Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379

• Source*[2]

• Content:

  Yet, despite the turbulent landscape, BusinessWorld, the Philippines’ oldest business newspaper founded on July 27, 1987 by the late respected journalist Raul L. Locsin, has further cemented its position as the most trusted source of news, analysis, and insights by the country’s business community.The newspaper has mostly achieved this by holding true to its purpose of serving its readers with reliable, accurate coverage of the news and issues relevant to the Philippine business landscape. - Miguel Belmonte President and chieft executive officer of BusinessWorld

Business World has been viewed as a #1 source for business and news, the credibility and reliability of the source is very well talked through the Internet.

@Moonlight Entm: I am unsure on what's the issue for this discussion? Per the RSN guideline, Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. If you would like an assessment on Business World, that's all right, but I am unsure on what this line meant Business World has been viewed as a #1 source for business and news, the credibility and reliability of the source is very well talked through the Internet? Many thanks!

Note: Pinging the creator of this discussion per this diff. VickKiang (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: I am pinging active editors who discussed in the previous RSN on Dicebreaker, and several participants from the discussion of sources in BTG Wikiproject. Many thanks!

@

IMO the article could remain at mainspace, with four reliable refs (1, 4, 5, 6), but could you please comment if the first source is reliable? Also, the sixth ref is a magazine that hasn't be discussed before, so does it count towards GNG. Therefore, should the article be kept, or should it be draftified instead (if the latter is so, apologies for my incorrect move)? Many thanks for your time and help, and thanks for NeverTry4Me for the time and insight on improving this article! VickKiang (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Mostly not reliable: Most online media use subscription, disclosed advertisement, and AdSense or other ads for revenue. But dicebreaker.com, owned by Gamer Network Limited, neither have a subscription nor has any disclosed advertisement or any AdSense or other ads for revenue which raises the question, "How the staff are paid for their work?" To maintain a website/portal, and online media, the owner company or individual owner needs revenue generation to pay the staff as not staff works for free. So their contents are in doubt of "undisclosed promotional". _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Could you explain why you believe that companies without a subscription is mostly not reliable? The editorial policies are located and are clear IMO. There are loads of sites without subscription, so do you believe all of them are unreliable? I also think that you haven't read this disclosure before forming the conclusion:

Dicebreaker’s editorial and advertising are handled by separate teams. Dicebreaker’s website and video content will never be influenced or impacted by commercial considerations. Any sponsored content will be clearly labelled as such, and produced in a way that preserves the editorial integrity of the team and other Dicebreaker content. We sometimes link to retailers such as Amazon using affiliate links, from which we may receive some money. When present in content, these links will be expressed using impartial language. Affiliate links have no influence on editorial content or coverage. All content that appears on the Dicebreaker website and on the Dicebreaker YouTube channel is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and strives to uphold the standards set out above. If you feel that any of our content has failed to uphold these standards, please contact the Editor-in-Chief. That they gain their income from links is a normal method in lots of websites, please read this. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally reliable I agree with the previous discussion, it's generally reliable for reviews and news, and count towards GNG, but should, like all sources, not be the only one used. The source has a credible editorial team, the editor in chief worked in other reliable sources. I also strongly disagree with the previous comment that a company should be considered as "undisclosed promotional" without a subscription, it's at best a speculation, see my comments above. That said, it's a good, not the best, ref, and its Features and Opinions section are subjective (and maybe marginally reliable), but otherwise it's an RS IMO. VickKiang (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the previous discussion I agree that Dicebreaker is generally reliable, given the clear editorial policies. Nowhere on Wikipedia:Reliable sources does it state that websites need to have a clear revenue stream to be considered reliable. Regardless, the website is clearly ad supported, so I'm not sure where NeverTry4Me is coming from. With my adblocker turned off I currently see a big advert for Sonic Origins on the front page, individual articles note that they contain affiliate links, and are broken up by further advertisements. Sam Walton (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I too agree with your view, I think the policies are fairly clear, and it's generally an RS. I think that NeverTry4Me had insightful ideas, but I don't personally agree with that point. VickKiang (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd call it generally or situationally reliable. I do agree there may be biased towards positive reviews, and it is not unlikely they are paid for them, although I think they imply in half legalese they don't do shady things like this (have you seen https://www.dicebreaker.com/editorial-policy?). I'd therefore be a bit cautious when it comes to citing 'paise' from them, although even that is fine as long as it is clearly attributed. I'd be fine for using them in other contexts, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: IMO I agree with Piotrus's argument. Citing "praise" or positive reviews requires probably at least three positive reviews, and The Dicebreaker isn't the best source- it has Features[3] section which is middling at best, and its editor in chief is fairly qualified, and worked in Tabletop Magazine, but there are also contributor opinion pieces, which are subjective. They also focus much on best of lists, but it's good enough for its news to be reliable, reviews are all right with attribution, and I think it is generally reliable except for Opinion pieces (see here), which are marginally reliable. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Source: any article from jagatgururampalji.org

I was asked to discuss this before asking the site to be added to blocklist.

• jagatgururampalji.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Majority of links from this site are written in a way to attract readers to Rampal's religious works. The articles usually follow a pattern. The users change or add a reference from this site (such as father's day or world tobacco day), the article on the site gives a brief information about that but somehow ends up directing readers to religious practice. For example, an article for Autism day gives a brief definition of the word but ends up claiming that it can be cured with 'this' religious practice. JamesJohn82 (talk · contribs) was blocked because he was spamming this site.

I haven't found a single article that can be characterised as a good refernece. All of them end up promoting their saint at the end of the article.

Some examples:

https://news.jagatgururampalji.org/rabindranath-tagore-jayanti/#True_Spiritual_Knowledge_Is_the_Biggest_Literature

In text: With the birth anniversary of one of the renowned litterateurs Rabindranath Tagore, let us make ourselves aware about the biggest literature of True Spiritual Knowledge or Tatvgyan.... and then talking about their saint.

https://news.jagatgururampalji.org/26-11-mumbai-terrorist-attack/

In text: It is grave ignorance to fight on any issue in the world. Everything is imperishable. Human birth will be fruitful if a person performs the True Devotion of the Absolute Supreme God Kabir Saheb and ensures its place in the Eternal Abode..... and then talking about their saint.

https://news.jagatgururampalji.org/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-death/

In text: The pious soul tried to do his level best for humanity, but he did not find an enlightened saint who could have guided him for the right human life’s purpose. There are many unfortunate pious souls without achieving the right spiritual guide..... and then talking about their saint.

These are just three articles. Every single article on this site links the topic with the saint's teachings. The last one is claiming that Rajiv Gandhi had no one to guide him to his life's purpose. In my opinion, it is offensive to use an article about his death to make this claim. Kenm v2 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the about page shows this a single person's website who is using public sourcing, which I believe includes Wikipedia for a bonus of

A search shows 97 pages (can't get this to work as a wikilink, sorry) currently using the source.

If others agree and have AWB or other semi-automated tool to remove the link that would be appreciated, otherwise I will have to do one by one on mobile. Doable, but time consuming. Slywriter (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 at best/Unreliable Easy, I agree entirely and would actually support deprecation perhaps, but sadly this isn't an RfC, but this is absolutely horrible ref. Probably copied and pasted from numerous (public) places, looking at the Afghanistan article (see its version and another one from Ohio State University). Looking at the article on Perth, it says, with poor grammar and "some clip posted online" (?), I don't think I've seen a worse travel site: While being here, you might want to check out Perth South . We discovered some clip posted online . Scroll down to see the most favourite one or select the video collection in the navigation. Are you curious about the possible sightsseing spots and facts in Perth ? We have collected some references on our attractions page.

