Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433

Is this article about a Communist millionaire from The Free Press reliable?
The Free Press was founded by Bari Weiss a couple years ago. It's been discussed here a few times, but I didn't see a clear consensus that applies today. It started as essentially an upgraded blog for Bari Weiss, but now has a number of other staff members and some kind of editorial process. It has some fairly strong political perspectives, especially on gender issues.

I'm thinking of creating an article for James 'Fergie' Chambers, a Cox family heir and far-left activist, and came across this article: He’s Got $250 Million to Spend on Communist Revolution frpm The Free Press. It's an in-depth profile with participation from Chambers himself, neighbors, government officials, etc - well beyond a blog post. The author is Suzy Weiss, who appears to be Bari's sister. There are a few other articles on Chambers (1, 2, 3, 4), but, if reliable, this would be the best of them and a major source for our article. Do you think it should be considered reliable? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Weiss' ventures have been uniformly propagandistic for years. Furthermore, if this is what you've got for sources to establish notability it's likely insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% on creating the page yet - I wanted to ask about the Free Press article before doing anything - but it seems like he's probably notable to me. The Berkshire Eagle is a reliable regional newspaper, LA Magazine is reliable of long standing, and Axios is generally considered reliable as well. Mother Jones is probably the weakest as it's also (like the FP) opinionated/biased, but that's four reliable sources with articles squarely focused on Chambers personally, three of them in-depth. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bari Weiss cast her Free Press explicitly in contrast with sources that our community regards as reliable like NPR and the New York Times: In Bari Weiss's words: If you’re someone that used to read the New York Times and listen to NPR in the morning, and now you’re thinking to yourself, 'I don’t know if I can trust what I hear or read there anymore,' where do you go? (as quoted by Los Angeles Magazine). If Free Press is designed to operate in contrast to that of reliable sources, I wouldn't consider it reliable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. What Weiss means here is that her magazine will take a different editorial stance than the NYT or NPR. That does not inherently render the source unreliable in and of itself. Zylostr (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 397 for the old discussion. Some of the arguments are loosely based on @Red-tailed hawk, so consider this attribution.
 * That’s an interesting question, in no particular order:
 * On the basics: they appear to be generally politically moderate enough and not express fringe views that would make covering wealthy people or communism through them untenable on that basis, being somewhere between (neo)liberal and conservative in their coverage. While some of who they platform is definitely questionable, I see no issue regarding reliability on that front.
 * On the very basics: staff, professional journalists, growth, no major mishaps, taken at least somewhat seriously by other sources, not SPS, so no objections here. It also appears that they are hiring additional staff, so it’s unlikely that any of those are about to change.
 * The primary issue (the age of the source) has been addressed enough to categorise them, which would be generally reliable but biased, so attributable where appropriate.
 * Therefore, I would recommend a cautious use due to the relatively new age, otherwise reliable for BLP. FortunateSons (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. A quick search finds no WP:USEBYOTHERS and no secondary coverage; there's no hint that this source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What they say about themselves isn't sufficient to make them a RS, and what limited coverage exists (above) is not what I would call positive, so from our perspective they're still a WP:SPS. I would revert BLP-sensitive additions made using this source on sight as poorly-sourced under WP:3RRBLP. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think with over 20 employees and contractors, we are beyond SPS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Number of employees has no significance whatsoever - group blogs are quite common and are still WP:SPSes. All that it means is that the person running the blog has money, or people who agree with them who join on. WP:RS stems from the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anyone can set up a website, claim to be reliable, and write anything they please on it, but reliability comes only from what other people say about it, not what they say about themselves or how they present themselves. If there's no coverage indicating that a source is reliable, then it is not reliable, at least not at the standard WP:BLP would require; and is probably usable only as a self-published source. --Aquillion (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying it has to be reliable just because it’s not SPS, but there is a difference between a media company with editors, experienced journalists, etc. and a group blog. FortunateSons (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources given, I can't imagine any article you write would be appropriate, and not an attack page. I think you'd want some less hostile, biographical sources to make a page on someone. Parabolist (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible to create a neutral article by pulling pieces of information from non-neutral sources, so long as they are independent and (especially) reliable. If you come across sources you think would be an improvement, for sure let me know, though - every bit helps. Thank you to everyone for your comments thus far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything that would prevent this specific piece from being used, as it seems considerably higher-quality than most of what Weiss/TFP has previously put out - that said, don't take this as an endorsement of TFP overall, I would shy away from their use otherwise. The   Kip  04:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There is some WP:USEBYOTHERS:, , , which is not bad considering that they were founded quite recently. Unless there are specific issues with their reporting about James Chambers, it can be used as a source. Alaexis¿question? 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Hindu Post link is highlighted for me as a generally unreliable source, but I can't find it at WP:RSP. If it's indeed unreliable, please ignore it, there are still three other sources which mentioned the Free Press' report. Alaexis¿question? 09:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also this FortunateSons (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As WP:USEBYOTHERS says, How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation (emphasis added). One random website using another random website doesn't make the latter more reliable. In the modern media environment, plenty of mediocre-to-actively-awful sources point to other mediocre-to-actively-awful sources. In order to establish that Weiss' Free Press truly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, we would need sources that are themselves top-tier, like national papers of record, and they would need to use Free Press items in a substantial way (e.g., not merely reporting that Free Press was one of several websites to make a particular claim). At the moment, it's a long way from meeting that standard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the sources I've provided are not " accepted and high-quality reliable sources"? Alaexis¿question? 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * For those interested, there is a draft page available to edit here: Draft:Fergie Chambers. It currently incorporates material from The Free Press, but the immediately prior version (available in the edit history) did not. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The Free Press, like many media sources, publishes a mixture of opinion/commentary and reporting. Of course, context matters (and, not everything published in reliable sources needs to be included, per WP:RSOPINION, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The particular article at the heart of this discussion is a piece of first-person news reporting by a reporter. It is certainly not the only article on Fergie Chambers, nor the only media outlet that has published on Chambers. Since it indeed touches on a living person, exceptional or contentious claims found only in the FP article might be omitted until better corroborated (and considered under WP:PROPORTION) but uncontroversial statements with little reason to doubt them should be fine. In a nutshell, the Free Press news articles may be usable on a case-by-case basis. It is a very new media company with a mixture of news and commentary, but I see established journalistic writers, a declared editorial board consisting of professionals from legacy media, and the issuance of corrections in pursuit of accuracy. Its newness precludes an abundance of in-depth secondary sources, and the controversial history or opinions of its founder may color editor's perception of the outlet as a whole, but I see it as somewhat similar to  Semafor or The Messenger - a new and growing media company that practices journalistic standards, regardless of editorial slant (remember: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective).


 * I see a good deal of misinformation in this and previous discussions of the Free Press (e.g. here and here): people calling the current version of the Free Press a self-published source are largely incorrect. From Wikipedia's own explanatory page, Identifying and using self-published works: Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information: Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work? If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published. Bari Weiss is the founder and owner of the Free Press, and an editor. She can reasonably be presumed to be the publisher. However, journalists Emily Yoffe and Peter Savodnik are credited as senior editors. The managing editor is credited as Margi Conklin. Oliver Wiseman is also credited as an editor. And, as others have mentioned, the Free Press has a staff of around 20, with contributors including Eli Lake, Joe Nocera, Kat Rosenfield, Douglas Murray, Matti Friedman, Martin Gurri, Walter Kirn, and others. Not everyone may agree with a certain columnist or writer's view, but the Free Press has multiple editors with experience in traditional journalism, and several established staff writers. So long as the author, editor, and publisher are not the same person, no works by these or any writer, save Bari Weiss herself, fit the definition of self-published source. Another indicator of reliability is the issuance of corrections, which the Free Press does (e.g. ). It is no longer simply Bari Weiss's newsletter. However, since the outlet is so new, it is possible that earlier articles, especially those originally published on the Common Sense Substack, may have had less editorial oversight and be considered less reliable. Attribute when appropriate.


 * WP:USEBYOTHERS is demonstrated in some cases, although the outlet's age may preclude more. I don't subscribe to the FP nor follow it closely, but casual Googling for a previous RSN discussion finds uncritical usage by several established, credible outlets such as New York Daily News, National Review and The Forward but again, the more contentious a given statement is, the higher the bar for scrutiny and due-weight (which is different from reliability).


 * A lot of us have given our own personal opinions of the website. I'm more swayed by the views of journalists and experts. Columnist Jonathan Chait, recently writing for New York magazine, gives both praise and criticism to the outlet (his main gripe seems to be that the FP does not focus enough or as harshly on Donald Trump as he'd prefer, and that its selection and tone of articles tends to favor Weiss's worldview). He writes: "The journalistic premise of The Free Press is that, because the mainstream media has abandoned traditional norms of objectivity on subjects related to identity issues, a coverage gap is available to be filled. Also, progressive activists employ pressure, both externally (through social media) and internally (through the tactics of left-wing staff) to force coverage to comply with the progressive line. This critique is not without truth. .... Media organs have corrected some of these lurches to the left but not entirely. That bias has allowed The Free Press to break a number of stories that were either missed, ignored, or misreported by the mainstream media. It debunked widely circulated claims that a Canadian Catholic school for Indigenous children contained mass graves, a conclusion the mainstream media eventually confirmed. It broke stories about a Brooklyn public school using a Qatari-funded map of the Middle East that eliminated Israel, political drama at the Audubon Society over demands to change its name to de-honor its slave-owning founder, and Harvard biologist Carole Hooven's account of her cancellation for stating that sex (but not gender) is binary."
 * In summary, I think this particular article may be used with caution. It is not self-published. For the purpose of the article at hand, personal views of Bari Weiss matter about as much as the views of A. G. Sulzberger to the New York Times. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

cinematreasures.org
Is this a reliable source? . For the article Draft:Teatre Victòria. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * New York Times article about the site, and another on Celluloid Junkie. Registered users can submit information, which has to be approved by the site's theater editor. One of the co-founders is "an author and assistant professor of English and cinema studies at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich." A search on Google Books shows a number of books citing it and/or discussing it. A check on newspapers.com shows journalists citing it. It seems to be a respected site. I would be comfortable using it for basic facts. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Registered users can submit information, which has to be approved by the site's theater editor"
 * I didn't know whether this site was user-generated or not. As per WP:USERGEN, user-generated sources are generally unacceptable but I am not sure whether this applies in this case as the content has to be approved by the site's editor. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoldenBootWizard276, that gave me pause as well, but I think that gatekeeping and its general reputation compensate. But this is just my opinion, and I'd be glad to hear from other editors on this question. Schazjmd   (talk)  01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Schazjmd. The topical reliability of the site's principals seems solid. Editorial control combined with the positive reputation certainly make the site acceptable for not only basic facts but, with attribution of course, editorial/interpretive information. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Factfocus.com
I'm seeking your opinion on whether this source FactFocus.com is considered RS and suitable for use in BLPs.? The website is managed by Ahmad Noorani, but unlike The Pakistan Military Monitor, other journalists have also published stories on this website. PS. the website is also blocked in Pakistan due to its reporting. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see any immediate concerns has anyone contested it's reliability? If so it would be helpful to hear their reasoning. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, another self-published source, I only see the reports by Ahmed Noorani and he is the person who owns this website, WP:RSSELF is clear about self-published sources that they are generally unacceptable. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 01:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahmed Noorani is not the only author, See this, this, this and this. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 05:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections have been raised regarding the reliability of this source yet. However, I thought it prudent to gather opinions before using it, considering the potential labeling as a self-published source, which it isn't. Noorani is a co-founder, so unlike TPMM, he isn't the sole authority here. Additionally, many credible journalists have contributed to this website. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 18:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't try to 'pre-approve' your sources, as anyone objecting could raise points not thought of before - invaliditing any discussion. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Have other reliable sources used the source (and how)? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of pieces about the site being blocked (Press Partners, Reporters Without Borders), and I can find it used as a reference in a couple of reliably published works (Questions Internationales, Reconfiguring the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (Routledge)). VoA and Bloomberg ran reports covering the site, it's investigations, and it being blocked. I didn't give a definite answer as I'm no expert of Pakistani media, but I would disagree with classing it as self-published. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FactFocus stories are frequently cited by Pakistani RS such as DAWN, The Friday Times, The News etc.IMO FactFocus due to its rigorous reporting on critical issues, should be considered as a RS if not already. The fact that the website is blocked in Pakistan serves as evidence of the well-researched and verified nature of their articles. Merely dismissing it as a self-published source overlooks its legitimacy and the valuable information it provides. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that a country blocks or allows a source has zero bearing on its reliability. Having said that, and noting my recent comment above, I can't see any reason to dismiss the source out of hand. It doesn't appear to be self-published, it's used by other sources, and I can't find any reports online that would cast doubt on it. Of course that just makes it 'generally reliable', no source is considered 'always reliable'. So as always editors are expected to use good judgement when evaluating sources. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources in Lemba people
A new account, User:For the love of academia is rapidly adding unsourced and badly sourced (not necessarily all) to this article, including changing a quotation and adding a lot of unsourced. Ignoring the latter I've been looking at the sources as they currently stand, not just new ones.

