution is appropriate here. Banks Irk (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In other contexts he certainly can be, but he's not an independent subject matter expert about LDS church history while a senior executive of the LDS church. Think about it this way... Are Coca-Cola press releases usable on wikipedia under the subject matter expert doctrine if Coca-Cola hires a professor of Food Studies to write them? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just applying the usual WP:SPS formula, but you might just have a point there. Banks Irk (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this falls under "Exercise caution when using such sources" in the SPS formula, part of exercising that caution would be making sure that the source met the rest of our reliability requirements including independence. Although I'm not entirely sure this falls under SPS in the first place as the publisher is the church and not the individual. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of EssentiallySports
Would you guys say that EssentiallySports is reliable? Personisinsterest (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable for what? Based on its current page, for Kim Kardashian's favorite soccer player? Context needed. Banks Irk (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Im trying to see if they're reliable so I can determine whether or not to add an article to the Junlper page. Its this one: Personisinsterest (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The only reference to the subject is a screenshot of a tweet. That's not a reliable source, and certainly not one to try to establish notability for the subject. Banks Irk (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Personisinsterest (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The American Bazaar
I came across this publication which is cited more than 200 times on Wikipedia. The issue is that I cannot find anything indicating there is editorial oversight. There is an about page on the website and a list of staff with "editor" titles. My main issue is searching the names of the editors along with their previously listed employment doesn't yield much other than some bylines and LinkedIn profiles. Wondering if anyone can take a closer look and let me know their thoughts on reliability of the source. CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd vote unreliable. I checked the website, visited the about our staff. Despite over half of the contributors having editor titles, their bios were full of barely readable prose. I suspect nobody is actually acting as editor since all contributors are contribtor-editors. Cursed Peace (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the website, I would say that the articles are also full of barely readable prose. I do not observe editorial oversight, and I found at least one potentially WP:FRINGE--I think the author starts arguing with himself at one point? I also think its articles lack journalistic function, such as this article about FBI hate crime statistics that basically repeats opinions and analysis from "Sikh Coalition"  Zkidwiki (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Holotypic Occlupanid Research Group
Is HORG a reliable source? I was thinking of adding stuff that sites this to a few pages. 2007GabrielT (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For what? It's clearly a joke/parody site inventing "scientific" classifications for bread bag clips. Banks Irk (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * HORG is not a “joke site”, it is an group that researches and classifies of bread clips, just written in an a slight nonstandard POV 2007GabrielT (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Not a joke site? Occlupanids are generally found as parasitoids on bagged pastries in supermarkets, hardware stores, and other large commercial establishments. Their fascinating and complex life cycle is unfortunately severely under-researched. What is known is that they take nourishment from the plastic sacs that surround the bagged product, not the product itself, as was previously thought. Notable exceptions to this habit are those living off rubber bands and on analog watch hands.
 * Banks Irk (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the nonstandard writing style. 2007GabrielT (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's irrefutable evidence of deliberately false content by a parody site posted as a joke. Give it up. Banks Irk (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Informer
What best describes Informer's reliability?
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

I don't see a result in it in the RS/PS and the RS/N archives. I just want to establish consensus on this source's reliability (In my opinion, it should be Option 4 because it practices yellow journalism and has strong chauvinist tendencies). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If it's not been discussed before, then an RFC is not really appropriate. It doesn't look like a great sources due to its sensationalism, but WP:BIASED sources can still be used where appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC with no prior discussion and no example use this there is no reason to have a RfC. These discussions are supposed to open with a question about a particular source and a particular claim as almost no sources are universally good or bad.  These RfCs really should only be used to establish entries into the RSP list and then only when questions about the source have been repeatedly asked. Springee (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Improper RFC. Start with the simple question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" Banks Irk (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Reliability of BibleGateway.com, BibleStudyTools.com, Bible-Researcher.com, Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL.org)
Should BibleGateway.com, BibleStudyTools.com, Bible-Researcher.com & CCEL.org be added to the RSP as WP:GREL? *Note- I am forgoing the initial RFC for reliability as these four resources have a combined citation external link count in main space Wiki of over 15,000 (A bulk of that being BibleGateway, but others have several hundred each).
 * Yes

