Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 422

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

These three refs^[1][2][3] have recently been attached to an entry on the list of Longest recorded sniper kills, (currently ranked first), as well as in some of the article's prose. While I know some of these sites are generally accepted as reliable, I'm not so sure about their reliability in supporting the content there after further evaluation of them. Would appreciate some extra eyes to take a look. Thanks - wolf 05:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thewolfchild already requested extra eyes at Longest recorded sniper kills... Specifically pinging me on the talk page and requesting I review the entry[1]... Apparently they didn't like what I had to say because they decided to edit war and jump venues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• The Independent is a good quality source, I can't see any reason to doubt it. Also as four of the references used for other entries in that article are undefined error messages the referencing for this entry is doing well.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If we accept the premise that "longest recorded sniper kills" is a meaningfully confirmable record, the sourcing for this entry appears to be just as good as the others in the table – and better than several. The Independent is normally a reliable source; unless other reliable sources have actively cast doubt on the validity of this claim it seems to have just as good a claim to inclusion as anything else in the list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, I'm not asking if the source itself is unreliable, just the specific report, for this specific entry. (If an editor wishes to examine the sources for a different entry and ask asistance, they're free to. But to say "the other entries sourcing isn't very good, so give this a pass", is not very helpful.) The Independent relies on a post from Messenger, an SPS, and comments from a primary source. Newsweek states they: "could not independently verify this information nor the video, and has reached out to the SBU and Russia's defense ministry for additional comment.", and the Kyev Idenpendent relies on a "local source", which is also a post on the Telegram Messenger app, an SPS. So I'm asking if these specific reports are acceptable sourcing. Note, I had first posted about this to the article talk page (as we're supposed to), but after several days, only received a response from two editors, one that only addressed another entry on the list, and the second that only addressed one of the sources, so I came here. Thanks again for any assistance. - wolf 14:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  My point on the other references wasn't on their reliability it is that four of them don't exist they are just error messages. My other comments still stand the Independent is reliable, and I very much doubt any of the other claims have been independently verified (unless someone from the Guinness book of records was there adjudicating). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  By coincidence I got to this article today while clearing down Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and removed the references that were broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  We don't generally question the sources a source uses. Nor would I expect independent verification of most military activities to be available, we don't have that for anything else on that page... So either you're challenging the entire page or you have no argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  So when Yahoo states that their report is supported by an sps post on a messenger app, you still believe that specific source should be retained as reliable? Or when Newsweek openly states that they haven't verified the info in their report (so not just a questionable source, but no source at all), you would also accept that report as reliable?

  WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. - wolf

  05:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Again you're using our RS standards to evaluate the sources that the sources use rather than simply the sources themselves. That is a misapplication of this standards. You're mistaken and need to refresh your understanding of how reliability works on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Erm, I thought we were supposed to evaluate sources to determine if they specifically apply to, and sufficiently support, the content they're being attached to. I must've missed the part in the P&G that says we "must blindly accept any ref jammed into an article, as long as it comes from a source that is found to be 'generally' reliable". Again, in evaluating these sources here, one stated they were referring to a "local source" which turned out to be a comment on the telegram messenger app (one step above 4chan on the sps ladder), while another source plainly stated they "had not confirmed the info in their report". Are you really saying you believe we must accept those refs as reliable, with no study or discourse what-so-ever? You think that makes for a dependable encyclopaedia? - wolf 05:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources all use SPS, primary, fringe, biased, unreliable, etc sources in their reporting... Thats not a problem for us. If you want to challenge the sources themselves you can do so... But right now you're challenging the sources the sources are using which is completely different thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Not a problem"...? There's problems right here. RS doesn't say we accept sources blindly, it says

  we need to evaluate them. - wolf

  02:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Independent attributes these claims to Ukrainian sources (A Ukrainian sniper claims, In a press statement, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said: “The SBU sniper set a world record for a successful shot.). While they do mention it as a fact later (The world-record comes...) they don't say anything about verifying these claims and I would attribute them too on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this RS? Looks like articles are written by volunteers and some level of their review process is also done by volunteers1, though they also have editorial staff. Thanks Cannolis (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• It's not a wiki, and authors have to propose articles, that then get reviewed and edited. I think it's actually a valid but tertiary source.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, this is as it relates to this COI edit request, but the talk page more broadly is generally indicative of the {{COI}} concerns that I have with the article.

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

So I have two questions: (1) do you have any experience with InForum and bizjournal as RS? InForum returns no hits on the RS archive search but bizjournal seems to pop up pretty regularly as an unreliable source, notably

Thanks for your assistance in advance. — microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've subscribed to my local bizjournal in the past; it can be a good way to keep track of new construction around the neighborhood. I don't see it as a good source for Wikipedia, I perceive it as mostly a place for real estate developers to name drop and amplify their press releases. I agree it's churnalism, not independent of the subject, and shouldn't be used for determining due weight or notability. Geogene (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The first source you've listed (InForum.com) is the website of The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, which is a newspaper based in Fargo, North Dakota that's owned by a broader Upper Midwest regional news group. Bell Bank is based in Fargo, and it's got ~1800 employees, so I can imagine that its business moves would attract attention in its hometown paper and interest among locals. Doesn't seem like a particularly nebulous thing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

thedisinfolab.org: 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

Come across this site previously? There seems to be a group of

My first encounter with this was in November, I think around November 10. The modus operandi is that new accounts with few edits plug it into China-related articles, usually at the end of the lead. The edit summaries were often identical and vague, I think it was typically something like “add important information.”