The Washington Times (see its listing at WP:RSNP is used as a source for DNA.

An anonymous short article by the World Jewish Congress ] is oddly used twice for the same text "and was rebuilt on its remains."

Something called Kulanu.org is used several times. It's used to source "Since the late twentieth century, there has been increased media and scholarly attention about the Lemba's claim of common descent from First Temple Judaism", material in the largely unsourced Lemba people and material about Lemba traditions by a South African pediatrician Rudo Mathivha, material about passover, etc. It looks to me as though there's a problem of self-sourcing here. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Doug, the text about marriage which is visible on the current page was the initial text that I found when I made the edits, I just moved the location of it to a different subsection.
 * As for the source quoting Rudo Mathivha, that has been present on the page since 2007
 * I cannot speak on the article in regards to the World Jewish Congress, but I can only guess that the reason that it came up as an edit I made is once again due to me rearranging sections of the page under different subheadings.
 * Any quotes to do with haplogroup, especially Y-chromosone testing have nothing to do with me, and so claiming that I cited the Washington Times when talking about DNA is misguided at best.
 * Evidence of passover celebrations and a Jewish renaissance within the community has been written in several articles, with many organisations being involved, as well as photographs being taken. A quick look at the Harare Lemba Synagogue page would tell you that.
 * I have added plenty of sources over the edits I have given, and I am sorry that you are unhappy with them.
 * In your message, you have neglected to mention the citations of other works by authors who had previously been cited on this page before, such as Magdel Le Roux.
 * Wishing you a good day For the love of academia (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My post is an analysis of the article as last edited (I think). No commenting on your sources or good sources, although I think you may have interpreted some of your sources. I know that most of what I wrote above has  nothing to do with you except the fact that you changed a quote to, it appears, match what you think it should have said.  Doug Weller  talk 15:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact you have changed sourced text and added unsourced, eg population, a red link to a language for which we have no article. You changed " Semitic speakers. to"First Temple Judaism<ref name="Parfitt," Is that in one of the other sources? Doug Weller  talk 15:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

newreligiousmovements.com / cultdatabase.com
Sources:

Article: Antioch International Movement of Churches

Claim: "Antioch is listed in a cult database as a New Religious Movement. New Religious Movements (NRMs), often referred to as cults or sects in popular language, represent a broad and diverse range of religious, spiritual, and philosophical groups that have emerged mainly in the last few centuries. These movements are characterized by their relative novelty compared to traditional, established religions, and often by their innovative or unconventional beliefs and practices. The Antioch international movement of churches is also listed on cultdatabase.com."

Remarks: The site 'cultdatabase.com' now redirects to 'newreligiousmovements.com' so it looks like these are the same source. I see no evidence that this source has editorial oversight, a positive reputation, or even any name of a publisher of the site. We therefore cannot tell that this is published by a recognized expert. So it seems non-RS to me for this claim, and it also seems to me that these claims about the Antioch movement are UNDUE if they can't be sourced anywhere else. Finally, the statements in this claim about the concept of NRMs are not in the source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * A further remark, although cultdatabase.com now redirects to newreligiousmovements.com, the two sources contain different content. Making both citations support the same and still round each other out. The URLs cultdatabase.com and newreligiousmovements.com sound like definitive resource sites for a database collection. Furthermore the concept of NRM description is from the same site, https://newreligiousmovements.org/what-is-a-new-religious-movement/ in the "what is a new religious movement" section, which can also be added as a citation, if needed. Austin613 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Austin613, why would you trust newreligiousmovements.com? Who writes it? Who verifies the content? What is their editorial policy? What is their reputation? Schazjmd   (talk)  21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a correction is needed, it's newreligiousmovements.org. There's a hint there they may be a nonprofit organization. I don't have any reason to believe it contains false information. But these are great questions. They have a contact page, it's best you ask them yourself. https://newreligiousmovements.org/contact-us/ Austin613 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake on .com/.org, sorry. I don't see any basis for the claim taht these sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Even if we email them, that won't establish such a reputation. Do you have any evidence that they have such a reputation? I have been looking and I can find nothing so far. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * newreligousmovements.org appears to be one of the websites operated by Apologetics Index, who maintain a number of "counter cult" sites. They are not generally regarded as reliable, and are operated via a Christian religious group currently in the Netherlands. They are highly partisan and have been criticised in the past. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How did you determine and verify they are owned and operated by Apologetics Index? Austin613 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The connections became apparant when I looked at older versions via archive.org. I am open to being mistaken, but if I am we still have an anonymous organisation running the site, which means that I am uninclined to consider it as reliable. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And if it is a different and anonymous organization, it's one that seems to still share Apologetics Index's un-academic "countercult" posture. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not picking up from archives of newreligiousmovements.org showing evidence of ownership by Apologtics Index. I also don't see "countercult posturing" in newreligiousmovements.org content. To me, it looks like they seek to be rather matter of fact.
 * Nor can we tell whether the current owner authored that previous domain it seems the owner of cultdatabase.com just took the domain over. There is a several years gap between the last archiving of newreligiousmovements.org and the last old archiving shows an expired domain.
 * The new content and layout looks very different. Although personally I think the jury is still out, there are indeed still a lot of questions and unknowns yet to be answered. And in the interest of time, for now, I concede the consensus seems to be in this yet to be verified state as unreliable. Austin613 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The database's countercult perspective is evident in how it has a dedicated page for "Cult Warning Signs" and is willing to call minority religious groups "cults", an inflammatory use of language that does less to encyclopedically inform about a religious group and much more to serve self-serving interests of businesses, law enforcement, and politicians (2022 Fairfield University American Studies Conference paper written by Megan Goodwin, a PhD-trained academic who is director of the Sacred Writes religious studies scholarship program at Northeastern University). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 19:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you can verify convincingly with archived pages that n-r-m.org was in fact produced by a legit organization (reputable or not), the fact remains that in its current, continued form, it has zero information on who what where or when it's written and published. One of the key elements for evaluating an RS is accountability. Here, there is nobody and nothing taking public responsibility for the content on the site. (The contact form is also one-way, with no idea where it goes, and if they respond who is doing so.) That makes it inherently not an RS. (That's regardless of content quality, which I give my separate take on below.) SamuelRiv (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable No clear indication of authorship or publication. No sign of editorial oversight. A closed box and entirely useless for the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not remotely reliable, probably just AI-generated bullshit. Who wrote this? Why should we believe it? Did a human even write this? The entries provide no sources and could very well have just been generated by ChatGPT. Consider for example the site's entry on "Odinism". Where to even begin here? First of all, again, no byline, bizarre factual errors everywhere of the type you'd expect from a generative AI prompt, no sources, no further reading. Then there's the AI-generated graphics. Worse than nothing: don't use this crap. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Odinism article: "why should we believe it?": the first 2-and-a-half paragraphs are all in principle verifiable history of the Odinic Rite -- the final two-and-a-half are where it's opinionated POV that is lacking support. I don't see a further indication that the text is more likely than not AI-generated. It also cites a newspaper source for the article's banner image, which could also be considered "further reading". As for the AI-gen image you link, which appears to be the banner for their "cult warning signs" page, it doesn't claim to be 'depicting' anything -- it seems like a perfectly fine use for an AI illustration. (An ideal use, imho.) In terms of content alone, from what you've linked, this is not a terrible site. (I'll make a separate comment on its suitability as an RS.) SamuelRiv (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your apparent positive feelings about AI-generated material scraped from who knows where (and the various factual problems of the site's absurd "Odinism" article which is in fact a far broader topic than the Odinic Rite) aside, this site is on no planet a reliable source on Wikipedia: Zero author info, zero editorial standard info, zero sources provided = zero uses for Wikipedia. A super easy 'get this crap out of here'.
 * I won't bother commenting on further on the AI-generated graphics complete with nonsense, pseudo-words. Let's just say this wouldn't fly for a source we'd consider 'reliable'.
 * But I will say: I sure hope you're applying a much higher standard to the references you're adding to Wikipedia articles. It sounds like someone should check. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am distinguishing here concepts of verifiability (not limited to WP:V) and factual accuracy. I assess whether it is an RS in a previous comment. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable. No indication of authorship and the people running the site. Fully agree with bloodofox, it looks like AI-generated bullshit hosted by some random people (most probably with an agenda, but this doesn't even matter considering how utterly useless and unusable this "source" is for our purposes). –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Zamaaero
We had a discussion about reliability of Zamaaero in the past few months.

I strongly believe that this website is unreliable, and today we have another example of it, apart from ones that are already provided.

https://zamaaero.com/03/04/2024/novosti-iz-regije/prvi-objavljujemo-smanjenja-ajet-smanjuje-u-regiji/

In this article, Author is stating that AJet is discontinuing flights SJJ-BJV and SKP-BJV. However, those flights are available for purchase on the AJet's website, proving that Author is spreading nonsenses.

Further example: https://zamaaero.com/01/04/2024/novosti-iz-regije/smanjenja-beograd-tri-linije-manje-nego-prosle-godine/

This article claims that Belgrade has three new routes during NW24 and NS24, which is not true. The airport has 5 new routes (OPO, SAW, OMO, HER, RMF). PikiLuka (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

scripts.com
Is scripts.com a reliable source, e.g. here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious of it. It's user-generated and I can't find any indication of any editorial control. They even compare themselves to Wikipedia: Scripts.com follows the footsteps of some of the most important editor/contributor projects of the internet. Just as Wikipedia™ became the definitive word on words through the efforts of volunteers, Scripts.com follows in its footsteps to become the definitive scripts collection of the Web. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I'm still tempted to use it for Durkin's date of birth, in the absence of anything better, as it does match up with FreeBMD and gov.uk. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Per WP:DOB: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. <...> The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. (bold is not in original source, added for emphasis) Schazjmd   (talk)  18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm 99% sure the date and place are correct, especially in view of Companies House entry. IMDb also concurs. I guess it will have to just sit on the Talk page for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Popspoken.com
Is popspoken.com a reliable source? According to them, All of our journalists, editors and contributors, which are featured in each article’s by-lines, are committed to the trustworthiness of all published content. This is done through a thorough fact-check process honed over the years, and Systematic reviews are conducted periodically to maintain the accuracy and integrity of Popspoken’s articles. I searched for its usage as a source on Wikipedia and found that it is generally used in BLPs (fyi, it is used in other articles as well).  Brachy 08  (Talk) 06:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per, I'm not sure this should be considered WP:BLP/WP:N-good. Seems (group) WP:BLOG-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that assessment. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But per WP:NEWSBLOG, it seems the distinction from self-published group blogs is made by 1) a professional staff, and 2) fact checking. For (1), in this case as an arts & culture blog it's understandable they're not trained as journalists (though having an editor with such established professional background would probably help for our purposes); however they do seem to be paid staff with some relevant background. For (2), they say there's a fact-checking process -- that's not gonna be possible to verify from here, but we could assess if some ratio of articles get some facts incorrect that would have been caught by basic fact-checking. So in principle, at any time, it can be falsified.
 * So I'd say from what you've given us, it qualifies as a news blog. Of course, since it's arts+culture, its tone is going to be opinionated and casual, so WP:RSOPINION may apply more often than not. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Checking the staff members of Popspoken.com, it seems to me that it is a group blog.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 01:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Film review reliable for historical claims?
In the discussion of the factual accuracy of Article 370 (film), the following content has been added:

The source is a film review published in a newspaper. The review does say this:

Is this a reliable source for making statements of fact regarding history? No credentials of the reviewer are mentioned in the newspaper. A LinkedIn post shows the author as a specialist in marketing.

(If you are interested in the larger discussion, please see Talk: Article 370 (film).) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That article (Article 370 (film)) in the lead, says, based on movie reviews and that sentence should be removed (in my opinion).-Haani40 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question though. (Note that this is an effort to get outside input. Since you are involved on that page, better refrain.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: How come you didn't notify any of the people involved on this content dispute? You were required to at least mention it on the talk page of the article.

Anyway, this movie has been uniamously criticized for distortion of history and for serving as a political tool for the Bharatiya Janta Party. It has been funded by the people connected to the BJP. This alone speaks about the crisis of the reliability of this movie. The Deccan Herald is a reliable source. You have not provided any sources that why this information needs to be rejected at all. You cannot use your own analysis for disputing the information.

At this stage, you don't need WP:HISTRS for saying that "Moon landing conspiracy theories are false." Capitals00 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sarma 2017
@Chaipau removed  from the page Ahom kingdom while it's a WP:SECONDARY published in a reputable Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science. Can anyone help whether it should be removed or not!!! 47.29.174.60 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science is published by Quest Journals, which is listed on Bealls list of potential predatory journals. Looking at Quest Journals itself, the combination of big advertisements advertising "fast high-level peer review" and lots of grammatical errors on the website itself are bad signs. signed,Rosguill talk 19:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Rosguill. This was precisely why it was removed. Chaipau (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rosguill Are these Sources Reliable?