Next, it covers a building that plagiarises WP and is circular sourcing, see the WP article: The Jubilee Building is part of the Western Australian Museum in Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Designed in the Victorian Byzantine style by George Temple-Poole and supervised by his 1895 successor John Harry Grainger, it was opened in 1899. The building was originally planned as a combined library, museum and art gallery to be sited in St Georges Terrace, Perth to commemorate Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1887. Looking at the Russian article, the UNESCO sites are copied and pasted partially, the terms and conditions says that it's okay, provided with attribution, to share and adapt content, so it's probably not a copyvio (although nowhere could I see attributed refs or links), as such, the article is useless for WP (citing directly from UNESCO is far better). The about page then has the following: Trip-Suggest.com - built and operated by me as a single person - is a free website. It uses public and free data from various sources to provide people around the globe with a solid first impression of any placae on this world, no indication of editorial policies and has a typo! IMO, this website is unreliable and perhaps worthy of deprecation, it's an example of circular sourcing, questionable use of copyrights, and no evidence of fact-checking. VickKiang (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The website is a public affairs site with independent contributors ran by former Australian diplomat John Menadue, but User:Horse Eye's Back said it's unreliable and removed all mentions of it. But I cannot find anything here that suggests it's actually unreliable. The source in question is [4] by journalist Marcus Rubenstein, formerly of Seven and SBS News. Any takes? 49.180.197.4 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that they describe themselves (possibly in a

tongue in cheek fashion) as an "influential public policy journal"[5] not a "public affairs site" which often leads to them being cited as a journal... It's Menadue's personal fiefdom and they are open and honest about what they publish which is blog content not journalism or scholarship "We publish informed analysis and commentary on issues that matter to Australians, with a focus on politics, public policy, foreign policy and world affairs, defence and security, the economy, media, the arts and religion."[6] Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that most journalists aspire to being able to say "We publish informed analysis and commentary on issues that matter". That particular statement doesn't say that it's not a journalistic endeavor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian describes it as his blog, "Since 2013 he has published his blog ‘Pearls & Irritations’ at johnmenadue.com/blog."[7] Menadue himself refers to it as "my blog"[8] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is obviously a bit more than the average blog, but I did find that they accept user articles. I failed at finding information about editorial oversight or fact-checking. --SVTCobra 18:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Editorial oversight and fact-checking appear to consist of Mr Menadue reviewing the submission, although it should be noted that the most prolific contributors (among the hundreds of single submission authors)[9] are Mr Menadue's friends so there may be more of an informal social group oversight dynamic for those. They do accept notes but its through their general contact us page and is deeply burried on the About Pearls and Irritations page "To alert us to a factual error or make a complaint, please use the contact us form." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Their about page seems to indicate that (1) this started as a simple blog and (2) that they say that they edit user submissions for style, clarity and accuracy. I'm not really sure about the accuracy of that claim; another page tells a prospective contributor that we have very limited resources to edit your post. A particular article is literally a blogger referencing a "paper" that they've published on their own website with lots of language to try to promote their website's credibility. It's more of an advertisement than a news/analysis piece. And looking in a bit more, the author of that piece (Jaq James) appears to be quite sus (though Chinese state media consider her to be an academic researcher and a "Western Propaganda Analyst"). She's written four articles with them, all of which went up after The Australian reported on how her organization managed to mysteriously get information that had been stolen by Chinese government hackers. This is a bit of a red flag for me; we... don't exactly want to be citing this sort of thing as if it were somehow reliable.

The odd case of Jaq James aside, the articles generally read less like news reporting and more like an opinion and analysis than news reporting; I would hesitate to call it a

talk

) 05:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your clarification Horse Eye. Can the site still be used for the opinions of some of its contributors, for instance [10] to state that that this is sole the personal views of former Australian diplomat Bruce Haigh? Also it's worth noting that Haigh has repeated his views on his personal website [11], and did not appear in the Chinese propaganda video at all. The other cited diplomats also made them independently of the video.--115.64.98.205 (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I would think that

WP:SELFPUB would apply for this blog. So, in other words, only use extremely cautiously, probably with in-text attribution and never as a source about living people. I would probably just try to find another source to support a statement unless it is an attributed opinion from a recognised expert in the field. Vladimir.copic (talk

) 03:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In that specific case I would think that Haigh's own blog would be the preferred source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG applies: analysis and commentary in any publication can only be considered reliable if written by an expert. In this case an expert would be someone who had published articles on the topic they were writing about in academic journals. But in that case weight would also apply, so it would only make sense to use this as a source for relatively obscure topics that receive little attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk

) 00:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus that chartmasters.org is not considered a reliable source for record sales, hence it should be avoided. However, I've recently noted that there are multiple reliable sources like Wall Street Journal 1,2 Newyorker 3, Vulture 4, and Soundsblog (a supplement to Italian newspaper blogo) 5 citing the founder of chartmasters.org Guillaume Vieira as a primary source for these articles’ sales estimates. Some of these articles claim Guillaume Vieira is the greatest chart expert in the world as well. What should we do on these occasions? Should we eliminate all the articles citing the founder of chartmasters.org on the ground of the previous consensus, or is it time to review our previous consensus on chartmasters? TheWikiholic (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Opinions sought on https://mmnews.tv, a Pakistani news website. Can't find an editorial policy on their website, just a statement at the left side of the footer reading "MM News is a subsidiary of the MM Group of Companies. It was established in 2019 with the aim of providing people of Pakistan access to unbiased information." The only MM Group of Companies I can find online for Pakistan is https://mmgoc.com.pk, which deals in agriculture and shipping. Some of the stories appear to be copied from other Pakistani news websites. The "shows" links at the right link to their YouTube channel, which has 71k subscribers. Is MM News a reliable source? Storchy (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

They don't get a lot of secondary coverage from my personal google results. Their top youtube vids are lighthearted animal news. At least one photo of theirs was appropriated later for a hoax. A July 2 story on Imran Khan (hot-button political stuff) is completely old-school journalism: Five Ws, the whole article is alternating grafs of direct-indirect quotes – India Today certainly doesn't do that from what I've seen (not trying to fling dirt, just saying it's not some subcontinent 'thing'). They have a "Fake News Alert" section of their site (which actually appears to select from other sections rather than being an exclusive section) – I'm not up on Pakistan's goings-on so I have no idea what some of these briefs are about, but some are straightforward – "APML rubbishes news about Musharraf’s death" looks like a clickbait headline, but it's another relatively old-school article about the APML reporting the Musharraf was dead, then saying they got it wrong and screwing up more facts, then eventually getting it right. All easily verifiable stuff without any theorizing.

Their "Investigations" section is where things get interesting. In a story alleging embezzlement the sources are pretty nonspecific (as often with a news outlet investigation) Even though the subhead/lead uses the phrase "embezzled in the name of ghost employees" the article body is again completely factual with no embellishment. That said, in the first body graf you have to take it at their word that their financial assessment is correctly presented – they don't specify if they researched them themselves through say financial documents or if it comes from the reports and interviews which are well-attributed in the following grafs. It's just one of things that could have been a copy editor's switch of graf order that left attribution hanging, or relatively uncontroversial or easily-verifiable details that would be better supported later, or an actual reporting error.

I don't want to be biased by how utterly refreshing it is to see old-school reporting. That said, their old-school articles do "make mistakes" in minor presentation from how I've been taught, but it could just be style (one indirect quote seemed to be hanging precariously loose though).

Having no company or editorial transparency from where I can access means I can't evaluate it on those merits. It is also a quite new outlet (est. 2019) so a lot of what they are has had no chance to be "established" yet. That more than anything makes anything from the "Investigations" section, as professional as it seems, require in-line attribution to the outlet. Otherwise I'm very impressed with how much they seem to commit to their stated "aim of providing people of Pakistan access to unbiased information", especially in Pakistan with a press freedom rank of 157 (down in 2022) and generally little competition in terms of good outlets. So given a place with few good RS to choose from, I'd say consider it locally reliable in terms of the news section and require direct attribution for investigations, until new evidence emerges. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

While not

WP:SPS. --Aquillion (talk

) 02:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and consideration. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is

wp:undue

may affect its ability to be used.