Seems to be an effort to spam or promote the website. The propositions it was cited for were sometimes redundant to the material in the article or sometimes the kind of broad assertion were a plethora of real sources could have been used instead. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is

WP:ANI or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's an Indian government-sponsored disinformation operation; both the site, and the coordinated edits here. Many of the edits linked by ActivelyDisinterested have to do with criticizing the Khalistan movement (dozens of whose leaders have been targeted by the Indian government for assassinations in recent months), criticizing Pakistan, and, as JArthur mentions, criticizing China (like in this edit). Follows Indian propaganda to a T. See this article about the site for context. I've removed all use of the site in mainspace; same pattern as AD.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] DFlhb (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC) edited 01:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the details DFlhb, and thanks to Amigao for posting it to the MW blocklist page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

They are a part of

MGIMO which is a well-known university. For this specific case there are no reasons to doubt its accuracy, I think. Alaexis_¿question?

19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. There is an AfD going on where this source is being discussed. I request you to share your thoughts on that AfD. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Apple by "by far the most prolific" corporate contributor to OSM; it seems their editorial role is active, not passive (Bloomberg). (Bloomberg also favourably compares OSM to Google Maps for developing countries, but that doesn't address USERGEN). If this is about NZ: Apple started off using TomTom/OSM/etc for data, but since 2020 they've been rolling out "redesigned" maps which rely on fully in-house data ([20][21][22][23]). New Zealand has it since 2022 ([24]). DFlhb (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

The author

Banks Irk (talk

) 15:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to use it for the military conflicts between the Bahmanis and the Gajapati empire. I asked for reliability because when I searched it in archive.org, it showed the publication date as 1946, which was a British era. Which one is the correct year of publication of this book? ImperialAficionado (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

1946 is the original publication date; he died in 1980 and it was republished after his death. WP:RAJ doesn't apply to everything published by anyone prior to Indian Independence. It applies to ethnographic/caste studies, typically by colonial amateur ethnographers, and most often from an earlier time period than this book. And WP:RAJ is simply an essay, not a hard rule.

Banks Irk (talk

) 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. ImperialAficionado (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? This is an over 600 pages-long book dealing with Greece during World War II. From what I see it is self-published, but it's apparently also in the libraries of the University of Tübingen [25]. Christou D. Vittou is not an academic and does not appear to have any formation as a historian, he figures as a "Υποστράτηγος Ε.Α." in the book, so he'd be apparently a Greek major general. This could be relevant since much of the war in Greece was unorganized guerrilla warfare against Axis occupation forces. The book also appears to have been cited by some scholars [26] [27]. In one of the citations a different publisher is featured, Tsiartsanis, which apparently is the edition at the University of Tübingen.

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

The listed ISBN is ISBN 13, it also has an ISBN 10 which might result useful for finding information:

• No, it's a self-published source. To the extent that it is based on his personal experiences during WWII, it would also be a primary, not secondary source.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

May I ask for a third-party evaluation of this site as a reliable source: https://kyband.com/information/about-us/ (FWIW, it strikes me as a

Definitely user-generated content. It invites people to submit the content, posted without editorial oversight.

Banks Irk (talk

) 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

As with all things MEMRI, you simply cannot trust that they have not completely cut out of context the material they post or that they have not fabricated the translation. You would need the original interview, absent MEMRI's creative editing, to see that. And we shouldn't be basing our articles on interviews that secondary sources have not analyzed anyway. nableezy - 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what I'm asking, to check whether he said anything about allies or support in the original interview. Alaexis_¿question? 08:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My own reading is that the statement is ambiguous, you can also interpret it as the section in the commas being the Kyiv Post's addition (you would normally see it done like this, but you will also see commas) and only "Hamas relies on the support of its allies" is actually being attributed to Mashal. In that case it would be read as Mashal saying that Hamas relies on its allies and the Kyiv Post saying that its allies include Russia and China (something which I don't think anyone would challenge). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's possible, but half of the problem remains as the translation doesn't say anything about China and Russia supporting Hamas. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A MEMRI translation on an Israel related matter is not something to be relied on. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you read my question? I'm asking about a specific interview given to the Egyptian Sada El-Balad channel. Did Mashal say anything about allies or support or not? Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned the translation, that's what I am responding to. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If the question is "is MEMRI reliable?" the answer is unequivocally no... But I stand by my interpretation of this as a misreading of an ambiguous situation not one where we need to ask that question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The question was Can someone check the original interview? to see what Mashal actually said. Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And the answer I would provide is that if you have to do OR to figure out what to say you should look for a different source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it OR? I cannot verify a source (Mashal's interview to Sada El-Balad channel) myself and ask other editors to do it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you're asking us to verify is the Kiev Post, not Mashal's interview to Sada El-Balad channel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If that part is not attributed to the translation then why does the problem remain at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This source was used on Wikipedia and since I don't know Arabic well enough to understand Mashal's words, I'd like to know what he actually said. Alaexis_¿question? 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Which of the three sources was used on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the primary source (the interview) has been misrepresented by Kyiv Post. M.Bitton (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm, are you saying this having listened to what Mashal was saying in Arabic or because you trust MEMRI as a source? Alaexis_¿question? 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

After watching the video repeatedly and carefully reading the Kyiv Post article, I concur that Kyiv Post misrepresented the MEMRI video. They misinterpreted the subtitle context, and I would be willing to upload the full video with Arabic and English subtitles if the copyright holder of the original video agrees to publish it on Wikimedia Commons. QalasQalas (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that for now it's enough that we know what has been said. I've removed the Kyiv Post article from the article in which it was used. Alaexis_¿question? 13:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input about TheCradle ([29]). It was previously discussed last year with limited input. I've never heard of it, and I can't find anywhere it's cited by mainstream RS.

