Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 422

Request additonal eyes to review refs
These three refs  have recently been attached to an entry on the list of Longest recorded sniper kills, (currently ranked first), as well as in some of the article's prose. While I know some of these sites are generally accepted as reliable, I'm not so sure about their reliability in supporting the content there after further evaluation of them. Would appreciate some extra eyes to take a look. Thanks - w o lf  05:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thewolfchild already requested extra eyes at Longest recorded sniper kills... Specifically pinging me on the talk page and requesting I review the entry... Apparently they didn't like what I had to say because they decided to edit war and jump venues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Independent is a good quality source, I can't see any reason to doubt it. Also as four of the references used for other entries in that article are undefined error messages the referencing for this entry is doing well.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we accept the premise that "longest recorded sniper kills" is a meaningfully confirmable record, the sourcing for this entry appears to be just as good as the others in the table – and better than several.  The Independent is normally a reliable source; unless other reliable sources have actively cast doubt on the validity of this claim it seems to have just as good a claim to inclusion as anything else in the list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not asking if the source itself is unreliable, just the specific report, for this specific entry. (If an editor wishes to examine the sources for a different entry and ask asistance, they're free to. But to say "the other entries sourcing isn't very good, so give this a pass", is not very helpful.) The Independent relies on a post from Messenger, an SPS, and comments from a primary source. Newsweek states they: "", and the Kyev Idenpendent relies on a "local source", which is also a post on the Telegram Messenger app, an SPS. So I'm asking if these specific reports are acceptable sourcing. Note, I had first posted about this to the article talk page (as we're supposed to), but after several days, only received a response from two editors, one that only addressed another entry on the list, and the second that only addressed one of the sources, so I came here. Thanks again for any assistance. -  w o lf  14:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My point on the other references wasn't on their reliability it is that four of them don't exist they are just error messages. My other comments still stand the Independent is reliable, and I very much doubt any of the other claims have been independently verified (unless someone from the Guinness book of records was there adjudicating). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By coincidence I got to this article today while clearing down Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and removed the references that were broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't generally question the sources a source uses. Nor would I expect independent verification of most military activities to be available, we don't have that for anything else on that page... So either you're challenging the entire page or you have no argument here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So when Yahoo states that their report is supported by an sps post on a messenger app, you still believe that specific source should be retained as reliable? Or when Newsweek openly states that they haven't verified the info in their report (so not just a questionable source, but no source at all), you would also accept that report as reliable? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. - w o lf  05:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again you're using our RS standards to evaluate the sources that the sources use rather than simply the sources themselves. That is a misapplication of this standards. You're mistaken and need to refresh your understanding of how reliability works on wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, I thought we were supposed to evaluate sources to determine if they specifically apply to, and sufficiently support, the content they're being attached to. I must've missed the part in the P&G that says we "must blindly accept any ref jammed into an article, as long as it comes from a source that is found to be 'generally' reliable". Again, in evaluating these sources here, one stated they were referring to a "local source" which turned out to be a comment on the telegram messenger app (one step above 4chan on the sps ladder), while another source plainly stated they "had not confirmed the info in their report". Are you really saying you believe we must accept those refs as reliable, with no study or discourse what-so-ever? You think that makes for a dependable encyclopaedia? - w o lf  05:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources all use SPS, primary, fringe, biased, unreliable, etc sources in their reporting... Thats not a problem for us. If you want to challenge the sources themselves you can do so... But right now you're challenging the sources the sources are using which is completely different thing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not a problem"...? There's problems right here. RS doesn't say we accept sources blindly, it says we need to evaluate them. - w o lf  02:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Independent attributes these claims to Ukrainian sources . While they do mention it as a fact later they don't say anything about verifying these claims and I would attribute them too on Wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Arkansas
Is this RS? Looks like articles are written by volunteers and some level of their review process is also done by volunteers1, though they also have editorial staff. Thanks Cannolis (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a wiki, and authors have to propose articles, that then get reviewed and edited. I think it's actually a valid but tertiary source. Banks Irk (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bell Bank: a tale of churnalism using InForum.com and bizjournals.com.
Hi all, this is as it relates to this COI edit request, but the talk page more broadly is generally indicative of the COI concerns that I have with the article.

The article cites to a lot of InForum.com and bizjournals.com peices, and a lot of them seem to be churnalism, a concern at. The rest of the article reads pretty promotional to me—each of the individual statements backed by the questionable sources are all factual, I'm not disputing that. But put together as a whole, it's almost like 2/3rds the readable prose is name-dropping sponsorships, corporate awards that might better belong on Glassdoor, and company stats and timeline that might otherwise be lifted from an "about us" or "our history" section of a corporate website.

So I have two questions: (1) do you have any experience with InForum and bizjournal as RS? InForum returns no hits on the RS archive search but bizjournal seems to pop up pretty regularly as an unreliable source, notably which echo my concerns. This relates to the COI edit request. Again, more inforum and bizjournal fluff pieces to puffery. And (2) what should be done with the article as a whole? My preference would be cut most of it for promotional material, seeing as it was added in dubious ways anyways, and let non-conflicted editors write it naturally. I'd cite WP:BRD as my policy justification, but I might be involved at this point following the interactions on my and the article's talk page. The article is probably not entirely promotional for the purpose of CSD WP:G11 but I have to say if I saw this at AfD it'd lean "significantly re-write, delete all the promotional material" but I hesitate to do that unilaterally without some discussion first, which brings me here.

Thanks for your assistance in advance. — microbiology Marcus (petri dish·growths) 20:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've subscribed to my local bizjournal in the past; it can be a good way to keep track of new construction around the neighborhood. I don't see it as a good source for Wikipedia, I perceive it as mostly a place for real estate developers to name drop and amplify their press releases. I agree it's churnalism, not independent of the subject, and shouldn't be used for determining due weight or notability. Geogene (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The first source you've listed (InForum.com) is the website of The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, which is a newspaper based in Fargo, North Dakota that's owned by a broader Upper Midwest regional news group. Bell Bank is based in Fargo, and it's got ~1800 employees, so I can imagine that its business moves would attract attention in its hometown paper and interest among locals. Doesn't seem like a particularly nebulous thing. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

thedisinfolab.org
Come across this site previously? There seems to be a group of WP:SPAs spamming content linked to it. - Amigao (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My first encounter with this was in November, I think around November 10. The modus operandi is that new accounts with few edits plug it into China-related articles, usually at the end of the lead. The edit summaries were often identical and vague, I think it was typically something like “add important information.”
 * Seems to be an effort to spam or promote the website. The propositions it was cited for were sometimes redundant to the material in the article or sometimes the kind of broad assertion were a plethora of real sources could have been used instead. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is WP:SPI, WP:MEAT or some kind of SEO, but the first five I checked are all by new accounts posting very similar content. Checked three more and it's the same, this isn't organic editting. I'm not sure what to suggest, possibly WP:ANI or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an Indian government-sponsored disinformation operation; both the site, and the coordinated edits here. Many of the edits linked by ActivelyDisinterested have to do with criticizing the Khalistan movement (dozens of whose leaders have been targeted by the Indian government for assassinations in recent months), criticizing Pakistan, and, as JArthur mentions, criticizing China (like in this edit). Follows Indian propaganda to a T. See this article about the site for context. I've removed all use of the site in mainspace; same pattern as AD. DFlhb (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC) edited 01:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the details DFlhb, and thanks to Amigao for posting it to the MW blocklist page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Is eurasian-defence.ru a reliable source?
I've been trying to find a reliable source for a Major General who was commander of the Uzbek Airforce and I came across this source. It is The Center for Military-Political Research (CVPR) at Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article currently under deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.181.182 (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They are a part of MGIMO which is a well-known university. For this specific case there are no reasons to doubt its accuracy, I think. Alaexis¿question? 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. There is an AfD going on where this source is being discussed. I request you to share your thoughts on that AfD. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Apple Maps and WP:USERGEN
According to Apple Map Acknowledgements, Apple Maps includes data from OpenStreetMap. As far as I can tell, there is no way to determine which aspects of Apple Maps are sourced from OpenStreetMap and which are sourced from reliable sources.

If I am not mistaken about this I think we need to consider Apple Maps an unreliable source? BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Apple by "by far the most prolific" corporate contributor to OSM; it seems their editorial role is active, not passive (Bloomberg). (Bloomberg also favourably compares OSM to Google Maps for developing countries, but that doesn't address USERGEN). If this is about NZ: Apple started off using TomTom/OSM/etc for data, but since 2020 they've been rolling out "redesigned" maps which rely on fully in-house data . New Zealand has it since 2022 . DFlhb (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bahmanis of the Deccan
I have doubts about the reliability of the book 'The Bahmanis of the Deccan.' Additionally, could you please assess its alignment with WP:RAJ? Does this book fall under the purview of WP:RAJ, and is it deemed suitable for use in articles? ImperialAficionado (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The author Haroon Khan Sherwani is a well regarded historian and expert. This book certainly does not fall within WP:RAJ as it was written long after the applicable time period. But, the question is otherwise unanswerable absent context. What information in this lengthy book is being used at what article for what purpose that you question its reliability? Banks Irk (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I want to use it for the military conflicts between the Bahmanis and the Gajapati empire. I asked for reliability because when I searched it in archive.org, it showed the publication date as 1946, which was a British era. Which one is the correct year of publication of this book? ImperialAficionado  (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1946 is the original publication date; he died in 1980 and it was republished after his death. WP:RAJ doesn't apply to everything published by anyone prior to Indian Independence. It applies to ethnographic/caste studies, typically by colonial amateur ethnographers, and most often from an earlier time period than this book. And WP:RAJ is simply an essay, not a hard rule. Banks Irk (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you. ImperialAficionado (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Help with a source


Is this a reliable source? This is an over 600 pages-long book dealing with Greece during World War II. From what I see it is self-published, but it's apparently also in the libraries of the University of Tübingen. Christou D. Vittou is not an academic and does not appear to have any formation as a historian, he figures as a "Υποστράτηγος Ε.Α." in the book, so he'd be apparently a Greek major general. This could be relevant since much of the war in Greece was unorganized guerrilla warfare against Axis occupation forces. The book also appears to have been cited by some scholars. In one of the citations a different publisher is featured, Tsiartsanis, which apparently is the edition at the University of Tübingen.

This book features a lot of information regarding an obscure part of the life of a figure I am writing an article about (separatist Zicu Araia/Ζήκος Αράιας and his role during WWII), so it'd be greatly useful, and I also think there's no other source with this information (which might be a bad hint). Other than the opinion of users here I'd also like, if possible, to hear the opinion of and, competent and established editors in the Greek topic area.

The listed ISBN is ISBN 13, it also has an ISBN 10 which might result useful for finding information: ISBN 9603120790. Also, the only way to access the book's contents is through this website, which I can clearly not link in an article so the URL at the citation above is different. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's a self-published source. To the extent that it is based on his personal experiences during WWII, it would also be a primary, not secondary source. Banks Irk (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

request for third-party suitability check
May I ask for a third-party evaluation of this site as a reliable source: https://kyband.com/information/about-us/ (FWIW, it strikes me as a fan site.)  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 23:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Definitely user-generated content. It invites people to submit the content, posted without editorial oversight. Banks Irk (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Sports Illustrated
What is the reliability of Sports Illustrated?


 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Apologies for any issues with this filing, as I've never actually opened an RfC before. Anyhow, as per the discussion going on here, SI was recently caught utilizing AI-generated writers, although they deny any published articles were AI-written. SI is used extensively on WP, albeit obviously many of these articles predate this AI experiment. As noted by @InfiniteNexus in the linked discussion, CNET did similar earlier this year and its post-2020 acquisition content promptly got deprecated as a result. Should we consider doing the same? The  Kip  07:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator, I personally side with option 2. SI does generally put out solid-enough content, and is often utilized by other sports media; however, even the possibility of AI-generated content deprives it of assumed reliability. I don't see a huge issue with its content being used provided editors are vigilant; they might want to look into the author of the article(s) to confirm humanity, and/or verify the content of the article(s) before adding as a source. The   Kip  07:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Given the widespread ubiquity of Sports Illustrated's acceptance as reliable up to this point, and given the seriousness of problems that will arise from attributing past reliability to current (often hidden) AI production, I think this warrants quicker action that having to wait for multiple discussions (doesn't WP:COMMON indicate that dogmatically holding to the "rules" here is perhaps not the best idea?). I think it would be best to note the outlet as "special considerations apply", as "marginally reliable" in circumstances where the authorship can be easily determined to be a human. This is important to be noted for this source specifically (as it should be for each source found to be using AI) because the very decision to deceptively use AI for generation and authorship is indicative of broader reliability problems beyond the specific articles generated via AI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchme123 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Is an RfC needed here? I'm not seeing the "repeated discussion" of this source required for an RfC to be held. I would also suggest a general discussion on how to use sources that incorporate AI-generated content would be more beneficial that discussing the individual sources one-by-one. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See WT:Reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that a RFC is not in order. The linked discussion above is a better place to try to resolve the issue, which isn't confined to SI. Banks Irk (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll reiterate I’m not exactly experienced with the RfC process, so if closing is in order I’m perfectly okay with that. The   Kip  21:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Is Kyiv Post or MEMRI right?
Kyiv Post wrote that They provided a link to a video by MEMRI which contains the translation of the interview from Arabic to English. The problem is that Mashal does not say that Russia and China are Hamas's allies and also does not say that they got support from them. He starts talking about Russia and China at 0:50. Can someone check the original interview? Alaexis¿question? 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * As with all things MEMRI, you simply cannot trust that they have not completely cut out of context the material they post or that they have not fabricated the translation. You would need the original interview, absent MEMRI's creative editing, to see that. And we shouldn't be basing our articles on interviews that secondary sources have not analyzed anyway.  nableezy  - 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's precisely what I'm asking, to check whether he said anything about allies or support in the original interview. Alaexis¿question? 08:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My own reading is that the statement is ambiguous, you can also interpret it as the section in the commas being the Kyiv Post's addition (you would normally see it done like this, but you will also see commas) and only "Hamas relies on the support of its allies" is actually being attributed to Mashal. In that case it would be read as Mashal saying that Hamas relies on its allies and the Kyiv Post saying that its allies include Russia and China (something which I don't think anyone would challenge). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but half of the problem remains as the translation doesn't say anything about China and Russia supporting Hamas. Alaexis¿question? 08:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A MEMRI translation on an Israel related matter is not something to be relied on. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read my question? I'm asking about a specific interview given to the Egyptian Sada El-Balad channel. Did Mashal say anything about allies or support or not? Alaexis¿question? 12:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the translation, that's what I am responding to. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the question is "is MEMRI reliable?" the answer is unequivocally no... But I stand by my interpretation of this as a misreading of an ambiguous situation not one where we need to ask that question. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The question was Can someone check the original interview? to see what Mashal actually said. Alaexis¿question? 18:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And the answer I would provide is that if you have to do OR to figure out what to say you should look for a different source. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it OR? I cannot verify a source (Mashal's interview to Sada El-Balad channel) myself and ask other editors to do it. Alaexis¿question? 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The source you're asking us to verify is the Kiev Post, not Mashal's interview to Sada El-Balad channel. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If that part is not attributed to the translation then why does the problem remain at all? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This source was used on Wikipedia and since I don't know Arabic well enough to understand Mashal's words, I'd like to know what he actually said. Alaexis¿question? 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of the three sources was used on wikipedia? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, the primary source (the interview) has been misrepresented by Kyiv Post. M.Bitton (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, are you saying this having listened to what Mashal was saying in Arabic or because you trust MEMRI as a source? Alaexis¿question? 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After watching the video repeatedly and carefully reading the Kyiv Post article, I concur that Kyiv Post misrepresented the MEMRI video. They misinterpreted the subtitle context, and I would be willing to upload the full video with Arabic and English subtitles if the copyright holder of the original video agrees to publish it on Wikimedia Commons. QalasQalas (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think that for now it's enough that we know what has been said. I've removed the Kyiv Post article from the article in which it was used. Alaexis¿question? 13:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Cradle
Seeking input about TheCradle. It was previously discussed last year with limited input. I've never heard of it, and I can't find anywhere it's cited by mainstream RS.