So this is not really an RS question. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Slatersteven. Without submitting an RFC on the subject, is there a more appropriate place to ask? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You might try over an the Undue talk page, or

WP:NPOVN, but in truth an RFC might be better. Slatersteven (talk

) 16:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. Laserlegs, I think it would have been better to alert other editors on that article's talk page and start a discussion here with specifics and/or start an RFC. I believe you that you were acting in good faith but I don't think anything productive can come of hypotheticals that are designed to represent realia. If you're in a dispute then you probably aren't capable of framing this question in a way that represents it objectively. Also if you do it this way you're heading toward unnecessary strife because no one else will have read the policies you're referred to, which might work to embarrass other editors but best practice would be trying to figure this out with them and moving forward together, which is impossible if you only ask for yourself and intentionally prevent other editors from sharing in your answers. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

See CNN's fact-check on the matter: Fact check: Liberal website changes headline that falsely said DeSantis signed a bill that forces students to register their political views:

The liberal website Salon has changed a headline that had falsely said a bill signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis forces Florida's students and professors to register their political views with the state... Salon published the headline in June 2021. Its revision on Wednesday, more than a year later, came after the article went viral... Salon executive editor Andrew O'Hehir said in a Thursday email that while another Salon editor had defended the initial headline back in 2021, the publication recently took another look and concluded that the headline "conveyed a misleading impression of what the Florida law actually said, and did not live up to our editorial standards."

Note that there is no new information that has come out about this matter, they changed their article only because their misinformation happened to go viral recently. Not even 2 days after the original article came out, PolitiFact put out a fact check debunking the claim: New Florida law doesn't require university students, faculty and staff to register political views. Despite their article being debunked by fact checkers almost as soon as it was published, they decided to let it stand completely untouched for more than a year, altering it only when enough outrage was drummed up about it the next year. Is a "no consensus" RSP entry really appropriate for a publication whose editors appear to find it acceptable to publish information that is known to be verifiably false? Endwise (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Was the problem only with the headline (which are not considered a reliable source per

WP:HEADLINES)? If you suggest to downgrade it to unreliable, I think more evidence of misinformation is needed. Alaexis_¿question?

08:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, headlines are headlines. We wouldn't have downgraded the status of the Boston Globe for

talk

) 00:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is why we don't consider headlines to be usable. Unless there was an issue with the article itself then theres nothing for us to do here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources § zakzak.co.jp

plz look towards this Japanese website. https://www.zakzak.co.jp/ Are they reliable? I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere in wikipedia regarding its credibility. Though i found some academic books which cites this website as its source of info. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Arorapriyansh333: Are they reliable for what? It depends on the content that they're supposed to verify. ––FormalDude talk 15:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Earlier discussion (prior to archive 165) seemed to believe tabloids such as Daily Mail could be trusted in manners of pop culture and sports, but have since been entirely deprecated or suggested for total deprecation. In the context of pop culture events with verifiable information (such as TV show viewer rates and statistics) could they still be considered reliable sources? For context, I'm trying to add a source to the John Thaw^[1] section mentioning viewership of "Inspector Morse" where citation 9&10 are. Iaintnojo (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Can we cite the viewership numbers to another source (one that isn’t deprecated)? If so, use that. If not, then I think you might have an argument that this is a “valid exception” to the deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC:

I have disagreed with Figureskatingfan at Talk:Edith of Wilton#Sources whether books by Sabine Baring-Gould and Agnes Dunbar are reliable sources. Comments from other editors would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ORIGINALLY POSTED IN THE INCORRECT AREA- Moved

Disagreement regarding this edit “Ironically, the divisive leak led both parties to express outrage, Democrats for the content of the leaked draft, and Republicans out of concern regarding how a leak occurred.[114]”

[114]-https://www.brutusjournal.com/article-collection/political-takes/ryan/leaked-ruling-sparks-outrage-from-both-parties-for-two-very-different-re

Hello,

I have had an account for awhile and just recently decided to become more active again after a friend told me about the wikipedia contribution process. First, I decided to go source by source, rather than topic by topic, to add information I felt was relevant. However on my first source (brutusjournal.com) I was reverted. I understand spam must be a huge problem, but I do not see what the problem is in citing a younger source which can be came across. The information was in no was extreme, and rather than provide any dispute as to the reliability of the edits, they were simply reverted. I had the following exchange with the user responsible for the reverts:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This link was directly related to the text being added to the website. Which specific aspect of the external links guideline does this violate? The source is reliable and cites its own sources. It appears we must defer, in situations like these, to the “assume good faith” direction and allow the text to stand unless there is a specific violation that can be shown by the reverting party. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a self published student journal, so not reliable. Repetitively adding links to the same unreliable site is spamming as Wikipedia defines it. 'Assume good faith' never means that common link promotion patterns are ignored. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia and not to insert links to one particular website, I suggest you find something else to cite. MrOllie (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia’s own pages state, “Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.” The source in question is a journal that publishes various authors works. I understand the concern, and with regards to helping build the encyclopedia, that is also of concern, but it is important to differentiate a personal blog (self published source) from a student journal. The content added so far is by no means exceptional or extreme. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want more input, feel free to take it up at WP:RSN. You'll be told the same thing there, though. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the student journal [12] that Refsjjehhgshh has been spamming to Wikipedia articles isn't a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the student journal is not a reliable source. Additionally, all postings used on wiki have same author, so suspect a

WP:COI as well. Slywriter (talk

) 12:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously not reliable.

b

} 13:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Phryma leptostachya § Wikipedia webpage for Phryma leptostachya

 – Wrong venue. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In the top right corner of web page for Phryma leptostachya (Lopseed) there is a picture of the inflorescence for Hylodesmum glutinosum [Desmodium glutinosum], Large Tick-trefoil. The picture of the inflorescence at the bottom of the page (right side) is correct for Phryma leptostachya. 99.248.93.5 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

For Indian films, are Nowrunning, Indiaglitz, Filmibeat, etc. reliable or not? DareshMohan (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Filmibeat is pretty worthless imo, see past discussions. Also relevant PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of the "articles" appear to take information from a primary source(Quran). Seems very blog-like.

Imam-us Kansas Bear (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I was reading

As it applies to your specific query, the RSP entry states that because that genre description on Discogs is

user generated content (it could have been entered by anyone) you shouldn't use it as a source. Ljleppan (talk

) 10:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I shall look elsewhere. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Zaborona reliable enough to establish the notability of an American-turned-Russian-propagandist operating in occupied parts of Ukraine? IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

yes, as one of the sources. (certainly now that even more sources have been added to the article with time) Mathmo ^Talk 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The question should be if the source is reliable for negative statements/labels about a living person. My concern is that I do not see any indication of clear editorial oversight. The website does list their values ([13]) and their backstory ([14]), but I do not see any specific individuals mentions as editors, CEOs, etc. I finally found the list of people: [15]. I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but at least it passes the basic requirements. Any negative labels should still be attributed to the source. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

While the outlet was subject of controversy, the New Eastern Europe says that in general, many people consider the outlet to be fine. They seem to further a rather annoying trend of inserting English-derived buzzwords into Ukrainian, though when I ignore this, I see no specific reason to think it is not generally reliable.

The Ukrainian version of the website features a quite clear and thorough code of conduct for its employers and they are fairly open about their financing. Some editors here have expressed doubts about outlets using funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy, but I don't really share their concerns. A sample of stories I read in Ukrainian that are not directly related to war ([16], [17], [18], [19]) seem to be fine, and as for war stories, I would generally prefer foreign media to Ukrainian media whenever possible, but the war reporting doesn't seem to be outside the trend for Ukrainian media in general.

In short, I think that

WP:GREL

threshold is passed.