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

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

Where has it been cited? Selfstudier (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s a really bad source but if it’s not being used in WP it’s not really worth discussing here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh we use it quite a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22thecradle.co%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1 First use listed (in Afghanistan article) is a piece by conspiracy theorist Pepe Escobar. This is a dreadful site that’s possibly worse than recently deprecated Al-Mayadeen and we should not be using it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Never heard of or read Pepe Escobar, but calling him a conspiracy theorist seems harsh after scanning his wikiarticle. Mujinga (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the Cradle, he's found a comfortable home for his words at The Unz Review, RT, PressTV, and Sputnik News, among other watering holes of conspiracy theorists and antisemitism peddlers. Longhornsg (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

and yet our article describes him as a "Brazilian journalist and geopolitical analyst" - are you coming with some sort of bias here I wonder? Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Please

WP:AGF. Discuss the merits of the sources, and don’t attack editors. Longhornsg (talk

) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• "no masthead" - there's clearly a masthead
• "no ... an evidence of editorial oversight" - it's weak for sure but their about exists
• "referring to Hamas as "Islamic resistance movement" - that's its name, as previously mentioned
• "mostly selectively aggregating and repackaging content from other source" - that's not my impression of the site at all, it seems mostly original journalism

Mujinga (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Would you be willing to provide a link to the masthead? I'm having trouble finding their listing of editorial staff, though I can find the names of individual contributors by crawling through the site. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll hazard a guess and say that the difference in use of the term "masthead" in British and American English is the problem here. Ostalgia (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Cradle is clearly pro-Palestinian, and therefore a biased source, if that's what you wanted me to say. I'd disagree with pretty much all of your assessment though. For example, we also call Hamas the Islamic Resistance Movement since that's its name. Mujinga (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• The site has an icon "Become an Author", i.e. anyone can contribute after registering. It does not say anything about editorial policies and fact checking. Therefore, it looks to me almost like a blog, i.e. "generally unreliable". It probably should not be used for contentious political topics. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  The "become an author" link is an invitation to pitch a story -- not at all like anyone can contribute. (Also that's not how blogs work?) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's quite interesting that they chose to write the following passage on their About Us page We chose the name The Cradle as a reminder that the cradle of civilization was borne of this region... West Asia is the start of history in so many ways, but today the region has lost its roots largely because non-sovereign states act as pawns in the geopolitical calculations of The Other (bold mine). They don't say who The Other is but they do lavish praise on those who want to eject The Other on the same page. Possibly I'm paranoid but this reminds me of the rhetoric of some other organisations in "West Asia" whose goals include the obliteration of a certain people. Happy to be proven wrong if they clarify their position elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talk • contribs) 1919:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking more along the lines of this "Other" being the US, but one way or the other this is beside the point. Neither the content nor the names inspire confidence in this outlet. The above mentioned Pepe Escobar is a crackpot and I don't think we should be relying on content from a "news organisation" that lists him as some sort of star columnist. Ostalgia (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's certainly a valid interpretation, just weird they wouldn't write it explicitly. Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've looking into this source more, and I'm just coming up with a bunch of question marks. There's no
  questionable source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)
  17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I never did get an answer to my question of what was the cite or citations that led to the query here so I have looked into it a bit myself and I agree that this source should not be used except for expert opinions that may show up there, per the usual exception for those. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The cradle" is not a news organization, it is just another pro-Russia, pro-Assad, pro-Iran, pro-Maduro disinformation site which peddles numerous conspiracy theories. That outlet doesnt have any fact-checking policies and allows anyone who is approved by it's operators to publish articles in the site. "The cradle" is a
  self-published source
  which should be deprecated.

The regular columnists listed in its website, include:

• Pepe Escobar, who is a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theorist (see past discussion)
• Sharmine Narwani, another pro-Russian propagandist who used to write at the pro-Russia outlet "RT"

Narwani appears to be the main contributor of this website.

Some of conspiracy theories promoted by that website include:

• its claim that Kurds collaborated with IS in the Yazidi genocide (here)
• its claim that the chemical attacks launched by the Assad regime in Syria are all "false flags" orchestrated by the Syrian opposition
• its claim that "Israel controls British foreign policy"

Propagandistic, conspiratorial sites are widely deployed as sources all across the articles of "The cradle" website. These conspiratorial sites include:

• Al-Mayadeen (here)
• RT (here)
• Sputnik (here)
• Press TV (here)
• The Grayzone (here)

"The cradle" is simply another disinformation, conspiratorial website masqueraded by its financiers as a news outlet. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Thakur, U. (1974). Some Aspects of Ancient Indian History and Culture. Abhinav Publications.
  ISBN 978-0-88386-289-6
  . Retrieved 2023-12-06.

• Warikoo, K.; Som, S. (2000). Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. Retrieved 2023-12-06.

