Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424

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.

• If this source [8] is reliable then please verify this quotation THE Arab expedition against Thana was a success and not a failure. For had it been a failure, it would have resulted in a disaster for the Arabs. Who knows that they might not have been killed to a man? But as it is, nothing of the kind took place. As a matter of fact, they returned home (evidently with flying colours) with not a single soul lost, as is clear from the speech of the Caliph to 'Uthman ath-Thaqafi, who was responsible for the expedition. The Arabs did not proceed further, not because their arms were not victorious, but because they were not allowed to do so by the Caliph 'Umar himself. The reason for the Caliph's action is not far to seek.. as this seems
  WP:OR
• Does this source [9] come under
  WP:AGEMATTERS
  ?
• Lastly this source [10] quotes In 15/636 the Caliph appointed Usman bin 'As, the governor of Baihrain and Amman. He was a daring and dashing conquerer. Seeking new laurels, he sent his brother Hakim bin Abil 'As to attack India in the same year. A fierce battle was fought resulting in the first Muslim victory on Behruch (Gujarat) and Thana (Bombay). This victory was followed by a second victory over Daibal and Thatta (Karachi) under the seasoned generalship of the second brother of the governor named Mugirah bin Abil 'Asi. and its primary source is futuhal buldan which is according to other historians like Rc. Majumdar [11] is silent here

Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What page are these sources being used for? What quotations are these sources being used for? Where can one access the Dacca University Bulletin? Is another user citing the Dacca University Bulletin, or are you? Is there any reason we shouldn't be taking the citation on good faith (which is what Wikipedia encourages; that is to say, is this claim being contradicted in other reliable sources)?

My inclination is to think that the first and second sources are both quite old to be cited (1955 and 1924 respectively). I would hope there are better sources for the content under consideration than a hundred-year-old monograph. That said, context matters. What is the content, and for what page?

talk

) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

These sources have been used to cite

WP:OR) though these two quotations/sources contradict other reliable sources which are cited on the Battle of Thane. If the source is old and non accessible and contains possible original research so it can be removed boldly from the article? Also pinging User:ImperialAficionado as only he can tell from where he gets access to the Dacca University Bulletin Jonharojjashi (talk

) 17:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I had a Pdf of [14]. And I have read the same on [15]. Surprisingly, the texts of these two books and Dacca Bulletin are the same. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a little confused by the original research question. The rule limiting original research applies to us as Wikipedia editors. It is okay if a secondary source "contain[s] original research". The authors of secondary sources we cite are free to do original research; that's precisely what secondary sources are about. We look to reliable sources that have done the research and summarize their findings, rather than do original primary source research ourselves.

talk

) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It was not like that. The secondary sources used here didn't mention Rashidun Caliphate, but did mention Arabs made this raid. So, making a conclusion that those Arabs were Rashidun just because it was Rashidun era won't be an OR? Imperial^[AFCND] 04:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• I did some research in a while, you're right here it has nothing to do with any original research but what about
  WP:OLDSOURCES? Please give your conclusion whether both of these sources [16], [17] can be used for citing Battle of Thane
  or not.
• Now
  WP:CALC [18]
  isn't original research. (Though it's not relevant here)

Jonharojjashi (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We can use WP:UCS, but if there is no mention that the Caliph sent the raid; as I read through some sources, I found that the raid was directed by the Governor of Bahrain without the consent of the Caliph. So OR has a significant importance here using for the belligerent. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a debate whether or not

Why it matters: Blackpast has some information that is otherwise very difficult to verify with reliable sources, particularly for academics and other people noteable in their respective fields.

The primary counterargument: A significant amount of content is originally submitted by users, making it potentially user-generated

The Arguments in Favor of Blackpast:

-They are considered reliable by other generally reliable sources

-the founder is considered an authority in his field

-there are internal review processes that meet or exceed the standards expected of most news papers

(-the specific entry in question is written by an expert in their field)

What is the reliability of blackpast.org in such cases?

Option 1: Generally reliable

• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3:
  Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

(Voting options removed per suggestion)

FortunateSons (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Specifically for the purpose of verifying Claudine Gay's date of birth on the

talk

) 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. May I assume that this also generally applies to articles from blackpast.org unless there is an indication otherwise? FortunateSons (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my answer is sufficiently clear for the purposes. I have refrained from weighing in on all of BlackPast, since it's not necessary for answering your question. Reliable source questions are answered in context. My answer is that my sense is that this article from BlackPast, authored by Malik Simba, can be considered generally reliable for the topic of Claudine Gay.

talk

) 13:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say its likely reliable for that information but would caution against including any BLP info which can only be found in a single source in an article outside of ABOUTSELF. Sorry if "reliable but don't include without a second source" is the most frustrating possible answer you could possibly have gotten, I know I used to hate getting it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

There is no (significant) issue verifying the year of birth with a reliable source, but finding the actual DOB is rather difficult because the DOB of a former president of a university is not really printed outside of niche or denigrated sources. Could I use the general sources for the year and then use blackpast.org for the month and day? FortunateSons (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So then just use YOB. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would assess biographies here on a case by case basis (so I guess option 2 in general) and that this would be a reliable biography based on the author and other factors so I think it would be fine to use (option 21 for this specific use). I'm not sure I see a reason to seek an additional source for a non-contentious fact. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [I just corrected my numbering as what I wrote doesn't make sense. But this shouldn't really be an RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)]

From what is written above, I'd say

WP:DOB might be reasonably held to apply. We have a year, easily sourced, which is almost always all that is of any significance for an academic, and thus all the article really needs, and having to look to a single possibly questionable source for an exact date suggests to me that we needn't include that. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 12:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

She is (for now) so well known that I do not believe that she meets the description of a borderline or relatively unknown person. In addition, there are other sources, they are just depreciated and therefore cannot be used.

Therefore, I will add the date as the source is considered reliable in this case. FortunateSons (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB. The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. What encyclopaedic purpose exactly is being met by including an exact date of birth for someone known in a field where such information is not considered of significance, and thus not generally discussed? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 12:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are posing a question about whether this information is due (as in due weight), that seems to be a separate question from whether or not Malik Simba's article for BlackPast is reliable.

talk

) 13:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 'posing a question'. I'm pointing out that WP:BLP directly addresses the inclusion of exact dates, and that being reliably sourced is not on its own sufficient grounds for inclusion. This is a direct response to FortunateSons stating that they intend to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, almost all DOB should be removed. It is generally significant insofar as people use Wikipedia for information, such as her current age. Therefore, there is no reasonable argument against inclusion according to DOB and BLP. FortunateSons (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that WP:BLP policy stating that we "err on the side of caution" regarding including exact dates of birth etc be changed, you are welcome to do so. But not here. Meanwhile, that policy stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it should be changed, I just don’t think it is an issue with the inclusion of the exact DOB here and not at all most every other page FortunateSons (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about whether you personally 'think it is an issue'. I have pointed out the policy, and you have given no policy-based justification whatsoever to include the exact date. The

onus being on those wishing to include content obtaining consensus to do so is absolutely fundamental to the way Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 14:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The benefit is knowing the exact age, which can be useful, for example insofar as it is included within news articles. FortunateSons (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The people who have an exact DOB without an apparent reason including the other involved people Elise Stefanik, Christopher Rufo, her cousin Roxane Gay or her academic advisor Gary King. If you believe they all shouldn’t, than that is a perspective that you can advocate for, but it is clearly standard practice to include exact DOBs. FortunateSons (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Since you clearly haven't read

WP:ONUS. Not for any of it. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I hadn’t.