Now, addressing the article. The original Ukrainian article says "З роду Ланкастерів" (i.e. he is from the Lancaster family), which, if it had been an advertisement, it would have read Від роду Ланкастерів (i.e. the Lancasters gave us this) at the very least; though the translation into English is correct, as both mean "from". Besides, a Ukrainian news outlet accepting money from a pro-Russian propagandist when the war is raging against Russia? That would be a highly unusual and very unlikely event IMHO, and I can only imagine the backlash if this were true. The article is definitely not advertising, and it doesn't read that way in the original language. It seems like a legitimate in-depth piece about that person. So I would say that the source may be used to help establish notability. The English translation looks good for me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

My addition on

I don't think the concern was the journal itself, but being a primary animal study and applying it to human epidemiology (see

WP:MEDANIMAL for explanation why that's typically avoided). Bakkster Man (talk

) 22:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I decided to add material on this due to the large amount of conventional sources, and cited the journal for accuracy. Here are the conventional sources [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] SmolBrane (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

All of which seem to be based on this study, see

WP:MEDPOP. You want to be looking for either a source that takes this and other primary studies as a meta analysis, or provide enough caveats to fully describe the lack of certainty in the finding. The latter typically being reserved for exceptional cases where something needs to be written and no more reliable source exists (which this article arguably has). Bakkster Man (talk

) 01:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Objections here are noted. SmolBrane (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gezer uses the page "Gezer - A Canaanite City and Royal Solomonic City". Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs[32] 14 times. In general I think we have to be extremely careful in using government sources for archaeology when the government might have an agenda, the Hindutva Indian government's attempts to rewrite history and archaeology being another example. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would agree that caution is needed… but that does not mean that government sources are necessarily unreliable.

A LOT depends on whether there are academic sources that contradict what the government sources say (and, if so, we should give significantly more weight to those academic sources). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

See the article Facts on the Ground about a well-known academic source. NightHeron (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Very much agree with everyone here, I think. We all know that the Israeli government is not without motive to shape claims about the country's past. That said, I also don't think that such motivation means the source is per se unreliable. I would agree that the Gezer article should really bring in some more traditional academic sources, but we don't need to necessarily excise government sources simply by dint of the fact that they are government sources. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)ex

Government communications are not subject to the type of editorial controls or peer-review that we expect of typical reliable sources, so there are indeed distinct reasons why all government sources should be treated with particular skepticism and not at all assumed to be automatically reliable, except in their reflection of the government's views.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 09:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Why there are that many usages is a reasonable question, I find it hard to believe there are no better sources. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Has anyone here, or elsewhere, done anything to prevent you from adding your additional sources to the article in question? --Jayron32 14:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  No. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

*::@Jayron32 Why in the world would you even suggest that? I've spent too long just trying to clean it up a bit, remove copyvio, etc. It already had lots of CN tags. I'd love to add sources if I had the time and strength, but I don't and it's not a subject I know that much about. I frequently add sources to articles and object to your suggestion I don't. I did fix the url to lead to the source I raised. At the moment even editing is a bit tiring. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't talking to you. I was speaking to Selfstudier. You can tell who a person is talking to in a Wikipedia discussion by observing the indent level of the response. --Jayron32 14:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 apologies. I wish that you always could, sometimes the software changes it. But in this case I was wrong.Doug Weller talk 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier Exactly. Someone has taken that website and used it to write a lot of Gezer. I've rarely seen a worse sourced article in archaeology or Eygpptology. It used the Jewish Virtual Library, still uses the media a lot instead of archaeological sources, uses about.com, used a tourist site or two, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BIASED biased sources can be reliable. I think no one would object to using academic sources instead (in a way that satisfies WP:NPOV). Is there something specific that you propose to change or remove? Alaexis_¿question?
  14:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  As it's my opinion that we should almost always use reliable archaeological sources for archaeology, I'd like to see them all replaced by archaeological sources. That will of course take time. Note also that the source is almost two decades old. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  This doesn't sound contentious - good luck with this. Alaexis_¿question? 15:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Alaexis not me though, as I've suggested above in the post I struck out. Hm, I've just thought, isn't it a primary source? Of course some archaeological papers are, but at least they use actual evidence and other sources, this one does not. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a primary source (per WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.") but it doesn't really matter here. Primary sources may be reliable and secondary sources may be unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 15:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Alaexis you're right. It's just a bad secondary source. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs raison d'être is to promote Israel internationally, and on any number of topics that have provable disseminated false information. It is not an agency with a well regarded reputation for fact checking, and any claim cited to it, if true, would be found in an actually reliable source. nableezy - 14:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, see related past discussions at RSN and the talk page from that discussion. A government agency, especially the foreign affairs ministry, is not a reliable source for anything other than the view of the government. nableezy - 19:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would also tend to expect the Ministry of Foreign Affairs specifically to be the least reliable of all, since their job is in effect to expressly push out the international relations propaganda of choice for the government of the day. It is odd that the MFA is pumping out archaeological material when the more apt likes of the

  Iskandar323 (talk

  ) 09:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• It might be reliable, it might not. The question is, why are we using it? It's a really poor source for an archaeological article. The region is one of the best studied in the world, surely there must be much better sources out there. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also this, there should frankly be no need to seek recourse to government sources in an area of historical study in which peer-reviewed material abounds.

  Iskandar323 (talk

  ) 09:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it is totally unreliable (unless it is clear that the source is used for propaganda), but since the MFAs in general would normally publish that sort of material for advertising purposes, rather than to convey rigorously fact-checked information, this is a
  questionable source; it is even more so given that archaeology is not exactly the expertise of the MFA. There really should be much better materials; look up some peer-reviewed scholarship for archaeology, or maybe the Israel Antiquities Authority. Szmenderowiecki (talk
  ) 15:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is no conceivable topic that the Israeli, or any, foreign affairs ministry is reliable for besides the views of its government. In every statement they make there is an inherent conflict of interest. The purpose of their existence is to promote their country and government. nableezy - 21:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Archaeology is an academic subject that most certainly isn't within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' realm of expertise. M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to someone who edited the reception section on the

Personally, I would not consider

Anyway, I'd like to hear from you all before proceeding with editing that section. Historyday01 (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a good question. Historyday01. YouTube is indeed the medium over which the video is transmitted, but does give me pause as a whole, save for the carve-outs you've already outlined. I guess there could be a philosophical argument to be had, though, that everything is self-published in some way...but YouTube has a lot of low quality content on it. I guess, depending on the subject and how the organization uploading etc falls into RS categories, it could be acceptable on a case-by-case basis? This is a tough one to answer. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Striking as I just ended up quoting

WP:SPS. That is probably the safest thing to fall back on. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk

00:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's my thinking too. What's annoying is that there ARE other criticisms of RWBY which are in more reliable sources. I mean, even this article (which is by an ANN reviewer) could be seen as more reliable, or even this CBR article, perhaps. Otherwise, when you do searches like "criticism of RWBY" or "problems with RWBY" a bunch of self-published stuff comes up, nothing that would be considered reliable on here, from what I've observed from a search tonight. Historyday01 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the revert, nor consider Hbomberguy reliable. He is high-profile, and per the WP page received awards, but that doesn't mean that the account should be considered as a reliable "news organisation" nor is there any editorial control for it to be "verified" on YouTube, which is a self-published source. I think another point is probably WP:DUE, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources; I agree with this edit, as the previous version Conversely, RWBY's reception has since been grown from generally positive to overwhelmingly negative based on two reviews (one probably not reliable), seems to me a POV by Historyday01. This (YouTube is indeed the medium over which the video is transmitted, but does give me pause as a whole, save for the carve-outs you've already outlined. I guess there could be a philosophical argument to be had, though, that everything is self-published in some way...but YouTube has a lot of low quality content on it) is an excellent point, but even if Hbomberguy has a website instead of a channel, would it be considered an RS? IMO probably not.