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

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

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

An alarming number of articles (over 1000) currently contain some links to www.sciencedirect.com/topics/, which is a collection of machine-generated pages. Not only machine-generated text isn't a valid source, but referencing such an URL obscures the real source of a piece of information. It's like adding a claim to a medical article and referencing it to "somewhere between the third and the fifth corridor in the medicine section in the library", or "the computer told me", or "an AI thinks so". Nemo 23:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently discussed last month: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again. I agree that something needs to be done here. Like Guy said last month, its probably worth creating an edit filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I second that. The "sources" are basically just online searches. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thirded. This is just a selective dynamic search result. Should never be used as a source. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

+1. In deWP chemistry project, we have replaced/removed all occurrences. Over here, it will be quite a workload to get rid of all occurrences. --Leyo 14:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe blacklisting is the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think blacklisting would be the way to go. There will be users that assume these results are static. Just have everyone cite whatever article the information comes from directly. Cortador (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Made an edit filter request, see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Trying to determine the reliability of Fearless: Wilma Soss and America's Forgotten Investor Movement for a biographical article, on Soss and others. The authors seem to be reputable, but I've never heard of the publisher. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

All Seasons is apparently a new publisher which claims "to take head-on the cancel culture that is destroying the publishing industry and the country" ([35]). The founders apparently have a publishing background, but it's small enough and new enough that I don't know it can have established a reputation for reliability yet. Given the authors, I would expect the book to be broadly reliable as a source about Soss, but you do have to wonder why they didn't choose a more mainstream, less polemically-based publisher. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be my concern as well... Publishing with a fringe outlet suggests that they were rejected by more respected and established outlets... I would attribute to the authors if used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Judging by this bit of drama which is currently the top thing linked to on the front page of the publisher's source, the press is underwritten by hedge fund guy Scott Bessent. As with many underwritten-by-the-wealthy media projects, they may well be choosing to overpay for material while they establish reputation (if I can use a now-outdated-by-inflation saying, the best way to build a million dollar publishing house is to start with ten million dollars.) They are getting recognizable political authors, and the advance they were paying Lee Smith (journalist) is neither "oh wow" money nor is it nothing. So I wouldn't assume that the authors failed at other presses; they may have been courted by this one who may have been willing to outbid. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

[36][37][38]

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

I doubt that this is a question for RSN. Is the Commission or its report used as a source in a specific article? If so, for what?

Banks Irk (talk

) 12:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@

Banks Irk, Yes, the report is used in articles related to September 11 attacks, Iran and Al-Qaeda, and my question is, is the report of the commission about the planning of the September 11 attacks valid? Parham wiki (talk

) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Contradicted on what? Generally speaking, the report has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. But as SamuelRiv points out, the source is 20 years old and historians have had enough time contradict the report if new information has become available. Is there something specific you think is not correct? Which article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge, The 9/11 Commission identified Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the attacks and said that the idea dates back to 1996 and that planning began in late 1998 or early 1999, but al-Qaeda and a document in Bin Laden's home released by the CIA show that Bin Laden (and not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) is the mastermind behind the attacks and the start date is different from the 9/11 Commission Report.

In some paragraphs in the articles Planning of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Timeline of the September 11 attacks, the report is stated as fact. Parham wiki (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If different reliable sources don't agree on details it's usually something best discussed in text, e.g. the 9/11 report say it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed but other later sources say it was in fact Bin Laden (obviously not those exact words, but you get the idea). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Parham wiki (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point the 9/11 Commission Report should be considered a primary source for WP purposes, and a CIA-released document from a raid will always be a primary source. Again, ideally such sources should by this point now only be referenced via internal citation of a history article or book. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. At this point in time, the report should be treated as a primary source, and references should be to secondary sources reporting on its findings. Which is a separate issue from its reliability.

Banks Irk (talk

) 22:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@

sources

say about the matter? Especially modern sources. Do they now say that Osama Bin Laden instead of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the "mastermind" or "architect" of 9/11? Is this is the commonly accepted account scholarly sources? If so, yes, I would say we should look into changing our articles to match our current understanding.

But we should be careful in reading and understanding what sources are actually saying. The Independent article you cited in your first post doesn't say that Bin Laden (not Mohammed) was the mastermind behind 9/11. Instead, it's reporting what Al Qaeda propaganda is claiming. There's a big difference between 'source says a" and 'source says a says b'.

Also, keep in mind that this is a bit nebulous in that "mastermind" and "principle architect" aren't exactly job titles. The Al Qaeda source (as reported by the Independent) seems to be more about who first had the idea to crash planes into buildings. I'm not sure if who had the idea first is the same thing as "mastermind" or "principle architect". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Context is required. What content in the book is proposed to be used as a source, for what purpose in what article? Is there a live dispute regarding the source?

Banks Irk (talk

) 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Now I see what you're asking about looking at your posting history. It is a disservice to other editors at RSN to make us do our own investigation into why a source is being questioned. Bottom line, you are misapplying

Banks Irk (talk

) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh. In that article, there were already cited informations which give the strength of battles. An user used books from Notion press which are considered unreliable as per the discussion over here. He used this source too, and that made me ask here if we can use that book source because after reading that book, I couldn't find citing primary sources within in book. Imperial^[AFCND] 01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I couldn't find which primary source is being supported by this book. That is why I questioned the reliability of the book. Could you please check it? Imperial^[AFCND] 01:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no access to the book, and I cannot find any information on its authors online. The publisher seems reputable, so I have no basis to question the source.