It describes itself as "online news magazine covering West Asia" and is user-supported. On its website, there's no masthead or an evidence of editorial oversight, and the language it uses is very biased (e.g., referring to Hamas as "Islamic resistance movement") and it appears to peddle in conspiracies ("a 'Hamas massacre' that may never have happened.". In one of its news articles, it states as fact that "some Israelis were killed by Hamas during the attack, while others were killed as collateral damage by Israeli forces using tanks, drones, and Apache helicopters, and to prevent Hamas from taking them back to Gaza as captives," which is disputed in mainstream RS.

There doesn't seem to be much original reporting, instead mostly selectively aggregating and repackaging content from other sources. Longhornsg (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Where has it been cited? Selfstudier (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a really bad source but if it’s not being used in WP it’s not really worth discussing here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh we use it quite a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22thecradle.co%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1 First use listed (in Afghanistan article) is a piece by conspiracy theorist Pepe Escobar. This is a dreadful site that’s possibly worse than recently deprecated Al-Mayadeen and we should not be using it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Never heard of or read Pepe Escobar, but calling him a conspiracy theorist seems harsh after scanning his wikiarticle. Mujinga (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the Cradle, he's found a comfortable home for his words at The Unz Review, RT, PressTV, and Sputnik News, among other watering holes of conspiracy theorists and antisemitism peddlers. Longhornsg (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * and yet our article describes him as a "Brazilian journalist and geopolitical analyst" - are you coming with some sort of bias here I wonder? Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. Discuss the merits of the sources, and don’t attack editors. Longhornsg (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "no masthead" - there's clearly a masthead
 * "no ... an evidence of editorial oversight" - it's weak for sure but their about exists
 * "referring to Hamas as "Islamic resistance movement" - that's its name, as previously mentioned
 * "mostly selectively aggregating and repackaging content from other source" - that's not my impression of the site at all, it seems mostly original journalism
 * Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to provide a link to the masthead? I'm having trouble finding their listing of editorial staff, though I can find the names of individual contributors by crawling through the site. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 07:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll hazard a guess and say that the difference in use of the term "masthead" in British and American English is the problem here. Ostalgia (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Cradle is clearly pro-Palestinian, and therefore a biased source, if that's what you wanted me to say. I'd disagree with pretty much all of your assessment though. For example, we also call Hamas the Islamic Resistance Movement since that's its name. Mujinga (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The site has an icon "Become an Author", i.e. anyone can contribute after registering. It does not say anything about editorial policies and fact checking. Therefore, it looks to me almost like a blog, i.e. "generally unreliable". It probably should not be used for contentious political topics. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The "become an author" link is an invitation to pitch a story -- not at all like anyone can contribute. (Also that's not how blogs work?)  --100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's quite interesting that they chose to write the following passage on their About Us page (bold mine). They don't say who The Other is but they do lavish praise on those who want to  on the same page. Possibly I'm paranoid but this reminds me of the rhetoric of some other organisations in "West Asia" whose goals include the obliteration of a certain people. Happy to be proven wrong if they clarify their position elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talk • contribs) 1919:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of this "Other" being the US, but one way or the other this is beside the point. Neither the content nor the names inspire confidence in this outlet. The above mentioned Pepe Escobar is a crackpot and I don't think we should be relying on content from a "news organisation" that lists him as some sort of star columnist. Ostalgia (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a valid interpretation, just weird they wouldn't write it explicitly. Alaexis¿question? 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looking into this source more, and I'm just coming up with a bunch of question marks. There's no masthead from what I can tell, and I'm not able to find any sort of evidence of editorial review pre-publication (there are no obvious listings of staff editors, nor listings of editorial standards, nor am I able to find any upon a deeper search). What I'm noticing on many of the pieces, even in their "investigations" section (ex.   ) is that there's a general label The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.. This is a bit damning for the reliability of what would otherwise be passed off as investigative reporting, since it does not imply that the newsroom of the organization (or its editorial staff) sign off on the reporting.From what I can tell, more or less the only recent reports that don't include that label are those written by the "news desk" author . That all of their non-opinion writing would be handled by an anonymous author is odd, and the lack of apparent editorial oversight on the majority of the other content does not give me confidence. Per our guidelines, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. And frankly I'm not seeing editorial control, and I don't see evidence in this thread that the website has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The lack of apparent editorial oversight, in particular, makes me think that this is a questionable source. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I never did get an answer to my question of what was the cite or citations that led to the query here so I have looked into it a bit myself and I agree that this source should not be used except for expert opinions that may show up there, per the usual exception for those. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "The cradle" is not a news organization, it is just another pro-Russia, pro-Assad, pro-Iran, pro-Maduro disinformation site which peddles numerous conspiracy theories. That outlet doesnt have any fact-checking policies and allows anyone who is approved by it's operators to publish articles in the site. "The cradle" is a self-published source which should be deprecated.
 * The regular columnists listed in its website, include:
 * Pepe Escobar, who is a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theorist (see past discussion)
 * Sharmine Narwani, another pro-Russian propagandist who used to write at the pro-Russia outlet "RT"
 * Narwani appears to be the main contributor of this website.
 * Some of conspiracy theories promoted by that website include:
 * its claim that Kurds collaborated with IS in the Yazidi genocide (here)
 * its claim that the chemical attacks launched by the Assad regime in Syria are all "false flags" orchestrated by the Syrian opposition
 * its claim that "Israel controls British foreign policy"
 * Propagandistic, conspiratorial sites are widely deployed as sources all across the articles of "The cradle" website. These conspiratorial sites include:
 * Al-Mayadeen (here)
 * RT (here)
 * Sputnik (here)
 * Press TV (here)
 * The Grayzone (here)
 * "The cradle" is simply another disinformation, conspiratorial website masqueraded by its financiers as a news outlet. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the above vote, I'd support deprecation. Seems to have quite considerable crossover with other, already-deprecated sources, and the weak fact-checking/editorial oversight is rather damning as well. The   Kip  23:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Gurjar (contentious Aryan theory)
I am doubtful about the reliability of these two sources. They are currently cited in the lead section of the Gurjar article and both of them contain the contentious Aryan race theories. Here is the detal.





Thanks, Satnam2408(talk) 05:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

amazinglanka.com
The website was formerly an Angelfire site www.angelfire.com/in4 - it was user generated then and I see no sign it's changed, but it's cited in 146 articles. I'm pretty sure it's just a random website, but does anyone know better? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No section about the site, no editorial policy, no additional information. It's basically a Sri Lanka fan site, and as such not reliable. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Machine-generated text at ScienceDirect used as source
An alarming number of articles (over 1000) currently contain some links to www.sciencedirect.com/topics/, which is a collection of machine-generated pages. Not only machine-generated text isn't a valid source, but referencing such an URL obscures the real source of a piece of information. It's like adding a claim to a medical article and referencing it to "somewhere between the third and the fifth corridor in the medicine section in the library", or "the computer told me", or "an AI thinks so". Nemo 23:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Recently discussed last month: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417. I agree that something needs to be done here. Like Guy said last month, its probably worth creating an edit filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I second that. The "sources" are basically just online searches. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thirded. This is just a selective dynamic search result. Should never be used as a source. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. In deWP chemistry project, we have replaced/removed all occurrences. Over here, it will be quite a workload to get rid of all occurrences. --Leyo 14:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe blacklisting is the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think blacklisting would be the way to go. There will be users that assume these results are static. Just have everyone cite whatever article the information comes from directly. Cortador (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Made an edit filter request, see Edit_filter/Requested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Alethea
Discussion about using a blog as a source, your opinion is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fearless: Wilma Soss and America's Forgotten Investor Movement
Trying to determine the reliability of Fearless: Wilma Soss and America's Forgotten Investor Movement for a biographical article, on Soss and others. The authors seem to be reputable, but I've never heard of the publisher. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All Seasons is apparently a new publisher which claims "to take head-on the cancel culture that is destroying the publishing industry and the country" . The founders apparently have a publishing background, but it's small enough and new enough that I don't know it can have established a reputation for reliability yet. Given the authors, I would expect the book to be broadly reliable as a source about Soss, but you do have to wonder why they didn't choose a more mainstream, less polemically-based publisher. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be my concern as well... Publishing with a fringe outlet suggests that they were rejected by more respected and established outlets... I would attribute to the authors if used. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging by this bit of drama which is currently the top thing linked to on the front page of the publisher's source, the press is underwritten by hedge fund guy Scott Bessent. As with many underwritten-by-the-wealthy media projects, they may well be choosing to overpay for material while they establish reputation (if I can use a now-outdated-by-inflation saying, the best way to build a million dollar publishing house is to start with ten million dollars.) They are getting recognizable political authors, and the advance they were paying Lee Smith (journalist) is neither "oh wow" money nor is it nothing. So I wouldn't assume that the authors failed at other presses; they may have been courted by this one who may have been willing to outbid. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ontslog.com is reliable source or not?
https://opendatalab.mn/search/6865917 I have even fact checked their legitimacy. Its 100% trusted news agency that is recognized by Mongolian government. Ontlog.com has even their owen social accounts on various platform, which clearly shows their transparency. The problem is that it is not recognized news outlet outside of Mongolia, which clearly know very little know about. Only way to verify articles on Wikipeia is through such not recognized sources. Gologmine (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gologmine Do you have a link to the masthead or "About Us" page for ontlog.com? That's usually more telling as far as who the editorial staff is and what their policy is on accuracy than a company registration page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://ontslog.com/about
 * https://ontslog.com/terms
 * they are all written in Mongolian. I guess you need to use translator. editoral staff is not introduced. But I asked them personally via their FB page. Anyone is free to contact them, if having doubts. Gologmine (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the terms page, they are clearly stating that they are fully responsible for what they are publishing and stating also that their materials are all according to the law. In the about page you can see their contact information and company's name that is registered to state. In opendatalab.mn(State opereated public data base) you can find this company by its name and will find its even reeisteration number. I dont think someone would establish a company just to lie about entertainment insdustry. Gologmine (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gologmine It also states that they accept third-party material that they disclaim responsibility for, so it's probably important to look closely at the bylines and attribution of pages. So I don't think we can make a blanket statement without looking at some specific pages out of the site. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So its reliable or not? Gologmine (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Context is important. You need to supply the exact article in the source, the article you are going to use it in, and for what claim are you going to make with the source. Ca talk to me! 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The context appears to be related to this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That it does, yes. CommissarDoggoTalk?  14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the source that commenced the discussion on their talk page: https://ontslog-com.translate.goog/entertainment/entertainment-celebrities/5657?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB CommissarDoggoTalk?  13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems to clearly be the "third-party" material alluded to in their terms; an anonymous tabloid listicle. Most of the other articles from that account are pretty sketchy (please don't add this material from the same author to our article at arthritis noting the condition is now cured by pineapple smoothies). Some of your (Gologmine's) statements are curious; just registering an entity with the state does not make it reliable in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't agree with you more. then we should not consider all the articles from fancy news outlets as reliable. In this specific case, the article from ontslog.com is pretty much reliable. Some dedicated his/her time to make that list. Nothing against rules. Cause CNN or BBC would never make article of celebrities about their social account followers. Such low level Buzzfeed like outlets would only do an article on this very subject. Gologmine (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect there's a language barrier here. Please allow me to be very clear: this is not a reliable source, at all. It is very much against our rules to source material to this. Do not add this as a reference. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then how can I insert information about someone's social accounts on wikipedia? Gologmine (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refer to your talk page, where I have attempted to answer that very question for you I believe twice. Specifically, see my response at 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC). CommissarDoggoTalk?  16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://edition.cnn.com/ this is the true example of how unreliable source looks like. Gologmine (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop resorting to whataboutism, it's becoming rather tiring at this point. If you wish to discuss CNN's value as a source, please take that up in another discussion. <b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#fc1008">Commissar</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Doggo</b><sup style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#0363ff">Talk?  16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report
Is the 9/11 Commission credible about the planning of the September 11 attacks? The following three sources contradict the report.