Eruditess (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No


 * Yes-I think with over 15,000 citations used it is an extremely prevalent addition to the RSP. I think there are more than enough use case scenarios with this specific type of website that warrants inclusion on the RSP.  I genuinely think that it would be of great service to add such a commonly cited type of website to the RSP as WP:GREL while outlining how to use properly in Wikipedia. Eruditess (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is reliability determined by the number of citations on wiki in this analysis? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. The last source listed (CCEL.org) is a library. It isn't a source at all, in the sense that WP:RS uses the term. The material in it may be, but each source needs to be assessed on its own merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Bad RFC have there been previous discussions about these sources? Jumping to an RFC is not the way to go.
 * The only thing I'll say at the moment is that use as a reference is not indication of a source being reliable. Wikipedia is used a reference all the time, even though WP:CIRCULAR forbids it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Specific response BibleGateway is a publisher and part of HarperCollins, the works it publishes should be considered for reliability not the publisher (although being published by BibleGateway would not be a negative in that assessment). BibleStudyTools hosts many different versions and translations of the bible, that could be useful as a helpful link. It also hosts many commentries on the bible, each of which should likely be judged separately. Bible-Researcher appears to be the work of Michael Marlowe, per WP:SPS it would depend on if he has been published by other reliable sources (something I can't find). CCEL is a library of books, a library is not reliable in any meaningful way. Rather it is the works in the library, and no sweeping statement can be given for all the works in one go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the opening sentence of WP:RS/PS: The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. I did a quick search of the RSN archives and there does not seem to be multiple discussions on these sources. Therefore, I don't think these sources merit inclusion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think looking to WP:RS/PS is not the best way to identify reliable sources -- everything at RS/PS, after all, is there precisely because it has been discussed so much. Some of those sources are reliable and some not.  To my mind, it would be better to look for other indicia of reliability.  I will say my gut is that BibleGateway is probably reliable, owned as it is by a known entity (and a subsidiary of Harper Collins), but it's something I will have to look into further.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Improper RFC. No indication that any of these sources have been previously discussed. Ask a specific question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" When we've had at least three of these for each source, only then propose a RFC. Banks Irk (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if this isn't the place to ask, but what work does Z do in that formula? I can't think of a case where a source X would be reliable for a statement Y in one article but not in another.  Could we say one of the sources that are the subject of this RFC is reliable for a particular X for all Z? Carleas (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Z" is the article at en.wikipedia. If X source has been cited for the identical Y statement in multiple Z articles, it would be helpful to cite all such articles in the question. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that helps. Z adds context. Carleas (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Improper RFC. I agree with others: reliable for what?
 * I'd also add that these sources do not seem comparable and should not be dealt with in the same question. One seems to be a personal site; one is a library of other sources.  They differ by orders of magnitude in terms of traffic and notoriety.  So they are differently reliable, and for different statements. Carleas (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Those are repositories of different versions of the Bible, articles written by various authors, and a digital library. The reliability of the specific document being cited would be more important. Senorangel (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not reliable directly for anything they say themselves, though some things they host (like biblical translations) are likely to be independently reliable, which is probably the point of confusion here. Although the points people make above regarding how this discussion is premature are all true, at the end of the day these look like personal websites with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy and no indication of any sort of editorial controls; I'm not seeing any reason to cite the things they say themselves at all. The numerous citations that do exist almost certainly (and hopefully) are just using them as a host for Biblical text and translations or for other texts they host that are reliable (or, at least, are significant primary sources) independent of being hosted there. Those citations are acceptable as long as the specific translation or the details of the other text being cited is part of the cite (so the "actual" text can be verified independently) and the link is just to serve as a host. But the idea that we would have to resort to using any of these websites for anything they say about the Bible is absurd - we're talking about the single most studied book in all of human history. We don't need to cite the opinions, interpretations, or analysis of rando websites with no reputation on this of all things. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Improper RFC One by one and only RFC if there have been prior discussions. Reliable for what material? Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lumping four completely different sites together in this RfC seems like a bad idea. BibleGateway has been discussed once before with barely any engagement; CCEL has also been discussed once (and my takeaway from that discussion is that it is a generally reliable source); the other two I can't find any evidence of prior discussion.  None of them seem like perennial sources which would benefit from listing on RSP. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed RFC - Thank you for all editors constructive criticism. As advised I will create a non-RFC discussion one by one for sources on this noticeboard.  I have learned much from this experience.
 * Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: La Patilla
Given the recent decision with La Patilla, questions remain on the reliability of the source in particular situations.