Per

WP:OTHERCONTENT

, While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case, if the review does not pre-date policy changes that affect the material.

Good Articles featuring a DOB include Jeff Bezos, Guido Imbens, Richard Goldstone and many others.

Featured articles include Ben Affleck, Katy Perry, Buzz Aldrin, Liz Truss and others.

So, this is a clear indication that inclusion of a DOB is not generally an issue (except in cases of borderline significance or complaint, which are not apparent).

Therefore, there needs to be an argument in favour of including it, which is

Age is important for people including academics and public persons, which Claudine Gay is. Outside of public discourse, a use case may include news articles, many of which are quoted in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not an argument, it is an assertion. I don't see a coherent argument in your posts above, just repeated assertions. Exact birth dates are of trivial significance in almost all biographies; with long-dead people there's no harm in including that kind of trivia, but with living people there's a good reason not to, namely, protecting the privacy of individuals. Nothing you've said gives an argument of even vaguely similar weight for including the information, even if it could be reliably sourced. --JBL (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Therefore, I believe that the standard described in WP:BLP and WP:DOB is met. FortunateSons (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

More

WP:ONUS has not been met. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 16:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted WP:OTHERCONTENT to strengthen my arguments, with, to quote WP:OTHERCONTENT, a much more credible case.

Per WP:ONUS, I explained that including it is standard (use in articles considered excellent by Wikipedia), that it is information generally considered important (proof: use of her age in news articles) and that there is no argument for exclusion (per WP:DOB). Thereby, I have met the standard set forth by WP:ONUS. So, now you have to provide an argument why it shouldn’t be. FortunateSons (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeating exactly the same poor arguments you have already given doesn't constitute 'proof'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we move this to the actual talk page where it belongs? FortunateSons (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How about no? This is an ongoing discussion, and it would be far better, given that even the initial question as to the reliability of blackpast.org for the DoB seems not to have been resolved, to see whether anyone else has anything to say. There is no urgency over this, and most noticeboards leave discussions open far longer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure; just to clarify, what would an argument for the inclusion of a DOB for an academic or politician valid in your eyes? FortunateSons (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A very good argument for inclusion of an exact DOB in a biography would be if either (1) there is something specifically birthday-related in the biography, or (2) if there were something specifically age-related in the biography (youngest such-and-such, or whatever). Of course it would be easy to source the exact date in these cases because it would inevitably come up in sources that discuss that aspect of the subject's life. These circumstances are rather rare -- but that's obvious, exact birthdays are almost always unimportant (imagine you found out that you were actually born 16 hours earlier or later than your parents had told you -- what would change?). --JBL (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, if that is the standard, then the DOB should not be included here.

Maybe that’s a dumb newcomer question, but why is it then included in so many other BLPs? FortunateSons (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I do not edit biographies a lot, but I imagine for the same reason that many Wikipedia articles have a tendency to attract trivia and cruft: someone comes along and says "I know a piece of information, let me add it to the article" without thinking very hard about what makes a good encyclopedia article. --JBL (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. If I see them, should I suggest removal or just leave it be? FortunateSons (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My personal view is that going around trying to systematically fix something like this is likely to cause conflict and aggravation because some removals will be objected to by people not party to this discussion. (E.g. this happened a few times in the course of my efforts to remove Weekly World News as a source everywhere on Wikipedia, which was a fairly small job (just 100-200 articles) and about as clear-cut as such a thing can be.) I personally don't have the patience or temperment to deal well with that, so I instead work on integrating that kind of improvement into my normal editing. Other people may feel differently. (My approach is not good for solving a problem globally -- but Wikipedia is so big that that might be hopeless anyhow.) --JBL (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You’re probably right, thank you for your patience! FortunateSons (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. This is the standard for including the specific date, which is met (no complaint, not borderline). As far as I can see, there is no other consideration except sourcing, which is the question at hand. FortunateSons (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I am preferably looking to include a full DOB (which I believe is permissible under WP:DOB). The current sourcing is using logic from 2 ages in articles with some distance between them, which isn’t great as there is an appropriate source with blackpast.org FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable possibly deprecate. This site strikes me as very dubious. A quick look at some of the entries raises some red flags as well. For example, this entry on the Nation of Islam makes no mention at all of the group's notable antisemitism. The monetized nature of the site, where individuals, groups, and companies can "sponsor" entries (like the LDS church), also raises questions. Looking at their rosy LDS page, it would seem coverage may be influenced by sponsor. I see no statement about editorial independence or anything comparable. Entries on figures like Jay-Z read like press release puffery. If you can't find a better source, I would advise not including it in English Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  With a Quick Look, I agree with your concerns regarding the articles in question, and the one on the Nation of Islam is very concerning. However, most other articles appear to be fine; is there a specific issue with the article on Claudine Gay? FortunateSons (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that

WP:DOB requires that dates of birth have been widely published by reliable sources. Unless it's from an ABOUTSELF statement it's best to leave it out unless it's found in multiple sources.
Also this shouldn't be an RFC as it's hasn't been discussed before and an RFC isn't required for this one issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 17:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This was not intended to be an RfC, just a general discussion using the same weighting. Did I use the wrong template? FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussions don't involve voting (Option 1, Option 2, etc). All you need to open a thread is a question, and it's best if it's one about a specific context. So "Is this[link] entry at Blackopast.org reliable for Claudine Gay birth date?" would have been a better setup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, will do it the next time. Would “Is [source] reliable for information about [person]?” be a an acceptable format when discussing multiple articles, or do I have to ask separately? FortunateSons (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Is [source] reliable for [specific type of information]?" Would be fine, it's just better to be as specific as possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Perspective articles are likely reliable if possibly primary, as would be the hosted primary documents and transcripts of speeches. The biography entries I'm unsure of, and they would be a teritary source. There is some amount of user generated content going on, but I'm unable to tell exactly how that works. They do state sources, so tracking those down and using them instead could work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the user-generated contest is still reviewed through an editorial process:

https://www.blackpast.org/frequently-asked-questions-about-blackpast-org/

The criteria for submitting Perspective articles is more restricted. The contributor must possess a specialized academic knowledge or an extensive personal familiarity with the subject of the article.