47.29.168.193 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * IJSR's website looks very sketchy, so the Chetia 2021 source may not be reliable. It also appears to be the case that Karthikeyan (2023) is an undergraduate thesis, which are generally not considered reliable (only PhD theses are, unless the thesis is also published by a reliable publisher). The others look OK at a glance, although reliability is obviously dependent on context. signed,Rosguill talk 16:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thankyou, @Rosguill for your time and energy. 47.29.166.63 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

thehockeywriters.com
I recently received an inquiry on my talk page about this site. Is it a reliable source for hockey content? Or is it a self-published blog? Courtesy links: Left guide (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Home page
 * Writer requirements
 * Masthead


 * As someone rather active in WikiProject Ice Hockey; personally, I believe THW to be generally reliable, but at the same time I also try to find other sources corroborating their content, if that makes any sense. They’re not at the level of record of a TSN or SportsNet, but they’ve got enough of a writing team/editorial oversight so as not to be an SPS. The   Kip  00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I took a deep dive into the website. The staff are from various places, but they maintain independence in collecting facts. One of their writers worked for CBC too. However, after reading some of the articles, some read like opinions similar to a blog, but they match closer to that of The Hockey News. Other articles are written from a neutral perspective. Overall, I would consider them to be semi-reliable. They are a good source for random hockey trivia, but for something serious, I would consider using TSN, ESPN, or Sportsnet. Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looper.com reliability
Exactly how reliable is the entertainment news site Looper.com? Particularly when it comes to biographical details? I'm asking because it this edit for actress Loni Anderson's page an editor put it in as a ref in regards to her being voted the Queen of the Valentine's Day Winter Formal in high school. There was another ref prior to, but I removed as it was a high school yearbook on Classmates.com and that would probably fall under WP:PRIMARY. Plus Classmates.com is user-generated. I'm just having a hard time telling if Looper is actually reliable or if it's some clickbait website that web scrapes info from elsewhere. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you haven't yet done so, you may want to consult the RSN archive search for past discussions. Left guide (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looper.com is listed as unreliable in WP:VG/S, the reason being that it is churnalism and it can be easily replaced with more reliable sources. Now, VG/S is for video games-related topics only, but the fact that it's deemed unreliable there should raise a few eyebrows. See also this now-archived discussion started by me. Spinixster   (trout me!)  10:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles from Academia.edu
Are articles published on academia.edu considered WP reliable sources? in this case, I'm curious about this article:

https://www.academia.edu/10232697/Mazdeism_Zoroastrism_or_the_first_appearance_of_God Researcher1988 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would recommend extreme caution. Academia.edu has very poor validation standards. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I think they are OK but need to take them case by case, I think.
 * Author says he is a grad student (late bloomer) so not a PHD, which I would tend to see as a minimum standard for RS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this make him unreliable though? Researcher1988 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well the question is not whether he is unreliable, but whether he is reliable (for something or other). Idk what the intended use is but I would prefer a more established RS, particularly if it is for something controversial. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, is it ok to use this article or not, the author is a well-known public figure, graduated in history and has several published works on various subjects. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, depends. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, articles put up on Academia.edu are WP:SPS and not WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Academia is an open repository. You have excellent scholarship from the best researchers who save copies of pre-prints of their work (or off-prints when published) in Academia.edu, and you also have amateurs who put their stuff in Academia.edu because they're too stingy to pay the fee of a predatory journal (or probably are so detached from the world that they don't even know that predatory journals exist). So you could as well ask: are articles written with MS Word reliable?
 * The article in question is self-published, so WP:SPS applies. In short, don't use it unless it has been written by a subject-matter expert with a track record of peer-reviewed publications in the same field as the topic of the self-published source (which is not the case here). –Austronesier (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Academia.edu, like ResearchGate is maybe usable as a freely accessible link to a peer reviewed article, but self-published stuff on there is unusable unless written by a well-established subject matter expert as laid out in WP:SPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * you have now made multiple queries regarding using self-published and masters level papers related to Zoroastrianism without really clarifying why you want to use them beyond a vague allusion to fresh perspectives. Could you please elucidate us as to the specific reason you are querying regarding these dubious sources? Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm simply searching the articles and want to question their reliability. is it forbidden to do so? Researcher1988 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No but now I definitely want to know what the intended use is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I don't want later, my sources get branded as "Unreliable," so I'm checking their reliability here to see whether they are usable or not. this page was made for such cases. no? Researcher1988 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that reliability is contextual. Generally self-published sources and masters level academic work is unlikely to be treated as reliable. But in order for this noticeboard to be more definitive we would need to know the context. Also I'm now watch-listing Zoroastrianism. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a very bad idea, you should only bring sources to this noticeboard if another editor has questioned them. Pre-validatuon doesn't work, as the other editor could bring up points not thought of by those posting here. So getting sources 'approved' first is simply invalid. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Context fully matters. Articles on academia.edu are self-published, so WP:SPS applies. However, it is typically easy to tell if the article comes from a subject-expert or not. Often professors or degreed people publish research there if it is either too short or not detailed enough for a full academic journal. For example, on 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, this academia.edu article was published by a subject-matter expert (Timothy P. Marshall), and was originally published/mentioned at an academic conference. Now if this had been some random person who has either no other publications or is difficult to locate if they are a subject expert, then the source may be questionable. Best case assessment for academia.edu OR research gate papers:
 * 1) Are they a well-known person in the overall field (math, meteorology, archaeology, ect…)?
 * 2) Was it published or presented at a conference?
 * 3) Can a case be made for the person being a subject-matter expert (i.e. other publications in the topic/field or publications in reputable academic journals)?
 * If the answer is yes to any of those, then I would say the source is ok to use. Obviously, a source can be challenged by anyone, which should initiate a WP:BRD cycle. But, if it passes one of those criteria, then a WP:BOLD addition from academia.edu or research gate is acceptable until a challenge to that silent consensus addition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To this solid explanation of how to assess sources on academia.edu, I would add that sometimes authors use academia.edu as a host website for a source they've written and gotten published and reviewed in a conventional way (as a journal article, book chapter, etc.). In those cases, academia.edu might be included as a convenience link, but should not, I think, be credited/treated as the "source" or "publisher". Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 05:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't use papers presented at conferences as sources as I recall. Doug Weller  talk 10:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Found another problem with this editor's sources. Here they use not just a Master's thesis, but one presented as only part of a Master's course. This will be a taught Master's degree and I've had to mark enough of those papers to know that they are not reliable. The second source's author Jonathan Z. Smith looks reliable but I can't find any Mazdisna encyclopedia . Doug Weller  talk 10:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Shape magazine/shape.com
Would Shape (magazine) alongside its website be considered reliable sources? 2600:100C:A219:7127:60B1:E95B:D162:FE4B (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific use you had in mind? It could be reliable for certain things but not others, certain fitness details might be subject to stricter requirements per WP:MEDRS. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 01:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of using it as a source for example for beauty trends. 2600:100C:A219:7127:86D:E498:8D04:2D79 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That should be fine. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

property118.com
Is this a reliable source ? It is being used at Angela Rayner to support the claim that "Greater Manchester Police (GMP) says it will reinvestigate the matter", which no other source has claimed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the investigation mentioned by other sources? e.g. The Guardian for instance. I can't see any reason to use a tax planning consultation that has a sideline in news under the byline "The Landlord Crusader". Not reliable and certainly not a high quality sources as should be used in a WP:BLP. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The other sources certainly mention that GMP were going to "reconsider their original decision not to investigate." The consensus at Talk:Angela Rayner is that this does not mean they are actually investigating. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a consensus at the Talk page that the content should not be added until GMP themselves have made a statement that clarifies what they are doing. But we have a single new user at the article who has insisted on re-adding it. I think this is misguided, but I certainly do wish to edit war. Some fresh eyes would be very useful there. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may want to raise it at WP:BLPN. Certainly it appear that other reliable sources say the decision not to investigate is being reconsidered not that an investigation is currently happening. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will be the second time I've raised it at WP:BLPN. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

godreports.com
Source:

Article: Antioch International Movement of Churches

Claim: "Despite initial skepticism, he eventually became a college pastor at Highland Baptist church. As a young pastor, Seibert was mentored by a Pentecostalist named Robert. Robert convinced Seibert to the existence of miracles, such as claiming to resurrect an assistant after he had been declared dead for 3 days."

Remarks: This site looks to have a "board of directors." But, to my eye, the articles don't look like they're approaching issues with a critical or fact-checking perspective. For example, this article literally asserts that a man was raised from the dead in Mexico City. And it generally reads like a friendly PR piece. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing an account being reported as fact vs the fact of a reported account. The source and inclusion is about the fact a claim was asserted, not that the claim is factual. Austin613 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Is it an independent source? Seems not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mark Ellis seems to have a senior broadcast journalism experience in the field of Christian news. https://www.assistnews.net/mark-ellis/ Christians have a reputation for not lying. When it comes to religious reports, I'm not sure what you're expecting when it comes to "fact-checking" religion, are you expecting us to determine a fact based religion? It's the fact of the report not the fact of the religion that should be under scrutiny. Austin613 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're answering my question: do you think that this source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, per WP:RS? I do not think that it does. And we are not depending on this source to tell us theological truths; we are depending on it to tell us facts about the founding of this movement. I mentioned it's assertion of a miracle becasue I think that bears on how they think about issues of fact-checking and accuracy in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it definitely has a bias! I think we should consider it reliable as far as that bias allows and attribute anything it says. Same as instead of saying Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead we would say according to the Gospel of John Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A miracle is theological, so for your purposes I don't see what that has to do with fact-checking and accuracy. You presented a source and its citation in context of a WP article, and those responding (including myself) seem to consider that its use there is not inappropriate. We're generally aware of how RS works. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what I've been saying. It's not like we're verifying the miracle happened as fact, we're stating an account was claimed to have been stated or confirming this is an example of the type of miracle claim that Antioch believes can or has happened. With the proper context and description, it's allowable. Austin613 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we are using the source to verify the miracle that it asserts. Let me put the point like this: do you think they fact checked the resurrection of a man in Mexico City like a reliable journalist would? Or did they just assert it without fact checking it? This qustion is relevant to whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking as required. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole point and context of the inclusion for this claim is that this is what Jimmy Seibert and Antioch believes happened. That an incident like this is something they have stated and is in line with their beliefs. It's not about whether the incidents were fact checked or verified at all. Austin613 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They obviously didn't fact check the claim. The natural thing to do here would have been for them to attribute the claim to Seibert. They instead asserted it themselves. That suggests they don't treat fact-checking like an RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article put Seibert's words in quotes: “He died and they had an open wake for three days in his home. Robert prayed for him and he was raised from the dead. This guy felt God told him he would serve Robert one day.” So they did attribute the claim to Seibert.
 * I agree with NadVolum and SamuelRiv in the context of this article, fact checking a miracle is unnecessary and it's totally appropriate to state according to cite godreports.com and the Three Loves Book; Robert Ewing was his mentor and "As a young pastor, Seibert was mentored by a Pentecostalist named Robert. Robert convinced Seibert of the existence of miracles, such as claiming to resurrect an assistant after he had been declared dead for 3 days"
 * "I think we should consider it reliable as far as that bias allows and attribute anything it says. Same as instead of saying Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead we would say according to the Gospel of John Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead."
 * "A miracle is theological, so for your purposes I don't see what that has to do with fact-checking and accuracy. You presented a source and its citation in context of a WP article, and those responding (including myself) seem to consider that its use there is not inappropriate."
 * WP:COMMON sense Austin613 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. They do assert the miracle occurred when they say, without quotation marks, "Even more remarkable, Robert had an assistant that had been raised from the dead in Mexico City." They say this in their own voice without attribution. And it does suggest that they do not fact check the things they say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to say my quote citation was incorrect. The article makes this assertion and then quotes Seibert's words as support.
 * The entire quote is "Even more remarkable, Robert had an assistant that had been raised from the dead in Mexico City. “He died and they had an open wake for three days in his home. Robert prayed for him and he was raised from the dead. This guy felt God told him he would serve Robert one day.”
 * “So listening to Robert’s stories and knowing this man was raised from the dead, my faith level was high. I had the evangelism and discipleship tools from Cru.”" Austin613 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, they assert it in their own voice without attribution, and then they quote Seibert. It's the part where they assert it without attribution that calls their fact-checking into question. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * When a statement is immediately followed by a direct quote, this is an acceptable form of attribution in some media. Most commonly, you see it in newspapers and newsmagazines. Obviously "was raised from the dead" is physically non-factual, but in the context you quoted it is not improper or essentially unreliable given the media. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Christians have a reputation for not lying." do you have a source for that claim? If true it would be relevant, I've just never heard anyone argue that before. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, ever hear about the ten commandments? Exodus 20:16 Not lying is a moral Christian tenant I hear. Austin613 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are conflating what people believe and how they act, unfortunately history has shown quite well the two are not the same. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Thou shalt not lie" is most certainly more well known and associated with Christianity than "History shows Christians lie" What I'm saying is the reputation for this commandment as Christian's established belief is stronger than the connotation that Christians are historically dishonest. That's a very standard assumption in western Christian countries. Austin613 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people on the planet belong to a religion whose core tenants include honesty/truthfulness, that is not something unique to Christianity or Christians. Nor is the virtue itself something which is associated with Christianity or Christians, its a universal virtue. You didn't say religious people have a have a reputation for not lying, you said Christians have a have a reputation for not lying. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're trying to make a religious argument. Let's steer clear of that. All I'm saying is not lying is a Christian commandment. And because of that well known virtue that Christians subscribe to, it's fair to state that Christians have a reputation for not lying. Austin613 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Christians have no reputation for not lying relative to other religious groups or to the non-religious. If you disagree then provide the source. There are also commandments against stealing and killing, yet Christians have no reputation for not stealing and killing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. It does not have the reputation for accuracy and fact checking that is required.  Intrigued, however, I found that you can borrow a book by Jimmy Seibert from the internet archive called The three loves.  It describes Seibert's spiritual journey and mentions Robert Ewing's influence in glowing terms ... but there nothing about the raising from the dead story.    There is a story about raising a man from the dead (p 165) in the book but it is described as taking place in Mongolia, is simply a report from someone else; nothing to do with Robert.   Maybe Ellis got confused.  Slp1 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Slp1, would it be appropriate to rely on that primary source (*The Three Loves*) for information on Ewing's influence on Seibert? Asking becasue this is another dispute we've had at the talk page: use of primary sources for information like this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
 * "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
 * "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed." Austin613 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source, their about us page pretty much screams "We are unreliable!" to the heavens. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What about this "screams" unreliability, given what the source claims to be (first-person accounts from missionaries, bylined and curated), and what it would reasonably be cited for (as a collection of primary sources, such accounts attributed inline as opinions and self references)? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF would still apply which would cover all of those reasonable use cases. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many polices nuances and flexibility regarding appropriate case source usage. Shinealittlelight and I seem to have a sharp disagreement about usage of such sources. Shinealittlelight seems to have zero tolerance for anything but a secondary source. Policy bias I call out. Austin613 (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No not zero tolerance. I’m just trying to be sure that articles are based primarily on secondary RS and only use primary sources carefully and to a lesser extent than secondary. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats more of a WP:DUEWEIGHT question. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for this statement in Marian apparition?
The statement is "However, the question remains: we do not have a satisfactory explanation for the apparitions, whether they are true or not" and the source is in International Forum in Porto “Science, Religion and Conscience” October 23-25, 2003 Actas do Forum International, Centro Transdisciplinar de Estudos da Consciência, 2005 Consciências, 2, Editores: J. Fernandes, N.L. Santos, ISSN: 1645-6564, p. 199-222, something by a physics professor. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say no. Conference proceedings do not normally undergo the same level of peer-review as journal articles, and this does not seem to be a notable conference. The author (no offence intended) also seems non-notable and his academic output is low and rarely cited (as per Google Scholar). Jeppiz (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would think it's an exceptional claim to suggest apparitions could be true, the source is probably more reliable then many used elsewhere but doesn't reach the required level to back up such a statement in wikivoice. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be attributed as opinion. Whether an explanation is "satisfactory" or not depends very much on who you wish to satisfy.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The author discusses the psychology of delusional states which is outside of his professional expertise. What strikes me more, however, is that the statement entirely misrepresents the paper. The cherry-picked near-verbatim(!) quote in Wikivoice is in the opening part of the paper, but if we really want to include Meessen's opinion here, we should go to his concluding paragraph and note that he does not ascribe any physical reality to miracles and apparitions outside of the observers' neurons/minds.
 * Actually, his conclusions about altered states of mind that produce delusional experiences in ritual contexts are not new at all. So instead of citing Meessen for his actual views ("The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness."), we should cite the real experts saying virtually the same thing: ...no one seriously disputes that tens of thousands of people who are physiologically and psychologically typical saw an event that they themselves concluded reflected the direct action of the supernatural. As the extremely skeptical Radford (2013) notes, "No one suggests that those who reported seeing the Miracle of the Sun—or any other miracles at Fátima or elsewhere—are lying and hoaxing. Instead, they very likely experienced what they claimed to, though that experience took place mostly in their minds."
 * As so often, we're actually not dealing with a RSN question here, but an NPOV issue. The article Marian apparition mostly has Catholic walled-garden sources, which completely runs against our principles of an NPOV encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Austronesier it’s both. We’d need exceptional reasons to use a conference paper, and if it had been a reliable source it still is misused and pov. I’m concerned about the editor who added it. Doug Weller  talk 18:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the cherry-picked near-verbatim(!) quote in Wikivoice is in the opening part of the paper Exactly. Meessen's opinion has been misrepresented to mean that there is no adequate explanation for the Marian apparitions. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, a classic case of an academic reliable in one field publishing in a completely different field in which they have no expertise. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