I have some concerns for the other refs. I find CBR's listicles poor and superficial, and IMO this one is no exception, but it's probably marginally reliable and IMO is better than the current provided ref. This is probably an piece], per Q-taku is a column by Rose where she discusses anime, manga and other parts of associated pop culture and its fandom, and her take on it all as a queer feminist viewer, though the author has expertise in ANN, but even opinion columns by journalists or experts in NY Times and The Guardian are considered by RSP to need additional considerations, so to me it's also maginally reliable. So IMO the rm of the Hbomberguy mention should be done, and potentially replace with these two refs, but as they are marginally reliable at best, I think that I agree with Historyday01's edits, and that "it received generally positive reviews but also critcism for..." would be okay for now. VickKiang (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Just like there isn't any editorial control for someone to be verified on Twitter, I wouldn't think there is any for YouTube either. Google says they verify channels which are "authentic" and "complete" but there is nothing about editorial control, from what I've provided.

It looks like ANN only has reviewed the manga, but not the web series, as no review is listed here. They have reviewed RWBY: Ice Queendom but that's a separate series. I'm not completely sure about those links I provided anyhow an you make good points about reliability, but I'll see if I can find something else. In the meantime, I'll remove that Hbomberguy entry. I also imagine that this discussion will be useful for anyone to refer to if someone tries to add a video from YouTube and claims that it is reliable because the YouTuber is a "professional", whatever that means. Historyday01 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed overall. The video being used as a reference is a video essay, and thus at best an

WP:RS/SPS. Bakkster Man (talk

) 13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say in general, no, these are not, but it is possible in isolated cases that a person gains enough of a reputation within the community (and if that community is based on commercially-generated content, with the creators of that content), then yes, they can be considered weak reliable sources but shouldn't used for "significant" claims, like anything political. But when that happens needs to be established by the editing community for that topic area. --Masem (t) 01:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

+1, an example being Anthony Fantano. JBchrch talk 13:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If they are a professional in the fieled it is bieng used as a source for, yes (per

wp:sps) if they are not, then no. Just being a "proffesional Youtuber" is not enough to establish expertise about anything. Slatersteven (talk

) 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a strange one, because isn't a professional YouTuber an expert/professional in the field of web content (RWBY)? But in this case, I think an animated web series is best reviewed by somebody writing for a(n online) news source or respected publication that is directly paying them a fee for the piece, not a YouTuber without this professional criticism background. — Bilorv (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that many editors are too hesitant to use self-published sources relative to the policy, and that policy is too hesitant to source things to self-published sources even accounting for that.

WP:SPS has a pretty clear exception for sources self-published by experts, so in cases where the YouTube video is by an acknowledged expert we should have no problem sourcing claims to YouTube. And yet, in the past when I've tried to use Veronica Ivy

's YouTube videos about philosophy of language, they've been removed, even though her papers on the same topic stay in.

I also think that the policy is a bit behind the times. I understand that having some sort of editorial process is what makes reliable sources reliable, but self-publishing does not mean that you lack some sort of fact-checking process for your own work. There's plenty of educational YouTube channels that have rigorous fact-checking processes. If we're going to accept a third party org's statement that they have an editorial process at face-value, I don't see why we wouldn't do the same for an educational YouTube channel. Tom Scott has a list of corrections for all his videos on his website., and usually also pins corrections under the video as well. Kurzgesagt has a video extensively outlining their research process. I don't think these channels are equivalent to the New York Times or an academic journal, but surely they're far more reliable than some random dude posting videos about chemtrails.

In this particular situation, I wouldn't cite that Hbomberguy essay for what it's being cited for (Conversely, RWBY's reception has since been grown from generally positive to overwhelmingly negative), but I would cite it like any other single review. Loki (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an an opinion about Hbomberguy or RWBY specifically, but I agree with Loki regarding the general points. YouTube is a medium not a source, and just like every medium it is not (and cannot be) reliable or unreliable itself. There are multiple categories of video, including

• Those produced by organisations with a culture of fact checking and of citing reliable sources that would be regarded as reliable if their medium was a print magazine (SciShow for example) so should be seen as reliable sources in the same way.
• Those produced by individuals who are subject matter experts (e.g.
  WP:SPS
  for print works by subject matter experts.
• Those produced by individual(s) who, while not subject matter experts, do cite the high quality sources they use and issue corrections where necessary. Especially when those who are experts in the relevant subject have reviewed the channel and publicly rate it highly.
  Tom Scott (presenter)
  is a good example here, especially as most of the videos that would be relevant involve them talking to one or more experts in some specific area and producing a story about and based on them. This is exactly what a journalist in a magazine or newspaper does, and so should be seen as equally reliable - that the reputation on the line is an individual who earns their living through their work directly or an individual who earns their living through their work indirectly (i.e. through a magazine) is not materially different in the present day.
• Vlogs and similar that are produced by individuals, which are intended to be opinion pieces. These are the same as self-published blogs and should be treated identically - i.e. they can be used (with very limited exceptions) only for the attributed opinions of the blogger/vlogger where relevant and DUE and/or ABOUTSELF.
• Those that purport to be reliable but which don't cite sources, cite only unreliable sources, don't reliably report the sources they cite, and similar. These are exactly as reliable (i.e. not at all) as the print sources that engage in the same activities. e.g. a video about climate change that cited only FOX News and the Daily Mail would be worthless; one that cited the
  IGPCC, The Guardian and Vicky Pope
  would be a potentially good source.

In conclusion, "professional YouTuber" is as useless a predictor of reliability as "professional journalist" is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to trawl through the above presently, but the context drew my eye as I have become conscious of the fanzone changes to TommyInnit, and a few days ago at Joseph Quinn (actor). Wikipedia has had a problem with new media (found by keyword search engines) being the rolling force diluting the traditional press for some years (I only found the name Churnalism recently, although I knew what was happening); any moves to use Youtube is likely to provide encouragement to IPs, subjectively, as in WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how any of that comment is relevant to anything being discussed here? "New media" is not in and of itself any more or less reliable than any other form of media, churnalism is at least if not more prevalent in written media than videos (given that it's easier to regurgitate text in text than video or text in video). I can't make head nor tail of the final part of your comment (the bit starting "any moves to use Youtube..."). Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I struggle to understand how the mostly independent sources stated in

What we are looking for is significant coverage about the man from independent, reliable sources that isn't primarily regurgitated press releases from Red Hat. You certainly have used enough sources to established that he is now CEO of Red Hat. Where are the independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of everything else about him? - Donald Albury 18:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have a very big watchlist, then you're bound to see from time to time editors running AWB tasks to remove hundreds, or sometimes thousands, of citations to one or another source that has been deemed predatory or "vanity". For reasons that I imagine should be obvious to most watchers of this page, this practice has been disruptive.

Still, we need a way to keep the use of poor sourcing at low levels in the long term and avoid situations where one or two editors end up feeling like they're alone in the battle. Instead of reactively removing existing references, we could proactively try to discourage their use at the point of initial addition. Yes, that's what the blacklist does, but it doesn't work for the vast grey area of sources that are often subpar though not bad enough to be simply banned. It also occasionally encourages deceit (I've seen people leaving out the url of a predatory publisher so that they can pass the edit filter, resulting in a citation to what looks like an acceptable physical journal).