''How are BlackPast.org entries and articles evaluated?

All submissions by contributors are reviewed by the website director and on occasion by members of the BlackPast.org Advisory Board. Each entry or article is also reviewed by copy editors to ensure they are grammatically and stylistically acceptable.

Does that provide enough information for an informed decision? FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The first part you're quoting is about Perspective articles, not biography entries. The biography entries could be written by anyone. The from their How to write for Blackpast.org page Our contributors are in three broad categories: academic scholars, those who hold a faculty appointment in a two or four year college or a university; student scholars, those who are currently students in a two or four year college or university; and independent scholars, those who are at least 18 years of age and who have good research and writing skills.
Also from the same page All BlackPast.org articles are vetted for historical accuracy and copy-edited before they appear. BlackPast.org reserves the right to refuse any submitted entry that does not meet its standards for accuracy and objectivity. (all bolded in the original).
I would expect from that that the biography entries are reliable, but are still a

WP:TERTIARY source when secondary are preferred. Also this still wouldn't overcome the "widely published" requirement for the specific date of birth -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 17:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So, just to clarify: reliable but tertiary, so I would need more (how many?) reliable sources to include the DOB? FortunateSons (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The requirement is widely published, I would take it as a sentiment rather than apply a hard limit to it. If you can find enough sources to satisfy you that that requirement is met, then it's met. Editors discretion and good judgement is encouraged. Other editors could disagree, in which case discussion is always a good thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, per Bloodofox, cites like that are prone to citogenesis. – SJ + 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, per
  WP:RS as Wikipedia itself is. Deprecate.XavierItzm (talk
  ) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for the reasons described in my earlier comment: the existence of editorial review by the site administrator and the author, particularly in the case of the article being cited, being a subject matter expert in Black studies.
  talk
  ) 18:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Given that this isn't a properly-formatted RfC on blackpast.org as a general source, that there seem to have been no significant previous discussions of the site on this noticeboard, and that most of the discussion above concerns the merits of the website as a source for one specific item, I don't consider it at all appropriate to make any general determination as to the reliability of the site at this time. The notice at the top of this page stating that RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed exists for a reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this was a poorly used template by me, as discussed after the comment from ActivelyDisinterested at 17:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC). I intentionally did not call it RfC, but formatted it poorly, sorry about that. FortunateSons (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  FortunateSons can I suggest you strike (<s></s>) the Options in your original post? It would help avoid any further confusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good idea, I will FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Agreed with Andy that this shouldn't be an RfC, however I also don't see any reason to stop discussing it here in a general sense. The sponsorship and promo concerns brought up by bloodofox are extremely concerning if the source is being cited for material elsewhere.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m new at this, and unfortunately don’t know how to search explicitly for citations in the English wiki.

There is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/BlackPast, some sourcing on the German wiki such as https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal_Tometi (which of course is a seperate project), some minor sourcing on the article of the founderQuintard Taylor and for example here Associated Negro Press, here John E. Nailand here Louisianian (newspaper).

Most of those are historical and not BLP, so I’m not sure how much of an issue it really is FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You can use this to search for uses of particular sources on WP. --JBL (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That shows 1,940 result, can that be right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks right to me. And you're welcome! --JBL (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I consider many of those pretty minor, do I/someone else have to do something about that? FortunateSons (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a funny question to ask for a fully volunteer project -- none of us has to do anything here :). If you don't feel a sense of urgency (reasonable) then you are very free to not worry about it and spend your time here working on other things instead. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point. I might do it at some point, but it’s probably not very urgent :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You can search for the website's appearances on wiki with insource:blackpast.org. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Wąsosz pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Is NBC News a suitable source for the following statements?

• In 1951, Marian Rydzewski was tried and acquitted for participating in the pogrom before a communist court.
• In 2014, Polish Jewish leaders were reportedly divided regarded exhumation of the bodies of the Jewish victims. Some, such as Poland's chief rabbai Michael Schudrich, are opposed due to the dignity of the dead. Others, such as Piotr Kadicik, the president of the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland, support the exhumation.

I think the first item needs some improvement but not changes that will impact factual accuracy or pertinence of the source. Please note this is a

Per

generally reliable so you should be fine. The Kip

19:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Although academic sources are always preferred, I would say that it's reliable for those statements. The area is under sourcing restrictions so consensus is required, but unless I'm missing some other issue I can't see the issue in this specific case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah, sourcing is restricted, and for good cause. I removed NBC because the article is about a pogrom, more precisely a group accused of carrying one out. Not a film, which if notable should have its own article, and its own separate debate about whether it glorifies killing Jews. NBC is also not academic, as noted, and while it's sufficient for supporting the casting, that's not what the article is about. Or should be about. Notable as Daniel Craig may be, due weight would have us devote column inches to the dispute over who did the killings if anything.

other source I also removed presents a disputed statement of fact as an accurate premise (the IPN announcing that it wasn't Poles who did the killing, bthe ut Nazis). I think this is actually a great example of RL meeting policy though.

TL;DR the article is about horrifying racist carnage and should not be discussing fiction in any way shape or form. The word I am looking for is Disneyfication. Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: nearly your entire reply was about another source in another article. The NBC article is indeed about the pogrom, and certainly doesn't present Polish disbelief in Polish involvement in murder as fact. VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby are you looking at the right reference? This is about this article, which isn't about a film, but specifically about the Wąsosz pogrom. Also the context isn't about responsibility of the polgrom or any comments from IPN, only whether a certain trial happened in 1951 (there's probably an academic source for this) and the differing views of two Jewish organisations (for which this NBC article is reliable). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with The Kip and ActivelyDisinterested that for these statements, on this article, the NBC News article looks reliable.

talk

) 18:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

NBC, not to be confused with MSNBC and CNBC, is one of my preferred news sources. I would exercise normal precautions, and when in doubt, use attributed opinions (especially for NBC News THINK, their opinion section) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

An argument is being made that all sources listed in the article reporting a result that is a stalemate/inconclusive are passing mentions that fail

@Cinderella157: it would be better if we listed the sources here, one by one, and then let the community opine on their reliability. VR _talk 16:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I cannot determine the reliability of Boston.com's "Readers Say" articles. The site earns some cachet as a sibling of The Boston Globe, and the quality of material seems acceptable, but I can't tell what the editorial rubric is for these articles. Are they unvetted authors getting to write amok, or are they developed by the site from prompts or comments sent in by their readers? Can I get a ruling on this? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The authors of those pieces seem to be staff writers, but I wouldn't lend too much weight to the opinion surveys and quotes of random people — that is best left for specialized pollsters. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but would be extra careful wherever WP:BLP is involved, up to and including using a different source. It’s probably also best to cite the actual source in the text, not just in a footnote. FortunateSons (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This website is

• It is a self-published source: "Who is responsible for the Military Hall of Honor? Charles A. Lewis, a veteran that honorably served in the U.S. Army, is the founder of MHOH. With a hobby as a military researcher / historian, he has compiled thousands of biographies ..."
• When it is not a self-published source it is UGC: "MHOH limits editorial rights for Honoree Records to Registered Members only. ... A community of users interested in honoring those who have honored us will ensure that these records are as accurate as possible." Further, on the homepage: "Here we provide members a place to create Honoree records that are available for anyone to view, free of charge"
  • See user profiles:
    • "Deemax"
    • "bakerd13"
    • etc.