two articles
are these two articles reliable sources?

1- written by Daniel Sarlo; the author has written several articles about religion and religious matters:

https://www.academia.edu/3590677/Was_There_Zoroastrian_Influence_on_the_Judeo_Christian_Hell

2-written by Simin Amini; the author has several articles on Zoroastrianism, and related subjects:

https://www.academia.edu/54910401/Discuss_the_question_of_Zoroastrian_influence_on_Judaism Researcher1988 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No. The Sarlo article is coursework. It mentions The University of Toronto course "NMC 2228," which I gather is a graduate-level course on Zoroastrianism: . The Amini article is titled "Discuss the question of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism," which looks like and almost certainly is an essay prompt for coursework in another class. Also, these article are from Academia.edu, and you've already gotten guidance here several days ago that you have to use caution with that site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Articles_from_Academia.edu
 * I suggest you review WP:SCHOLARSHIP before you ask about sources. I suggest you find a secondary source on Zoroastrianism ("a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook") instead of digging around on Academia.edu. Definitely avoid anything you can't attribute to a known, established academic. GretLomborg (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * but the authors have several articles on this subject. why they can't be considered reliable? Researcher1988 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because just writing a lot doesn't make a person a reliable source. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the reasons both explicitly just stated to you, and contained in site guidelines that were linked to you. Remsense  诉  01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's why: if a student uploads 5 papers he had to write for a class on some subject to a website, does that make him a reliable source on that subject? No, because he's still just a student. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm for including academic sources in Zoroastrianism but I think you need to be a bit more discriminating in your selections. Also please focus on reading the sources you select carefully rather than cherry-picking keywords for the POV that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheism or was particularly influential on the development of Judaism. Basically what I am suggesting is you should slow down and try to digest the sources you are selecting. It'll ultimately make your editing experience more pleasant. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Kenya Times?
I don't think this is the same thing. Anyways, I'm wanting to use the website to write an article about an East African church leader (link). I'm not familiar with the African press, so is this website reliable? ❤History Theorist❤  00:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't say much, but there is a Standards and Policies page. Spinixster   (trout me!)  09:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This Kenya Times doesn't appear to be a continuation of the old Kenya Times, the last of which seems to have been wound-up in 2012. The new Kenya Times appears to have been founded about a decade later. I can't see anything obviously wrong with the link you want to use. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Is MEDRS required to trump report that Havana syndrome may be linked to Russian espionage?
A joint investigative report by 60 Minutes, The Insider and Der Spiegel linked Russian GRU Unit 29155 to Havana syndrome. This report was subsequently covered by a wide array of reliable sources. Some editors are currently engaged in an edit war on the page, claiming that only medical sourcing can be used to cover the claims in the article, or in the "causes" section of the article. FailedMusician (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Some editors are currently engaged in an edit war &larr; would that include you would you say? I don't think this is a correct characterisation of the dispute, or this the appropriate venue: nobody is contesting these sources are reliable for what they say. This is not a MEDRS issue (that's another dispute on the page), it's more a POV/weight issue. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors in favour of inclusion in Adding the new investigative report include Endwise, Redxiv, Gtoffoletto, Thornfield Hall, Chase1635321, TinyClayMan, Running dog59, Edittlealittle, BootsED, LuckyLouie, GreenC, Machinarium and DolyaIskrina. Even Simonm223 and Slatersteven who largely opposed, agreed to inclusion. Yet you remove it twice citing WP:ONUS . FailedMusician (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have your view and novel way of counting noses, and have reverted stating that consensus is required for exclusion. But that is not a matter for this noticeboard. Bon courage (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this enormous deletion of sourced content. Does this need to go to AN/I? Geogene (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also for a sockpuppet check against RandomCanadian, or one of those other accounts that twisted MEDRS on the lab leak article. FailedMusician (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Deleting journalistic sources discussing geopolitics because they're not MEDRS? That's something that's been done in Wikipedia before, hasn't it? Geogene (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not happening here; that's a straw man to set up MEDRS as the villain of the piece. MEDRS only applies to WP:BMI as been repeatedly said, but there are other issues with the WP:NOTBMI parts of the article, particularly on over-reliance on long runs of primary sourced material. Bon courage (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, what about WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD? Just because something is primary is not an automatic deletion. Geogene (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not 'automatic deletion', it's considered deletion. Articles need to based on secondary sources then, yes, primary ones are useful to build on that foundation. But the trouble with this article is that it has primary foundations while the (available) secondary sources are not used. We even have strong MEDRS (as has been discussed on the Talk page). Bon courage (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian, or one of those other accounts that twisted MEDRS on the lab leak article &larr; that's niche wikiknowledge to be familiar wish. Incidentally, this is an interesting non-response to a question on your user Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole issue needs the dispute resolution noticeboard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are several further attempts you made at deleting the content   . I realise that this doesn't belong on this noticeboard, but I'd prefer to address the MEDRS issue than be goaded into whatever it is you're doing. FailedMusician (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The MEDRS issue is another one. One would have thought in a page variously tagged for over-length, primary sourcing. etc. Actually doing something about it would be welcome! Bon courage (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bon courage, my concern with your edits was that you were removing information that you personally stated you disagreed with, and then cited MEDRS, OR, and primary sources as the reasons why you were removing them despite consensus on the talk page towards keeping it. BootsED (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * you personally stated you disagreed with, &larr; I don't think so. Evidence please? Bon courage (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Several comments of yours:
 * "Object to inclusion. This is just weak newsy junk. Would need some decent/respectable WP:SECONDARY coverage to be due, especially given the fringe/science aspect to this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)"
 * And a WP:FRINGE one too. When RS says this "syndrome" probably doesn't exist we really should not be giving rolling coverage to whatever latest credulous clickbait silliness is in the news. It's like reporting Bigfoot sightings. Wikipedia needs to be a bit better than that. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We would need good WP:MEDRS, not commentary pieces in dodgy or non-pertinent journals. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The page is stuffed full of crap, yes. Anything insufficiency sourced needs the chop. Bon courage (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You've made clear that you believe these sources are "weak newsy junk," the "latest credulous clickbait silliness," filled with "dodgy or non-pertinent journals" and have been using WP:MEDRS, OR and primary sources as reasons to continually remove them despite editor consensus towards keeping them. As FailedMusician stated, "The 2019 JAMA report and commentary should also have not have been deleted. They are part of the narrative of events. Calling NYtimes "unreliable" is just ridiculous. FailedMusician (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)"
 * So yes, I do believe you have a personal bias against certain RS that you personally disagree with. However, I will retract my accusation, as I do not believe going down this rabbit hole is worthwhile. BootsED (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the retraction. I don't know what I think about the "information" in the sources, but I have firm views on what constitutes good and bad sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Among the content you deleted, In March 2024, a joint investigation by 60 Minutes, The Insider and published claims of Russian connections through state agency GRU Unit 29155. Among the core claims were that senior members of the unit received awards and political promotions for work related to the development of non-lethal acoustic weapons; and that members of the unit have been geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported incidents. How is that content MEDRS? Geogene (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is nothing to do with MEDRS (you've been suckered into to the framing of this dispute), and this 'Insider report' is the subject of discussion the article Talk page with different editors arguing for and against inclusion. I don't think is due without decent WP:SECONDARY coverage. Bon courage (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Implies that the health symptoms were the result of "non-lethal acoustic weapons" which is a WP:FRINGE claim. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are significantly mischaracterizing my position . Please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the underlying reports are making medical claims, they need to be held to the standard of WP:MEDRS, especially when the claims they are making are extraordinary. See WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:MEDPOP. There is no justification to list such sources under the causes section of an article on a medical condition. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The section is titled "possible causes," of which one section is listed as "Hostile adversary attack." There is no claim that there is/is not a "true" cause of H.S. No claim is being made if the information is true or false. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding what is true or what is false. We merely report on what multiple RS on a topic state. Multiple RS on this topic have stated this possibility on H.S. so it is beholden on us to at least mention it in the article about H.S. The article is not solely a medical article, there is much about geopolitics on it as well. As FailedMusican stated, multiple editors were in favor of keeping and including this information. BootsED (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have also questioned its inclusion - however, I don't dispute that RS have reported on the 60 Minutes report, but think it should go in the chronology section, as otherwise it heavily implies that "non-lethal acoustic weapons" were responsible for the symptoms. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't we wait for some secondary source to provide some actual analysis about what it might mean? Bon courage (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That'd be nice. 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was included in the chronology section, and it was removed claiming "would need WP:MEDRS". BootsED (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I didn't remove it from that section? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I never claimed you did. BootsED (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is biomedical content. We have strong secondary sources. Use those sources; don't use unreliable (primary ones). Why is this hard? Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. You first removed the report with a different claim . After I reinstated it to the "Causes" section you deleted it from, you moved it to the Chronology section, claiming the alleged causal link to GRU needs MEDRS, even though none of the sources in the Causes section are MEDRS. It so happens to be that the highest quality MEDRS we have on the subject lists a number of possible weapons systems as Potential causes of Havana syndrome . Evidently, you haven't read the sources on the topic, MEDRS or otherwise, and this discussion may need to be continued on an administrator noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, LegalSmeagolian, you just made a massive revert of the information that was previously re-added to the page. BootsED (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasoning in the edit summary. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ludacris (tell me how you feel) to me that you are claiming that the HIGHEST QUALITY MEDRS we have is from 2022 and cites a 2020 National Academies of Sciences Standing Committee as its sole source for the claim that radio frequency whatever is the most plausible cause. There are more recent reliable sources that say otherwise. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to a more recent reliable source (specifically a review article) saying otherwise. FailedMusician (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00207640231208374. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hooray, an actual piece of peer-reviewed WP:SECONDARY scholarship in a quality journal has been mentioned. Hallelujah! These are the sorts of sources which need to underpin the article. Bon courage (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am having WP:COMPETENCY concerns about a lot of editors in this space. Goodnight ya'll. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is usable, but it is not a full review article, as was discussed previously . It certainly doesn't trump the previous review article and doesn't settle the matter. FailedMusician (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It reviews multiple pieces of literature on the subject and succinctly summarizes them. It might be a brief review article but it is a review article nonetheless, and the opinion of one editor does not trump that. Why not support an RfC on the matter? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 38146090 is a recent review article in a quality journal, and so its conclusion (that HS is just a 'health scare' and 'moral panic') is thus due. So too are the conclusions of the other recent review articles (which ranks various causes' likelihoods differently). Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Bon courage just asked me if I edit Wikipedia with other accounts on my user talk page. This needs to go to AN/I due to these ridiculous claims. BootsED (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To state in wikivoice that this is true? Yes you absolutely need MEDRS sources. You can't make what are medical claims using such sources. For an attributed statement that an investigation came to this conclusion? Then it should be fine. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The latter would still be making a medial claim, so normally we wouldn't include such sources. Attribution isn't enough there.
 * This has already been discussed over at WP:FTN, but the one exception would be if there's a fringe claim within that source that other more reliable sources area addressing, WP:PARITY context in terms of proper weighting for ideas that are mentioned, etc. KoA (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Attribution is necessary for all claims, given that most MEDRS sources refrain from making definitive conclusions and acknowledge data access limits. Your removal of quotes from Relman and the New York Times article, which identifies him as "a prominent scientist with access to classified files on the cases," indicates that there is a fundamental misapprehension of the MEDRS policy's intent. FailedMusician (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to assert that you have a comprehensive understanding of MEDRS policies intent, despite being a user with *checks notes* 209 edits. I am wondering how you feel comfortable asserting that. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've edited before and recently reread the policy. Please be reminded of WP:AGF and stick to policy based arguments on this project page and other talk pages. FailedMusician (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It depends on what exactly we say on the page. For example, an assertion in WP voice that an effect has been established would be a "health effect" per Biomedical information, i.e. an WP:MEDRS covered statement. However, saying that there is a belief about the effect or saying about legal and society issues (and the most of the page is of that nature) would be covered by Biomedical_information. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this elsewhere, I think; but I believe that this is a case where WP:PARITY applies. Provided the sources are being solely used to rebut lower-quality sources that themselves do not pass WP:MEDRS, I think that PARITY allows for us to use non-MEDRS. In fact, this is exactly the sort of situation PARITY was written for (ie. cranks and non-experts are making a claim that is so far from the academic consensus that it's unlikely to get any serious high-quality treatment at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fortunately we have WP:MEDRS sources that support academic consensus. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here or on the article talk page that available MEDRS reflect an academic consensus on the cause or any other biomedical aspect of HS. FailedMusician (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The absence of academic consensus does not mean fantasy ray-guns should be treated equally likely to more parsimonious causes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Academic "consensus" is kind of a niche thing (and needs special WP:RS/AC sourcing). Much knowledge is accepted in academia without the formality of a "consensus" being recorded. The current state of knowledge on the causes of Havana syndrome is well-stated in the current "Cause" section of the article, with high-quality WP:MEDRS sourcing. In short, there is disagreement. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about GQ at WT:RSP
Please join this discussion about including GQ at WP:RSP. S0091 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Masteringcredits-dot-com website ("Mastering Credits Database") from 'External Links'
This link was apparently added by the same company that is promoting its database, mastering clients, and by far, it does not even contain all mastering engineers, or their credits in the music industry.