La Patilla is: WMrapids (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Marginally reliable with contentious, BLP and political topics.
 * Option 2: Unreliable with contentious, BLP and political topics.


 * Comment I'm not sure if it is useful starting a RfC so recently after the last RfC was closed, just last week. If the closing statement needs clarification, it's probably better to discuss it with the closing user. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Stop creating RFCs, the close of the last RFC covers these details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is simply disruptive and should be closed immediately. Banks Irk (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Vice.com and transphobia description
Sorry if this is the wrong board for this question. At JP Sears, over the last two days, three IP editors have suppressed a statement that Sears "Sears posted videos that mock transgender people...". This statement was supported by a citation to vice.com, which did indeed use the word "mock". I reverted the first two suppressions for blatant misrepresentation of the source (e.g. "Sears posted videos that discuss trans people").

The third suppression, however, has removed the entire thing with an edit summary: "Removed "In 2023, Sears posted videos that mock transgender people and gender identity issues" as the source cites a known heavily left-leaning biased political entity and the referenced article cannot be considered objective."

My question is this: Do we trust vice.com on this sort of issue? Is this editor correct (in which case they've done the right thing)? Or is this a case of right-wing editors suppressing negative information from the articles about their heroes? I note that the New York Times has described Sears as a conservative conspiracy theorist, so this is the sort of article that's likely to attract biased editing. I know nothing about vice.com, or Sears, so I'd appreciate more eyes on that article from anyone better informed. Vice media are "no consensus" in the perennial sources list. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It'a arguable that Vice is okay for this, but in the area of BLP caution should probably win-out. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Vice is reliable for this purpose, including for characterizing Sears' videos as mocking, even in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that in the light of WP:VICE? Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Vice News is a normal corporate news source that is regarded as generally reliable. Moreover, the reporter, Anna Merlan is an experienced reporter who has worked for numerous reliable news organizations and been published in many other reliable publications. Banks Irk (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Vice News is a normal corporate news source that is regarded as generally reliable" &larr; what makes you say that in the light of WP:VICE? The community seems to have no such consensus (and not for WP:GREL), so for BLPs isn't that a red flag? Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is genuinely no consensus about the reliability of Vice. I think it's something probably worth calling a RFC over. There's no consensus that it's generally unreliable. Like Banks Irk, I fall on the side that Vice is generally a reliable source, though in cases where its usage is disputed, it's often a bad idea to specifically atrribute them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd use Vice for quite a few things, but for a hot-button biographical claim. mmmmmmm. Bon courage (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased it, I hope this is better. I think the fact that his videos comment on gender identity issues is not really constested. The classifcation of them as "trasnphobic" is another matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When I looked around, I didn't come around other reliable sources summarizing it the same way, so this might be Merlan's own opinion that does not have consensus among publications. Given this being a contentious issue and only being Anna Merlan's characterization, I don't believe the inclusion is due. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added it back, but I've removed the transphobic bit. There's no real dispute about his videos commenting on gender-identity related topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, since this was posted, edited the content to attribute the analysis to Vice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If used, it might be attributed to Merlan, but not to Vice unless it's an editorial giving the voice of the publication. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Two questions to be asked:
 * Is it factually correct?
 * If then, is the inclusion WP:DUE?
 * Not everything that is verified correct belongs in the article. Graywalls (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is relevant to the subject matter present in the article. "Post 2020 comedy" addresses content being shifted to conservative political issues, and COVID-19 is already brought up. Referencing Transgender rights in the United States: "Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights." I submit that transgender issues would go to the heart of the relevant discussion of what politics are being espoused in his content. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I also feel that the material belongs in the article. If a comedian chooses to talk about controversial issues, they are placing themselves firmly in the controversy as part of their professional life. So that makes two of us, (I include Zkidwiki). Do you genuinely feel you have a consensus to remove that text?, I liked your original version, but your new version misrepresents Merlan's article drastically. Merlan didn't write a pretty friendly article saying he'd started posting videos commenting on gender-related issues; she said, openly, that he was mocking transgender people. Either we report what she said, accurately, or we don't report anything. If the answer to my original question is that vice.com is probably sort-of trustable but may have a non-neutral point of view, so we should assign its views to it, not us, then perhaps the question of whether it goes in at all should move to the talk page? Elemimele (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Wikipedia necessarily needs to adopt the tone of the original source when reporting facts from them. I agree that the wording could probably be improved, but the original was not really a good summation of the original Vice article either. I think the specific mention of transgender women in sports should stay. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should stay, but toning it down to the extent that it suggests Merlan merely said Sears commented on the subject is completely at odds with Merlan's article. Merlan's article is a vehement condemnation of Sears' activities, unequivocally accusing him on multiple occasions of "mocking" trans people, using literally that word. I don't care if he's right or she's right, but we can't change her opinion to what we think it ought to have been, rather than what it demonstrably was. Elemimele (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If other sources cover this controversy I would use them. If Vice is the only source I would err on the side of caution and leave this out.  While Vice might get facts right, their subjective assessments are little more than opinion mixed in with reporting.  Given the BLP nature of the subject err on the side of caution/exclusion. Springee (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If we aren't willing to quote Vice accurately, we should simply remove it. There are oodles of sources saying that Sears has mocked this or that group or individual (it's basically what he does), but, you're right, they're all either gossip-fillers in mediocre sources, or blogs. Sears apparently lives in a world of evidence-free opinion into which very few reliable writers wish to venture. This isn't really an area of Wikipedia in which I wish to hang around long! I shall remove the sentence, hoping that's okay? And then flee... Elemimele (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Topwar.ru reason for blacklist and possibility of reinstation
I wanted to use a Topwar.ru as a source in my article on Russian ballistic vest, but it is apparently blacklisted. Topwar is indispensible in writing articles on obscure military gear. I understand that Topwar.ru publishes a lot of opinion pieces which might not pass the standards of neutrality, but the same is true of otherwise reliable sources that alllow opinion articles. Should New Yourk Times be blacklisted because of its "Opinion" articles section? I think not. A website similar to topwar - The Drives "Warzone" also is at times biased towards Us POV, but is nonetheless permitted on Wikipedia.