So Charles A. Lewis has created some entries, various registered users have created others, and the commuinity of users works to ensure accuracy. It is used in dozens of articles, but perhaps not that many for me to start an RfC. What do you think? —Alalch E. 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears clear from their membership FAQ that this is

WP:SPS either. This is another hobbiest/enthusiast sites that falls short of being a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconding AD, this appears to be another dime-a-dozen milhist enthusiast site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Third for AD., I would strongly recommend against using it a reliable source. FortunateSons (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

So if you don’t check the news often (like me), you might have missed it. Earlier this morning, the Associated Press (AP News) ran a story where they stated the following: Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism (via post on 𝕏). The news article’s headline today originally was titled Harvard president quits: Claudine Gay resignation highlights new conservative weapon, which has since been changed to be titled Plagiarism charges downed Harvard’s president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage.

This isn’t an RfC as one isn’t warranted, given AP isn’t a source on the plagiarism article. Per very clear Wikipedia consensus combined with actual academic study consensus, AP News is widely considered to be accurate. That said, given the development today, I think we need a discussion about whether or not AP should be considered unreliable on the topic of plagiarism (i.e. no future usage on that article only).

Several sources have posted articles on this AP News headline as well: Fox News (considered unreliable), Daily Wire (considered unreliable), Independent Journal Review (No discussions on WP:RSP), New American (considered unreliable), Pipa News (Nothing at WP:RSP), Disclose.tv (On 𝕏), Elon Musk commenting after the AP News post on 𝕏 linked above was community noted.

If you haven’t followed the Harvard President’s topic over the last month, there is a lot of articles (from RS sources) about the plagiarism. Here are the ones linked in that Community Note: PBS, Axios, NY Times, The Hill, Harvard University.

Given the weird article from AP News, I personally think we (Wikipedia) should consider them unreliable on the sole topic of plagiarism, as they seem to be the only RS source considering it to be political. Even sources known to be on the American “political left” (NY Times is an example) don’t make it political and just say she was wrong. Again, this is not an RfC as AP is not currently even a source on the plagiarism article, but the discussion is better to have now for the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't consider the Claudine Gay situation to be "political"? Here's an RS, Politico, with the headline yesterday "Republicans claim victory for Harvard president’s resignation". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do. However, even Politico says, “Republican lawmakers welcomed Harvard University president Claudine Gay’s resignation after weeks of calling for her to step down over her response to antisemitism on campus — and her testimony on the topic at a fiery House hearing in December. That is about the antisemitism remarks. That aspect is political. Until the AP News article today, I had yet to see RS about the plagiarism (not antisemitism) to be political. That is what I mean. AP News made the plagiarism independent of the antisemitism political, which was a first. That is what this discussion is for. Ignore the President Gay/antisemitism controversy for this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the AP article has it completely right. NY Times calls it a the plagiarism a "proxy fight", and Politico (different article than the above) sees it as well. This was the work of Christopher Rufo, who used the idea that Gay committed plagiarism to erode faith in an Ivy League university. Time magazine refers to this as Rufo's Alarming and Deceptive Crusade. Rufo has admitted to all of this. "We launched the Claudine Gay plagiarism story from the Right. The next step is to smuggle it into the media apparatus of the Left, legitimizing the narrative to center-left actors who have the power to topple her. Then squeeze." (tweeted on December 19). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu's summary of this. I think AP News remains reliable, including for the topic of plagiarism.

talk

) 19:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have no problem with APs reliability regarding plagiarism. In my view, this entire matter has been thoroughly politicized and weaponized from the very beginning. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good y'all! Amid the political dispute then, I thought it best to bring it up here at least. Consensus remains that AP is reliable in all topics. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a good example of why we disregard headlines... Especially in the modern era when multiple titles can be A-B tested in real time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As originally published the article read: "On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote “SCALPED,” as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans." Later on "and also used by some tribes against their enemies." was added. Whether this was changed because of the ridicule on X or someone at AP independently realising what ahistorical nonsense this was would be interesting to know. The authors would have done well to glance at Scalping. —Simon Harley (Talk). 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That isn't "ahistorical nonsense," both statements are true one just has more context. What the heck are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, headlines are unreliable. It should also follow—in my opinion—that social media posts by an organisation promoting an article are unreliable. Only the article itself is what we should be using for factual claims. — Bilorv (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the AP article weird. I see nothing in it to make us consider it unreliable. The headline and tweet is never the source, so I see no problem here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As a general and unfortunate principle, anything can be political - e.g. Climate Change. I don't see anything exceptional about AP's report. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's usually a shortcut for all instances, and it's true in this case

WP:HEADLINES. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to reinforce what others are saying - a headline isn't a source, and reputable organizations routinely tweak headlines for a variety of reasons. Absolutely no reason to consider discouraging use of AP on any topic as proposed in OP. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most other comments, the headline is questionable, but AP should be still be considered a reliable source for plagiarism. FortunateSons (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexiscoutinho insists on using Russian propaganda channels from Telegram as a source [19]. When I tried to remove these (a good bit of info was double cited anyway) I was told to, quote, “get over it”.

This particular channel specifically was anonymous, until an outside investigation revealed its ties to Wagner Group’s Yevgeny Prigozhin (yes, the mercenary group full of neo Nazis, who then mutinied against Putin etc.). The administrators of the channel have repeatedly made false claim, including who they were, putting forth fake identities.

The administrators of the channel themselves have said that “They work(…) in the field of information warfare and counterpropaganda in the name of the interests of the Russian state.” [20]

Call me crazy but that does not appear to be anywhere close to being a reliable source, and an editor who insist on using such sources probably should be kept away from the topic area altogether. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't trust Wikipedians individual judgement with anonymous Telegram posts like this. This is what journalism is for. Basically zero reason to ever cite Telegram directly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

There were better ways to fix that issue instead of just deleting everything like that without any discussion. I've mostly used it as a support source together with ISW reports in that cities list page to explain specific dates when the ISW wasn't really clear about them in the reports. If one requested for me to substitute them, I could do it no problem when I had the extra time. Your assessment should take into account this context and my history of helpful edits in that page. Please don't fall in the "witch hunt" trap. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@

bsn}} in the battle page, but in that list page I really don't see a problem. In fact, I don't even think the RS guideline really applies to such pages. It was never really meant to be perfect and it will probably be deleted in the future when all the info contained in it goes to the individual mainspace articles. Alexis Coutinho (talk

) 21:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not “over generalizing” anything. Very specifically and particularly, Rybar, a self proclaimed Russian nationalist propaganda channel, is not reliable source. I don’t know what “common sense” or “casual” definition of reliable source you have in mind, but that’s actually irrelevant as on Wikipedia we have an established policy,

WP:RS

and this source doesn’t satisfy it. Not even in the least.