Conflict of Interest: A service profiting from private sources creating a database potentially promotes itself and its clients.

Neutrality: The editability and potential bias make it difficult to ensure the information is neutral and unbiased.

Verifiability: With anyone-can-edit functionality, the information's accuracy becomes questionable. Site has no editorial checks or user verification; this German site might mislead readers "by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research...".

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer

Site Violates Links To Normally Be Avoided (Rule: #2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links 2601:546:8200:7EB0:DF:2276:4475:3A90 (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is it used? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_engineer
 * Sorry! 2601:546:8200:7EB0:DF:2276:4475:3A90 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, its not being used as a source, so this is more an undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the misunderstanding. The article describing the term mastering engineer is really fine. But what raised my eyebrows was that when I clicked on the only link at the "External Links" section which took me to that site, and where I decided to enter several very well known engineer names to see their credits and nothing came back. It's more like a free for all list of unverified people. That's why I believe that the link was spammy and only inserted there as site promotion. Coincidentally whoever posted the link there is from Germany as well. The link adds zero value to the topic at hand and it should be deleted. Thanks. 2601:546:8200:7EB0:9:AB0D:187F:BF36 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Are Meduza and/or https://www.lentata.com/ reliable sources for "Communist pseudohistory"
See this edit: the only edit by an IP. Although I can access Lentato.com I'm forbidden to access the actual source.Как успяхме да направим България от 5,5 милиона население до 9 милиона население (от 1945 до 1989 г.)? Using Chrome it's easy to translate. Doug Weller talk 10:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Meduza is generally reliable and you can find lots of other sources for the first thesis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole edit should be removed. The first reference discusses repression in the Soviet Union, but denial of that repression. So it doesn't backup the details added. The second part of that edit (the part starting Also, they deliberately underestimat) fails verification. The reference used is the post that is criticised in wikivoice, which obviously doesn't contain any of the rebuttal details in the edit. Rather than WP:OR a source should be found criticising the post. There are many good sources out there detailing repression in the Soviet Union, these are not great and are being misused. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Meduza is a reliable source but it's a Vox-explainer-style article and there are plenty of scholarly sources about the denial of Communist-era atrocities. The Bulgarian example should be simply removed unless there are RS discussing it. Alaexis¿question? 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Meduza is hardly a "generally reliable source", but rather "additional considerations apply". Given that 1st (Meduza) ref has no name of any author, I would suggest using better sources. 2nd ref in the diff is definitely not an RS. Hence, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that the edit should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. Sources with no attributed author aren't ideal. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Much better sources than this exist on the topic, so there shouldn't be any need to use these two. The first sentences should be easily citeable to better sources, while the second one is weirdly overspecific - why that particular example? Higher-quality sources will have better examples to replace it with. --Aquillion (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for reference the section was rewritten by another editor after which I added citation needed tags for the first sentence. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Elsevier, Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking ..

 * Open access: sciencedirect.com Elsevier URL
 * Michael Soprano et. al., Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review, formation Processing & Management, Volume 61, Issue 3, 2024, 103672,ISSN 0306-4573,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672.


 * Contemplating to use in the articles: Cognitive bias and Fact-checking

Please help confirm if okay as RS

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What makes you feel like you need to check? Looks reliable to me. Nobody's cited it yet but that may be because it only came out very recently. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Khaleej Times reliability for non-governmental issues
I'm trying to check if Khaleej Times is or isn't a reliable source for non-governmental issues. My question comes from the fact that there are no UAE news outlets listed at Reliable sources/Perennial sources and this feels like a major coverage gap. I understand that the press in the UAE can't challenge the monarchy, so my question here is caveated on non-governmental issues only.

There is a previous discussion here and I read the statement from one of the editors "I don't think The National and the Khaleej Times are generally unreliable; I think they're partisan and should only be used with attribution for controversial topics where the UAE rulers are implicated. Their reputation is less for inaccuracy and more for self-censorship of critical content."

Is the consensus that such a statement is correct? That would put Khaleej Times at the same level that the Xinhua News Agency has at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, correct? Contributor892z (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources are only placed on WP:RSP if they are been discussed multiple times. It's not a complete list of reliable or unreliable sources, and is not meant to be. So whether a source appears or doesn't appear on the list is irrelevant to it's reliability. As to Khaleej Times unless another editor has objected to its use, I can't see any reason not to follow Bobfrombrockley advice. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss
Note: Certain portions of this close were overturned during a closure review. The relevant portions have been indicated with a strikethrough. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I hereby quote the result of the close review: There is a consensus that no specific findings or stipulations regarding the use of Mondoweiss in BLPs were warranted by the discussion. Editors should adhere to the standard practices for BLPs.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: Instead of reviving or de-archiving this archived discussion, for ease of recordkeeping, I'm going to leave a close note here and link to the original discussion. If anyone objects and would prefer the discussion is revived prior to closure, please feel free to edit and amend this accordingly. On January 7, 2024, an RSN RfC on Mondoweiss was initiated by Chess. The last substantive comment was left on February 15, 2024. Selfstudier registered a close request on February 20, 2024 at WP:CR. In the intervening period, the original discussion was bot-archived.

Headcounts (indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE):
 * By straight headcounting, 0 editors preferred option 1 (generally reliable), 20 editors preferred option 2 (additional considerations apply), 3 editors preferred option 3 (generally unreliable), 7 editors preferred option 4 (deprecate), 1 editor preferred 1 or 2, 1 editor preferred 2 or 3, and 4 editors preferred 3 or 4.
 * By quality headcounting (discounting only the most egregious WP:VAGUEWAVEs) 0 editors preferred option 1, 20 editors preferred option 2, 3 editors preferred option 3, 7 editors preferred option 4, 1 editor preferred 1 or 2, 1 editor preferred 2 or 3, and 3 editors preferred 3 or 4.
 * Assigning midpoint values to "X or X" !votes, the median preference value is 2.6, placing it somewhere between "generally unreliable" and "additional considerations apply" but not clearly learning toward either option.

Some Option 2 !voters advanced the argument that Monodweiss is only a hosting platform with no gatekeeping process and that, instead of judging the entire site, individual articles should apparently be considered on the basis of WP:USESPS. Some other !voters objected to the factual accuracy of that assertion. Option 2 !voters took issue with calls for deprecation, saying the reasoning underlying those calls related to bias and hinting at WP:BIASEDSOURCES as an argument against deprecation. This was not fully rebutted. However, there seems to be a general agreement by all sides that Monoweiss is biased as even Option 2 !voters seemed to spontaneously or referentially make note of that.

An Option 4 !voter cited WP:FRINGE, characterizing the bulk of Mondoweiss content thusly. This was not fully rebutted.

A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted.

All arguments presented were equally compelling insofar as their reference to our policies, and none was particularly more so than any others.