Banks Irk (talk

) 03:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.doctorwhonews.net/p/about-us.html They claim to be a sucsessor to

We would need to know in what context this site is considered a successor? There would be a bit difference if a fan With no connection to Outpost Gallifrey was inspired to create their own fan page after discovering the original shut down and if several key staff from Outpost Gallifrey decided to start over and make a spiritual successor. In other wolds is this a self professed successor or is there an actual linage.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Following the shut down the news page "migrated over". Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Unconvinced. Nearly every "news story" is posted by a single person (Marcus) and a number of them are pretty much straight reprints of press releases or news reports from other sources. It's fairly obvious since they don't have any issue using copyrighted images to illustrate their stories. I don't see anything here that (a) makes this source reliable, or (b) contains any information that couldn't be sourced elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim's are ratings for series 2 of Doctor Who which arent found anywhere else. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

They can claim whatever they like, is there any evidence they are in fact a successor to Outpost Gallifrey? Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any evidence that this particular website has

"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Where are they discussed/cited in RS? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 19:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I'm dubious. Although they list a couple of editorial staff, in reality they work on multiple fanside sites handling the inflow of volunteer content. The articles written by the two editors[39][40] may pass

WP:SPS, but I would be very cautious with anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 20:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Hi all

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

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

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

Thanks very much

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

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

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

Could you also give the opposing sources? The ones that say wrongdoing was done by De Sade? Loki (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe all the sources and their relevant quotes are in Marquis de Sade#Controversy. Would you like me to copy that info here? PNople (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Loki (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure:

== Controversy ==

Marshall writes that Sade's “known behaviour includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes–significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism.”^[1] Phillips states "there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion."^[2] Dworkin, however, argues that the issue is whether one believes Sade or his female accusers and that admirers of Sade "attempt to justify, trivialize, or deny (even though records confirming the facts exist) every assault Sade ever committed against women and girls."^[3] Gray states that Sade engaged in "psychic terrorism" and that "Sade's brand of sadism was often more mental than corporeal."^[4] According to Bongie, Sade perpetrated "crimes of physical violence committed during sexual assaults on hapless prostitutes. Such assaults, aggravated by death threats and the element of recidivism, could easily get an offender into similar difficulties today."^[5]

== And this 4th paragraph from the lead is also relevant: ==

There is debate over the extent to which Sade's behavior was criminal and sadistic. Marshall states that Sade's "known behavior includes only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes—significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism."^[6] Dworkin, however, argues that the issue is whether one believes Sade or the women who accused him of sexual assault.^[3]

== Works cited ==

• Bongie, Laurence Louis (1998). Sade: A Biographical Essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  ISBN 0-226-06420-4
  .
• Camus, Albert (1953). The Rebel. Translated by Bower, Anthony. London: Hamish Hamilton.
• Carter, Angela (1978). The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography. New York: Pantheon Books.
  ISBN 0-394-75893-5
  .
• Crocker, Lester G. (1963). Nature and Culture: Ethical Thought in the French Enlightenment. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
• Dworkin, Andrea (1981). Pornography: Men Possessing Women. London: The Women's Press.
  ISBN 0-7043-3876-9
  .
• Gorer, Geoffrey (1964). The Revolutionary Ideas of the Marquis de Sade (3rd ed.). London: Panther Books.
• Gray, Francine du Plessix (1998). At Home with the Marquis de Sade: a life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  ISBN 0-684-80007-1
  .
• Lever, Maurice (1993). Marquis de Sade, a biography. Translated by Goldhammer, Arthur. London: Harper Collins.
  ISBN 0-246-13666-9
  .
• Love, Brenda (2002). The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. London: Abacus.
  ISBN 978-0-349-11535-1
  .
• Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the impossible: a history of Anarchism. Oakland: PM Press.
  ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1
  .
• Paglia, Camille (1990). Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. New York: Vintage.
  ISBN 0-679-73579-8
  .
• Phillips, John (2005). How to Read Sade. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
  ISBN 0-393-32822-8
  .
• Queenan, Joe (2004). Malcontents. Philadelphia: Running Press.
  ISBN 978-0-7624-1697-4
  .
• Sade, Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de (1965). Seaver, Richard; Wainhouse, Austryn (eds.). The Complete Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom and other writings. Grove Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Schaeffer, Neal (2000). The Marquis de Sade: a Life. New York City: Knopf Doubleday.
  ISBN 978-0-67400-392-7
  .
• Shattuck, Roger (1996). Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  ISBN 0-312-14602-7
  .

PNople (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

• Generally speaking, you can't dismiss a source as unreliable just because you think what it says is wrong, or even because you have other sources that disagree with it; that leads to
  WP:FRINGE that we might dismiss sources advancing that perspective, but it requires a much more sweeping analysis and not just "sources exist that say Y." If there are other problems with the sources (ie. it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; or it's self-published or poorly published; or if it doesn't say what people say it does; or things like that) then that's a different matter, but "here's another source that disagrees with that one on that point" is not itself an RS issue - sources disagree on things all the time, especially fairly intricate historical controversies like this one. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I should’ve said this more clearly: Please read the entire talk discussion under that Controversy section I linked to.

  I did as much as I could to do the analysis you’re talking about here. I’m very glad you mentioned a logical fallacy here, as I want to do that type of thorough factual analysis via critical thinking, etc.. My argument is definitely not that it’s true because I think it’s true, that would be entirely counterproductive. I’m not engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy, you’ll see my arguments on the talk page. Though as we discuss, please point out any logical fallacies you think I’m engaging in, and I’ll my best to address each concern. PNople (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I’m interested to see your response @Aquillion, as the response by Banks Irk has been lacking and rude as I outlined. It seems you’re interested in critical thinking and have an idea of how the logical fallacies work, which is promising to me. Hope to discuss with you. PNople (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• You misunderstand or misinterpret
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 18:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  It’s rude to me for you to state that I misunderstand or misinterpret anything. That’s inappropriate here and not productive to our discussion. And I believe it’s false. If you ever cite policies or any sources, you need to cite with particularity and where they apply, which you haven’t done.