Of course WP:RS applies to such pages. We’re getting into

WP:CIR territory here. Volunteer Marek

21:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. It's a fast paced page aimed to help the map Module. When the war is over, it will probably be deleted. When the situation of each battle cools down, those citations could all be substitutes with actual reliable sources. I've done that multiple times in battle articles (the battle of Marinka is the only exception that I remember because I was simply confident that when the ISW report comes withing a few hours it would fully confirm those claims). I could be wrong, in which case I would obviously correct it, but that seems quite unlikely as geolocated footage exists and clearly confirms the claim. When the report comes, I planned to substitute it with the report as source, hence the correct usage of {{

bsn}} to portray the temporary nature of that citation. Going back to the list page, even if those Rybar citations weren't substituted when better sources were available, it wouldn't be a problem because most entries are deleted anyways when the frontline moves far away from those villages and cities. Thus, I think you guys are overblowing the proportion of this and also not "assuming good faith". Dialogue is always a good first step when you find something wrong, not accusing others of "pushing propaganda" and threatening to sanction the editor. About the "get over it" comment, I'm sorry about that, what motivated it was the shock of such a huge revert without notice/warning. Once again, I think "assuming good faith" there and starting a dialogue there would have been the best action. Also note that several editors there showed no concern with those edits of mine for months. Thus I was quite "angry" at your bold revert. Once again, it doesn't justify the "get over it", but I hope you understand where I (that mindset) was comming from. Alexis Coutinho (talk

) 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If a "page was never meant to fully conform to Wikipedia's quality standards", then it shouldn't be part of Wikipedia; it's that simple. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not a repository for breaking news, not a collection of primary sources. Verifiability is one of our pillars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Deprecate Russian telegram as they are never reliable, and should not be used for ANYTHING. Andre🚐 21:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

All rules/guidelines exist for a reason/motif. Simply repeating/parroting it for any and all contexts doesn't seem very helpful and productive. Please familiarize yourself with the context. But with that being said though, I am indeed willing to stop using it from now on there if it indeed is deemed unfit (after a proper analysis of context). But I vehemently disagree with any form of sanction ignoring

WP:AGF. Alexis Coutinho (talk

) 21:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous Telegram channels obviously can not be used as reliable sources. Sometimes these "Z military correspondents" channels get referred to by reliable sources (not by sources which only report social media), then I guess they can be mentioned. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you even know the context of those edits? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS applies to all mainspace pages. Andre🚐

21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Literally nothing on Telegram would be a reliable source, nor would anything on any other social media outside of BLPs in an
  WP:ABOUTSELF piece of info or, in rare occasions, official news accounts on social media reporting on something. Other than that, anything on social media would not be reliable unless a reliable source, such as the news, reports on it. And, in those cases, you would be citing the news article instead. Silverseren^C
  21:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the other editors here: Telegram channels like these are certainly not RS (and I'm strugglng to think of any "context" that would make these acceptable). Look for reliable secondary sources (like Reuters) instead. Neutrality^talk

• Guys, I know Telegram in general is not a RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please consider the context of where they were used. That page is a dynamic and fast paced list and pretty much all information there is temporary (settements far from the frontline are deleted and the whole page will probably be deleted when the war is over and individual main space articles are created). It is also not linked in any article and its only purpose, afaik, is to support the map Module, as a "writing board" (because it's much better to use wikitext and tables instead of writing citations and keeping track of historic changes in Lua comment strings). With that being said, I think the most adequate solution would be to make that page an exception/make it exempt from these more rigorous RS rules (i.e. let those lesser sources be usable, but obviously recommend substituting them with better sources when available). The map template doc itself said something like "big claims require great evidence", but no "big claims" were made there using only these "unreliable" sources (these big claims are kept as wikitext comments, check them yourselves). With all this in mind, I don't see a reason to make such "a big fuss" over this. I already give preference to citing ISW anyways. Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think someone should add “…not a OSINT aggregator” to

WP:RS policy. Volunteer Marek

00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

But regardless That's the problem, you don't want to consider the context. It's like a judge who already has a veredict in mind and just applies the sentence without even looking at the evidence and defender's statements. That's just applying rules for the sake of applying them. It doesn't make Wikipedia any better because nobody is even reading that page (just editors) and because the map will still be the same (it doesn't show references for each marker). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no rule on RS only applying to readers, not editors. I understand what you're saying that it's for internal use, but if that's the case, create a page in Project space or User space. Andre🚐 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. One last doubt, does purposely keeping the {{

unreliable}} banner on that page make it exempt from these more rigorous rules? Alexis Coutinho (talk

) 01:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, those are cleanup tags. They don't exempt articles from policy, especially one as fundamental as this. They exist to provide cleanup tasks in a maintenance queue. By putting that tag, you're telling a volunteer to COMEFIXIT. Andre🚐 01:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Quite aside from that Alexis, we shouldn't be providing readers an off link to a source of propaganda that is unreliable, as a reference let alone any kind of external link. I'm not saying you need a sanction or anything for this, just please adjust and move on accordingly, there's a clear consensus not to use Telegram links from Russia for anything, and I wonder if we should consider adding them to the spam blocklist. Andre🚐 00:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Thanks for the well rounded response. I mostly agree, but there is a caveat/I have a question: we shouldn't be providing readers what readers? That page is not really meant to be accessed by readers. It's more like a dev/internal page. For us editors, being shown such questionable sources is not potentially harmful in any way. We as editors know how to treat those sources and we know their limitations. Already answered above Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You write that the list is “dynamic and fast paced” and “pretty much all information there is temporary.” But that’s not a reason to suspend, or even loosen, application of our RS policy. In fact, the whole point of the RS policy is to be conservative: if a reliable source is not available, we simply don’t cover it in the encyclopedia. Put differently, it’s better to be slow and deliberate — to wait for sources to develop — than to rush (and thus risk inaccuracy, or even the appearance of unreliability). Neutrality^talk 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