There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. No further consensus as to its underlying reliability emerged. This appears to be, more or less, a community endorsement of the status quo for Mondoweiss at WP:RSP. Chetsford (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Chetsford (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of editors searching the archives in the future I've closed the archived thread with a link to this close. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

PinkNews's reliability
PinkNews is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP, but looking through some of their recent articles on JoJo Siwa, they've published a fair share of blatant errors. This article states that Siwa's single "Karma" was going to be released on, but April 9, 2024 is a Tuesday and the song was released today. They say in an article from a different writer that without a source, also misnaming the 1990s cartoon in question (Adventures of the Gummi Bears) and seemingly getting the comparison wrong - the only comparisons I could find to any song with "gummy bear" in the title were to "I'm a Gummy Bear", which was released in 2007. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 16:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that getting a day of the week wrong isn't an issue, and the rest of the complaint appears to be trivia based on social media sources (TikTok/YouTube). I don't see a problem here. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think for something to be listed as green on RSP, it should have some basic fact-checking in place. While User:Benmite cites a single example, that there are multiple basic errors makes it seem likely that there was little or no oversight for that particular article. [Edit: I misread OP in my head; if it were the case that a single article is found with multiple basic errors, this statement holds.] That calls into question the entire "Culture/Celebrity" section for further scrutiny, and it also indicates we should spot-check some of their news articles too to see if they continue to merit the "generally reliable" rating. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Basic fact checking doesn't mean never makes errors... There are more than two dozen errors of the sort that Benmite is describing in the print edition of the NYT or WSJ every day. Likewise a commonly quoted anecdote in the academic community is that nobody has ever published a truly error free paper. It doesn't call anything into question, you're going off half cocked. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like very small beans… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 9 instead of 5 is clearly a typo, and they list the source tweet directly above so there's not even any harm done there.
 * The other alleged mistake is hard to judge. They could very well be accurately, if unclearly, reporting on a fan making this mistake. Loki (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Occasional typos and spelling errors are not the sort of issues that have anything to do with reliability of a publication. Silver  seren C 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with the others, it’s minor and has no impact on reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-malicious pedestrian mistakes in a couple of fluff articles for a nonspecialist subject? That just means don’t trust fluff articles about nonspecialist subjects in a specialist publication. Which is good advice in general. Dronebogus (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Google Books includes AI trash
Google Books ingests low-quality AI-generated books, some of which are trained on Wikipedia itself. See "Google Books Indexes AI Trash" (April 4, 2024). -- Green  C  17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd hope that any editor using Google Books for research would check the publisher. GB also hosts books that are merely collations of wikipedia articles. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither Google Books nor Google Ngram Viewer is a Wikipedia RS. The former is only linked to as a content host. Being indiscriminate in such hosting (taking the article's assertions at face value) may or may not be seen as an advantage. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Google Ngram Viewer is used in debates about which variant of a term is more common. I myself am extremely dubious about the value of this, because by its nature it grabs a mishmash of everything, including sources we'd never use for any other purpose. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would it be a problem that Ngram Viewer uses sources we'd never use? 99% of text on the internet is not a reliable source. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. If the point is to see just which word is more common, I don't see why we'd restrict the search space to reliable sources. Loki (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME specifically asks for prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there any alternatives to Ngrams for our purposes? I really do dislike using it. Remsense  诉  11:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting question. What are the alternatives to Google's Ngrams? Also, I wonder whether and how you can prevent them from being contaminated by synthetic text. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like it wouldn't actually be a huge technical feat to rig a corpus of some size—for our purposes, all we need is a big list of words and their frequency in text year by year. Even if it's not quite as extensive, it seems totally plausible that someone could source and hack together an adequate replacement for the purposes of rough COMMONNAME assessments. Remsense  诉  14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds pretty challenging to me. I'm wondering if it already exists for various text subsets in some form or another, in the commercial/academic large language model training labs for example because of all of the work that has been done over the years on n-gram language models. Unfortunately, the chatbots know nothing about the statistics of their training datasets, or at least that is what they claim. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While new information about diffusion-generated content is good to be mindful of, Google Books has been (or at least, this has been my impression) a repository for sources, not to be treated as a source itself. It may be linked for convenience, but the real measure of a source is not whether someone digitized a preview for Google but what press it was published with, how it was reviewed, the training/profession of the author, etc. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 17:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I mean, Google Books has always been an indiscriminate collection of books - it is a host, not a publisher. We can and should continue to use it as a courtesy link, but books gain their reliability (if any) from their actual publisher, not from the fact that they appear on Google Books. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Google books, as with academia.edu that was discussed recently, is a host not a source and isn't reliable or unreliable. These are courtesy links for the aid of verification. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As others have said, it's a host we would judge the book's author. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Google Books has included self-published sources for years, including books that re-use Wikipedia content. It's a repository, not a source in itself. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Google books isn’t even a source. That’s like complaining a library isn’t reliable because some of its books are crap Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of tabloid(ish) content on TOI
Recently, at the AFD discussion for Sohag Chand and previously at this and this AFD the reliability and independence of short shallow articles on specific TV series like this, this and this by the Times of India have been repeatedly brought up.

Some editors are of the opinion that these sources count as high quality reliable third-party sourcing that provides notability to a subject. Others, (including me) have expressed opinions doubting the reliablity and independences of such articles due to Times of India's history of providing positive coverage for money. As a result, I'd like to open a wider discussion to gain consensus on the reliability of such sources and gain input from other editors on whether or not these sources should be considered sufficient for notability. Sohom (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Courtesty ping who participated in the recent AFD discussion. Sohom (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The assessment of you all have of TOI seems accurate from my experience. I don't see how it would change the current RSP rating, though I guess a discussion here can link to definitive examples/accusations of churnalism and paid fluff in the specific area of arts+culture, for which an addendum can be added to RSP's blurb. (I have problems with TOI publishing factually crap pop-sci and pop-hist articles and commentary too, and the occasional tendency of wrong-fact attitudes from such the same reporters to seep into their main news coverage. TOI does not however warrant a general downgrade imo.) SamuelRiv (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bringing to the discussion since they are heavily involved in the new proposed sourcing wording at Indian cinema taskforce which relates directly to the deletion discussion you pointed out. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was decided by consensus and I do not see a need to change it. Also being discussed at Talk:The Family Star. I think the confusion comes in with considering ALL references coming from a reliable source as reliable which is not the case. An example is this from The Indian Express versus this from the same publication. The Indian Express is considered a reliable source but if you apply NEWSORGINDIA, the first source is NOT reliable as it is bylined as "Entertainment Desk" (indicating WP:CHURNALISM or sponsorship) rather than the second which is bylined from what appears to be a staff writer.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will also add, since the main topic was specific to TOI, this reference is clearly under NEWSORGINDIA as it is bylined "TOI Entertainment Desk" and not a staff writer. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the courtesy ping. From my experience, TOI is almost never reliable when it comes to BLPs and other news. Since I am more involved in film related articles, I have found from time to time that they are totally unreliable for box office collections (mostly due to WP:FRUIT since they use blacklisted sites and unreliable sites for reporting) and for paid reporting. Per WP:ICTFSOURCES, we can use TOI for film reviews, which again I'd use with a large pinch of salt due to their ediitng policy. They have been accused of paid reporting and for giving paid reviews. Hence, I personally consider TOI as a biased unreliable source. Their reputation for positive coverage for money is well known and hence, I'd say we should really revisit the yellow spectrum of TOI and move it a little bit more to the red spectrum of WP:RS/P. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. What's the topic of this section? Are we discussing 3 sources specifically and is this an annex talk to the current AFD (opening statement/question)? or is this about TOI in general (section title)?
 * If it's TOI in general, I see no reason to change a thing to the current consensus; the current wording on 2 pages concerning the publication is clear enough and advises caution.
 * If it's the 3 sources mentioned by Sohom Datta: 2 are TOI, one is not; they certainly are not great but allow verification of uncontroversial facts: the cast, the plot, the series aired on Colours Bangla, it's a remake, the topic (it's about a plus-size woman), the longevity (it had at least 100 episodes), etc. Isn't that important? All in all, these facts contribute to a certain degree of notability, but  even if these 3 sources are judged insufficient to prove notability of the series, they should imv be considered usable to allow verification if the page is redirected.
 * / Signed "Entertainment Desk"=Churnalism=Unreliable/ is a too simplistic and radical equation in my view. Spectrum is the key word: this is yellow, therefore not green but not red. The constantly-referred-to information section (if/when it applies) says "Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability." does not mean "don't use them at all" let alone "remove them immediately" from the page nor "do not let anyone reinstate them at all costs". That they're not enough to attest sufficient notability for a standalone page is however indeed possible; hence the option of a redirect in the present case.
 * PS-If the topic of the section was something else, I clearly missed it.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

SuriyakMaps on Twitter
SuriyakMaps is a Twitter/X account created in March 2017 which publishes maps of the Syrian civil war, the Russo-Ukrainian war, and other ongoing conflicts. Please see https://www.twitter.com/SuriyakMaps/ to become more familiar with the source.

SuriyakMaps was the subject of a July 2021 RSN discussion, where editors agreed it was not RS, citing its anonymity and unclear methodology. The small number of editors involved in the discussion and their apparent lack of experience with Syria war articles has since been used to delegitimize that conclusion, so I hope to establish a firmer consensus here.

The use of SuriyakMaps and other social media war-mapping accounts like it has proliferated over the years, with a contingent of editors defending its use on the grounds of its apparent accuracy and prior use on Wikipedia; for example, see February 2021, April 2021 1, and April 2021 2. A frequent proponent of SuriyakMaps told me here that several years ago, there was local consensus on Syria articles to consider this account RS. I have not been able to locate such a discussion, so at this time I admit I do not understand why it is argued that this account should constitute an exception to WP:RSPTWITTER.

In a recent discussion on the Syrian civil war article, editors agreed that which credited SuriyakMaps was not acceptable for use on that article, invoking WP:RS and WP:SPS. There continue to be several dozen maps across Wikipedia which credit SuriyakMaps in their file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons. I am opening this discussion after boldly removing those maps and having been reverted.

Is SuriyakMaps an acceptable source for the maps that appear on Wikipedia articles? Thank you for your time. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Not reliable on Wikipedia. Reliable when citing ongoing conflict map files on Commons due to lack of sources. Ecrusized (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:RS would tell us this is not reliable at all. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unreliable per WP:UGC, WP:RSBREAKING, WP:RSPTWITTER and (judging by the content of some of the other tweets from the account) WP:PARTISAN. Jfire (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Was discussed several times at the height of the Syrian civil war and general editor consensus (among those who were following the conflict and were familiar with the source, as well as due to a lack of other reliable sources) was he is a reliable source and thus was used as an RS, both for map changes and map generation (wasn't used for citations of texts). I have also checked his postings, and he has shown to be a neutral source, who has been attacked recently (in regards to Ukraine) as being pro-Russian when reporting Russian advances and as being pro-Ukrainian when reporting Ukrainian advances. Thus I agree with Ecrusized, reliable for citing ongoing conflict map files on Commons. EkoGraf (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please direct us to those discussions. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made a number of searches and find nothing of such a discussion|s. Regardless, there is the matter of WP:CONLEVEL and a local consensus does not override consensus reached in a broader community discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would be hard pressed to find the discussions since they took place almost seven years ago, discussions on similar issues took place on a variaty of Syria-related articles. In any case, I remember it was not just a local consensus, uninvolved editors were called in as well, since there was a lot of heated debates between pro-rebel, anti-rebel and neutral editors. In any case, I said my piece. EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any discussion on Suriyak likely would have mentioned Suriyak by name. A search for "Suriyak" or "SuriyakMaps" across all Wikipedia namespaces returns 140 hits (about half are simply links to this RSN discussion). There do not appear to be any robust debates on Suriyak like the one described above, but I'm sharing it in the hope that the results assist other editors in locating what we're trying to find.
 * If the discussion where Suriyak was declared RS remains unlocatable, it probably should not hold any weight in present-day discussions. Relying on one editor's memory is insufficient justification to ignore all the RS policies this source seems to violate. Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking through those results, I see:
 * The prior RSN discussion, where consensus is that Suriyak is not RS.
 * The current discussion on Talk:Syrian civil war, where consensus is that Suriyak is not RS.
 * A mention of Suriyak in Talk:Taliban insurgency, which closed with a consensus that a map sourced to a similar anonymous Twitter account was not RS.
 * Talk:Operations Claw-Eagle and Tiger, another editor pointing out that Suriyak is not RS.
 * Template talk:Yemeni Civil War detailed map/Archive 2, another editor pointing out that Suriyak is not RS. The opposing editor fails to refute the argument.
 * The trend here is clear, and does not support EkoGraf's contention that there was some discussion somewhere that reached a local consensus contrary to all of these discussions. And even if it had, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE apply. Jfire (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I stated my opinion on the source, same as, and I don't really care how this discussion further continues/ends. As for wheter you doubt me or not regarding if there was a discussion which accepted the source, again, I don't really care. My part was only to mention there was one a long time ago. Wheter the source is accepted as RS, non-RS or no consensus, doesn't matter that much to me since I haven't been using the source for years. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Suriyak has his reliability issues, but in general is an okay source to refer to, I check his postings, I think it is okay to use his maps, but also to reference other reliable map users if possible alongside him. Alhanuty (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Historic UK" as a source for Greater Germanic Reich
The source is used here: (no need for an archive url) and can be found here. See there "about" page.. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Uses in other Wikipedia articles. A 'History and Heritage Accommodation Guide' that also has a sideline of publishing historic articles, it also gets mixed up with Historic England (a different organisation). It could be reliable for uncontentious details, but a better source is probably best for anything important. Specifically I can't find anything to show it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy apart from some minor use by others. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The about page for Historic UK describes their magazine as "Horrible Histories for Adults", which doesn't exactly say reliable source to me. The author of that particular article is apparently a prep-school history teacher (i.e. teaching students up to age 13) with a BA in history. Hardly a top tier source, though it's probably fine for uncontentious detail. Given the enormous amount of scholarship about the foreign policy of Nazi Germany there must surely be a better source: indeed the claim in Greater Germanic Reich is also sourced to a monograph published by Princeton University Press, which certainly looks more promising. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given what you say I don't think I would use it for anything. Someone teaching young children with a BA in history just isn't qualified enough and suggests the site lacks reliable editorial control. Doug Weller  talk 12:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Belowempty.com
[belowempty.com] This is a rather interesting source, because of the fact that, even though it appears to be an unreliable fan website on the surface, it actually does reproduce content from actual reliable sources, as can be found here. I have been removing citations to this website that are not based upon published sources (i.e., original research and fan speculation, user-generated FAQ's, etc), and I wanted to bring this site here to see if anyone had any objections to my removals of citations to this website's self-published content. I am trying to be bold, but I also don't want to act unilaterally and potentially against consensus. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An unreliable source that at times remains an unreliable source. Cite the reliable sources instead of the unreliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328: Thank you for the clarification, I completely forgot about that. At some point, I might try and find the original reliable source, but a lot of the sources they're reproducing are in print (Rolling Stone, Metal Hammer, etc), and hard to find on the internet. I think I might remove the citations to the fansite, explicitly attribute their content in the article, and add citation needed tags. What say you, though? I will avoid doing any of this until I get a response from you, given that you're an administrator, and set me straight about this site's reproduction of reliable, verifiable content. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If they are hosting documents (scans of printed material for instance), you can cite the document and use their URL as a courtesy link. One of the links I saw for the site is this, a scan of the Boston Global August 2, 1992. Citing the Boston Globe and using the URL so editors have access to a scan would be fine. Not all of the hosted material is as reliable, as the reliability is with the original publisher. Also I would be more cautious where they are republishing text (not a scan or document but text on their website they claim is from a third source), in those cases it might be best to validate and use the original. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of YouTube as source for video information
I am currently writing Draft:Map Men. Because the series is on YouTube, the air dates and view counts are recorded there. These are official figures by the YT website and not self-published/user-generated, so can I reference those when describing the episodes. E.g. have as a ref for the published dates and view counts. It would also be better than using IMDb for the published dates, as that is surely less reliable than the source. I'm sure someone has asked this before but I haven't found it yet. Tysm, JacobTheRox (<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#674ea7">talk ) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#3d85c6">JacobTheRox  (<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#674ea7">talk ) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The date that an existing YT video was published on the site may not be the same as the date the video was originally published. On many occasions a YT video has to be taken down and modified by the author in some ways, then reuploaded, and this may be recorded (or not) differently at different times in youtube's history.
 * The best you can do with citing a YT video as a wp:primary source is to say something like that "Their official video on Youtube as of {editdate}, published {yt-published-date}, has {yt-view-count} views." SamuelRiv (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:NOOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". This applies to the data on YouTube because it is numbers that are straightforward and easily accessible. It also says "# Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This should be fine because I am just pulling the data. As for the accuracy re taking videos down, that's simply not how YouTube works: the date (for public videos) is when the video was originally published. I think this rationale covers its use. <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#3d85c6">JacobTheRox (<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#674ea7">talk ) 14:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A New Republic article
I have concerns about the reliability of an article from this source.