Also, they used torture to a great extent, which questioned the credibility of the commission. See also Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Parham wiki (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this is a question for RSN. Is the Commission or its report used as a source in a specific article? If so, for what? Banks Irk (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Banks Irk, Yes, the report is used in articles related to September 11 attacks, Iran and Al-Qaeda, and my question is, is the report of the commission about the planning of the September 11 attacks valid? Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The report was 20 years ago. Historians will have covered every detail by now and affirmed or challenged anything you wish to cite. Then the proper citation would be primary-secondary: "Historian p. AA, citing 9/11 commission p. BB". SamuelRiv (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Contradicted on what? Generally speaking, the report has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  But as SamuelRiv points out, the source is 20 years old and historians have had enough time contradict the report if new information has become available.  Is there something specific you think is not correct?  Which article?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @A Quest For Knowledge, The 9/11 Commission identified Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the attacks and said that the idea dates back to 1996 and that planning began in late 1998 or early 1999, but al-Qaeda and a document in Bin Laden's home released by the CIA show that Bin Laden (and not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) is the mastermind behind the attacks and the start date is different from the 9/11 Commission Report.
 * In some paragraphs in the articles Planning of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Timeline of the September 11 attacks, the report is stated as fact. Parham wiki (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If different reliable sources don't agree on details it's usually something best discussed in text, e.g. the 9/11 report say it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed but other later sources say it was in fact Bin Laden (obviously not those exact words, but you get the idea). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Parham wiki (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point the 9/11 Commission Report should be considered a primary source for WP purposes, and a CIA-released document from a raid will always be a primary source. Again, ideally such sources should by this point now only be referenced via internal citation of a history article or book. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. At this point in time, the report should be treated as a primary source, and references should be to secondary sources reporting on its findings. Which is a separate issue from its reliability. Banks Irk (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @User:Parham wiki: Thank you, that helps. The question I would ask is what do other sources say about the matter?  Especially modern sources.  Do they now say that Osama Bin Laden instead of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the "mastermind" or "architect" of 9/11?  Is this is the commonly accepted account scholarly sources?  If so, yes, I would say we should look into changing our articles to match our current understanding.
 * But we should be careful in reading and understanding what sources are actually saying. The Independent article you cited in your first post doesn't say that Bin Laden (not Mohammed) was the mastermind behind 9/11.  Instead, it's reporting what Al Qaeda propaganda is claiming.  There's a big difference between 'source says a" and 'source says a says b'.
 * Also, keep in mind that this is a bit nebulous in that "mastermind" and "principle architect" aren't exactly job titles. The Al Qaeda source (as reported by the Independent) seems to be more about who first had the idea to crash planes into buildings.  I'm not sure if who had the idea first is the same thing as "mastermind" or "principle architect".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, government reports like that would be considered primary sources and would best be covered via the best available secondary sources. It's also 20 years old now so in situations where high-quality secondary sources disagree with it on one detail or another (especially stuff where new information might have come to light) we should generally go with the secondary sources. That said, it's an important enough report that I would expect that modern secondary sources would still note what it says even if they disagree, in which case we'd probably cover the disagreement or the way in which things changed or whatever based on what the overall sources say. It may also make sense to use attribution, especially when citing it via a secondary source that uses attribution for it (ie. if a secondary source says "the 9/11 commission report concluded..." then we should reflect that attribution rather than stating its conclusions as fact.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Har-Anand Publications
Is this a reliable source? Sindh: Land of Hope and Glory Imperial  [AFCND]  17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Context is required. What content in the book is proposed to be used as a source, for what purpose in what article? Is there a live dispute regarding the source? Banks Irk (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I see what you're asking about looking at your posting history. It is a disservice to other editors at RSN to make us do our own investigation into why a source is being questioned. Bottom line, you are misapplying WP:Primary. If a reliable secondary source says "Primary Source X says there were 5000 Ys at Battle Z" it is perfectly acceptable to use the source to report that as what Source X said, which is what the edit you reverted did. That was wrong. It is not the same thing as saying in Wikipedia's voice "There were 5000 Ys at Battle Z". Also, primary sources are not prohibited where they are supported by secondary sources. Where in the article body vs info box that information is included in not an issue for RSN.Banks Irk (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. In that article, there were already cited informations which give the strength of battles. An user used books from Notion press which are considered unreliable as per the discussion over here. He used this source too, and that made me ask here if we can use that book source because after reading that book, I couldn't find citing primary sources within in book. Imperial  [AFCND]  01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I couldn't find which primary source is being supported by this book. That is why I questioned the reliability of the book. Could you please check it? Imperial  [AFCND]  01:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no access to the book, and I cannot find any information on its authors online. The publisher seems reputable, so I have no basis to question the source. Banks Irk (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who News
https://www.doctorwhonews.net/p/about-us.html They claim to be a sucsessor to Outpost Gallifrey which was seen as relialbe. This source is frequently used on Doctor Who pages. Some of them being GA, like Doctor Who (series 1), Doctor Who (series 11) and various others. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We would need to know in what context this site is considered a successor? There would be a bit difference if a fan With no connection to Outpost Gallifrey was inspired to create their own fan page after discovering the original shut down and if several key staff from Outpost Gallifrey decided to start over and make a spiritual successor. In other wolds is this a self professed successor or is there an actual linage.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Following the shut down the news page "migrated over". Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unconvinced. Nearly every "news story" is posted by a single person (Marcus) and a number of them are pretty much straight reprints of press releases or news reports from other sources.  It's fairly obvious since they don't have any issue using copyrighted images to illustrate their stories. I don't see anything here that (a) makes this source reliable, or (b) contains any information that couldn't be sourced elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim's are ratings for series 2 of Doctor Who which arent found anywhere else. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They can claim whatever they like, is there any evidence they are in fact a successor to Outpost Gallifrey? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More to the point, is there any evidence that this particular website has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Where are they discussed/cited in RS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Winteriscoming.net
Winteriscoming.net is a FanSided website which, according to their about page, started life as a humble game of thrones blog, but is now a genuine digital news website, reporting on pop culture from star-wars to the wheel of time listing a publisher, editor, and staff writers.

However... it is still a FanSided website, and just going off a gut feel it still feels like a blog, albeit a blog run by multiple people. The website is surprisingly frequently cited and as such I would like to know if they are an acceptable source or not. Scu ba (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm dubious. Although they list a couple of editorial staff, in reality they work on multiple fanside sites handling the inflow of volunteer content. The articles written by the two editors may pass WP:SPS, but I would be very cautious with anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Trade Register
Is Trade register (https://web.archive.org/web/20100414022558/http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php) a reliable source for lists reflecting the equiment of respective countries? Onesgje9g334 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * SIPRI is a very reliable source for information on the transfer of weapons, you would need to include details in the reference of how to get the information used as it has to be downloaded each time. An archive of the site at archive.org is pointless, as the site won't work correctly (the database itself is not archived, only the web interface). Finally it's not a reliable source of ownership on any of the weapons or weapon systems, as they don't track the destruction or scrapping on any of the materials (or further sales that aren't reported), so it's only good for referencing the details of the transfer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixing Citoid (the Wikipedia Cite tool) for YouTube videos
Hi all

This isn't about a specific reliable source, but it is effecting the ability to cite reliable sources and the quality of the citation. Youtube is the second most popular website in the world, with a huge number of reliable news sources using it as a platform for sharing video. Unfortunately Citoid doesn't work properly for creating refs for Youtube currently. This leads to poor quality labelling of references being made, and while there are some templates to specifically cite video content, they aren't user friendly at all. I started a Phabricator ticket in 2021 to try and address this issue, however its not been worked on. Can I request anyone interested in this:


 * Subscribe to the Phabricator task so its made clear this is an issue many people would like to be fixed.
 * Try citing Youtube videos in articles and give feedback in the Phab task if you notice anything I haven't mentioned.

Also just to say I've seen a couple of people say "Youtube is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used", I think this is a missunderstanding of what the platform is, its the channels that should be assessed for reliability rather than the publishing platform as a whole. E.g the BBC News channel is reliable (its listed under Perennialy reliable sources on en.wiki), where as My Toy Reviews or DailyWire or whatever are obviously not reliable.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Portions of several texts on Marquis De Sade disputed as unreliable for being poorly sourced
Hi. There is contention about how to describe various texts for Marquis de Sade. Many texts are unreliable and poorly sourced to the extent that they claim wrongdoing was perpetuated by De Sade: Currently, no one is able to show such claims of wrongdoing in these sources to be adequately sourced themselves.

And notably, John Phillips in “How to Read Sade” (New York: W. W. Norton and Company (2005)), states "there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion” on p. 17 in describing all the ethically relevant behavior De Sade engaged in. Please review the discussion in Talk:Marquis de Sade for the full context. I’ve suggested proposed phrasing to resolve this issue in a reply there. Thanks much for your assistance. PNople (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you also give the opposing sources? The ones that say wrongdoing was done by De Sade? Loki (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe all the sources and their relevant quotes are in Marquis de Sade. Would you like me to copy that info here? PNople (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Loki (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure:
 * == Controversy ==
 * Marshall writes that Sade's “known behaviour includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutessignificantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism.” Phillips states "there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion." Dworkin, however, argues that the issue is whether one believes Sade or his female accusers and that admirers of Sade "attempt to justify, trivialize, or deny (even though records confirming the facts exist) every assault Sade ever committed against women and girls." Gray states that Sade engaged in "psychic terrorism" and that "Sade's brand of sadism was often more mental than corporeal." According to Bongie, Sade perpetrated "crimes of physical violence committed during sexual assaults on hapless prostitutes. Such assaults, aggravated by death threats and the element of recidivism, could easily get an offender into similar difficulties today."
 * == And this 4th paragraph from the lead is also relevant: ==
 * There is debate over the extent to which Sade's behavior was criminal and sadistic. Marshall states that Sade's "known behavior includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes—significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism." Dworkin, however, argues that the issue is whether one believes Sade or the women who accused him of sexual assault.
 * == Works cited ==


 * PNople (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Banks Irk said "You misunderstand or misinterpret WP:Primary and WP: Secondary", Homeostasis07. That's neither rude nor argumentative. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, you can't dismiss a source as unreliable just because you think what it says is wrong, or even because you have other sources that disagree with it; that leads to No True Scotsman problems along the lines of "no reliable source says X!", "Well, here's a reliable source that says X!", "That source says X, therefore it is unreliable!" If there's disagreement among the sources then we'd weigh them against each other and cover it with weight and focus based on how much each side in the disagreement deserves - sometimes something is so WP:FRINGE that we might dismiss sources advancing that perspective, but it requires a much more sweeping analysis and not just "sources exist that say Y." If there are other problems with the sources (ie. it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; or it's self-published or poorly published; or if it doesn't say what people say it does; or things like that) then that's a different matter, but "here's another source that disagrees with that one on that point" is not itself an RS issue - sources disagree on things all the time, especially fairly intricate historical controversies like this one. --Aquillion (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I should’ve said this more clearly: Please read the entire talk discussion under that Controversy section I linked to.
 * I did as much as I could to do the analysis you’re talking about here. I’m very glad you mentioned a logical fallacy here, as I want to do that type of thorough factual analysis via critical thinking, etc.. My argument is definitely not that it’s true because I think it’s true, that would be entirely counterproductive. I’m not engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy, you’ll see my arguments on the talk page. Though as we discuss, please point out any logical fallacies you think I’m engaging in, and I’ll my best to address each concern. PNople (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m interested to see your response @Aquillion, as the response by Banks Irk has been lacking and rude as I outlined. It seems you’re interested in critical thinking and have an idea of how the logical fallacies work, which is promising to me. Hope to discuss with you. PNople (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand or misinterpret WP:Primary and WP: Secondary and your proposed insert challenging the conclusions of secondary sources is WP:OR. There is nothing unreliable about the cited sources, and the current text appropriately summarizes them. Banks Irk (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s rude to me for you to state that I misunderstand or misinterpret anything. That’s inappropriate here and not productive to our discussion. And I believe it’s false. If you ever cite policies or any sources, you need to cite with particularity and where they apply, which you haven’t done.
 * Regardless, I disagree with your conclusory statement. There is plenty unreliable with the stated sources. You need to read that entire talk discussion and address my arguments directly, which you haven’t done.
 * Because of your rudeness, I’m more interested in what other considerate editors have to say. But I will address all your statements directly as I’ve done here. PNople (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I have offended you. What non-rude words would you prefer to convey that your arguments are completely wrong and contradict WP:RS, which is what you've already been told at the article talkpage by other editors? Banks Irk (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Banks IrkYou’re violating the logical fallacy of ad populum here by concluding that if more people say something, it makes it true. You’re still being rude and not addressing my arguments and concerns. I’m not interested in discussing with you more unless it’s absolutely required by admins. Take care. PNople (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not invoking an informal fallacy. I'm suggesting that the subsection of WP: Disruptive Editing, specifically WP:Listen, applies. I note that you're a WP:SPA with no experience outside the single article you're focused on for 3 years. Familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:Bludgeon before continuing. We're done here. Banks Irk (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * None of that was helpful to us, or particular as I requested. And is still rude. Please don’t respond to me again. PNople (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PNople, I have removed what you just posted on Banks Irk: you can't complain about what they are telling you, and say "don't respond to me again" (which you can't say on a board like this anyway), and then post on their talk page. At the least that's passive-aggressive. Second, and I have looked over this thread and the talk page, there seems to be no "contention" at all: there is just you, and you disagree with a couple of other editors. You also just do not seem to understand what it means for secondary sources to be reliable, so reliable that we use them as the basis for writing up these articles. I have not yet looked at what you did in the article, but I will say that it is very unlikely that this thread is going to gain much traction, sorry. Finally, if you wish to give up on Wikipedia, just walk away. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Any wikipedian may step away from the keyboard at any time they choose. BusterD (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked this user because after leaving here they posted the same screed in a number of pagespaces. If they want to know how to stop editing; I've done that for them this time. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the OP was banned, I think it's appropriate to note that it was Banks Irk's "rude", "inappropriate" and overall dismissive attitude - which I do agree was rude, inappropriate and dismissive ("What non-rude words would you prefer to convey that your arguments are completely wrong") - that created this whole situation. users come to this page for help and advice. If you can't do that without being rude and argumentative, then you probably need to let others provide said help and advice. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * But accusing a user of misrepresenting or misinterpreting WP:Primary and WP:Secondary is indeed rude and borderline uncivil. There is nothing here in this thread to warrant the jumping-down-the-throat that Banks Irk responded with, such as describing the user an SPA. If you don't have the temperament to provide help on a help page in a civil, non-combative manner, then go elsewhere. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The simple act of letting someone know they are wrong isn't rude or uncivil in and of itself. If it were it would be impossible to have any substantive discussion. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. I did not say that they misrepresented RS, but that they misunderstood or misinterpreted it. The former might suggest a level of prevarication, but I made no such statement. If an editor just absolutely refuses to listen to what every single other editor is telling them about an issue, and they take offense at being told that they're wrong, that's on them, not the editors telling them that they're wrong. Banks Irk (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "We're done here." Or is that statement rude and uncollaborative? If so, I immediately apologize. But I note it's a phrase Banks Irk has snapped on more than one occasion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with an editor RSN isn't the pace to bring it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Outside of WP:BOLD, I don't see anything User:Banks Irk has done to warrant further heckling. This isn't the forum for it anyway. BusterD (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is chosun.com a reliable source for articles about North Korea?
I saw the following text at North Korean cult of personality:

"After the death of Kim Jong Il the government began to inscribe his name on each of the obelisks and build new statues in his image."

The source states that this is "according to an informed source".

The Wikipedia page on The Chosun Ilbo actually does a good enough job explaining how this publication goofs up with unnamed sources with a bent against North Korea.