👌 I've already addressed the issue. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• In no way is this a reliable source. Wait until independent reliable sources pick it up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with everyone above that such Telegram channels are not RS, but there is a wider issue. I think that after Russian 2022 war censorship laws, which resulted in a significant number of convictions, all sources published in Russia starting from 2022 are not RS on the subjects related to wars conducted by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Mega claim. You can't just generally try to sanction all sources from a country. Don't forget that Ukrainian sources are also censored. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  We routinely deprecate sources that are simply mouthpieces for repressive states. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Correct, but their point isnt wrong that we cant blanket sanction all sources from a country. Case by case, if they are acting as mouthpeices of any state we can and should sanction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  While we don't have an article about it, the Ukrainian government has imposed quite a lot of restrictions on the media as well (see here). It doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them at all. Our editors can and should exercise judgement and decide whether a given source is reliable for a specific claim. For the avoidance of doubt, anonymous telegram channels are certainly not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. But, as usual, we can cite secondary RS that cited such Telegram channels. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek and Business Insider (low quality mainstream news sources) have occassionally used Rybar as a source, with a pinch of salt. Where they have done, I guess there might be a reason to cite them, with clear attribution, but we should never cite Rybar directly. Some background: https://en.thebell.io/pro-war-media/ https://thebell.io/unmasking-russia-s-influential-pro-war-rybar-telegram-channel https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/11/18/who-s-behind-rybar https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/11/19/the-bell-releases-the-name-of-the-creator-of-telegram-channel-rybar https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/10/14/russian-military-command-complains-about-fake-news-from-pro-kremlin-war-bloggers https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-pro-kremlin-telegram-channels-twist-iaea-words/ https://www.ndc.nato.int/research/research.php?icode=794 BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Social media outlets are
  self-published channels and are not used as sources in wikipedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk
  ) 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know on what planet any competent editor could ever consider anything on Telegram to be reliable save for
  WP:ABOUTSELF precisely because of my concerns about verifiability. TarnishedPath^talk
  11:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, outside of a few edge cases mentioned by others that do not appear to be met here, nothing from a telegram channel can be considered a WP:RS.

If it is actually important and verifiable information, it would have been reported by a reliable source. FortunateSons (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I know for the most part social media posts are not reliable sources, but what about if someone posts on their Twitter or Instagram account wishing someone a happy birthday and the person in question responds? Is that an exception or is that considered unreliable as well? Kcj5062 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just in case someone finds this later: In my opinion, this would be fine per

WP:DOB: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it^[1]. FortunateSons (talk

) 23:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: NVM. I read the Instagram post I'm referring to wrong. It's actually the subject's account. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, After the consensus that Simple Flying is unreliable (I've summarized in an essay here), I've been slowly working on purging citations to the site. In the process, I came across information sourced to planecrashinfo.com which also does not strike me as a reliable source. I removed the citation but checked and saw that the site is cited over 300 times on Wikipedia. Given that, bringing it here for discussion to make sure others agree with my assessment of the source. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

planecrashinfo.com's disclaimer page:

While every effort has been made to ensure that the information on this website is correct, information in the database is compiled from numerous sources that may be in conflict or error. The data contained on this website should not be used for anything other than general interest information. PlaneCrashInfo.com makes no guarantees, stated or implied, regarding the validity of the information found on this website or any website linked to this site. Neither PlaneCrashInfo.com or its operator will be held liable for any information, omissions, improper use of the information presented, or any violations of any law which may occur as a result of utilizing this resource. Information contained on this web site does not necessarily reflect the conclusions, opinions or official position of any government agency, airline, aircraft manufacturer or organization. All images on this website may be subject to copyright. Upon verification, copyrighted material will be removed or credited when requested by the copyright holder.

Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be effectively a personal website run by one person, and as the disclaimer says, cannot be regarded as reliable. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Such disclaimer appear on most websites, so I wouldn't give it to much weight. However the website is self-published by Richard Kebabjian, and I can't find anything that would show that he has previously been published as a subject matter expert. So the site wouldn't be reliable per

WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 19:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Unreliable and copyvio. What the disclaimer says. It is just a bunch of copyvio Internet scrapings. Definitely give this one a miss. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the information provided, it appears to be unreliable unless there is any indication that it’s from a subject-matter expert, which I can’t find. FortunateSons (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced in the article on Hamas-Russia relations. StrongALPHA (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you mean Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the use of this article in Russia–Hamas relations. It looks to be reliable for the content it's supports in that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fairly solid thinktank that uses subject matter experts to write for it. I'd say yes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree on reliability, but as always, take care to attribute as required by

WP:Biased when necessary FortunateSons (talk

) 16:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Today 2 IP addresses, namely 43.224.233.204 (talk · contribs) and 150.249.219.26 (talk · contribs) added a lot of new text on various articles of Japan which universally cite journals from Taylor & Francis Online, within a short amount of time which raised my alert. I am also uneasy with the fact that the links provided by the IPs are shorthanded redirects, which I believe is a discouraged practice on Wikipedia. Due to the suspicious editing nature of the two IPs, I decided to do a blanket revert of all of their edits of today. However, I am interested to have a third party to investigate if their edits are problem-free and the sources they cited are reliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked at one[21] which you reverted without comment. What exactly do you see as problematic from a RS perspective here? Bon courage (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue is that the author of the source, Igor Prusa, is a rather unknown figure on the topic of Japan from Czech. His writing was never cited on English Wikipedia until today by the same two IPs on multiple articles. This led me to suspect self-publication and attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a platform to establish prestige for the author. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

But the cited articles are from diverse authors are they not? The journal is the journal of the German Institute for Japanese Studies, and reputable. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedian ja:user:Keeteria has detected that 150.249.219.26 is an IP used by the German Institute for Japanese Studies, so there is the concern of conflict of interest editing. Moreover, can you give me more info about the reliability of the said institute? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Material published in reputable journals is usually reliable, and certainly reliable for attributed statements of what it says. If there is an

WP:UNDUE/promotional aspect, that is another matter, not relevant to this noticeboard. Bon courage (talk

) 10:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid this is just circular reasoning (it's reliable because it's reputable). What I want is other reliable sources which cited articles by Igor Prusa/German Institute for Japanese Studies. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.dijtokyo.org/institute/