There's another way. You've noticed how these days you get a popup warning whenever you try to insert a link to a disambiguation page? Can't we have a similar warning system for sources? The popup can say "You seem to have just inserted a citation to a publication in X. X is presumed to be a predatory publisher, so should almost never be used". Or something like "X is not as reliable as it seems as it doesn't feature peer review". Or any number of similar warnings depending on the publication in question. That's obviously not going to be a silver bullet, but it should be able to make a difference. Right? – Uanfala (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What you've just basically described is the

WP:DEPRECATION system. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 21:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah! I should have known better than to traipse into one of the best-developed corners of Wikipedia and start re-inventing the wheel. But still, it seems like there could an intermediate level of warnings. With the deprecation system, it's automatic reversion for new editors and warnings on save for established ones. If we could have a "middle tier", where there's no automated actions and the warning comes at the point when text is added in the edit window (rather than during the final save), just as it's done for the new dab notifications... – Uanfala (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to use the best sources available and summarize what they say. Unfortunately, there are tendentious editors who decide what an article should say, then search for sources to support it. It doesn't matter what rules there are, so long as some editors want to write articles in violation of weight and rs, we will see all kinds of obscure sources used. TFD (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This is something I've thought about in the past; it is true but also slightly tricky (which is why it has traditionally been so hard to deal with

WP:UNDUE weight, which is another way that bias in source-searches can express itself.) --Aquillion (talk

) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree with this. It's part of the dark side of Wikipedia: most edits will always be tendentious in nature, and consequently the main activity of constructive editors will always be to watch out for such edits and to revert or amend them where appropriate. That's what makes it all work; we're all janitors here. Just yesterday my partner chided me for putting so much time in something as depressing as that. I think they may be right. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

When I clean citations I get that exact warning at least for book publishers. Typically I tag with {{

bcn}} in such cases, or something else if it's an endnote ref, because in those kinds of articles it's often difficult to tell which material is attributed to which source. As you see in the discussion above, though, sometimes there's disagreement about what level of play is "predatory" or "vanity" depending on who's asking and who's in the know, and depending on your field and region of inquiry standards can be quite depressingly low. Never mind the Sokal affair when there's a replication crisis. And of course many of the same people advocating blanket removals will cite preprints without blinking an eye. I know Arxiv/General is considered verboten but it takes minimal affiliation to not be put there. And if a pretty graphic gets posted on a prof's CC-BY blog -- who needs peer review? Point of that smalltext rant is there's a lot of obsession here about whether something can be considered reliable on its face, and the reality seems to not work this way. I see more of a problem with articles misrepresenting or misusing or not in-line citing sources than I see articles having low-quality sources (albeit that can sometimes be the root cause of the former). Of course to address that kind of thing some of the most pious RS crusaders might have to turn off their bots a moment and read an article. SamuelRiv (talk

) 00:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"cite preprints without blinking an eye" that mostly depends on what exactly you're citing it for. John Smith discovered superwater(Tm) [arxiv], no. Italian researchers reported in a preprint that...... that's a maybe. There's also several preprints that got accepted in reputable venues and arxiv links are just links of convenience (often in Mathematics).

b

} 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Source in question: [33]
2. Article: Antanas Mackevičius
3. Content: diff
The page www.naszapamiec.pl, ran by the Embassy of

• naszapamiec.pl (a website created by the embassy of Poland in Vilnius) is not a reliable source for such a claim. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why is that? Marcelus (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a similar debate going on above about an Israeli government site, basically the consensus is that governments are not reliable sources on history. Or if they are, there are nearly always better sources to be had.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well to a certain point. I dont think an embassy website can be taken as the official word of the government, thats too many layers between the authority and the source. But if, for example, the US Department of State said "John Doe was an American citizen" then I would say that is a reliable source for that, as that is the preeminent authority for the citizenship status in the United States. If the US Embassy in Egypt said Mohamed Doe was an American citizen Id say meh would want that verified by the Department of State itself. But citizenship is a thing the state decides, so the state would be reliable for that. Does an embassy count for that? Id say no. nableezy - 18:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

First, an embassy necessarily reflects the opinions of the MFA, so ultimately of the government; and embassies will normally track the citizens of their state under the purview of the embassy. Secondly, we are not speaking about citizenship, but about nationality, and specifically the nationality of a historical person whom more than one nation claim as their own. This is the origin of most entries in the Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Ethnic_feuds subpage, and also of tensions in IRL politics in extreme cases. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an embassy represents the nation, I just think the degrees of separation between the website of an embassy, or a consular official, and the actual authority significant enough that we should not take an embassy website as reliable. As far as nationality vs citizenship, I suppose thats a distinction worth noting. nableezy - 03:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an embassy can possibly be considered a reliable source on any event predating the establishment of that state, which is why I qualified my comment as "unreliable sources on history". They could be considered reliable primary sources on the opinion of their government on history, I think. But of course, we need to attribute in that case.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont think an embassy is a reliable source ever except for the operations of that specific embassy as a primary source. I just wanted to push back, ever so slightly, on governments never being reliable. For history yeah I agree. But for questions of was X a citizen of our state? Or what is the population of Y administrative district? Yes, reliable. nableezy - 06:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0 has repeatedly restored this information with sources that have nothing to do with the content in question. To avoid my edit warring, I would appreciate if someone would check the source, and if you agree that it does not confirm the content, please remove it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The scroll.in article indeed does not confirm any of the awards. The other two sources already do that just fine. That the web article calls the film a "cult" one may probably be mentioned in Raakh itself, but not in the table. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi fellow wikipedians. I want to cite Sufiwiki.com in one of my article on wikipedia. Just need a couple of opinions on its reliability. 203.192.225.56 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• per Google Books it is cited by number of authors.

• No, it just looks like a wiki with no oversight. --SVTCobra 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think just being the wiki it violates

WP:RS. Per https://sufiwiki.com/help-out/ it confirms oversight. 203.192.225.56 (talk

) 12:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

While there may be some oversight, it still falls under

WP:USERGENERATED content. As such it should not be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk

) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the source: "our local Alim will look through the document and verify. He may ask the team to come back to you to clarify." This seems very informal to me. SVTCobra 16:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The typical reason scholars would cite a wiki in that manner (Bamotra 2021 is the only one I found) is to provide readers with a decent lay or uncommon-language summary of some background or foundational detail. Almost always you can find other citations, often by the same scholar in other works, to RS that might be less accessible, but likely usable, unlike a wiki. I don't know what kind of article you're working on, but if you look at non-English scholarship you might find better sources, and then just rely on readers to use translator software if they want verification. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you want extra help in this matter (I'm just assuming you may be inexperienced at WP because you don't have a username), on finding better sources or anything else, you can always reach out to other editors, particularly those at Wikiproject Islam or perhaps recent editors of articles closely related to your topic. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am tempted to use LinuxNews.de as a source, because it has many articles of interest for Linux-related topics; however, it appears to be a one-author publication without editorial oversight. It has been used only 5 times at English wikipedia.[37], and I found no previous RSN discussions.[38] Any other opinions? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The author, Ferdinand Thommes, appears to have also published articles in

WP:SPS terms, but that seems pretty weak. Unless there's more evidence for his expertise, I'd be inclined to be cautious. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk

) 15:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:MintPress News#Association with Russia Today (RT). Doug Weller talk 15:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It’s an academic research institute affiliated to a major university. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• No or should be attributed. While I generally agree that these institutes are good sources we should be careful and consistent in how we use them. For example I think people would normally attribute anything that comes out of conservative institutions such as the Hoover Institute. Additionally, we normally say peer review is a critical part of academic reliability. Material published by a research institute that isn't reviewed by outside scholars isn't peer reviewed like a research paper is reviewed. It might be more akin to the internal only review process applied to thesis/dissertation work (but presumably higher quality). Such groups aren't self published the way a personal blog is self published but it doesn't have outside review or an independent editorial board. As such it may be a notable opinion but it shouldn't be treated like a standard RS. Attribution should address those concerns. Springee (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yikes, that thread is a minefield. But to answer the question, I think it can be used if properly attributed. Furthermore, I don't quite know why Rutgers is being singled out. Network Contagion is a much, much larger project and has all kinds of backers, academic and otherwise. --SVTCobra 00:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have come across this source (sometimes called

Not at all. It's a fan site at best.

b

} 03:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it seems some piece are written by industry professionals, but pretty much everything I came across from CBR is sensationalist amateur writing.