Thanks so much for all your help.Stix1776 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Good catch. In such cases, or even edge cases, you should definitely attribute in-text in-line: "The Chosun Ibo reported in 200x that ..." or "According to ...". SamuelRiv (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * chosun.com is a newspaper and therefore even if rs is only reliable for news reporting. See WP:NEWSORG. It is not rs for analysis of NK's government. It's opinions should only be reported if they are covered in secondary sources. For example, an academic paper about NK could say chosun routinely refers to the style of leadership as a personality cult. TFD (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability issue
Please check the issue goin on the article Battle of Aror whereas the problem is with the reliability of the sources using. Go through the talk section to get more info about the issue and please make a conclusion in order to avoid edit warring. Thank you. Imperial [AFCND]  18:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No. Not going to do that. Please read the instructions above. Ask a simple question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" Banks Irk (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is The Cambridge History of India: Turks and Afghans is reliable for making the statement Raja Dahir had 50,000 horsemen in the article Battle of Aror. Or
 * Is Spread of Islam Throughout the World is reliable for making the same statement in the same article? Imperial  [AFCND]  19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes and yes. And if a different source has a different number it may also be reliable, in which case we report and attribute both figures. Banks Irk (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But an editor refused to accept this, even questioning the reliability, pointing out that there are no inline citations that provides primary sources in the books, and removed it. Recently I added both figures, and he/she again removed it. That is why I made the first comment. Imperial  [AFCND]  05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to add reasoning behind this.
 * For the details of this particular battles our only primary source is book named 'chachanama' . Chachanama is considered a benchmark for sindhi history as it is a very detailed account. Pretty much every modern scholar refers to it while writing about the details. This 25k numbers pretty much comes from there, as most modern scholars accept it , though some considers it exaggerated. The one I have cited has used this source only.
 * Coming back to cambridge and K.S lal, none of them has provided a source or a citation in their work for their statement. Obviously one don't usually doubt the reliability of cambridge statement in their work , but it becomes hard to follow when it is clearly contradicted by pretty much every scholar who actually has provided source for their statement (pretty much chachanama only) citing only 20-25k men.
 * Finally I'm saying we can't be adding statement of cambridge book here, who is neither cited or provided any source for their statement to verify over the pretty much all the scholars who have provided source for their statement i.e very primary sources like chachanama (the only one).
 * The reliability of a any book be it cambridge or anyone becomes less when it itself hasn't provided any source for their statement
 * Thank you Summerkillsme (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect approach to secondary sources. We do not vet the sources that they themselves used. This seems to be a recurring misconception running through several of the above discussions on the current page here. If there are multiple sources reporting different figures, we reflect those differences with attribution; we don't exclude the sources with which we disagree (subject to considerations like WP:Fringe, which doesn't appear to be relevant here). Banks Irk (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * obviously, this is not the case and not what I'm referring to.
 * I could possibly give you 100's of references of dahir's army in this particular battle and every historian who has worked on this are well aware the of numbers reported in sources which we have and that's what they refer in their work.
 * Some even considers 20-25k as an exaggeration
 * And obviously you are wrong at ' we do not vet sources they themselves used ' . Secondary sources must be based on some sort of primary source itself, (more importantly when it is related to numbers)
 * Cambridge statement in this case do not have any primary information cited to it ,.
 * The fact that these two has no primary source attached to it ,and is extremely ridiculous numbers which hasn't been cited by a single historian till day who has actually referred to primary sources in their work.
 * We can't be hovering over one statement in complete absence of any evidence when 1000 others are referring to completely same result with actual evidence.
 * The book is dated to 1920-30's and I would like to point out more about this. Summerkillsme (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:AGEMATTERS, if newer academic sources use different numbers than those should probably be used. However just to comment on primary sources, they are not the "truth" as any historian would tell you and if professional historians interpret or decide to dismiss primary sources it isn't up to Wikipedia editors to disagree. It quite common for primary sources to state numbers that bare no relation to actual fact, and wouldn't have been possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

NewsRuss.com
An evaluation of NewsRuss.com, used to source some highly accusatory content, would be helpful. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Context? The question is meaningless without it. Don't make us investigate what you're inquiring about. Banks Irk (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Banner blindness striking again, is it? &#9786;  There's a link right at the top of this section to the context. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. No idea. The link in the archived reference is to JACTA, not newsruss.com to and the link at the bottom of the JACTA article is a dead link. I can't find any in information on either JACTA or newsruss.com, and I don't read Russian. There are a number of other sites that have newsruss as part of their URL, but I assume those dre different sites. Banks Irk (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although the article itself isn't archived (only the repost by Jacta), some of Newsruss.com's other articles are. Takes these two for instance, both are clearly in the pro-Putin propaganda camp (protestors have no real plans so for democracy vote Putin, and the journalist covering Pussy Riot demonstrations are part of a conspiracy). I would suggest a lot of caution with either Newsruss or Jacta, as both my be heavily biased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not reliable, responded at the BLP noticeboard. Alaexis¿question? 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The domain doesn't even resolve for me, can anyone else see it? And newsruss.ru is a Wiki. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here. I can't find it anywhere except at Internet Archive. I assume it's defunct. Banks Irk (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

InsideSources
The article on, a Democrat, includes salacious information from insidesources.com. Other links to the site include an Author page for Paul Gosar. I can't find any indicia of reliability for this publication, and having Gosar as an author is quite the red flag for derogatory info on a BLP of a Democrat. A quick review suggests that it, and its three child publications, are partisan commentary masquerading as news (e.g. fawning praise of Vivek Ramaswamy, which is, to put it charitably, not echoed in reliable sources). There are 30-odd new links since I last checked, so it's likely that some editors at least think it's reliable. What do people here think? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Insidesources about page looks like a crank site ("The media elite’s echo chamber ...") Copyright 2020. The "support page" doesn't work. No names of editors or anyone running this thing. This looks like an astroturf network of some sort. I see no reason to assume reliability of any of this - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of the content at these publications is opinion pieces by various writers in the nature of op-eds or syndicated opinion columns. Those certainly shouldn't be used as sources for anything other than the authors' opinions. The writer of the piece cited as a source in the Patrick article is Michael Graham (radio personality), a low rent Rush Limbaugh wannabe. I don't think it can be used in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While you can't find it on their website, their LinkedIn page states that Graham is both the editor and publisher of these sites, which means it is a SPS as to his own articles/columns, and as such automatically disallowed in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Question
Is this addition unreliable per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist leader where he claims that the person in question helped escalate a separatist movement based in India because he wanted revenge for Pakistan's defeat in some war with India which is obvious gossip material. It is further being put on the lead as if its some key detail/summary of the body. Full discussion regarding the issue at Talk:Khalistan_movement Kiu99 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additions are not unreliable, sources are. You might be thinking of wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely undue. But I'm also thinking of reliability in specific contexts. If not a BLP issue (since this person is dead since the 1970's), then perhaps this statement is unreliable per WP:RS/QUOTE ? Need opinions on this Kiu99 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What, are you saying the source is misquoting him? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of. Because no sources actually verify him to have said these things. This source quotes someone else claiming what Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto said, hence it is mere hearsay. Kiu99 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As this claim is attributed this is not a problem, with quoting him, but the text fails wp:v as it is clearly not what was said. Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Business Insider and Wikipedia mirroring
I'm looking at, which flagged here as a potential copyvio related to Quantitative easing. It's obviously a case of copying Wikipedia; the particular page appears to be a properly labeled Wikipedia mirror, which I had never noticed before on Business Insider.

Has anyone else encountered a page like this in the wild on BI? It's not the strangest thing, and presenting this sort of page transparently as a mirror is the sort of thing we'd want any mirror to do. But, if there are other sorts of pages like this on BI that are labeled Wikipedia mirrors, it might be worth noting that there are occasional Wikipedia mirrors on the website's RSP entry. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * To give them their due it is clearly labelled. I would hope that editors can handle clearly labelled WP:CIRCULAR sources, so I'm not sure if RSP needs updating but it is an odd thing for BI to be posting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He that lives on hope will die fasting. I remove maybe 100-150 very clearly identified mirrors used as references from articles each month, sometimes added by very competent editors. I agree that these really do not belong at RSP, though. Very rarely do people debate the removal; usually they're just not familiar with the fact that mirrors even exist as a concept. The mirrors that do not identify themselves or are used deceptively or abusively are a different debate. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's clearly labelled then it's not a reliable sourcing problem. WP:RSP is supposed to be for frequently discussed sources, not a compendium of all sources used on this site. We don't need to bloat it any further. Anyone who doesn't have the ability to read the first sentence of a newspaper is not someone that will be helped by adding another sentence to RSP. People who don't read are also unlikely to be editing Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Warfare in Pre-British India
Can I use Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500BCE to 1740CE to cite the information "The expedition was conducted in front of the Hunas or the Sassanids, or both at once." on the article Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh although the original quotation from the book is "This expedition was directed probably against the Huns or the Sassanids." The context is already present in the article. But it seems like original research because none of the sources mentioned the Persian emperor Yazdegard I being taken part in this campaign. Imperial [AFCND]  10:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem there is that "in front of" means nothing in this context. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The editor must meant 'aganist'. If we replace that, would that be fine? The quotation mentions 'probably', so would it be enough to have included in an infobox? Imperial  [AFCND]  11:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the source itself looks fine, it is worth discussing on the talk page if you have concerns about the exact language.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. But my another concern is, the source says 'probably'. How could we make an infobox for something which is not confirmed by the source itself? It would be good if I seek help of WP:MILHIST. Imperial [AFCND]  15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this would be to hammer out on the talkpage, but putting the word "probably" in an infobox is fine if that's what the sources say. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. I would do that. Thank you. Imperial  [AFCND]  15:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

ZAWYA
Looking for views on the reliability of Zawya (link goes to the article on Thomson Reuters, in which this publication is mentioned briefly). I came across it supporting this statement about the photography of Hussain Aga Khan. I can't see a clear editorial statement on the publication's about page. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The specific example is essentially a press release, not independent secondary coverage. A lot of the content consists of reprinted press releases. Banks Irk (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Land Transport Guru
I'm working on an article and I need some info from LTG in here, here and here. For context, LTG is a transport enthusiast run website, and there were previous discussions on whether it should be considered reliable (here and here) on grounds that it is a WP:SPS. However it's also been quoted & referenced by local media a number of times on transport-related news     (I'm only including articles on buses since that's what my article dealing with, there's quite a bit more if you look at rail articles too), which to me satisfies WP:UBO. Considering that there are certain statements that are not reported anywhere else, can I use LTG as a reference to those statements? S5A-0043 Talk 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is, as you say, a self-published source by self-described enthusiasts. The authors and editors are not identified; there is no description of editorial oversight. There is no basis to claim they are experts, and no indication that they have been previously published by other reliable sources within the scope of that expertise. That it is cited in articles by other sources would suggest that those other sources should be used instead. So, no, it is not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might've missed the last sentence: Considering that there are certain statements that are not reported anywhere else, can I use LTG as a reference to those statements? The "other sources" are on previous cases which did not happen in this case, and I would use the other sources where available and as much as possible. However, in this case, I can't, because only LTG reported on the "certain statements" I referred to. S5A-0043 Talk 04:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And just to add on to clear any misunderstandings, I'm not exactly asking whether LTG should be used (or is reliable) in general. I'm asking whether it can be used in this context only. S5A-0043 Talk 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way I'll ping the editors involved in the previous discussions since I brought this up again: @ZKang123 @Thryduulf @Brachy0008 @ActivelyDisinterested. S5A-0043 Talk 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is the only source for a statement, then that statement should not be included in a Wikipedia article. Banks Irk (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to use LTG, because usually you can use other sources as reference. And usually I do not include statements that are solely from LTG (e.g. platform layouts) because they also veer close to very trivial information that's not within the scope of Wikipedia.
 * Also most of the media sources you bring up are not reliable (mothership, vulcanpost).--ZKang123 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Best not to use it. Especially to add exit information.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 10:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's best to regard it as an Unreliable source.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 10:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the three pages you link to in your first comment, the first two appear to be trivial fleet changes so almost certainly not encyclopaedic regardless of the quality of the source but definitely so if this is the only source. The third source is slightly different - if "The Bus Collective" is notable (this does not go any way towards establishing that and I've not investigated any further) then it might be usable to verify some factual information if there is no better source for it. If you aren't writing about The Bus Collective though then I don't see anything there that is likely to be encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s actually, it. I’ll take your advice (and of course those above too). Thanks a lot y’alls. S5A-0043 Talk 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:SPS, we should not be using it in the first place. I like to note that LTG had criminally trespassed with self incriminating evidence with a photo taken inside the bus on private property  (The facebook post states we kindly advise the public do not remove any parts from the buses or enter the interior of the buses as these are private property.). I am not sure we can even use it as an additional source as of now.
 * Note that I am directed to this post by S5A-0043 via the article's talkpage after I removed LTG as a source on the article. JASWE (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

AwardsWatch
Used in a lot of pages here, but is it actually considered at least "generally reliable" by consensus? It seems to me that they are echoing the news and reports of other publications, with minor differences that I personally couldn't find in any other authoritative source. They also have pages of interviews with notable people. I haven't found any discussion so I wanted to start one. This is their "About Us" page: https://awardswatch.com/the-aw-team/ <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 19:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have a clear answer for this. The about us page shows they staff are mostly amateurs, but within the context that it will be used it's probably good enough. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Profile"-like sources for BLP?
Are these "profile"-like sources considered as reliable for BLP? Recently, an IP range pointing to Brazil has been doing a bulk edit of adding  to South Korean BLPs supported by such sources. Here are few example from Marie Claire Korea,, Cinefox, and KBS Kstar.. Personally, I see no differences from using IMDb's profile (or alike) as sourcing for such materials in BLPs, in which if my interpretation is correct using IMDb's profile to support such is considered as forbidden.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  08:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Assuming your first example is Marie Claire, I don't see why it shouldn't (generally) be ok for someones birthplace. Is there some indication it's user generated? Even if there is reason to think the profile is not independently written (in google translation, one starts "My real name is Kim Ji-ah."), I'd say it's still good for birthplace per WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, this question fits better at WP:RSN, you could move this conversation there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång What about the remaining examples then?  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At a glance, I don't see an issue with using Cine21 for a birthplace. KBS Kstar may or may not be, your guess is as good as mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Just realise that I have a typo, Cinefox instead of Cine21. I don't think Kstar has an actual article on Kowiki. From my interpretation, I assumed that you're saying that it's okay to use such sources (Maria Claire is maybe reliable enough hence excluding this) to support the content even though it's more or less IMDb-like?  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The general argument against using WP:IMDB is WP:USERG. I have no idea if Cinefox is WP:USERG, an imdb-mirror or something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * For extremely basic, uncontroversial biographical details like birthplace, the sourcing requirements aren't very high. IMDB is only barred because it's user-generated. As long as those ones are not user-generated, they're probably usable - it would be better to replace them with a higher-quality source but for just an uncontroversial birthplace it's probably fine. (Note that there are some situations where a birthplace might be controversial - ie. if there's some nationalistic dispute over where someone is from - but that doesn't seem to be the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Synagogue attack in Armenia and Azerbaijani coverage of it
This article about the only synagogue in Armenia was recently edited to include coverage of the recent attack by an unknown assailant. The newly-added paragraph claims that "The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia claimed responsibility". The 2 provided sources (1, 2) supporting this claim do not look convincing to me. Both sources are Israeli; however, they only reference Azerbaijani articles and videos/posts circulated by Azerbaijani officials. Although sources being Azerbaijani is not an argument against their reliability, the concern here is that the sources do not actually provide any evidence of ASALA having conducted the attack - they only quote Azerbaijani officials' statements and news articles, which themselves lack any sources.