Not quite what you are looking for, but they are funded by a German ministry and a charitable foundation, so that is generally a positive indication (I.e. not self-published, not aggressively political). In addition, they seem to have a history of publications in reputable journals and with scholars from good universities https://www.dijtokyo.org/?hpcat=publications. Could you elaborate on what you are specifically concerned about? FortunateSons (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I found a second source. I would call them reliable unless proven otherwise https://gerit.org/en/institutiondetail/55539458 FortunateSons (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have pointed out earlier, there is suspicion of undisclosed COI editing. I believe it's acceptable to preemptively revert possible COI editing even if the source cited could be considered "reliable". A reputable source really doesn't require such mildly aggressive COI editing strategy to boost traffic of the organization. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I do not believe that reputable source and COI editing are inherently contradictory. They are reputable by any reasonable standard (unless I missed something, feel free to make me aware of that). The indication of COI editing can be investigated, but the source is still reliable. If you are willing to take the time, I would encourage you to look over the reverted edits on whether or not they are actually harmful and restore those that aren’t. However, as @Bon courage said above, the issue of this noticeboard is unrelated to COI. FortunateSons (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to implement blanket rollbacks of their edits. In one of their revisions on Shinzo Abe, it reads "(...)however observers have also noted that "Abe Shinzō represented religious nationalism in Japan (...)",[22] However, this point of view is attributed solely to the single author of the cited journal,[23] Ernils Larsson. It seems to be a somewhat deceptive attempt to present the perspective as an academically accepted idea. I find this approach unacceptable, and I feel no obligation to fix each of their edits individually. If you believe their changes have merit and consider my rollbacks unjustified, kindly fix their edits by yourselves before considering restoration. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with the questionable quality of the edits insofar as you have presented evidence for it; this is simply a question of the text, not actually of the source.

Unfortunately, while I am generally aware of the institutions and their reliability, I cannot make the changes due to the fact that I am uninformed of the general scientific consensus on the topics discussed. FortunateSons (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BonCourage and FortunateSons. I don't see anything about the journal Contemporary Japan itself that would make me think it's an unreliable source. If you have concerns about whether the sources were summarized properly, or if someone involved with the journal may have added the citations, that's a matter for different boards than this.

talk

) 16:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

is there somewhere i can see a simple list of refillable vs depreciated?

Irtapil (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP, also linked near the top of this page. The Kip

03:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RSP only includes regularly discussed sources, it doesn't include all reliable or unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a big fan of this plugin, which visually color-codes sources based on reliability

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk

) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Always down to explore, what would be the rationalization? That Times of India publishes a significant POV even if it isn't super reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is not under 1RR.

WP:TOI, and it can be used for statements which are simply undisputed or unlikely to be disputed. Ironically, you are asking me to avoid using TOI for the statements that they have reported against the ruling Indian government[24] contrary to WP:TOI which urges against using the TOI articles that have "bias in favor of the Indian government". Abhishek0831996 (talk

) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional considerations apply to Times of India, specifically bias towards the current government of India and undisclosed promotional reporting. If neither is involved then it is still generally reliable (questions could still be raised about specific articles, but that is true of all sources). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested If Trump wins, would that apply to WAPO, NYT, CNN etc? Doug Weller talk 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It would depend on how those sources react to a Trump victory, and the results of any RSN discussions. My comment is based on the Times of India's RSP entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Damn, misread earlier post. Being pro Hindutva is like being pro MAGA. My bad. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think for basic reporting (accepted facts) TOI is still good. But I think what @The Herald is referring to is something specific to the controversies section, which is contentious. It is a good practice to use very reliable sources for contentious topics. SpunkyGeek (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the only time TOI can be a questionable source is for things like

Is this a

Jennell has died. The link may serve until later in the day when something comes out in a better source for BLPs. BusterD (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I trust your judgment. :) BOZ (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This article, together with the depreciated [27]https://electronicintifada.net/, is used to source a subsection on Ajamu Baraka(Footnote 16). Based on the degree of partisanship, the lack of apparent editorial oversight, etc., I consider them unreliable.

Am I right? FortunateSons (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

EI was recently deprecated in an RfC, so yeah, finding a better source for the section would be advisable. The Kip 01:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@

P-Makoto did, thank you! FortunateSons (talk

) 08:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In context, the linked article from the organization Interfaith Peace-builders is a citation for the statement (on the Ajamu Baraka page) The group [that is to say, Interfaith Peace-builders' African Heritage Delegation (AHD) to Palestine/Israel] specifically called the expansion of Israeli settlements "ethnic cleansing and 21st century colonialism"; called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel; accused Israel of apartheid; and praised the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" (B.D.S.) movement as "an essential tool in the struggle for Palestinian liberation.".

To the extent that the question is asking whether or not Interfaith Peace-builders can be considered a reliable source specifically for sourcing the sentence I have quoted, I think the answer is yes. This seems to fall under

talk

) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense; thank you for making the changes you did! FortunateSons (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A while ago I was going through articles related to Antartica and came across an article about this small, practically irrelevant 10-man expedition to Antartica that caught my attention. Someone had edited the article in 2022 claiming the expedition is "the only documented breach of the provisions of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which prohibits any military activity on the continent..." citing an anonymous online newspaper article from 2012.

The news article didn't claim this at all, but it did describe the expedition as "...the only documented military land maneuver on Antarctic territory" (The news article isn't about the expedition by the way, and only mentions the operation in passing...) so I edited it to better reflect the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_90

I looked into this some more and I think this might be a case of circular sourcing. The news article was published in March 7 2012. Back then, the wikipedia article about the expedition read: "To date, Operación 90 is the only documented military land manoeuvre on Antarctic territory." (no source given)

Link to the news article: https://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/07/argentina-to-demand-a-review-of-the-south-atlantic-fisheries-agreement

I think whoever wrote that article copied the claim from wikipedia. Years later a wiki editor came across the news article and decided to add it to wikipedia... circular sourcing.

I would like to remove this claim and source from the article. Would that be OK? Bob meade (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite so sure. Searching for Operación 90 on GoogleScholar yields hits from before March 2012, and from before that line about a "documented military land manoeuvre" existed (added to page in August 2011).

For a few examples (non-exhaustive):

- C. San Martin (1969), "Argentinos en la Antártida", Editorial Librería Mitre.

- Mirta Luisa Jurío (1984), "Argentina antártica", Revista de la Universidad.

- Rodolfo A. Sanchez (2007), Antártida: introducción a un continente remoto .

It looks like pre-2011, Operación 90 has coverage in Spanish-language sources. I would compare the "only documented military land maneuver on Antarctic territory"/ claim to what's in Spanish-language sourcing and make a decision based on that.

talk

) 14:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go through some of the sources and report back! Thanks for your reply Bob meade (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

update: I went through the sources

C. San Martin (1969), "Argentinos en la Antártida" - "An expedition of scientific character" pg 106

Mirta Luisa Jurío (1984), "Argentina antártica" - "First Argentine overland expedition to the South Pole" pg 43

Rodolfo A. Sanchez (2007), "Antártida: introducción a un continente remoto" - Devotes a large paragraph to comparing the expedition to other scientific expeditions from the early 20th century. It also says, "Leal's expedition was also the first Latin-American expedition to the South Pole" pg 124

None of these sources say it was the "first documented military land maneuver in Antarctica" like the wikipedia article used to imply in 2011-2012 (no source was given for that edit) I think the author of that Mercopress article simply copied and pasted this line in his article- which then found its way back to wikipedia as a source. Circular sourcing... Bob meade (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