b

} 03:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@

CollectiveSolidarity: Option 2 for CBR (or marginally reliable/additional considerations needed). We've had this excellent discussion on BTG. I think the editorial policies are middling, and articles are okay, but the listicles poor. The about us page relies on several editors, but the managing editor only wrote 1 article, I couldn't find him writing in RS. The correction policy and fact-checking are okay, but I am concerned by this: [i]nterested In Being A Writer For CBR? We are always looking for strong passionate writers who are motivated to develop and write engaging content. We are looking for writers who can produce in-depth premium content with expert knowledge in one or more of CBR’s featured categories. So the requirements to contribute isn't clear IMO. Its listicles for me are especially superficial, such as this one, it describes Scythe Rise of Fenris (a board game expansion, I am familiar with board games and video games more than comics, so sorry) as [t]he Rise of Fenris changed everything by including an entire campaign in the box for gamers to play through, complete with secret boxes to open and huge surprises. Players were extremely pleased with expansion's modular content and it is now one of the highest-rated board game expansions to ever be released, which reminds me of Screen Rant and Game Rant covering movies based on IMDB/Letterboxd (...) scores. Another one on board games also seems poor IMO, with sensational headlines ([a]dding a twist to media adaptions, popular video games are transforming into table-top experiences sure to excite long-time fans and newcomers alike). IMO these are contrary to the disclaimer, [w]e do not post clickbait. Our headlines might be bold - but we don't throw out broad statements just to sound bold. It has to be accurate and fact-checked, I am sure there are more, better examples. Overall, I find lots of the lists possibly positively biased. Other news articles (such as this) are all right, but I don't think their "top ten" lists are useful or reliable to WP. So I think the issues are too much for this to be Option 1/generally reliable. So IMO its news articles are Option 1-2, but their listicles are poor and probably Option 2-3. Note in 2016 it was acquired by Valnet Inc, which owns marginally reliable Screen Rant, which is known to be poor for BLP-related topics and its listicles. So I think that it's probably marginally reliable. Also see here for the BTG evaluation on the ref (it might be better for comics, but I am not sure). VickKiang (talk

) 06:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: @Piotrus: @Argento Surfer: @Historyday01: Pinging some editors who are more familiar with this ref and discussed it there. VickKiang (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think your analysis is sound. Marginally reliable with caveats discussed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

One man's trivia is another man's meat. I think it's reliable for indicating the fictional facts about comic book contents. It's not something we should use in BLPs, but it should be fine for pointing out that character "x" has power "y" (yes, even in a listicle; there is nothing journalistically unique about listicles, they are just arranged in an eye-candy format). BD2412 T 06:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-2016 content is reliable, while post-2016 content (outside reviews and articles by Brian Cronin) should be treated with care. The website was a high-quality comics-focused news source until August 2016, when its founder sold it to Valnet, and it shifted into clickbait/churnalism. So anything before the Valnet acquisition is perfectly reliable, but the only things I'd trust after the acquisition is Brian Cronin content (he's a published author, comic book expert, and one of the few original CBR writers who remains at the site) and reviews. JOEBRO64 10:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What Joe said. In its first 15 years or so, CBR won several industry awards for journalism. RE Vick's concern that he find[s] lots of the lists possibly positively biased, comics is a niche medium. There's rarely a need to run a poor review of a comic because reviews themselves are often how readers learn a comic even exists. If a comic is poor quality, it's better to just leave it in obscurity. The exception to that rule are the top sellers from Marve/DC/Image, which have an established audience. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I only found the listicles to be positively biased a bit, but article are fine. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang, thanks for the mention here. I tend to agree with BD2412 T when it comes to CBR rather than JOEBRO64, as I'd say more articles are reliable rather than less, even now. I think Listicles can be reliable, if they focus on a specific character, or one specific topic. Like this recent article about

The Mary Sue), Brian Cronin, Renaldo Matadeen, and Diane Darcy, to name a few. They also seem to cover LGBTQ topics a LOT from what I've observed, so if anything, they can be a reliable source to use on those topics, especially when it comes to summarizing tweets, allowing for CBR to be cited instead of the original tweets, which are self-published sources. I'd say VickKiang has a good analysis here, but I also would say their reliability depends on what they are being cited for, while recognizing their good correction and fact-checking policies. In terms of the contribution page on the site, I think that is just trying to pull in new writers as they have a LOT of content they are publishing each day, so it only makes sense they'd have an open call for people to write for them. Historyday01 (talk

) 13:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all! (is that proper grammar?) Your takes on the matter are very helpful. I will treat the source with a grain of salt based upon these responses.

talk

) 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that given the issues highlighted here and in the discussion linked above, a note at

WP:RSMUSIC would indeed be helpful, in my opinion. Oroborvs (talk

) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that other websites listed on

RSMUSIC also have similar categories, such as Exclaim! (e.g. the "POP AND ROCK" tag at the bottom of this review). Might need to check a lot more of those sites to see which else need this notice. QuietHere (talk

) 05:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What are the impressions of other editors about the accuracy/reliability of the historynet.com platform? The publisher of this website,

At the same time, I think most of the material that is cited on Wikipedia is content that has been syndicated from the publisher's collection of magazines, much of it semi-archival, such as this piece, used in

Iskandar323 (talk

) 09:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the bottom of the barrel, and I tag but don't remove it from articles unless it's part of a multi-source attribution or I easily find a reliable substitute. The basic problems begin with the general lack of citations (inline or bibliography), the typical lack of bylines, and lack of precision in wording that makes it difficult to independently verify their facts. On the other hand, something like this Rommel article has a human byline and specific dates and locations for easy cross-checking, so that is generally acceptable for mediocre and below articles. But if you want to make a decent article, you can search for the specific facts that you need from the history.net article and see if they're mentioned in an unambiguously reliable source. (Note: I am in no way a scholar of history, so any editor who is should please comment if they have a perception of this site from an academic standpoint.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• ISBN 978-0674504691
  .

More specifically: These edits sourced to Dabashi[41] were reverted on the supposed merit that Dabashi violates

WP:POV.[42] - LouisAragon (talk

) 15:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems the discussion about a source's scholarship in relation to the article's subject has only just begun on the article's talk page. You should consider engaging in the conversation there. At the very least, you attribute an awful lot of text to only two pages of a book that is not even based around the article's timeline, or is even really about history as much as it is about the present. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"You should consider engaging in the conversation there."

I'm definitely going to -- it just saves a lot of time if it can be determined straight away whether the source is crap or not (in relation to the article/article's Legacy section). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

For Telugu cinema, Idlebrain.com and 123telugu.com are the number one media sources that have all the information and reviews. They have English and Telugu website versions. Why is there no mention of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? DareshMohan (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ask here - RSN is not the venue for this kind of requests. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I wonder if it is https://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr and https://www.hkv.hr RS? With that same question for http://pemptousia.com/ and http://www.novosti.rs ,and the book is also questionable Avro Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust. In the book it says that there were over 700 thousand victims and on the page Wikipedia 77-100 thousand [[54]]. Please see the sources on the page [[55]] and these are edits and page history [[56]]. I also hope that someone will help edit the page so that it is as it should be. Thank you 93.139.150.38 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not generally familiar with this subject or region, but I can give a few recommendations. A quick glance and nobody seems to cite Avro Manhattan for scholarship, good or bad. A dispute at the article's talk page raises a few of the concerns, but Vactican's Holocaust is free to read, and while it wouldn't surprise me if it's completely unsuitable as an RS, the text itself does have in-line references, so if you want something from that book you could always just search for other scholars who cite the same primary source.

For the individual news websites I can't make a full judgement as the writing style does not translate well from Google into something I can accurately interpret. The first Novosti article is by historian Antun Miletić who seems to be an established expert in the field (and therefore even his self-published articles can be RS, with caution), and the academic quality of the piece in Novosti depends on whether it's an excerpt or partial summary of previous publications, or a separate monograph -- I can't tell from the translated page.

The 2017 Slobodna Dalmacija article is by a reporter who attributes almost everything to historian/archaeologist Ivo Rendić-Miočević [hr]. There's a brief paragraph putting down Marko Ručnov's book, and one saying Aleksandar Pražić supports the thesis. The RS to cite is thus the individual notable scholars being quoted in the article: "said Rendić-Miočević, as quoted in Slobodna Dalmacija" or something like that.