Source 1 (I24 News TV)

''... in both cases the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) group claimed responsibility for the attack on its Telegram channel in Armenian and English. On both occasions, videos of the arson were published first on this channel, along with “manifestos” stating the reasons for the attacks and declaring new threats.''

[the linked article in the first paragraph] There have been conflicting reports over the group responsible for the attack, with Azerbaijani media pinning it on the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA)

Source 2 (Algemeiner.com)

'' The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) claimed responsibility for attacking the Mordechai Navi Synagogue, the only Jewish place of worship operating in the country, Azerbaijani media and other sources reported. Azerbaijani Ambassador to Germany Nasimi Aghayev was among those who shared footage of the synagogue attack on social media. '' [embedding of the ambassador's X post right after]

I could not find ASALA's "Telegram channel" where they "claim responsibility" according to Source 1. The only channel I could find only has 111 subscribers as of Dec 9 2023, and was created right after the attack, so I highly doubt it represents ASALA as a group. '''Given that no statement claiming responsibility for the attack can definitively be attributed to ASALA, no investigative authority has linked ASALA to the attack, and that authorities are conflicted about which group is responsible for the attack (according to source 1), I would like to undo the revision. '''

For context - ASALA was a militant organization that conducted attacks in European countries in the 1980s against Turkish entities to raise awareness about the Armenian genocide. The group was dissolved in late 1990s, with the last attack having occurred in 1997 (check out the linked article for more details). There is no reason to believe that ASALA would conduct a synagogue attack 26 years after its dissolution against a non-Turkish entity unless there is strong evidence linking the group to the attack. Azerbaijan and Armenia have fought several wars over the last decades, with the most significant escalation having occurred in 2020, so the tensions between the two countries are really high. Although I don't have enough evidence to claim that linking ASALA to the synagogue attack is a coordinated attempt by Azerbaijan to tarnish Armenia's international reputation, such things have happened in the past so I am suspicious of the true motives here.

Original discussion on the article's talk page Unotheo (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think these would be WP:REDFLAG claims and should not go into the article as of now. ASALA does not seem to have been active since the 1990's. If they had admitted responsibility, there would be Armenian or Turkish sources saying so. I'm not saying such sources don't exist, but I think we would need more than the Israeli articles to prove this. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is better taken up on the article's talk page unless you can show a pattern of Israeli news outlets fabricating stories. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I24 News is definitely dodgy, as they were the main propagator of the false "40 decapitated babies at Kfar Aza" story. Armenpress suggests that the suspect was a foreign national who immediately left the country after the attack, so this may be a false flag.  Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of the sources are low quality rumor mills imo, they both run with stories without verification, though i24 has more reporting capacity. Algemeiner has basically become a right wing amplifier. To demonstrate the issue with both, Algemeiner reprinted an i24 story that copied, in large part but with some POV changes, an AFP story. See for example the AFP story saying According to Dweikat, those involved were “wary” of a “foreign” car, fearing it may have been used by undercover Israeli forces, who often operate in the West Bank, occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967. which i24/algemeiner transform in to According to Dweikat, the mob who assaulted the tourists were “wary” of a “foreign” car, fearing it may have been used by undercover Israeli forces, who often operate in the West Bank. And then later, AFP says The incident comes amid a surge in violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coinciding with the tenure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-right government that took office in Israel in December. The northern West Bank, and particularly the cities of Nablus and Jenin, have seen repeated deadly Israeli raids targeting Palestinian militants., i24 changes it to The incident comes amid a surge in violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The northern West Bank, and particularly the cities of Nablus and Jenin, have seen repeated deadly Israeli raids targeting Palestinian terrorists. In general I dont think either of these sources come close to being usable for anything remotely contentious.  nableezy  - 03:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't really comment on Algemeiner as I'm unfamiliar, but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to classifying i24 as WP:GUNREL; in my reading about the conflict, I've generally found them to be almost akin to a sort of Israeli Fox News in terms of sensationalism, bias, loaded words, and so on, and most of their factual reporting is far better-covered by sources such as Haaretz and The Times of Israel. They're not far off from Electronic Intifada in terms of bias (though obviously toward the opposite side), which is itself on track to remain GUNREL at the RfC above. The   Kip  05:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ]Re i24: it was indeed the source of the “40 babies” story but only claimed 40 babies were killed not decapitated. That claim was, I’m pretty sure, an embroidering they weren’t directly responsible for. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a total of one baby killed on October 7 according to Haaretz.  nableezy  - 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please share the Haaretz source for that. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * According to sources including Israel's National Insurance Institute, kibbutz leaders and the police, on October 7 one baby was murdered, 10-month-old Mila Cohen. She was killed with her father, Ohad, on Kibbutz Be'eri.  nableezy  - 05:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have said i24 didn’t claim 40 babies were killed. One of their reporters claimed one soldier told them that around that number were killed. The story spiralled from there, so they were the ultimate source of what became misinformation, but I think they themselves were guilty of sensationalism rather than falsehood (unless the reporter made up or misquoted the soldier, which I don’t think any RS has suggested?). BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * According to NBC News, the "40 babies beheaded" was the conflation of statements made by soldiers to I24, . Later reporting by Haaretz shows that both of these statements were false. . Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn’t say liars, just low quality rumor mills that run unverified and unsubstantiated stories.  nableezy  - 05:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bobfrombrockley, what do you think about the i24 adaptation of the AFP story? Is a. running it without any attribution to AFP at all, or b. the parts changed that I quoted, indicative of being a quality source? Honestly I think it is arguably a copyright violation too.  nableezy  - 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m basically on the same page as you. It’s a low quality source. It’s not a good source for non Israeli news (eg the article originally raised here) as it’s reliant on agencies and apparently not using them properly, and it’s not a good source for controversial Israel topics because of the Foxish sensationalism/partisanship. I wouldn’t call it generally unreliable necessarily, but can’t see what topic it would the best source for. So, going back to the original question, if it’s the only source it might be better to leave it out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Minor point but The Algemeiner (Algemeiner Journal) is American not Israeli. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Questionable source from the article Mark St. John
On the following article, Mark St. John. This was back in November, but there was a bit of a dispute on the reliability of the source provided, which one IP has claimed the source is satirical. This is the source below:

Would it be considered reliable? HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No. Banks Irk (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * IP and Banks Irk are correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Videos on YouTube can be reliable, but that reliablity is based on whoever is publishing the videos. In this case there is nothing to show that Nice Creature would pass the requirements of WP:SPS, specifically that they have been previously published by independent reliable sources. Or the short answer, which is no. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru
This is about:

MISA ashrams are simply brothels and children born in ashrams are sometimes sold to pedophiles. Many local politicians, policemen and prosecutors from Romania were clients of MISA prostitutes. Bivolaru built a real estate financial empire based on pimping and money laundering.

I know that citing YouTube is frowned upon, but this looks like Romanian mainstream media. So I would like to know if such edits are allowed, before performing them.

Here is the media outlet: https://radiogoldfm.ro/shows/ce-i-in-gusa-si-n-capusa/

Okay, I found this and this. So, now it's clearly mainstream media.

Note: if there is any reason to suspect Mr. Gușă of bias, he would be biased for Mr. Bivolaru rather than against him. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Baseball Almanac
This source (http://www.baseball-almanac.com) is frequently cited as a source for Birth and Death information for former (American) Major League Baseball players. DarkStarHarry (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Looking to open debate on this source, with the hopes of formalizing acceptance on the sources list.


 * For what appears to be a legitimate database, I can't find any information about any individuals who run or contribute to the site. They also use testimonials from other media, but I can't find the origin. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the site is bare of personnel details, but there is a form to submit feedback. The CEO and a researcher are on LinkedIn. Another site has "Allan Selig" as a board member (not sure how active he is). Is the lack of transparency enough to knock them off the trusted sources list? DarkStarHarry (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are the CEO and that researcher by any chance Michael Berry and Christopher Michaels? Those are the only to people I can find and neither appears to be a subject matter expert. Could that be Allan Selig? If so that is the closest we've come to even the suggestion of legitimacy but it still doesn't work. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would appear to be a hobbyist SPS of the type we in general aggressively exclude. As a hobbyist SPS it is pretty much completely unusable on wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I located the names of Sean Holtz and Dennis Yuhasz. Sean's the CEO, and a retired cop. DarkStarHarry (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @DarkStarHarry Is there a reason that Baseball-Reference, or some other more transparent database can't be used instead? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently Baseball Almanac is 'first to market' with information on ballplayers who have recently died, to the point that the site is being cited on WIkipedia:Recent Deaths. Perhaps Baseball Reference is using that same information as well. If Baseball Almanac is blacklisted due to being a SPS, how can we be sure Baseball Reference isn't using their information?  DarkStarHarry (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Baseball Reference is explicit about where they get their data (Sportradar). Because they list a staff of over 30, and explicitly state the source of their info (to a data firm working directly with the MLB), then that tells me that they're not getting info from Baseball Almanac. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These aren't subject matter experts. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The site has long been recognized for its usefulness. Even as far back as 2001, it was receiving positive coverage in the Chicago Tribune. A 2006 print book describes it as among three sources that are absolutely reliable and first-rate source, saying that the website is a bountiful source of accurate schedules and box scores. A 2017 analysis (via Proquest) of the database published in Reference Reviews also refers to the website as a tremendous resource and seems to indicate that the database is generally reliable. The scholarly review also favorably compares Baseball Almanac against Baseball Reference, writing that Baseball Almanac focuses on the historical content better than does Baseball Reference, though it found it easier to look up stats in Baseball Reference than in Baseball Almanac.
 * If we have multiple independent secondary sources that are specifically endorsing the accuracy of this database (including an academic review of the database) and our primary concern is accuracy, I'm not really seeing much of a reason to prefer another database. The advantage that Baseball Reference has over Baseball Almanac is ease-of-use (something unrelated to reliability); in light of the scholarly review of the Baseball Almanac as well as the history of positive coverage for the source's accuracy, I see no reason to prohibit this source or otherwise downgrade this reliable database. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

EastMojo
Looking for the reliability of EastMojo.com. I just nominated EastMojo for G5 but see that references to that publication are used 374 times on Wikipedia. It was mentioned in regards to another Wikipedia page and I see that they have a large amount of sponsored content and I cannot find anything about editorial oversight on the site. What I also found interesting is that the footer says "Proudly powered by Newspack by Automattic" which is an open-source website that publishes user generated content for revenue-share. If I can get feedback from users on reliability and if not reliable, feedback on what to do with the 374 references currently in Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Their About Us page also suggests that much content is crowdsourced rather than written by regular reporters. I would not use it as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The adverting page appears to point towards advertorials, so the caution expressed in WP:NEWSORGINDIA is probably a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Classical Hollywood cinema" fanboy article is a disaster
This article seems to have been monopolized by an individual or small group of individuals whose perception is warped...and no one's doing anything about it.

There are a couple of major issues. First is the timeframe used to define "Classical Hollywood". Some Joe Schmo has put 1969 as the cutoff, but the reference that immediately follows this dubious claim - Oxford Dictionary website - says 1960! Which means the editor who put '69 is lying (misrepresenting, fabricating, whatever).

For perspective, Raquel Welch said that she thought of classic Hollywood as finishing off in the '50s, while TCM's Alicia Malone considers a classic film to be anything before 1980. There is no clear definition.

Even if you approximate, 1969 is such a random year. Smack dab in the middle of counterculture, it's completely inappropriate to use as a cutoff. 1959 or 1979 would make sense.

The second major issue is the compilation of actors and actresses that are ostensibly "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema". Some of the names on there are laughable. Tippi Hedren? She starred in exactly two films. And while she was born in 1930, her first credit isn't until 1963. By that standard, Ron Howard should be on the list, since his debut well precedes Hedren's. By that standard, there are hundreds of names you could add to the list. The inclusion of Clint Eastwood is also absurd, as he didn't star in a Hollywood movie until 1968 when he was 38. Fabian Forte and Tuesday Weld, both of whom are 13 years younger than Eastwood, were household names a decade before he was, yet they aren't even on this bogus list. The list even has Zsa Zsa Gabor (!) as a "major figure from classical Hollywood cinema". Unbelievable.

It looks like someone has thought up all the famous or semi-famous performers born within a certain time, and that's the measurement they've used to determine eligibility....regardless of whether the performers were part of "Classical Hollywood" or not. It's ageism and pigeonholing, and it has nothing to do with "Classical Hollywood". Parts of this page have been written by editors who don't even understand what classic Hollywood is.

This isn't going to get resolved without administrative intervention. The talk page is no use. There have been attempts to start a discussion over the years, but nobody ever replies.

If you're going to pick a cutoff, the cutoff should be backed by a consensus. As for the index of actors and actresses deemed "major figures from classical Hollywood cinema", the only names that should be retained are those on AFI's 100 Screen Legends, since it's the only criteria that has been established.

To prevent future abuse, it might be a good idea to remove the "major figures" list altogether. I'm looking through the edit history and no such section even existed until a decade-plus after the article was forked. Namwidow (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a WP:RS issue, since your objection isn't to the reliability or quality of the sources. If there was an active dispute, you could perhaps take it to WP:NPOVN, since the things you mentioned sound like neutrality issues... but there's no real need to do so because so far, nobody has objected to your edits or responded to you on talk (ClueBot is automated and can be ignored in this case; it's not perfect and will sometimes mistakenly react to large removals, since it doesn't know whether you had a valid reason to remove stuff.) If nobody objects to your changes you can just keep making them; if you don't have the time or energy to do so you can tag the article for the various problems you've identified, such as citation needed tags on uncited things you find dubious, or failed verification for stuff that isn't verified by the source, or original research / original research inline for things you find to be original research, or undue / undue inline for things that have undue weight. Administrators can't help fix article content (at least not in an administrative capacity) - if there were an active dispute you could go through various dispute-resolution mechanisms, but chances are the people who made the edits you object to are long-gone anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Banks Irk (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

tasteatlas
Is this website reliable ?