  Regardless, I disagree with your conclusory statement. There is plenty unreliable with the stated sources. You need to read that entire talk discussion and address my arguments directly, which you haven’t done.

  Because of your rudeness, I’m more interested in what other considerate editors have to say. But I will address all your statements directly as I’ve done here. PNople (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if I have offended you. What non-rude words would you prefer to convey that your arguments are completely wrong and contradict

  Banks Irk (talk

  ) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  @

  Banks IrkYou’re violating the logical fallacy of ad populum here by concluding that if more people say something, it makes it true. You’re still being rude and not addressing my arguments and concerns. I’m not interested in discussing with you more unless it’s absolutely required by admins. Take care. PNople (talk

  ) 21:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, I'm not invoking an informal fallacy. I'm suggesting that the subsection of

  Banks Irk (talk

  ) 21:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  None of that was helpful to us, or particular as I requested. And is still rude. Please don’t respond to me again. PNople (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Banks Irk: you can't complain about what they are telling you, and say "don't respond to me again" (which you can't say on a board like this anyway), and then post on their talk page. At the least that's passive-aggressive. Second, and I have looked over this thread and the talk page, there seems to be no "contention" at all: there is just you, and you disagree with a couple of other editors. You also just do not seem to understand what it means for secondary sources to be reliable, so reliable that we use them as the basis for writing up these articles. I have not yet looked at what you did in the article, but I will say that it is very unlikely that this thread is going to gain much traction, sorry. Finally, if you wish to give up on Wikipedia, just walk away. Drmies (talk

  ) 22:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  How Do I Permanently Remove My Account’s Ability to Edit ASAP? I’ve Encountered Too Many Rude And Unhelpful Editors i.e.@Banks Irk Lacking Critical Thinking Basics, Or Curiosity To Learn. Help me Permanently Lose My Ability to Edit ASAP! From @ PNople PNople (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Any wikipedian may step away from the keyboard at any time they choose. BusterD (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've indef blocked this user because after leaving here they posted the same screed in a number of pagespaces. If they want to know how to stop editing; I've done that for them this time. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even if the OP was banned, I think it's appropriate to note that it was Banks Irk's "rude", "inappropriate" and overall dismissive attitude - which I do agree was rude, inappropriate and dismissive ("What non-rude words would you prefer to convey that your arguments are completely wrong") - that created this whole situation. @

  Banks Irk: users come to this page for help and advice. If you can't do that without being rude and argumentative, then you probably need to let others provide said help and advice. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions

  ) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Banks Irk said "You misunderstand or misinterpret WP:Primary and WP: Secondary", Homeostasis07. That's neither rude nor argumentative. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

But accusing a user of misrepresenting or misinterpreting WP:Primary and WP:Secondary is indeed rude and borderline uncivil. There is nothing here in this thread to warrant the jumping-down-the-throat that Banks Irk responded with, such as describing the user an SPA. If you don't have the temperament to provide help on a help page in a civil, non-combative manner, then go elsewhere. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The simple act of letting someone know they are wrong isn't rude or uncivil in and of itself. If it were it would be impossible to have any substantive discussion.

MrOllie (talk

) 03:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. I did not say that they misrepresented RS, but that they misunderstood or misinterpreted it. The former might suggest a level of prevarication, but I made no such statement. If an editor just absolutely refuses to listen to what every single other editor is telling them about an issue, and they take offense at being told that they're wrong, that's on them, not the editors telling them that they're wrong.

Banks Irk (talk

) 03:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"We're done here." Or is that statement rude and uncollaborative? If so, I immediately apologize. But I note it's a phrase Banks Irk has snapped on more than one occasion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have an issue with an editor RSN isn't the pace to bring it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Outside of

User:Banks Irk has done to warrant further heckling. This isn't the forum for it anyway. BusterD (talk

) 12:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw the following text at North Korean cult of personality:

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

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

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

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

Good catch. In such cases, or even edge cases, you should definitely attribute in-text in-line: "The Chosun Ibo reported in 200x that ..." or "According to ...". SamuelRiv (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

chosun.com is a newspaper and therefore even if rs is only reliable for news reporting. See

WP:NEWSORG. It is not rs for analysis of NK's government. It's opinions should only be reported if they are covered in secondary sources. For example, an academic paper about NK could say chosun routinely refers to the style of leadership as a personality cult. TFD (talk

) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

No. Not going to do that. Please read the instructions above. Ask a simple question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?"

Banks Irk (talk

) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Is The Cambridge History of India: Turks and Afghans is reliable for making the statement Raja Dahir had 50,000 horsemen in the article Battle of Aror. Or

Is Spread of Islam Throughout the World is reliable for making the same statement in the same article? Imperial^[AFCND] 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes and yes. And if a different source has a different number it may also be reliable, in which case we report and attribute both figures.

Banks Irk (talk

) 19:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. But an editor refused to accept this, even questioning the reliability, pointing out that there are no inline citations that provides primary sources in the books, and removed it. Recently I added both figures, and he/she again removed it. That is why I made the first comment. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add reasoning behind this .

For the details of this particular battles our only primary source is book named 'chachanama' . Chachanama is considered a benchmark for sindhi history as it is a very detailed account. Pretty much every modern scholar refers to it while writing about the details. This 25k numbers pretty much comes from there , as most modern scholars accept it , though some considers it exaggerated. The one I have cited has used this source only.