Interesting how the 2015 Hrvatski Tjednik article is used to support the same line as the S-D article, but in this one they also directly criticize S-D for sloppy reprinting of non-expert historians (Julia Gorin 13 March 2010). It is written by Ivo Rendić-Miočević himself, and he mainly takes aim at Milan Bulajić. Again, I'd say Rendić-Miočević is the one to whom you'd want to attribute claims in-line, and not the newspaper.

The Pemptousia article is blockquoting Wikipedia for almost its whole length. Good for them, frankly, that they do so with attribution, but it absolutely can't be cited.

Overall it seems the key part that other editors now and may in the future take issue with is the statement "There is no historical evidence of his existence", which is written in wikivoice. I think as contentious as this seems to be on a political and possibly academic level as well, it's probably worth giving that particular phrase attribution in-text: "According to Ivo Rendić-Miočević...". SamuelRiv (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I added "According to Ivo Rendić-Miočević " I don't want to touch these other suspicious sources, because they will return to the old way again. I would like to ask someone, if possible, to keep an eye on the page so that what I wrote is not deleted, or if possible, edit it better. Thank you very much for your answer.93.139.150.38 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

David Paulides

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

Someone inside wikipedia has put publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptoid, and  other debunker rags into wikipedia's group of "reliable sources."  Those magazines make their money by lying and creating bias against anything they consider paranormal.  They have zero respect for the truth.

wikipedia opened the door for wikipedia editors to use those magazines as sources.  Using the falsehoods from these corrupt articles, wikipedia editors can discredit, cancel, and demean anyone they choose.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2017/07/31/pseudo-skepticism-the-new-debunker/

Here's an example of the new level of poison being fed into site's like David Paulides.  If he so much as mentions the word, conspiracy, ever, in a book, film, magazine, anywhere in print, these editors will make it his whole life. It's how wikipedia turned the Missing 411 into the Missing 411 Conspiracy.

One author at Skeptical Inquirer said that every time a hiker goes missing, David Paulides calls it a Missing 411 case.  That's a blatant lie, but because it came from  a "reliable source," it can be added to a person's biography as if it's true.

There's three or four wikipedia editors who hover over David Paulides' bio, which I've tried to work on.  They use insidious logic to twist truth into lies.  Now the lies are being disseminated out to Twitter, Facebook, etc.

The biography I've tried to work on was given "protected status" because it was being "repeatedly vandalized."  Translated that means that the people who are trying to change the biography into something that resembles the truth are immediately shot down by vigilent editors who preserve the lies.

If there are any adults left at wikipedia or anyone with a conscience who can help unlock that biography page or lose the protected status so it can be changed from a pack of lies into an actual biography, it would finally be the correct thing and an accomplishment.  Many many well-intentioned editors before me have tried to edit the page for years and failed, nothing has changed.  That something as simple as removing the slander and lies and adding a simple biography has never been accomplished just astonishes me.  If I were the subject of this page I would be in the process of requesting it be deleted.   ~~~~

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA503310504&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=01946730&p=AONE&sw=w MikiBishop (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Discussion of BLP violations belong at
  talk
  ) 08:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Or, if insufficient critical coverage can be found, removing the mentions of fringe beliefs entirely. Solely using credulous sources (some of which may be SPS or adjacent) would be equally problematic in a BLP. Can't be NPOV if we only take the subject of the article at their word. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The mention of Skeptical Inquirer brings back memories of this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373 SVTCobra 16:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to question whether the podcast by Kyle Polich is reliable and/or should be featured as much as is, as it's likely self-published, and aside from occasional freelancing or consulting Polich doesn't seem to do much else than podcast. But I think the issue here is more of tone and balance than in reliability: skeptical sources are extolled in detail (we wouldn't write: " Blob Blonson, a journalist for The New York Times, in a June 21 1998 article titled "Blah blah blah", wrote blah blah blah..."). The article as a whole reminds me of coming from the point of view of a kid who's really into dinosaurs, and talks a whole lot about them whenever the chance arises. Only swap dinosaurs for skeptic writers and podcasters. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also the issue of whether the statement "Paulides was charged with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for a charity." (cited here,) assuming it even refers the same person, rises to the level of inclusion in a biography per

WP:PROPORTION. --Animalparty! (talk

) 00:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

How many different David Paulideses worked at the San Jose Police Department?

talk

) 16:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea: do you think a charge with no documented resolution must be included in a BLP? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a machine dedicated to "holding all wrongdoers accountable?", regardless of severity of wrongdoing? --Animalparty! (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't hard to verify that the San Jose police has had only one David Paulides. The records are public. The source is valid, it's reliable, and it's coverage of an incident in his career, encyclopedically relevant to a biography, but not more than one sentence's worth. I found other coverage of his career, local-interest pieces about routine police work, like stopping to help a motorist working under the hood of a broken-down car, and when getting in the car to assist in starting it, discovers a bag of marijuana on the seat. Routine stuff, all police officers have stories like that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And furthermore, the section about "Bigfoot or Sasquatch" seems to be somewhat of a tangential

coatrack, going beyond aspects that Paulides is widely known for: I don't care that the Bigfoot DNA article was debunked, but reliable sources don't seem to connect it strongly to Paulides: all we have is Paulides' blog post saying his organization organized the study and "picked" Dr. Ketchum, and that he supported the results (unsurprisingly). Was Paulides a co-author of the study, or otherwise widely recognized as being associated with it? If not, much of the material about the DNA article should probably be omitted or relegated elsewhere, such as Bigfoot#"DeNovo:_Journal_of_Science"_article or some future article on Ketchum --Animalparty! (talk

) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on newspaper coverage I found from 2009 in NewspaperArchive, Bigfoot seems to be the primary thing he's known for, at least back then. Example source: Jesse Faulkner (May 31, 2009). "Bigfoot? He's real to these folks". Marysville Appeal Democrat. p. 3.; unfortunately the site doesn't let me create a publicly-accessible link. The article does provide some interesting context about how he got involved in Bigfoot investigations. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should ignore his Bigfoot related activities, indeed they are a large part of his notability. I'm saying I don't think the single 2013 Bigfoot DNA paper that dominates the section is as significant to his career or Bigfoot activities as the Wikipedia article makes it out to be (violating

WP:PROPORTION): it looks like whoever added that section really wanted to write about the Bigfoot DNA paper, and shoehorned it into Paulides' biography. It's a coatrack. --Animalparty! (talk

) 09:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me that the section is dominated by coverage of Missing 411. The DNA paper gets a smaller subsection which could be trimmed a bit. Hardly a coatrack. However, that paper seems like the source of his notability (at least among the True Believers), as that paper has apparently led to him being listed as a featured speaker at multiple events spanning over a decade, such as "Sasquatch Summit" (full-page color newspaper ad in 2016), "Bigfoot Encounters in California: The Hoopa Project" (small announcement in 2008), and "Sasquatch Fest" (half-page color newspaper ads in 2021 and 2022). Clearly the bigfoot connection is what he seems known for, primarily, although I also found a large ad for the "UFO Paranormal Summit" (2018) in which he was listed as the author of Missing 411. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

See [https://web.archive.org/web/20101125032714/http://acolumbinesite.com/quotes.html] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna say a flat out no. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

^^^^. nableezy - 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Related issue re use of schoolshooters.info

We use this in four relate articles[57] but I can't find evidence it's a reliable source. The Columbine article has other dubious source, but... Doug Weller talk 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The book is Dust of Dreams (novel), which IMHO is a decent read if I recall it correctly. The sources are "Elistist Book Reviews"[58] and Fantasy Book Review. [59] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Elitist Book Reviews appears to be a group-blog type of site, couldn't find any indication that any of the participants are noted reviewers or SMEs. Fantasy Book Review gives no information about who is behind the site. I don't think either supports notability for the individual book, and would recommend redirecting it to Malazan Book of the Fallen. (Looked around and couldn't find any reputable reviews to add to the the article.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Schazjmd Two new reviews have been added. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NBOOK, IMO. Schazjmd (talk)

19:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)