Some users use this TasteAtlas to claim X cuisine belongs exclusively to X country. Personally, I don’t believe it is, at least when it comes to the country classification of cuisine. Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The editorial process is opaque, but clearly a large percentage of the content is user generated. I don't think it is reliable as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The origin of many foods and cuisine are far to controversial for such a source to be suggestible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Connexionblog
Is Connexionblog a reliable source? The About Us page includes The specific context is a September 2023 post from this website being offered in an RfC to support inclusion of contentious content, i.e. statements made by Divya Dwivedi in 2019. This post 1) occasionally refers to her as "he" 2) is focused on September 2023 statements made by Dwivedi, 3) briefly mentions some of the 2019 statements without specifically identifying the date or context, 4) refers to Dwivedi as a "Marxist". Can this source be used to help support inclusion of contentious content in a BLP?

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a reliable source. It is blog/SEO farm for gambling ads with only one author as far as I can tell, and no indication of staff or editorial oversight. Saying they have a "team of collaborators" could mean their dog, their grandma, and their goldfish. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's at best a collect blog and so would fall under the rules for self-published sources, specifically Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (bolding in original). Which is backed up in WP:BLPSPS, "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (bolding mine). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Milli Chronicle
Is The Milli Chronicle a reliable source? The About Us page includes The specific context is an October 2019 eight-sentence post without a byline, citing reporting by ThePrint, while also appearing to misrepresent/distort the reported contentious content; this source is being offered in support of inclusion of contentious content in an RfC at the Divya Dwivedi article. Can this source be used to help support inclusion of contentious content in a BLP? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Its essentially a self published source. Even if the publisher was a SME (he does not appear to be) it can't be used in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * According to "About Us", the site owner has a postgraduate diploma in artificial intelligence. I wonder if they're using AI to generate articles? -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Wisdom Embodied
Can I use Wisdom Embodied: Chinese Buddhist and Daoist Sculpture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art to cite "Karkota dynaty of Kashmir supported the Tang dynaty in the Battle of Talas" in the article Battle of Talas? Using the quote "Kashmir supported China against Tibetan invaders in 722 and later helped defeat the Arabs at the Battle of Talas in 751. In addition, Kashmir was one of the stopping points on a series of new routes linking China with various Indian kingdoms and Buddhist centers that flourished in the seventh and eighth centuries"-p.96 Imperial  [AFCND]  17:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Considering it was written and published under the auspices of the MoMA itself, I don’t see why not. They’re not exactly a biased source. The   Kip  21:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI: MoMA, Metropolitan Museum. --JBL (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An aside about historical events in a blurb on an artwork on display at the Met unrelated to the artwork itself is not a source we should rely upon for historical facts. They're art historians, not historians. Banks Irk (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's probably reliable, but as Banks Irk said better sources must definitely exist. If this is the only source for this information it would actually caste doubt on it. Not because the Met is unreliable, but because no actual historian ever mentioning such a fact and it being correct seems impossible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I found another source. Thank you. Imperial  [AFCND]  04:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliability regarding numbers
1.) The PORTUGUESE-MARATHA RELATIONS used in the article Mughal invasion of Konkan to cite the Mughal strength as "100,000 strong force. His army consisted of 40,000 horsemen, 60,000 footmen, 1900 elephants and 2000 camels". The same book is used to cite the numbers of Marathas as "10,000-15,000". So do the casualties of the conflict.

2.) Same concern for Renascent Empire?: The House of Braganza and the Quest for Stability in Portuguese Monsoon Asia c.1640-1683

3.) Same concern for Shivputra Sambhaji (6th ed.). Pune: Continental Publications

4.) Same concern for Chhatrapati Sambhaji (4th ed.). Kolhapur (couldn't find the linked source)

Is this all reliable? I am preparing for a copyedit so it would be helpful if the answer gets in the order as above.

Imperial [AFCND]  06:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not enough information on #1,3 & 4 to assess. #2 is from an academic publisher, but the summary at the link states that the author's approach may diverge from academic consensus. Banks Irk (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So in conclusion, can we use those? The above cited information is present in those sources? Imperial  [AFCND]  18:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if #1, 3 or 4 are reliable or not. On #2, it can be used with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Imperial  [AFCND]  04:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Sportsman
I have a question about The Sportsman as an RS. I've come across this article in it and it appears to copy (but reword) our Twin Towers, Wembley article in the flow of it and inclusion of information. This looks a little like plagiarism to me so I would like to know what others think if this does put The Sportsman's reliability into question or if we do need a proper RFC on it?  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Sportsman article claims to have been published on the 26th of September 2019, this is a comparison of the Wikipedia article as it appeared in the 21st of that month and the Sportsman article. I would say that took "strong inspiration" from the Wikipedia article. However unless there is anything to show this is a common issue, and not a one of, I don't think it would be enough to change any previous consensus on the Sportsman's reliability. One writer being a bit lazy, and one editor being a bit unobservant, doesn't sink the whole source (it's not a good look though). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Can podcasts be reliable sources
I know this is a pretty general question rather than a specific example, however, I'm not sure where else to ask. Podcasts are not mentioned in any policies or guidelines as far as I'm aware and they are cited quite often. Most of the time they are clearly unreliable. However, reputable news sources that are listed at RSP as generally reliable have produced podcasts as well. Should podcasts be considered as reliable as their publisher or should they be treated the same as a WP:NEWSBLOGS? Are podcasts ever reliable enough to contribute to notability? I've provided a few examples of what I mean below.

TipsyElephant (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has produced news shows like The Daily and documentary shows such as Rabbit Hole
 * NPR has produced news shows like Up First and documentary shows such as No Compromise
 * The Atlantic produced a documentary show called Floodlines
 * The CBC produced an investigative journalism show called Missing and Murdered
 * The BBC has produced shows such as Newscast and Two Minutes Past Nine


 * You can use some podcasts. They are same as NEWSBLOGS or the publisher Softlem (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * to clarify are you saying that they should be treated as a WP:NEWSBLOG or are you saying they should be treated the same as their publisher? It looks like you said both. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most are NEWSBLOGS but The Daily podcast would be same as publisher because it is from the normal articles and subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process Softlem (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course they can... Any form of media which can be verified can be a source in some circumstance. There is no way to provide guidance for a whole class of media that is meaningful, just follow the normal rules. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @TipsyElephant
 * I think (like most things), the context is what matters. I feel like a lot of podcasts are mostly opinion/discussion pieces, in which case, no they aren't reliable. But if released by a reputable source like those listed above, then maybe - but only if everything is based on verified facts. I don't know many podcasts like this as most of them tend to lean towards discussion of the issue. You'd have to take this on a case-by-case basis..
 * Starlights99 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A podcast is no different to any other publication medium - the quality and reliability of the content spans the whole spectrum of possibilities. Some podcasts are equivalent to newspaper or magazine articles, others are equivalent to a random bloke spouting off in a pub. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Great Russian Encyclopedia Online
The Great Russian Encyclopedia Online (bigenc.ru), including its old version (old.bigenc.ru), is linked in over 100 en.Wikipedia articles. The source appears to be repeating blatant non-WP:NPOV Russian propaganda and should be deprecated as an independent neutral WP:RS.

To cite a few obvious examples:
 * Russia has a map showing its borders extending into parts of Ukraine that have been “annexed,” and not even occupied
 * Ukraine has a map that omits its Crimean peninsula
 * Zaporizhzhia, a Ukrainian city that Russian invasion forces have been unable to reach, is defined as in the Russian Federation