Coming back to cambridge and K.S lal , none of them has provided a source or a citation in their work for their statement. Obviously one don't usually doubt the reliability of cambridge statement in their work , but it becomes hard to follow when it is clearly contradicted by pretty much every scholar who actually has provided source for their statement (pretty much chachanama only) citing only 20-25k men.

Finally I'm saying we can't be adding statement of cambridge book here , who is neither cited or provided any source for their statement to verify over the pretty much all the scholars who have provided source for their statement i.e very primary sources like chachanama (the only one).

The reliability of a any book be it cambridge or anyone becomes less when it itself hasn't provided any source for their statement

Thank you Summerkillsme (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That is an incorrect approach to secondary sources. We do not vet the sources that they themselves used. This seems to be a recurring misconception running through several of the above discussions on the current page here. If there are multiple sources reporting different figures, we reflect those differences with attribution; we don't exclude the sources with which we disagree (subject to considerations like

Banks Irk (talk

) 12:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

obviously , this is not the case and not what I'm referring to .

I could possibly give you 100's of references of dahir's army in this particular battle and every historian who has worked on this are well aware the of numbers reported in sources which we have and that's what they refer in their work .

Some even considers 20-25k as an exaggeration

And obviously you are wrong at ' we do not vet sources they themselves used ' . Secondary sources must be based on some sort of primary source itself , (more importantly when it is related to numbers)

Cambridge statement in this case do not have any primary information cited to it ,.

The fact that these two has no primary source attached to it ,and is extremely ridiculous numbers which hasn't been cited by a single historian till day who has actually referred to primary sources in their work .

We can't be hovering over one statement in complete absence of any evidence when 1000 others are referring to completely same result with actual evidence.

The book is dated to 1920-30's and I would like to point out more about this. Summerkillsme (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

See

WP:AGEMATTERS, if newer academic sources use different numbers than those should probably be used. However just to comment on primary sources, they are not the "truth" as any historian would tell you and if professional historians interpret or decide to dismiss primary sources it isn't up to Wikipedia editors to disagree. It quite common for primary sources to state numbers that bare no relation to actual fact, and wouldn't have been possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

• Context? The question is meaningless without it. Don't make us investigate what you're inquiring about.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 04:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Banner blindness striking again, is it? ☺ There's a link right at the top of this section to the context. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry. No idea. The link in the archived reference is to JACTA, not newsruss.com to and the link at the bottom of the JACTA article is a dead link. I can't find any in information on either JACTA or newsruss.com, and I don't read Russian. There are a number of other sites that have newsruss as part of their URL, but I assume those dre different sites.

    Banks Irk (talk

    ) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Although the article itself isn't archived (only the repost by Jacta[41]), some of Newsruss.com's other articles are. Takes these two for instance[42][43], both are clearly in the pro-Putin propaganda camp (protestors have no real plans so for democracy vote Putin, and the journalist covering Pussy Riot demonstrations are part of a conspiracy). I would suggest a lot of caution with either Newsruss or Jacta, as both my be heavily biased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

• The domain doesn't even resolve for me, can anyone else see it? And newsruss.ru is a Wiki. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Same here. I can't find it anywhere except at Internet Archive. I assume it's defunct.

  Banks Irk (talk

  ) 12:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• insidesources.com: 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
• dcjournal.com: 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
• delawarevalleyjournal.com: 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
• nhjournal.com: 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

The article on Deval Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a Democrat, includes salacious information from insidesources.com. Other links to the site include an Author page for Paul Gosar. I can't find any indicia of reliability for this publication, and having Gosar as an author is quite the red flag for derogatory info on a BLP of a Democrat. A quick review suggests that it, and its three child publications, are partisan commentary masquerading as news (e.g. fawning praise of Vivek Ramaswamy, which is, to put it charitably, not echoed in reliable sources). There are 30-odd new links since I last checked, so it's likely that some editors at least think it's reliable. What do people here think? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The Insidesources about page looks like a crank site ("The media elite’s echo chamber ...") Copyright 2020. The "support page" doesn't work. No names of editors or anyone running this thing. This looks like an astroturf network of some sort. I see no reason to assume reliability of any of this - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the content at these publications is opinion pieces by various writers in the nature of op-eds or syndicated opinion columns. Those certainly shouldn't be used as sources for anything other than the authors' opinions. The writer of the piece cited as a source in the Patrick article is

Banks Irk (talk

) 12:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

While you can't find it on their website, their LinkedIn page states that Graham is both the editor and publisher of these sites, which means it is a SPS as to his own articles/columns, and as such automatically disallowed in a BLP.

Banks Irk (talk

) 13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

[44] Is this addition unreliable per

Additions are not unreliable, sources are. You might be thinking of

wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk

) 16:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, definitely undue. But I'm also thinking of reliability in specific contexts. If not a BLP issue (since this person is dead since the 1970's), then perhaps this statement is unreliable per

talk

) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

What, are you saying the source is misquoting him? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Kind of. Because no sources actually verify him to have said these things. This source quotes someone else claiming what Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto said, hence it is mere hearsay.

talk

) 18:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As this claim is attributed this is not a problem, with quoting him, but the text fails

wp:v as it is clearly not what was said. Slatersteven (talk

) 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at [45], which flagged here as a potential copyvio related to Quantitative easing. It's obviously a case of copying Wikipedia; the particular page appears to be a properly labeled Wikipedia mirror, which I had never noticed before on Business Insider.