Could anyone please point me to a page where I can ask to deBlacklist this website from Wikipedia? Thank you. F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is it, and if it was blacklisted it was because was untrustworthy for factul accuracy, not because it published opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have articles on obscure military gear which don't use it so it clearly isn't indispensable. Perhaps you mean useful or some other much less hyperbolic term? In general the issue with Topwar.ru is reliability, not allowing opinion articles or being biased towards a Russian POV. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have said, Topwar is mainly written by its contributors, not the Staff. i Disagreee that website is inherently unreliable. Anyway, I just want to know a page wheere moderators would have to authority to review my request to delist this website from unreliable sources. Could you please point me in the direction of such page? F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then how is it comparable to The Drives Warzone which is written mainly (almost entirely) by staff? We have no such "moderators" on wikipedia, you are currently at that that page and your request is in the process of being reviewed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Read wp:sps. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was blocked as a fake news/disinformation site. You can find the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasnt given a proper discussion. It seems like it was mentioned in passing among several different websites and specific problem with website was never stated. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MrOllie… not finding a discussion about Topwar.ru in that archive. Which thread? Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been part of Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Registration appear to allow you to add articles to the site, which would make this WP:UGC and unusable even if it wasn't blacklisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But WP:UGC specifically states that newspaper and magazine blogs are an exclusion. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But its not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@User:Banks Irk @User:ActivelyDisinterested In that case, the popup that prevents me to use the source says I can request a whitelist of a specific article. The article I need is writtten by a staff member of the newspaper. https:// topwar. ru/181568-sovremennye-obschevojskovye-bronezhilety-rossijskoj-armii.html Can someone whitelist the article? F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * it does appear that the prior discussion was pretty superficial, but this is clearly a WP:UGC, as noted above. This is clearly not reliable as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's obviously an unreliable source, I think it is very unlikely that anyone would whitelist it. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't in regard to it being blacklisted, the article is written by some random people who has registered for an account on the site. Such sources are never usable for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The author is listed as a staff member on the bout page. Even if source is unreliable, a specific article can still be whitelisted F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't established that articles written by staff (if that one is, I'm not sure) are reliable either. I don't see any reason to treat this specific example any differently from the rest of the site. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Try this test:See if you can find a better source for the content. If you can, use it. If you can't, well, there may be a reason for that... Guy (help! - typo?) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an unreliable source and should not be used. Tradedia talk 23:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks
An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't a reliable source related RFC is it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indirectly, as is another related RFC asking "Should "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" be included in the list of major terrorist incidents?" Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bobfrombrockley, there's discussion about what WP:RS say if that interests you. TarnishedPathtalk 05:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see questions about use of RSs are important to the discussion, and I also see that the article is full of bad sourcing (not related to Gaza) and would benefit from source-focused editors’ attention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find it's somewhat relevant but maybe moreso to WP:NPOVN, but can't hurt at any rate to bring it here. I started a different thread below as I think Hamas' official sources of info should be officially declared unreliable as a matter of institutional consensus. Andre🚐 17:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on changing the edit notice for RSN
I've started a discussion about changing the edit notice for this board here WT:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Marco Polo: Venetian, Italian or both?
Everything you need to know about this ridiculous dispute can be found on the Marco Polo talk page. An editor calling himself "Mikola22" started an RfC to get the description in the lead changed from "Italian merchant from Venice" to "Venetian merchant etc" and the change was made on the reasoning that "Italian" is anachronistic in the 13th Century, which was shown to be false: reliable sources say the Latin equivalent of "Italian" was used to describe natives from the peninsula since the time of the Roman Empire. A separate argument was made that sources invariably describe Polo as "Venetian", which is also false: MP has been described as both "Italian" and "Venetian" for as long as this scholarship has existed and no one's ever disputed either of these terms. A small sample:

Writing about Marco Polo in 1954, British historian Geoffrey Hudson describes Venetian mercantile families as "Italian merchants".

In 1952, Luigi Villari wrote a piece on "Italian Travellers in Medieval Asia" and cites Polo.

Benjamin Olshin's The Mysteries of the Marco Polo Maps (2013) describes Polo as an "Italian merchant and explorer"

This Smithsonian piece calls Polo an "Italian merchant"

Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a "Venetian merchant" but has him listed as an "Italian explorer" -meaning these terms are compatible and not mutually exclusive.

To be clear I am not partial to either term but the reasoning used to make this change was flawed and this editor should be made aware that this sort of petty nitpicking isn't producive. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure RSN is the right venue for this, as reliability of sources is not really in question. Consider an RfC at the article's talk page instead. Curbon7 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind, took this case to dispute resolution. Thanks anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just going to follow this up with that comment -this probably isn't the right place for this issue. Would you recommend RfC or maybe this is a neutrality issue since the editor in question seems to have an unreasonable bias? Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would try an RfC. The consensus on pre-unification Italian historical figures, at least those with positive associations in traditional historiography, usually ends up as "Italian". I would personally like things to be otherwise, but that seems to be the way it goes.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a problem with George Frederic Handel described as a "German" composer more than a 100 years before Germany unified rather than the more historical term "Prussian"? Because this is not merely an issue on Italian articles. Or what about the Duke of Wellington described as "Anglo-Irish"? Now this is an actual anachronism although it appears all the time on Wiki articles when sources seem to favor it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Robert Lunkhopao's book published by Routledge a reliable source for the claims made?
This Kuki author mentioned the strenght of British force used to suppressed the Kuki Rebelllion of 1917-1919, nos. of soldiers died and using the controversial term "Anglo Kuki War" &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a reliable, scholarly source. Banks Irk (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * * Can these claims be used as historical facts for Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919 ? &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a reliable, scholarly source. Banks Irk (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and note that outside of India the term is not seen as controversial. Why is the author's ethnicity relevant? Do you feel that members of an ethnic, social, or biological group are incapable of being experts on the history of their group? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a chapter in a book published by Routledge, a highly respected academic publisher, and edited by a historian and a sociologist who seem to work in the relevant field. There's every reason to believe that it's a reliable source for factual claims about the Kuki rebellion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)