Who knows what less obvious disinformation is in the articles of this political propaganda website masquerading as an academic source? It is not reliable and should not be used for any citations. —Michael Z. 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A source can be biased, occasionally wrong, and still be reliable. I take it that the information in the three listed bullet points are not being used as sources for an article. Are there any specific instances in the ~120 articles where its use is actually problematic? Banks Irk (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These represent a Russian point of view, rather than a factual inaccuracy. It is a minority POV, and not reliable for articles except as examples of how the Ukraine situation is seen by Russians, but it does not affect the overall reliability of the source.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A Kremlin POV, subject to political censorship on all subjects, and likely with a mandate to disinform, as it’s published by a Russian government organization (RAS) to satisfy Putin’s decree No. 1156. It was already criticized for its content (Great Russian Encyclopedia) before Russia sunk into complete dictatorship.
 * And as a tertiary source, nothing important should be based on it in the first place.
 * These blatant things are factual inaccuracies from the WP:FRINGE and contrary to academic consensus. Certainly anything regarding the former subject nations of the Russian and Soviet empires, their histories, WWII, and international relations. In other fields the bias is probably more subtle and harder to detect, and biases of omission impossible to identify. —Michael Z. 21:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These are exactly the same as the maps that a dozen countries publish showing their own preferred borders, rather than those recognised under international law or de facto control. As I said, we would not use them except to illustrate the perspective of the Russian government on its frontiers. I don't think WP:FRINGE comes into it, it is more like WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is nothing unusual about these kinds of biased in partisan sources. They're not false or contrary to "academic consensus", they reflect a decidedly minority, politically motivated POV. As a tertiary source, its use as a source has limits. But again, I'm waiting for an example of a real live dispute over how it is actually used as a source in a specific article. Asking for deprecation absent a live dispute or prior RSN discussion is unwarranted and premature. Banks Irk (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same as what? This purports to be an encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 04:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources published in Pakistan or India frequently show their preferred borders, rather than those accepted internationally. As do those published in China. Many reliable sources published in Argentina show the Falkland Islands and South Georgia as part of their territory. Reliable sources published in Israel sometimes show the occupied territories as part of Israel. Reliable sources published in Catalonia frequently show an entity called "The Catalan Countries" which does not and has never existed, or show Catalonia as a separate country on maps.
 * These sources are not reliable for neutral statements on the borders of their countries, but these are political positions rather than false claims. On their own, they do not reduce the credibility of other information in the sources. They are a good indication of the source's bias, but we need biased sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You present a good argument for why it shouldn't be used for post-2014 Ukraine topics (an argument I concur with), but not why it should be fully deprecated. Curbon7 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am now seeing that the online version seems to be in part different than the print version, the latter having ended publication in 2017. Curbon7 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia’s official fringe views definitely cover the entirety of the history of Russia, Ukraine, and other nations colonized by and in conflict with the current Kremlin régime. See, e.g., “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” by Vladimir Putin who is very interested in history and promoting his Russian-fascist version of it. As you can see, the online article on Ukraine was updated after the occupation of Crimea in 2014, and the article on Russia after further occupation in 2022. The online version will probably continue to be updated to keep “improving” it. —Michael Z. 21:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think that essays by Vladimir Putin are not reliable sources for historical facts, but I don't think this is the most pertinent comment to the question at hand.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is published to conform with a decree by the same Putin, to satisfy his same goals. It is unreliable for the same fundamental reason. —Michael Z. 17:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again though, are there example of this source fabricating information about anything that is not post-2014 Ukraine topics? Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Deprecate Clearly does not pass WP:RS. Unfortunately, there is not a lot that comes out of Russia these days that does. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Deprecate I wonder what valuable info about topics not related to Russia can we take from the "Great Russian Encyclopedia". As for topics related to Russia, as it is published by a state entity, I don't think we can trust it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per comments by other users I am striking my former !vote as it might be inappropriate to fully deprecate the source. Still I think there must be some regulation on the use of the encyclopedia. "additional considerations apply" status is likely appropriate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Deprecate as it is not even close to a WP:RS. -Amigao (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable . Additional considerations apply, depending on specific subject. But it is Generally unreliable on topics related to politics, history and geography. Well, it says : "Zaporizhzhia, the city in Russian Federation ". Not only this is Ukraine, but it was never occupied by Russian forces. This is not just a "point of view", but misleading geography. I understand the source is online, and it is frequently updated. Which makes it even worse, i.e. the source intentionally provides incorrect info. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of reliability, this is similar to a blog. Some articles have a name of the author(s). They are just as reliable as the reputation of the authors. Other articles have no name of author. They should be disregarded. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it’s not. There is a government mandate to become an “alternative to Wikipedia” and a source of “reliable information” “unlike Wikipedia,” there is a chief editor who belongs to the government organization Russian Academy of Sciences, and Russian censorship and memory laws. —Michael Z. 19:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I did not see it. Interesting. So, this is a censored patriotic encyclopedia. Still, like I said, the articles are just as reliable as reputation of their authors. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think participation in propaganda affects the authors’ reputation, and not vice versa. —Michael Z. 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that most articles on "non-political" subjects are just as good or even better than they would be in other tertiary sources. They are not propaganda. The problem is that some articles seemingly on non-political subjects (such as this one) provide intentional misinformation. But that particular misinformation can be easily fixed by cross-verifying against other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you’re only noting that some disinformation is easily found. That is not evidence that everything else in the text is reliable and somehow free of influence by the same propaganda mandate. It is evidence that this source is intentionally disinformative.
 * Why the impulse to “cross-verify” instead of just using other sources? That’s like continuing to patronize a restaurant because it was easy to spot the dog food and poop in some of the menu items. —Michael Z. 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes: if [i]t seems that most articles on "non-political" subjects are just as good or even better than they would be in other tertiary sources it's because in many cases they are. Plenty of articles are written by individuals who we could consider among the foremost specialists in their respective fields. Not all of them are Russian, either. To point to an example where we are actually using this source, our article on Novogrudok uses the GRE's entry on Lithuanian prince Mindaugas (the city was under his rule). The article in question was written by Rimvydas Petrauskas, current rector of Vilnius University. I won't be the one to call him a Putinist hack. Ostalgia (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So, no evidence shown that it is unreliable for most topics, only problematic for Russia–Ukraine war, where it has not been used as a source. Can someone show where it is actually cited for false information? In any case, tertiary sources are not the best sources. Mellk (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Quickly looking, I could not find any other obvious examples. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. Even if it contains factual information, it is extremely biased and non-neutral (to greatly understate the case). One can use facts and omissions to make all kinds of bad arguments and paint misleading pictures.
 * This “encyclopedia” promulgates the political POV of a dictatorship credibly accused of inciting genocide and committing genocide. The sooner we completely drop this hot potato the better. —Michael Z. 03:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you have not demonstrated that it is unreliable for most topics and therefore needs to be deprecated. Even if it contains factual information, it is extremely biased and non-neutral. Please demonstrate this. Mellk (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked a few pages on subjects I am familiar with. Interestingly, pages on all recent "hot" subjects (wars in Chechnya and Ukraine) are simply missing. Looking at older history, such as, it includes disinformation on certain key points. For example, text starting from "Поскольку в протоколе не упоминаются какие-либо возможные действия сторон в отношении расположенных между ними государств, он юридически не нарушал никаких договорённостей Германии или СССР с третьими странами и прямо не предусматривал никаких реальных территориальных изменений." is atrocious propaganda, even "big lie". This is pretty much FRINGE at best. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the missing articles may be at old.bigenc.ru. —Michael Z. 16:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. But it was not the worst. Consider this version about Winter war. Unfortunately, I can not substantially discuss these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Each of these examples are entirely consistent with the extensively-documented Soviet/Russian narrative and national mythology of its own role in WW2. We wouldn't use them other than for showing the Russian perspective on these events. And, as it turns out, non-one is using this source in any article even for that.Banks Irk (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree. First of all, there is no such thing as "Russian perspective". Different Russian authors have very different views on these historical subjects (author of the first article is Meltukov with quite peculiar views on certain issues). Also, no, this is not a standard Soviet narrative. That old Soviet narrative simply denied the existence of the secret protocols/addition (as far as I remember Soviet textbooks did not mention their existence). My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There certainly are Russian imperial, Soviet, and Russian Federation perspectives, and they are well documented. They have not been constant for centuries, but they have differences but also share the similarities in their biases, blind spots, and prejudices. This is more true again now than at any time since perestroika, as the RF has criminalized certain speech with vague strictures that force anyone in Russia to self-censor or risk oppression. —Michael Z. 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , How in the world is that a straw man argument? You saying that simply brushes away the very valid argument Mellk is trying to make without substantively answering it. To deprecate a source, we need hard proof it is engaged in misinfo, not just vague handwaving. Thank you to MVBW for providing examples. Curbon7 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * True information on a number of topics is illegal in Russia, and contrary to the goals of the Russian government (and the determination of what’s illegal is arbitrary). It clearly publishes disinfo, potentially in any online article. My argument is we should use other sources to source the encyclopedia, not to fact-check every single statement on this source because we want to cite it for some reason. Furthermore, it is deeply invested in bias which can be conveyed through emphasis, omission, selective presentation, etc., which we cannot really fact-check. I believe it’s a strawman to say this is a safe source to use because I’ve only demonstrated it’s unreliable in one article. It’s not a general encyclopedia, but a Russian encyclopedia deeply invested in disinformation on its entire range of subjects on Russia and anything related, and it’s only being put online specifically as an “alternative” to neutral sources that promotes these views. —Michael Z. 17:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Deprecate per above. Seems to be fully engaged in Russian-government POV-pushing, and we've already deprecated numerous other sources that do the same. The   Kip  03:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards deprecation, or at least general unreliability. The examples given above by MVBW are more than sufficient to prove that this website actively includes disinformation in their articles, in addition to unclear authorship. I'm not sure this applies to the print encyclopedia, as it ceased physical publication in 2017 and may thus be free of the more egregious disinfo. Curbon7 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking, as I clearly do not know enough yet about the situation to make a fully engaged statement. Curbon7 (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional considerations apply, with specific unreliability for Ukraine topics, seems to be the best course of action here. I don't see a need to blow the whole thing up as most of its current uses are for . Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a question for the people who are voting deprecate here (this is not a vote btw), would you deprecate all sources which made claims about the borders of their state which are not internationally recognised? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A: it depends. —Michael Z. 17:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On what?Boynamedsue (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the specifics of any case under consideration. Elsewhere in this talk section I have described some of the specifics of this case which lead me to conclude this source is not only unreliable on certain identifiable facts, but to its core. In summary: its reason for existence is to propagate a biased and destructive worldview. —Michael Z. 17:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you haven't really provided any evidence for that view, only the maps and statements claiming cities in Uktaine. As others have said, the bias re Ukraine is obvious and can be easily dealt with, as it could be, say, in Israeli sources which claimed Golan or the West Bank. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not an RfC, so !voting isn't helpful. What is the context? Is this source used anywhere and does it cause problems? Totally sensible not to use it for anything related to post-2014 (and maybe even pre-2014) Ukraine, but blanket deprecation is an overkill. Alaexis¿question? 06:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So I did some research myself, it looks like it's used mostly in articles like Central Siberian Plateau, Parochial school, Russian cosmism, Agriculture in Russia as a source for various "boring" facts. Deprecating it would be quite disruptive. I'd support a tailored restriction for the areas in which a) it's likely to be influenced by the propaganda and b) it's causing problems on Wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 07:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If so, I would urge the restriction to be quite broad, including anything related to politics, religion, national identity, and any other subject area that could be coloured by colonial, anti-Western, Russian-chauvinist, Russian-fascist, or genocidal views. —Michael Z. 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd probably phrase it differently but before discussing wording, what are the uses of this sources on Wikipedia that you find objectionable? Alaexis¿question? 18:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what uses of a Nazi encyclopedia would you find objectionable? Okay for “‘boring’ facts”? —Michael Z. 07:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I find all uses that I listed in my first comment acceptable. The comparisons with Nazis aren't helpful. The level of press freedom in Russia is comparable to that in Egypt or Turkey, not to mention China. In each of these countries there are topics you can't mention. Alaexis¿question? 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Press freedom isn’t directly relevant, as we’re talking about a government source. On the other hand, the index you refer to does say “Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, almost all independent media have been banned, blocked and/or declared ‘foreign agents’ or ‘undesirable organisations’. All others are subject to military censorship,” ranking Russia 164/180, or in the global lowest decile, and indicating that the Russian press won’t say anything the government doesn’t want it to. This is literally true on the subject of the war, for example. —Michael Z. 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Curate's egg As this is an encyclopedia then, like Wikipedia, it will be large and variable in quality, being written by many authors over time and with the issues mentioned above. Our policy WP:RS already addresses the issue of biased and questionable sources but makes the key point that context matters and so it depends what the source is being used for.  I suppose that this source would be useful for humdrum facts like the date of birth of historical Russians (allowing for the different calendars).  But that it should be attributed when it seems to be pushing a party line or is otherwise controversial.  It might then be useful to show what the official Russian position is on such controversies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The big edit notice on this page says "The reliability of a source depends on its context". Everybody who posted on this page must have seen this. In Russia it is illegal to stay that "new territories" are not Russian. This is a criminal offense. It is not surprising therefore that every Russian source under a government control would say that Kherson is Russia. For Russian history (not only the recent one, but also for pretty much everything), this source can only be used to refer to the official government position. However, there are a lot of things the GRE can be used to source, most notably including geography and personalia. The information that person X was born in year Y or got prize Z might be difficult to find, and might be even impossible to source if we deprecate every Russian post-2014 or post-1991 or post-1917 source. I do not see any reason why we should do this. We already deprecated all Venezuelan government sources as government propaganda - good luck now with finding birth years of Venezuelan painters (recent personal experience).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a typical online encyclopedia or wiki. It seems to be under heavy censorship. The example with Zaporizhzhia shows intentionally distorted info even about geography. Further, all pages on recent political events (like the wars in Chechnya and Ukraine) are missing. Why is that? This is because all authors of this resource live in Russia. Whatever they can write about these recent wars, this will fall under the new law of offending Russian army, and the authors may go to prison. With regards to other articles in this resource, this depends on their authors whose names usually (but not always) appear in Russian below the articles. Can one trust these authors? Looking at a few examples, I would not because at least some of them follow the standard Soviet propaganda narrative. An idea of WP:RS is to have a source that a non-expert can trust. This is not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My father was asked to write an article on graphene (I think they already have one, not sure why they now need another one, but anyway). I do not have any reason not to trust the article. Specifically for graphene, we do not need to cite this source, because there are plenty of English language sources covering the topic sufficiently, but for many topics (just guessing, not sure whether they actually have these articles) Msta or Anadyr or Ivan Papanin I do not see why we should throw them away. Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... An outright censorship undermines the reliability of sources, and this is not just history and politics. For example, Soviet censorship permeated everything, including sports, art, science, biographies of people, fiction, etc. A geographic location of something? Yes, this should be good, unless this is a secret object, a matter of a territorial dispute, or something ideologically important for the regime. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We can of course deprecate all Soviet (1917-1991), Russian (1991-2023), Chinese (1948-2023), Iranian (1979-2023) etc sources because there is censorship in these countries. But then we just suddenly have zero sources for a broad range of subjects which are completely uncontroversial. Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, except it is sometimes difficult to say if a subject was completely uncontroversial. Consider Soviet chess. This boils down to all participants having a sufficient expertise to evaluate the quality and veracity of various statements made by Russian, Chinese and Iranian sources, a lot of which are indeed of questionable reliability... My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, one can use any sources, even such as newspaper Pravda ("The Truth") if she/he uses them properly. But can we say that newspaper Pravda is an RS as defined in our policy? No, we can not. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pravda is a generally unreliable RS, with the reliability dependent on the context. For example, for the sports results it wass generally fine though Sovetsky Sport was much better). Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is beyond absurd. There are plenty of articles authored by respected professionals in that encyclopedia, and they can be a valuable resource for us. For instance, this entry on Sergei Sokolov-Krechetov was co-written by Oleg Budnitskii, who is a fine scholar (you're welcome to Google him), and provides a basic outline of the subject's biography. If I wanted to create an article here (i.e. the English wiki) on this individual, and one day I might, this would be a good starting point.