It claims As The Forward first noted, there’s one big problem with the numbers: The ADL admits in its own press release that it includes pro-Palestine rallies in its list of antisemitic incidents, even if these featured no overt hostility toward Jewish people. Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism.

This references two sources; a Forward article, and a ADL press release.

These sources directly conflict with with this statement; The Forward says But the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature “anti-Zionist chants and slogans,” events that appear to account for around 1,317 of the total count, while the ADL says that it's definition includes anti-Zionism but not "Any anti-Israel ... chant", only "expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel".

The New Republic is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, but I think we need to consider this article to be unreliable, in line with WP:SOURCEDEF which tells us to not only consider the publisher but also the specific article. BilledMammal (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Has this article been cited anywhere on WP? Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is cited above in the RfC about the ADL Vegan416 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The ADL admits of the "anti-semitic incidents" it counted, these included "1,307 rallies, including antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism." ADL's CEO has effectively stated that criticism of the Israeli government is anti-semitism, which would indicate anti-Israel chants are counted as "antisemitic rhetoric". AusLondonder (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim is that The ADL admits in its own press release that it includes pro-Palestine rallies in its list of antisemitic incidents, even if these featured no overt hostility toward Jewish people. Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism.
 * This is a very specific claim; does the press release say that "Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants" is sufficient for ADL's definition, and reviewing the press release we see it does not; only "expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel".
 * Other speculation isn't relevant or useful here.
 * Selfstudier, it's being widely used on this noticeboard, and given the clear issues with it I think it is worth considering here before we take any action based on it. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just the case that this relates to the ongoing ADL RFC's? Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You say "only "expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel"." were included.
 * That's simply false. The ADL press release is here, please read it. It says included in the count of antisemitic incidents is "1,307 rallies, including antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism." AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you would see that in the context of the initial post, where I agreed that the ADL said anti-Zionist chants were included, but I see no aspect of the press release that supports the claim that "any anti-Israel ... chants" are.
 * The demonstrably false claims about the anti-Israel chants are the issue here. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The press release matches what the New Republic article says and what The Forward says, attempted obfuscation by the CEO of the ADL notwithstanding. Billedmammal, the more you've made posts on the I/P topic area over the past few weeks, the more extremely POV biased you seem to be. Silver  seren C 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I missed it, but I am not seeing anything in the press release that says Any anti-Israel ... chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism. Can you quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism." is NR in it's own voice not attributed to anyone. They go on to say "...under the new definition, it could even count anti-Israel protests by Jewish activists as antisemitic." Why do their statements have to be supported by the Forward or ADL? Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  As The Forward first noted, there’s one big problem with the numbers: The ADL admits in its own press release that it includes pro-Palestine rallies in its list of antisemitic incidents, even if these featured no overt hostility toward Jewish people. Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism.  Are you sure? To me it appears as an attributed claim, not supported by the press release or the forward article. At best, it’s poor phrasing, at worst, an inaccurate interpretation. FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a separate sentence. You may believe it to be inaccurate but I would prefer an RS saying so rather than your personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a separate sentence that seems to reference the content of the first sentence. FortunateSons (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because TNR is, itself, a consensus-determined RS, the standard to determine any particular article is not reliable would be incredibly high and should generally be limited to a retraction/correction by the outlet itself or its discrediting in a second RS. Conducting lexical analysis of specific articles is a way of backdooring original research. Chetsford (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the case. Generally reliable still means editors can argue, even using their own research, that a specific claim is wrong. The only concern with "backdooring OR" is if the OR claim makes it into article space.  We can and should be open to reasonable, logical discussions of issues with claims in sources green or otherwise.  To be honest, this "green=always good" "yellow=avoid" and "red=always wrong" is really detrimental to Wikipedia sourcing. Springee (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Our SYNTH policy states not to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". In this case, the OP has engaged in original lexical analysis of two sources to conclude a third source (TNR) is wrong. But neither of those sources mention or reference TNR. And while OR applies to "information in an article" it must logically and equally apply to information to be excluded from an article. It's impossible to imagine any internet rando who registers a WP account is able to recreate or verify TNR's journalistic inquiry. Chetsford (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a aside but editors are expected to use their own good judgement in evaluating sources. That can include analysing sources in ways that would not be allowed in content. If you know something is wrong how you got there is less important. Just commenting on the general issue, and not on whether the analysis of this source is correct. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "editors are expected to use their own good judgement in evaluating sources" Taken to mean that editors are expected to apply their own supposed skills at content analysis in evaluating sources, I certainly acknowledge that's the perspective under which many of our editors are laboring. It's not one I have ever found in our policy. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I read th ADL release and it gave incidents like a girl being shouted at for wearing a IDF sweatshirt with you're a whore and free Palestine. Pretty nasty, but exactly what is antisemitic about it? It definitely sounds to me like they include stuff against Israel as antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Especially given that most prominent supporters of the Israeli government and military in Europe and the US are not Jewish, including those calling for the nuclear bombing of Gaza. AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  going on to call the teen a “White piece of s–t  you can also add racism to the mix (excluding the whole “are Jews white” discussion for being off-topic). I would place this under “credibly antisemitic”, the same way an attack on someone for wearing a Palestine pin and a Keffiyeh while making a derogatory reference to to their skin color is probably a racist attack, even if they aren’t using an anti-Palestinian slur. FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to discuss ADL, there are ongoing RFC's for that, this is about NR. Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Going on to say white piece of shit indicates to me that it was actually not antisemitic, they probably didn't care if she was a Jew or not. If the organisation doing what they say they do they would not have put this up as an example - I'm sure they've plenty of antisemitic stuff they could have used. Instead they used something that was obviously anti Israeli actions against Palestinians with no obvious indication of antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is (sometimes) used as a way to implicitly deny the nativity of Ashkenazi Jews to Israel, equating them to settler colonies of people with no relationship to the country. Nobody except the perpetrator can know what exactly was meant, and I wouldn’t be opposed to excluding it based on caution if I was the one making the statistic, but I would say that ethnicity (Jewishness) was likely at least a correlated if not a causal factor (in addition to the obvious), and including an attack like that would be reasonable in my opinion when compiling a list of credible reports of antisemitism.
 * They probably included it simply because it received media attention, as most incidents do not receive much attention. FortunateSons (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't deduce or assume that from the pejorative alone. Given that a sizeable demographic of Israel supporters in the US is white Americans, there is a strong face-value scenario. It is not credible to simply assume cryptic hate. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, calling someone "white POS" is definitely racist whichever way you look at it, even if not necessarily antisemitic per se. So it is definitely a hate crime or hate incident, and not legitimate political protest. Vegan416 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. The question was whether it was "credibly antisemitic", which seems like a hard pass. It's indicative of how broad and undiscerning the net being cast here is. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the lines between general racism (like anti-whiteness) and specific racism (like antisemitism) can sometime be blurred. And I think that it is credible to describe this as an antisemitic incident, even if we cannot definitely prove it 100%. Vegan416 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The ADL released an update to their methodology description in 2024, and also sent responses on methodology to a number of reporting outlets. Basically it's that database accumulation is an inexact science, and it requires occasional tweaks, and what matters to researchers is not necessarily the semantic accuracy in a given year but the change given faithful methodology over several years. While I think press releases saying that antisemitic incidents increased 300-something percent in entering 2024 are irresponsible data reporting (iirc fivethirtyeight remarked on that, which is where I first heard the ADL's response statement, but I can't find the article), the basic fact is that their methodology for keeping this database is generally pretty transparent, and they've kept it for longer than anyone else, and it tracks relatively well against other metrics (such as survey data and criminal reports taken individually, which is how one makes adjustments -- the post-Oct-7 adjustment is of course understandably controversial, but there were also controversies in 2021 and March 2023 -- a related discussion/commentary is at INSS 2021, and a more recent one at Cohen 2023).
 * My point is that a criticism in what particular incidents are counted vs not is missing the point -- what matters is year-on-year change, whether methodology changes are suitably justified, whether they are properly calibrated and consistent with other metrics, and whether ADL press releases were responsible representations of data. (A very good case can be made that the ADL erred on multiple points, but that case has not been made in this discussion.) The New Republic article, and a lot of the commentary by editors here, seems to miss the point. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To read the New Republic article as articulated in the OP as somehow misrepresenting the facts on the ground requires such a read so hair-splitting that it's practically implausible. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think this illustrates the problem with many of these hate watch type groups. It's not going to be easy to draw the line where antisemitism starts and if a specific statement reflects true antisemitism vs an expression of anger, dislike etc that was meant to be more hurtful vs reflecting any true antisemitic intent.  It gets even worse when such watch groups may have a political vested interest in inflating numbers of incidents, conflating disagreements with antisemitism (or anti-green or "hate" or anti-LGBTQ etc).  This is why I think we really should be treating all of these groups as "yellow" sources at best and always consider if their claims are specific enough or if they may be self serving data points (lowering the bar on "hate" so we can increase the number of incidences etc).  This doesn't mean I think the New Republic is the sort of source that would avoid spin if the spin helped the NR push a point. Springee (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we just posting articles we don't like to this noticeboard now? What are we doing? This isn't even about this being used on any actual content page. Parabolist (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's called pov-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This article had been used in the RfC discussion about the ADL above. So discussing its reliability is quite relevant here. Vegan416 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it should be discussed at the relevant place in the ADL discussion, not separately, since even OP does not doubt that the source is grel. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about sources used in page about Ratlines
on the page about Ratlines (which were a series of escape routes used by Nazis and collaborators to flee europe) i found a concerning post in the articles talk section. according to a post made in may 2023. apparently the page uses sources from two authors named John Loftus and michael phayer. Loftus is a conspiracy theorist and one of Phayers book relies on sources from Loftus, which puts the sources from phayer used in the article into doubt regarding their reliability.

while i would delete the sections in question, I do not have adequate sources to replace them. Bird244 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Link to the discussion here last year: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ive read the post, and have concluded that all parts of the article used by Loftus will be removed. the man claims in one of his books that theres some sort of bizarre connection between the Bush family, the rockefellers (a common scapegoat for conspiracy theorist nutjobs) and the nazis. the idea that there was some sort of secret plan ordered by the Vatican and Pope Pius XII to shelter and aid nazi escape to south america is contradicted by his actions during and befor his papacy where he condemned Nazism and Italian Fascism. why would he then help nazis escape? its well known the austrian cardinal Alois Hundal and rogue Croat clergymen were involved in ratlines, but to say it was a plot by the Holy See is ridiculous. Bird244 (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * so should they be removed or not? Loftus's work is rather ridiculous. i dont understand why its not been removed Bird244 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

All People's Church
Disagreement over All People's Church's affiliation with Antioch International Movement of Churches. Save Del Cerro section in dispute considering for inclusion.

All People's Church's lead pastor was the US Church Planting Director for Antioch since 2007. All People's Church has been a part of the Antioch Movement from 2007 to 2022. After dec 2022, All People's Church was "birthed" from Antioch as a new movement. The earliest article found for the Del Cerro incident is 2020. During 2020-2022, All People's Church was part of the Antioch Movement, which included the Save Del Cerro controversy.