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

To give them their due it is clearly labelled. I would hope that editors can handle clearly labelled

WP:CIRCULAR sources, so I'm not sure if RSP needs updating but it is an odd thing for BI to be posting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

He that lives on hope will die fasting. I remove maybe 100-150 very clearly identified mirrors used as references from articles each month, sometimes added by very competent editors. I agree that these really do not belong at RSP, though. Very rarely do people debate the removal; usually they're just not familiar with the fact that mirrors even exist as a concept. The mirrors that do not identify themselves or are used deceptively or abusively are a different debate. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's clearly labelled then it's not a reliable sourcing problem.

WP:RSP is supposed to be for frequently discussed sources, not a compendium of all sources used on this site. We don't need to bloat it any further. Anyone who doesn't have the ability to read the first sentence of a newspaper is not someone that will be helped by adding another sentence to RSP. People who don't read are also unlikely to be editing Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention

me on reply) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

The biggest problem there is that "in front of" means nothing in this context. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. The editor must meant 'aganist'. If we replace that, would that be fine? The quotation mentions 'probably', so would it be enough to have included in an infobox? Imperial^[AFCND] 11:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the source itself looks fine, it is worth discussing on the talk page if you have concerns about the exact language.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh sure. But my another concern is, the source says 'probably'. How could we make an infobox for something which is not confirmed by the source itself? It would be good if I seek help of

WP:MILHIST.Imperial^[AFCND]

15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, this would be to hammer out on the talkpage, but putting the word "probably" in an infobox is fine if that's what the sources say. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Great. I would do that. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking for views on the reliability of

The specific example is essentially a press release, not independent secondary coverage. A lot of the content consists of reprinted press releases.

Banks Irk (talk

) 18:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on an article and I need some info from LTG in here, here and here. For context, LTG is a transport enthusiast run website, and there were previous discussions on whether it should be considered reliable (

• This is, as you say, a self-published source by self-described enthusiasts. The authors and editors are not identified; there is no description of editorial oversight. There is no basis to claim they are experts, and no indication that they have been previously published by other reliable sources within the scope of that expertise. That it is cited in articles by other sources would suggest that those other sources should be used instead. So, no, it is not a reliable source.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 04:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think you might've missed the last sentence: Considering that there are certain statements that are not reported anywhere else, can I use LTG as a reference to those statements? The "other sources" are on previous cases which did not happen in this case, and I would use the other sources where available and as much as possible. However, in this case, I can't, because only LTG reported on the "certain statements" I referred to. S5A-0043^Talk 04:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  And just to add on to clear any misunderstandings, I'm not exactly asking whether LTG should be used (or is reliable) in general. I'm asking whether it can be used in this context only. S5A-0043^Talk 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way I'll ping the editors involved in the previous discussions since I brought this up again: @ZKang123 @Thryduulf @Brachy0008 @ActivelyDisinterested. S5A-0043^Talk 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is the only source for a statement, then that statement should not be included in a Wikipedia article.

Banks Irk (talk

) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to use LTG, because usually you can use other sources as reference. And usually I do not include statements that are solely from LTG (e.g. platform layouts) because they also veer close to very trivial information that's not within the scope of Wikipedia.

Also most of the media sources you bring up are not reliable (mothership, vulcanpost).--ZKang123 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Best not to use it. Especially to add exit information. Brachy08 _(Talk) 10:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. It's best to regard it as an Unreliable source. Brachy08 _(Talk) 10:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the three pages you link to in your first comment, the first two appear to be trivial fleet changes so almost certainly not encyclopaedic regardless of the quality of the source but definitely so if this is the only source. The third source is slightly different - if "The Bus Collective" is notable (this does not go any way towards establishing that and I've not investigated any further) then it might be usable to verify some factual information if there is no better source for it. If you aren't writing about The Bus Collective though then I don't see anything there that is likely to be encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s actually, it. I’ll take your advice (and of course those above too). Thanks a lot y’alls. S5A-0043^Talk 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As per

WP:SPS, we should not be using it in the first place. I like to note that LTG had criminally trespassed with self incriminating evidence [51] with a photo taken inside the bus on private property [52]

(The facebook post states we kindly advise the public do not remove any parts from the buses or enter the interior of the buses as these are private property.). I am not sure we can even use it as an additional source as of now.

Note that I am directed to this post by S5A-0043 via the article's talkpage after I removed LTG as a source on the article. JASWE (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Are these "profile"-like sources considered as reliable for BLP? Recently, an IP range pointing to Brazil has been doing a bulk edit of adding birth_place to South Korean BLPs supported by such sources. Here are few example from Marie Claire Korea,[53][54][55], Cinefox,[56][57][58] and KBS Kstar.[59]. Personally, I see no differences from using IMDb's profile (or alike) as sourcing for such materials in BLPs, in which if my interpretation is correct using IMDb's profile to support such is considered as forbidden. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming your first example is

WP:ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 11:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, this question fits better at

WP:RSN, you could move this conversation there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 11:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång What about the remaining examples then? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

At a glance, I don't see an issue with using Cine21 for a birthplace. KBS Kstar may or may not be [60], your guess is as good as mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Just realise that I have a typo, Cinefox instead of Cine21. I don't think Kstar has an actual article on Kowiki. From my interpretation, I assumed that you're saying that it's okay to use such sources (Maria Claire is maybe reliable enough hence excluding this) to support the content even though it's more or less IMDb-like? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The general argument against using

WP:USERG, an imdb-mirror or something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)