 * As mentioned by other users, it's enough to not use their articles if they reflect a minority position (and we can evaluate them case-by-case), or if we want to be extra careful, just not use it for our articles where the official Russian government position is a minority position in world affairs, as we would do in any other similar such case - after all, this situation is not unique. I would say similar issues can be found not only in authoritarian regimes but also in democratic ones with territorial claims (Argentina, Spain, Serbia, India, Taiwan...) or occupying territories internationally considered to be part of other nations (Israel and the Golan, for instance). Same with many countries that revere individuals considered terrorists or war criminals by the rest of the world. Should we blanket deprecate all sources originating from those countries if they have published stuff reflecting the official views of said nation? Ostalgia (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What about an approach similar to Fox News? Eg. taking it as unreliable for some topics (politics, modern-era Eastern Europe etc.) and as suspicious for other topics (useable unless other reliable sources disagree). Pavlor (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So we need to use this source, but exclusively to support specific assertions for which we already have other supporting sources? Seems simpler to just not use it. —Michael Z. 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is a better source use that source, but there is no need to purge all current uses of this source without a replacement (like some editors did with Daily Mail, leaving an essentially unreferenced content). I'm for a more cautious approach: select some evidently problematic topics first and then broad the scope of unusable topics up to a full deprecation of that source. Pavlor (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable approach. —Michael Z. 19:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may add a second comment, has anyone bothered checking the actual articles in which this source is used (link provided by op)? It's 118 articles in total, and with the sole exception of Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel, Mariupol, where the GRE article on Mariupol (I was unable to check it because the link is broken, which might suggest it was added some time ago, before the war even) is one of two sources for the architects of the cathedral, I struggle to find anything objectionable (needless to say, I'd be all for removing a dead link to the GRE's article on Mariupol). It's mostly used in bios of Russian historical, cultural or sports figures of varying grades of obscurity, basic descriptions of small ethnic groups mostly from Russia or the USSR, and a few other things. I believe it's dishonest to explicitly look for a few obvious examples in an area where we do not use this source at all, but which will prove undoubtedly controversial, and then come here to suggest that we could be introducing disinformation to the encyclopedia by sourcing an article on an obscure Tsarist diplomat or some rocks to the GRE. Ostalgia (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not go through every single reference in every single article, but my brief survey leads me to the same conclusion. It appears to be exclusively cited for anodyne quoditian purposes where there is no serious question about its reliability. Banks Irk (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting that its map of Ukraine has not been updated at the same rate its map of Russia has. At any rate, agree with above comments that we can't deprecate every source that shows a certain POV regarding borders, as we'd have no more sources. RS/P has precedent for purportedly factual sources used by state actors to push territorial claims and other political views in WP:CHINADAILY, WP:SCMP, and WP:XINHUA. Clearly Great Russian Encyclopedia should be treated with that similar skepticism. CMD (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But Kremlin political views are not restricted to the subject of politics. How would you phrase such a stricture regarding this source for RS/P? —Michael Z. 15:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSPCRITERIA, . Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime, I mentioned three examples of strictures whose spirits can be followed. CMD (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's sensible to avoid using this source for ongoing controversial political topics, but having only just now discovered this resource myself and skimming through some of the classical music-related articles, it would be a mistake to deprecate its use altogether. As far as music, at least, the articles appear to be of good quality; they would be excellent starting points to improve or create articles related to Russian and Soviet art and other non-political subjects here. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm, and what is Russian art? The Russian ultranationalist view of this encyclopedia may, for example, label Ukrainian music as Russian music. —Michael Z. 23:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're now just one short of a score of posts on this topic without once answering the simple, basic, fundamental, sine qua non question: Is this source unreliable for any statement for which it is actually used, or proposed to be used, in any article here? The answer appears to be a resounding No! making this thread superfluous. Existing policies on tertiary sources and due, among others, are more than sufficient to address those concerns you have raised which are actually legitimate. Banks Irk (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good point by Michael. Disputing if certain artist was a "Ukrainian" or "Russian" is a hallmark of many disputes, including ones on wiki, and we need an accurate info about it. If this source says that a city is located at a Russian territory (while it is not), then sure thing, it will call every notable artist "Russian". That's a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have lots of rules around nationality for this very reason. An impecable source saying an individual born outside the RF is Russian is not going to simply be accepted and put into the article, much less a Russian published tertiary source. Though of course it is entirely possible that somebody born in Ukraine might be correctly classified as Russian, depending on the circumstances of their life and ancestry and the time they were born. I have been involved in dozens of such discussions relating to many different nationalities.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should rely directly on RS here, as always. Do they say it was Russian painter? But the sources frequently contradict each other. One simple approach could be to rely on the classification by Metropolitan Museum of Art, for example. See . But we probably would need an RfC for that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * “The Ukraine.” —Michael Z. 06:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Ukraine" to reflect current preferences of most Ukrainians. However, for most of my life "the Ukraine" was standard English usage, and old habits die hard. When Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and USSR it was the only contemporary English usage, and it is that period I am principally referring to in my comment. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is too late, comrade. We have seen your true colours!
 * Jokes aside, indeed, the fact that someone was born at some point in the past in a territory that is today part of/controlled by a modern nation is not sufficient to ascribe them such a nationality on Wiki. This is especially true for nations with such an entangled history. An individual can be born, raised, and have flourished in what today is Ukraine and be unequivocally Russian, while another can be born in the RSFSR and be one of the foremost Ukrainian historians. We are allowed to evaluate the reliability of sources for particular claims, and I do not think anyone is going to be seriously looking at the GRE (or a Ukrainian equivalent, for that matter) as a "gotcha" to settle disputes about nationality. Ostalgia (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Boynamedsue, do you also write “Eskimo” and “Negro” when you’re not being condescending to national and racial groups, with the excuse that you’re old enough that casual prejudice feels normal? Wake up. It’s the 2020s now. Just Ukraine has been the prevailing and only acceptable English writing style for over three decades. To broadcast an intentional preference for “the Ukraine” is non-WP:NPOV and borderline offensive to anyone who values basic respect. It is not acceptable to throw language like this around in civil discussions about colonized and formerly colonized groups and expect to colour the consensus. —Michael Z. 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that the above comparison is offensive, ethnic slurs (which sometimes eskimo isn't btw) are not the same as accidentally using slightly outdated country names. Given the tone and content of your posts, I am actually beginning to wonder whether your primary focus here is on constructing an encyclopaedia. I would just like to remind you that many of us think about Ukraine less frequently than you do. I thought about football this afternoon, for example.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the strong reaction, but the comments from someone supposedly participating in many discussions on the subject were shocking. Correctly referring to national groups is an important part of WP:CIVIL discourse: it’s for each other and for ourselves, not to be minimized as currying to “most Ukrainians” or a group invoked as a non-participant other who in reality probably won’t know or care what you write here. We can all make lapses, but better to correct ourselves and move on than try to justify them. —Michael Z. 17:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are crossing the line. Boynamedsue clearly explained to you the reason they used that spelling, while also removing and correcting it. It is obvious they were not ill-intentioned. Your answer is completely disproportionate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Mike, sometimes I think you need a really big hug. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is actually an excellent point, but I think this also fall under the broad "generally unreliable for Ukraine topics" umbrella. Curbon7 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it not equally unreliable for Russia topics? The most egregious disinfo is in statements that are on the surface about Russia, not Ukraine: these are the borders of Russia, this is a Russian oblast, this is a city in Russia. —Michael Z. 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I am not confortable with the prospect of only deprecating the encyclopedia for Ukraine-topics, as if Ukraine was the only country suffering Russian aggression today. Russia still occupies land from Georgia and Moldova. I took a look at their article on Abkhazia, it uses language such as "occupation" for describing Georgia's control of Sukhumi and "liberation" to describe the Abkhaz attempts to take the city. It also states that "An important part of the Georgian population abandoned the republic [Abkhazia]"; it was a bit more complicated than that, as in they were either killed or forcibly expelled , however I am surprised that sentence is even in the article. I cannot find it right now, but I read an article of the encyclopedia before on the history of Bessarabia (most of Moldova, and a bit of Ukraine), and it included the typical propaganda points such as that it was neglected under Romanian rule and that it was actually developed during the Russian Empire (wrong, it was one of the most backward provinces of the most backward empire of its time). Talking about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the whole article focuses on how the pact was a Soviet diplomatic victory and how the Germans used vague wording to later justify its invasion of the USSR (they were actually the victims), instead of on the illegal invasion and occupation of several Eastern European nations and the repressions that followed.
 * Rather than only deprecating the source for the Russo-Ukrainian War, I think we should deprecate it for controversial topics for the Russian government. Would you trust a Russian government source for reading about the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, or about the history of Ukraine? I wouldn't. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it completely omits the role of Russian army during the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993), for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article on Crimea completely omits the Russian military invasion before the 2014 occupation. —Michael Z. 04:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that what we are all trying to say is that on any political topic there is a risk that this source will publish a Russian government line. Therefore we should act with extreme care when using it, and the closer to Russia and the present we get, the more care we need to take. However, I think our users are quite sophisticated and aware of potential problems in the Eastern European area, and this is why, despite its Kremlin line, the GRS does not seem to have been used to source anything problematic. On the contrary, it seems to be sourcing lots of useful content. This reflects quite well of our processes and editors, and maybe suggests that we don't really need to actually do anything? Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with that, but if we are to do something, just deprecating it for the Russo-Ukrainian War will solve only half of the issue. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if further from the present means safer from propaganda in this case. The history section of the article about Ukraine talks about the “Ancient Russian state” (Drevnerusskoe gosudarstvo), instead of Kyivan Rus. This is a subject area dear to today’s Russian imperialists. —Michael Z. 02:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The term "Древнерусское государство" has been around for ages (see, for instance, Древнерусское государство и его международное значение, a 1965 Soviet book on the topic). "Русское" there refers to ancient Rus', not to Russia (just like in Russkaya Pravda). The proper translation would be "Ancient Rus' state". This is something you know, so I assume the mistranslation is intentional.
 * 2) The shift in emphasis in Russia from Kievan Rus' to this term during the last decade or so indeed has political connotations.
 * 3) Regardless of 1) and 2), the term has little if any traction in English (in the sense of an alternative term for Kievan Rus' - it does have legitimate uses), which means that not only do we not use it, but the odds of someone adding it to the English Wikipedia are slim to none (per WP:COMMONNAME), just like we don't use "Great Patriotic War" other than to point out that the Soviets called it thus. Ostalgia (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the only translation I’ve seen constantly in sources is “Ancient Russian state,” and I used it begrudgingly because of course this is a misuse of the term of art Ancient history, referring to the study of Classical antiquity. “Ancient Rus state” is so little used that Ngram fails to chart its proportional use in recent years apparently due to divide-by-zero error. If you can point out where the name is translated differently, I would appreciate it.
 * I am not a Russian-speaker, but I am aware that Russian writing does tend to erase the distinction between Rus and Russia, and that Western historiography of Eastern Europe is still working hard to divest itself of this colonial attitude (ASEEES just held a world conference on this topic). You can’t pin that on me. Isn’t there an adjective like rus&prime;ke?
 * Your defence of the source seems to be that it is propaganda but all Wiki editors will always be able to deduce the non-propaganda facts out of it, even in WP:CT subjects. Seems like a poor citation policy for a volunteer-run encyclopedia to me. Especially when professional academics are still struggling with this problem seven decades after they identified it. —Michael Z. 17:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's because the term, as I mentioned, has little if any traction in English (in either translation). I mentioned that "Ancient Rus' state" would be the proper translation not because it's the most used (again, none of them are used), but because it's the correct one in terms of meaning, hence my analogy with Russkaya Pravda (which, in the past, was also translated as "Russian", but it refers to old Rus'). This brings me to your second point - if by "Russian writing" you mean Russian historiography (i.e. the production of historical works), then you are conflating propaganda and actual historical writing. There is very high quality historiography written in Russian, and there is also the garbage produced by the Vladimir Medinskys of the world. In this encyclopedia we strive to use the former, and we are expected to discard the latter. If, however, by Russian writing you are referring to the Russian language, then the answer is no - I'm not a native speaker, but there's no rus'ke/руське in Russian (that's Ukrainian). As a complete side note, what ASEEES held was its yearly convention.
 * Finally, my "defence of the source" is nothing like what you're making out to be. My argument is simple. The majority of the GRE is a largely good source. There's material on lots of topics that can be useful in areas where a tertiary source can prove helpful. What is more, if need be the articles can be taken individually and have identifiable authors that can help gauge to what level they can be trusted - they can be discussed case-by-case. There are articles that are tainted by the official position of the Russian state (some of which can be downright discarded as propaganda), but none of those articles are being used, contrary to what your opening message suggested. It is also unlikely that any of those will ever be used, and even more unlikely that they will not be easily challenged if they are. If we want to be on the safe side, then the more obviously controversial topic (contemporary Russia, broadly construed) can be marked as a no-go for the GRE, but I really do not believe anyone would go to the GRE to source info on Putin. Ostalgia (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, so based on your enlightening translation of russkoe, will you be voting to move Tsardom of Russia to Tsardom of Rus' or Tsardom of Muscovy? Or are you ignoring the fact that Russian-language writing has a pervasive bias in refusing to acknowledge that Rus and Russia are different things?
 * This brings up a good point regarding reliable sources in this broad subject area. Russian history writing, and its influence on Western histories of Eastern Europe, has been problematic. This year’s ASEEES conference is on the theme of decolonization, especially concerning decolonization of Slavic and Eastern European studies in light of the Russian invasions of Ukraine and the enormous blind spots in scholarship they have exposed. It’s bad enough already that the Russian POV has permeated Western scholarship, which is now acknowledging it is only recognizing the large scope of its problem and trying to work towards correcting it. All Russian sources on Russian history (of which “Little Russian” history is an integral part) are potentially problematic, the more so sources published in Russia since the introduction of draconian memory and anti-free-speech laws following the invasions of Ukraine, and most especially a Russian government website largely dedicated to Putin’s pet topic, historical propaganda.
 * Maybe the 2004—2017 edition of the GRE had merit, but why would we decide to refer to this derived propaganda website when that one and numerous other sources exist? —Michael Z. 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "All Russian sources on Russian history are potentially problematic" is an extreme POV which I hope is not going to come even close to consensus here. Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, based on common sense I know that we, in the English-language Wikipedia, should be translating русский/русская/русское/русские according to the context. The fact that the Russian language does not have two different adjectives for Rus' and for Russia doesn't mean that we should translate every instance of the term as Russian (which is ironically what the aforementioned Medinskys of the world probably would want) - you'll find that there are tens of languages in which the same or similar words can mean different (even wildly different) things. If you do not understand a language, then you probably should not be involved in trying to convey the meaning of a term in that language. It really is that simple. Your suggestion that Russian-language writing has a pervasive bias in refusing to acknowledge that Rus and Russia are different things seems to imply that the Russian language in itself is biased and therefore not to be trusted. You make this explicit by claiming that all Russian sources on Russian history (of which “Little Russian” history is an integral part) are potentially problematic. I think that this suggestion, said about literally any other nation, would probably end up in a sanction. I find your position to be not only radical, but also bizarre and frankly dangerous, although not in the least surprising. Ostalgia (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I have to hand it to Wikipedia editors. This term is only used four times, twice as “Ancient Rus state” (A, B), once where it was changed to that (C), and in only a single article that looks pretty bad at first glance (D).
 * But is what you say about contextual translation of russkoe justified? A Google Books Ngram chart shows us that this term is relatively little used, but it is nearly always translated “ancient Russian state.” (I think the term is to be avoided in either form because it is an awkward calque and because it’s politically loaded.)
 * I did not say “the Russian language in itself is biased and therefore not to be trusted.” I’m sure Russian language can be used to neutrally express historical fact by anyone who wants to.
 * I do think that historiography of Russia in Russia, where it has historically been constrained by state censorship for most of its existence, has a chronic imperialist POV problem from its very beginning, and Western historiography of Eastern Europe has inherited some of it. In these last two years, the West continues to catch on and is trying to reconcile its inherited biases. Meanwhile, in Russia – which is inciting genocide while cracking down hard on public speech, and is credibly accused of committing genocide – the imperialist POV, both inherited and imposed by the state is about as bad as ever. I’m certain I can support this argument with good sources that are not radical nor bizarre. It’s ignoring the signs that is dangerous, which is why we shouldn’t endorse an actively updated Russian government propaganda website masquerading as an encyclopedia as a source. —Michael Z. 02:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) For the third time: the term Древнерусское государство has little if any traction in English, in any translation (that is, it is not a real alternative term for Kievan Rus' in English), and that ngram that you keep posting for whatever reason, shows exactly that (I'd wager most of the hits are low quality machine translations of Russian texts). I'm just pointing out how your translation of русское in that context is incorrect and tendentious. I really do not know how to explain it to you any other way.
 * 2) You said, and I quote, Russian-language writing has a pervasive bias in refusing to acknowledge that Rus and Russia are different things, which goes beyond historiography, and that all Russian sources on Russian history (of which “Little Russian” history is an integral part) are potentially problematic. You state this without (by your own admission) knowing Russian, so you literally have no idea of what is written in Russian, but somehow you try to convince everyone else that everything produced in that language is problematic.
 * 3) Academic conferences are usually on hot topics. You'll find that this is true whether it's slavists or chemists. What you will not find, however, is ASEEES backing some bizarre call for ignoring all stuff written in Russian (you are welcome to propose it at the 2024 convention, though), a call that, I repeat, is nothing short of insane and we would consider completely unacceptable for any other people on the planet. Ostalgia (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you are wasting your time. The Ukrainian word "руський" is also used for very different time periods but no one is complaining about Ukrainian imperialists. Mellk (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ASEEES chose its conference theme because “Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has led to widespread calls for the reassessment and transformation of Russo-centric relationships of power and hierarchy both in the region and in how we study it.” Meanwhile, Russia is updating an “encyclopedia” that is becoming an instrument of its regressive and destructive grasp for power. What I’m calling for is reasonably recognizing that it is not a preferable source. —Michael Z. 19:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't comment a lot on RS, so I'm not completely clear on Deprecation v Generally Unreliable for specific topics. But I do think we should NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it is Unreliable on Russian related Geopolitics, especially modern. But not a bad source for other things, like Russian literature, science, medicine.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * + not a bad source for North Caucasian things: GRE has good articles about famous Ingush linguist, first Ingush ethnographer, famous Chechen writer, another famous Chechen writer, famous Ossetian linguist, Ossetian writer and so on. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven’t checked, but I’m curious what it says about casualty figures for the Chechen wars, the casus belli for the second war, and the current human rights situation there. —Michael Z. 01:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A reminder that we need a formal closure here, to avoid later false claims concerning presence or absence of consensus in this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A formal closure is not needed here. Most non-RfC RSN discussions are indeed not closed, but will exist ad infinitum in the page archive. Curbon7 (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can easily see a user claiming this discussion contains consensus for deprecation, or consensus for (almost) unrestricted use. At the end of the day, this is a contentious topic, and we want to minimize the disruption. Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is most definitely not a contentious topic within the meaning of that term in en.wikipedia. And, while I am as tired as anyone of the bludgeoning of this discussion, a formal closure is unnecessary if editors would just stop. Nor will a formal closure avoid "disruption", because there is no disruption. As several editors have pointed out, this is a purely academic and unnecessary discussion in the first place, since there is no actual dispute over the specific use of the source as a reference for any specific statement in any of the ~120 specific articles where it is cited. Banks Irk (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The bludgeoning clearly demonstrates that some editors are just unable to stop. Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although the source covers material in many WP:CTOPs, it is itself a subtopic covered by WP:CT/EE because it is Russian, and byWP:GS/RUSUKR as a government website used in war propaganda (it omits the direct role of Russia in the occupation of Crimea in February and early March 2014 and in fighting in the Donbas from April 2014 to February 2022). At a minimum editors should be cautioned and discouraged from using it in articles on CTOPS, especially these. Can’t we agree on this? —Michael Z. 15:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Can I use a student newspaper
I'd like to use the article at [wavelengthwwu.online/2016/09/27/sabah-randhawa-a-profile-of-the-president/] to cite that Sabah Randhawa went to university in Lahore, but I need consensus that the source is usable in this context before I can request the website be whitelisted so I can cite it. Thanks in advance! BhamBoi (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See: the whitelist request where RSP was brought up BhamBoi (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * In general, student-run newspapers are considered marginal at best, and often unreliable. I would search for a better source. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, I did find the same information in a local city newspaper, so this topic seems to be resolved. BhamBoi (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)