Viewpoint 1: All People's Church had affiliation with Antioch during the Del Cerro controversy. This qualifies for a section inclusion.

Viewpoint 2: @Shinealittlelight disagrees, claims there is no affiliation and therefore not a viable section to include. Austin613 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is the reliable source notice board. What source are you asking about in support of what claim? Shinealittlelight (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like a question bof whether to include or exclude certain details from an article. That something can be reliable sourced isn't by itself a reason to include content, rather any content that is included must be reliably sourced. The objection to inclusion appears to be that the sources you supplied doesn't support your interpretation. Again the source can be reliable, but if it doesn't support the content then that's unimportant. It would be helpful if either of you would simplify the situation, give some background, supply the sources that are being used and what those sources are meant to support. Editors in this board won't necessarily have any background in your discussion or subject. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposed Article Content
 * Inference: All People's Church affiliated with Antioch. All People's Church disputed with Del Cerro residents as an Antioch Church.
 * (Actual source citations in mind not even needed, only making a common sense point to justify the section's inclusion. If this is the wrong board for this, please refer me to the appropriate board. However since we're here, you can go over the reliability of these citations and give your thoughts on the proposal qualifier itself.)
 * Source 1 "Robert was a pastor in Waco, TX for almost ten years as the college pastor and then US Church Planting Director for Antioch Community Church."
 * Source 2 "Started in 2008, All Peoples Church" "parent organization, the Antioch Movement of Churches"
 * Source 3 "December 2017" "the proposed site for All Peoples Church" "sold to the church" "Robert Herber, pastor of the church"
 * Source 4 "2019" "Antioch Locations" "All People's Church"
 * Source 5 "Robert Herber, allpeopleschurch.org (Robert served as the college pastor and then US church planting director for Antioch Community Church in Waco, Texas."
 * Source 6" "About Robert Robert is the Lead Pastor at All Peoples Church San Diego, a mult-ethnic church impacting the city of San Diego. Robert and All Peoples Church are part of the Antioch Movement of Churches." Austin613 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can help clarify. We are editing the article Antioch International Movement of Churches and are in a dispute about whether we should include a section on an incident involving a church in San Diego, which is part of a seperate movement of churches that Antioch started, but is no longer affiliated with. The reliable soruces on the incident are these:, , . None of these sources mention Antioch. I have said that since the sources do not mention Antioch, we cannot do so; Austin613 thinks that since we can independently source (or anyway we can infer from archived versions of the two church websites) that Antioch was more involved with this church when the sources reported the incident, we can connect Antioch to the incident. This seems like a violation of WP:SYNTH to me: the reliable sources don't mention Antioch in connection with this incident, so we shouldn't either. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've broken this into two section, the sources connecting the two organisations, and the proposed edit. Sources for linking the churches: 2/. To old, it was in 2008 but was it still in 2020. 3/. Doesn't mention Antioch in any way. 5/. Past tense again, was he still these things in 2020. 6/. Again he served as a pastor within the Antioch church, put was that still true when he setup the All Peoples Church. That just leaves number 1 and 4: 1/. In 2022, our parent organization, the Antioch Movement of Churches appears to give a pretty clear connection. Am I missing something about what a church-planting mission is? 4/. Even without clarifying the church-planting mission, this is an archive of Antioch's own website. This does appear to show that All People's Church is an Antioch location. Just because it's an archive doesn't make it less reliable, and it's from about the time of the other details. The edit: I had started writing a longer reply detailing concerns about the edit one by one, but there's little point. "contentious battle erupted" isn't encyclopedic language. Next you can't state allegations against a WP:BLP sourcing it to a protest setup against them, no matter who they are. Even if anything is included it will have to be cut right down and better sources found, no statements in wikivoice using a protest group as a reference. Attribution would be required in all cases, this wouldn't help the allegations against the individual which would have to be cut entirely. Overall Facebook and a protest group aren't good sources, maybe a section could be included (using independent secondary sourcing, and higher quality sources for any allegations against living people) but it wouldn't look much like the one proposed. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this input. It looks like this San Diego church (All People's Church) was listed on the Antioch website as one of their churches until 2022. But, as of that date, they were no longer listed on Antioch's site, and All People's site says that it because its own distinct church-planting movement--so no longer part of Antioch, but now a distinct organization. They were planning to build a huge project in San Diego. Now the question arises whether the project over which there was controversy was an Antioch project or a project of this distinct organization. Given that they split off from Antioch, there's a serious worry about attributing the project they had planned to Antioch. For all we know, they split off because Antioch didn't want the project! So in my view that we need secondary sources to speak to Antioch's involvement in this project. But we have none. All the reliable secondary sources say nothing about Antioch. For this reason, the only thing we could say it something like "All People's Church was in this controversy in San Diego from 2017-2024, yada yada details from the news stories about the controversy. They were listed as an Antioch Church location until 2022." But that would be pretty misleading--it would make it sound like this involved Antioch in a way that we can't reliably source. Seems SYNTH-y to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying church-planting movement. It's not quite synth, but there's not enough sourcing to write about the connection with clarity. The All Peoples Church wanted to construct a bugger church, there was protests against it, at some point it became an separate organisation, the attempt to build the church continued as did the protests. Antioch's place with this isn't clear, neither is why the decision to become a separate church was taken at that specific point. Sourcing directly linking the controversies to Antioch would of course be best, but any sources that discusses the changing relationship between the churches could also help clarify the situation. As I said previously the edit that was suggested had all kinds of problems, but if better sourcing could be found it doesn't mean that a section couldn't be included. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I've looked for better sourcing, though, and haven't found it. But maybe something will turn up. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into the matter. From this I think we can reach consensus on Antioch's affiliation with All People's Church and that the proposed edit is not quite synth and a section about it can be included. That clears up the major concerns shine had. Thank you. Austin613 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on an RfC relating to proposal of addition of new section to LiveJasmin page
Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?
Sudsahab (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Context is important what content do you want to support? Also the first is only limited access could you quote what you want to use? Just searching using google books doesn't result in good references, as you only see a small part of the page. The result you see could be part of a quote the author is later showing to be incorrect. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not want to cite these, I just want to know if these sources are genuine and written by a historian or not, as Siege of Panhala (1660) is cited with these sources, at the first view of these sources they doesn't look WP:RS so please tell me if I should remove these sources from the article or not? Sudsahab (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly?¿ Indian sources can be difficult to judge. I've dropped at note here WT:INB asking for some help. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 23:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll wait for its conclusion. Sudsahab (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There appears a tendency in the area of editors searching Google books, getting fragments without context and using them to back up content in articles. It's why I was cautious with my first response, as the link given appear to be much of the same. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, while arguing with the author of the article I found out that he's still citing through keyword searching Talk:Siege of Panhala (1660). Sudsahab (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Published Master Thesis
Is this Published Master Thesis a reliable source?

https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=graduatetheses

It has been published in several Scholarly websites and thus can be considered a master thesis with significant Scholarly influence and a reliable source. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think a PHD would be the minimum standard. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But it was published in various Scholarly websites. WP:RS states that master thesis with significant scholarly influence can be considered reliable. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I will confess that I am generally wary of Universities' digital commons collections, as it is usually unclear exactly what the editorial control and publication guidelines are. For me, at least, I would need more indicia of reliability before I would call a source like this reliable.  But also, even if we were to decide this were reliable, a digital commons source would in no way make a showing that a source was WP:DUE for any given article.  I have no problem with a Masters Thesis in theory, but I am not yet seeing it here.  Can you show us the scholarly websites in question?  As ever, if consensus goes against me, no worries.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books/about/Reflections_Across_Religions.html?id=7Npf0AEACAAJ
 * https://network.bepress.com/arts-and-humanities/history/islamic-world-and-near-east-history/ Researcher1988 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, the second of those is really just another digital commons source, suffering from the same problems as the initial--in fact, it looks more like an aggregator than anything else. The first is interesting, because it seems to imply it was actually published as a standalone book, but looking closer, it seems like the digital commons content has simply been indexed by Google, maybe?  The stock thumbnail and sort of generic entry leads me to believe this is the case, but if someone with more knowledge of google and/or book indexing wanted to weigh in, I would be grateful.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I should add that even if we were to cross the bridge of reliability (which I don't think has happened yet), I still see no evidence that this source would be WP:DUE for inclusion anywhere. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suspect that there is a reasonable amount of material on comparative theology across those three religions that came from full professors. What is the reason for wanting to include this piece in specific? Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the article has some new approaches to the subject. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it would become a matter of WP:DUE - perhaps we could wait and see whether this author's career leads to any significant academic discourse on the subject rather than rushing to include a Master's thesis just because it's novel. See WP:RECENTISM. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been published in several Scholarly websites: what does that mean? Generally, a work is only published once. Probably you refer to the fact that it is available on more than one academic repository, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of a work or its impact. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, using an MA thesis as a source is perfectly ok, but only considering due weight. One way to measure due weight for mention in a WP article is to check if the thesis has been cited in other academic works like peer-reviewed book as journals. A search on Google Scholar (which is very broad in its inclusion of citations, even from blogs and other non-reliable sources) tell us that Heckert's thesis has not been cited anywhere yet. Why should we as a tertiary source cite it then? –Austronesier (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One way to measure due weight for mention in a WP article is to check if the thesis has been cited in other academic works like peer-reviewed book as journals. this is exactly what I was going to say. If an MA thesis is widely cited then it would be considered reliable, and it inclusion due. But if that's not the case then it's unlikely that it should be included. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would generally oppose the use of either a masters or even PhD thesis. Both are works that are published within a single institution.  They don't have external review the way a typical conference or journal article would.  I would strongly favor finding largely the same content in journal articles by the same author. Springee (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree here, a PhD study that has led to an award has been supervised and awarded by relevant academics. Therefore we can guarantee a degree of quality (as long as the awarding body is reputable). If we don't accept PhD theses we are left with next to nothing on articles on some ethnic groups and languages.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would concur that a doctoral thesis is far different as far as due weight from a masters thesis. This is especially relevant when you consider that some doctoral theses may later become key texts for seminal academics. Examples include Difference and Repetition and Discourse, Figure. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A few dissertations are worth citing but they are the exception rather than the rule. I did rely significantly on one when doing my own.  However and as an example, most claims that someone might cite from my thesis are better cited to the journal papers I authored during my research.  The actual thesis simply assembled the parts into a single document.  The journal papers are the real meat of the work and were reviewed by people outside of my institute.  In general Wikipedia treats journal articles as a top quality source almost by default.  Dissertations and theses are generally treated as someone less that a journal article unless it can be shown that it was used by others.  I agree with that.  Another way to look at, a journal article that cited only other journal articles (in addition to describing it's own research) wouldn't raise an eyebrow.  If that same researcher published a paper that only cited dissertations/theses would seem quite odd. Springee (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would echo what everybody else is saying. It might be reliable, but it is unlikely to be WP:DUE. Masters theses can be used carefully in badly sourced areas, for example fieldwork with indigenous groups in linguistics and anthropology tends to get considered, especially in cases where the author gets published later on. But even then, attribution and "sticking to the facts" rather than the author's opinion/interpretation is in order. What is the exact claim you wish to source? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it hasn't been published, in Wikipedia's meaning, at all: what the OP is presenting is merely an electronically stored repository copy, as every institution keeps nowadays. It is a submission "in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA', not accepted and published.In other news, doctoral theses are RS when the university a respected one, as they go through a form of collective review by the candidate's peers. This takes the form, often, of a viva voce.  ——Serial Number 54129  15:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of published is not that (and is really specific to our purposes). And by a literal (not field-specific technical) definition of peer-review and editorial oversight any degree thesis has that too. This may include the oral defense as well, depending on the program, but the written thesis always has some oversight. "When the university is a respected one" -- this is not necessarily aligned with whether or not a particular academic department, and a candidate's advisory process, is rigorous.
 * Generalized discussions about theses (should you want to change existing guidelines) belong at WP:SCHOLARSHIP -- otherwise this board's job is to apply those guidelines. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point, we literally have a written guideline there which outlines our policy.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Doctoral thesis is the bar for a reason and even that is a very low bar... As a rule of thumb I would say that anything from a master's thesis which is actually important enough to be in an encyclopedia will have been noted by a more reliable source, so don't use X's master's thesis but if a full scholarly paper later says "X argued that..." citing the thesis then you've got a clear path to inclusion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it actually did have significant WP:USEBYOTHERS that might make it usable (although it might make more sense to just cite it via those), but I'm not actually seeing it? Google Scholar shows no citations to it at all. What exactly do you mean by "published in several Scholarly websites?" Simply being hosted on some academic websites isn't enough, since those can be fairly in discriminate when it comes to theses. All that indicates is that it was published, and most masters' theses would pass that low bar - it doesn't address the problems that WP:SCHOLARSHIP discusses. Basically, if you want to use it you need to find high-quality sources discussing and relying on it specifically, not just hosting it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I'm currently researching an African preacher who has very little biographical information about him but just enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to use a master's thesis for basic biographical facts? Has been cited by Christianity Today, but not widely cited otherwise. link (biography starts on numbered page 4) ❤History  Theorist❤  04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)