See the discussion here: are the sources cited in this section not reliable? Jarble (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

On a

WP:MEDRS topic, news sources like The Guardian aren't reliable. Otherwise I don't see anything too bad on a skim. Loki (talk

) 00:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

can anyone give me a read on this source? I am going inclined to say yes, because the author is an expert, but I am not and possibly this is a forum, and Holocaust in Eastern Europe is definitely a contentious topic. I will probably have other questions btw. The sentence is was formed by the German occupation government and was subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9 and later to Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo) in Ypatingasis būrys. Thank you all.Elinruby (talk)

It would definitely need attribution at least, as the author and this work specifically have been accused of revisionism of the holocaust. If possible I would find a better source. No comment on the specific details, I'll let someone with more knowledge of the area step in. Also you signature needs a timestamp, otherwise the talk page reply function doesn't work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I would not consider this a reliable source on Lithuanian collaborationism. There are far better sources to cite. (t · c) buidhe 02:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

open to suggestions for alternatives, but I mostly agree. The problem is that there are a lot of accusations in the area, including of both the Polish and the Lithianian national archives. It's marginally better than what it replaced, but that is a very low bar. The part about "subordinate to Einsatzkommando 9" seems uncontroversial but its formation is also attributed to the Provisional Government, thus the caution. If all else fails I will report both with attribution. When I am back at that page I will take another shot at this. Ypatingasis būrys seems to have three different origin stories so far.

Apart from Bubnys, though, what about the website? That's the real question. Lithuanian Holocaust wiki-articles seem to rely on it pretty heavily and there may ube an uproar if I remove all references to it at once. Can anyone verify that it is in fact a forum? that apparently mirrors archivist articles? Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My comment was on the author and the work that your link is an excerpt from. If the only source for a detail is a work criticised for its Holocaust revisionism, that details is best left out. The website and organisation itself seems to suffer from the same problem, and criticism of it are not hard to find. Attribution isn't enough in instances like this, as it's verges on false balance. This isn't to say the Polish sources are necessarily better, see the last discussion about IPN for instance. I can find complaints from Holocaust organisation about it dating back at least to 2019, might be that earlier work was less og an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I am struggling with. Several wikipedia articles come across as extended apologia, and that's after giving Bubnys credit for having some of the receipts. As for the Polish pogroms, check out Jedwabne pogrom; some of the statements about it at the last Arbcom case were scathing. It doesn't begin to meet the sourcing requirements for Poland, for a start, and that's after featuring in an Arbcom case. The ones that haven't been touched in a while are quite a bit worse. I take it the forum doesn't especially even meet RS let alone academic sourcing. I was checking because it superficially resembles a Science-Po database that I think does. But yes, I am aware of the criticism of Bubnys, and have been looking at alternate sources for some of the articles that rely on him extensively, more than would be healthy for any author. In other news the sourcing requirement for Lithuania looks like it is passing with 7 supports and 2 abstentions Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree sourcing in the area is problematic, sometimes extremely so, but the solution isn't balancing Holocaust revisionism with other Holocaust revisionism. If there isn't any reliable sourcing, the best case could just be to leave out those details. The Lithuania case looks to be a good addition for the subject ares. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that's the answer, but the answer isn't satisfactory. We have an article heavily cited to an out of print, not-online source in Polish, that calls a man a war criminal, although no other source does as far as I can tell, and another article about the same man, largely cited to Bubnys, that calls him the most important figure of the country's resistance. I realize I am whining. Working on the other-source theory. Tell me these accusations of revisionism come from somewhere other than the IPN though? Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No it was Jewish and Holocaust remembrance organisations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

ok thanks that helps Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: A reminder about sourcing requirements in a topic that I think includes this article. It means if this source is removed it cannot be replaced without full consensus. All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933–1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

ShockedSkater, pinging in case they want to participate, has added a 2024 source to Aromanian language presenting a new oldest known text in Aromanian [28]. I am excited about this since I am active in this topic area, however, from what I see, the paper [29] is not from any journal, if I understand correctly what that means it would look self-published to me. The author is Edion Petriti, I can't find much information about him, I did find some articles by him in Albanian newspapers [30], also this paper [31] which seems to be published in Hylli i Dritës, which might be the magazine we have a Wikipedia article for (Hylli i Dritës). I'd rather not delete this source and information as it would represent an important discovery, but the fact that the 2024 paper is not published in any scientific journal from what I see is a bit worrisome for me. Also, when searching in Google the paper's title, only the Wikipedia article on the Aromanian language shows up to me, not even the paper at academia.edu. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you learn Albanian, or at least try Google translate. The original manuscript can be accessed here: [32]; the manuscript was dated by Peter Schreiner, German Byzantinologist [33], to the 16th-17th centuries, and is probably correct, if you have a look at internal evidence. The paper also offers a transcription and certain linguistic conclusions. It's all there, links, bibliography, references. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This looks to be analysis of a primary source plus one or more self-published papers on a pre-print site. Unless I missed something, I'm not seeing peer-reviewed scholarship published in a reputable journal. Per

WP:EXCEPTIONAL, there's no way we should base an "oldest known text" claim on primary and self-published secondary sources. Woodroar (talk

) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Woodroar that this looks like a situation where

WP:EXCEPTIONAL would apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 01:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, maybe we should remove the claim and just state the (sourced) age of the manuscript, dated to the 16th-17th centuries. ShockedSkater (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I consider the chain of sources sketchy. Right now, the source is Cristina Neagu in the Christ Church Library Newsletter citing Peter Schreiner speaking at the Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Despotate of Epirus in 1990. (Thank you, Google Translate.) What do we know about the Schreiner source? Was the symposium well regarded? Were its presentations peer-reviewed or based on working papers? And even then, Schreiner is a single source, which raises questions about

due-ness. I would suggest waiting until multiple peer-reviewed sources directly date the manuscript. Woodroar (talk

) 02:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Cristina Neagu's article, from the Christ Church Library Newsletter of the Oxford University, cited above seems more reliable to me. Could we use it as a source to briefly mention in the Aromanian language article that there is a document dated to the 16th-17th centuries as ShockedSkater suggested or is it better to completely remove this until more sources appear? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The manuscript was in England already in 1727, meaning it had finished being written, a couple of years before the Ardenica Engraving was published, in 1731. I do not think it's an entirely exceptional claim. ShockedSkater (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's probably UNDUE until there's more coverage in reliable, secondary sources. We can't cite Peter Schreiner because we don't have that source, right? What we do have is the Christ Church Library Newsletter. That's from Oxford, yes, but it's a newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal article. Its author, Cristina Neagu, doesn't appear to be a subject matter expert because she cites Peter Schreiner rather than her own analysis. Then we have Neagu's comments on page 22 of the newsletter, where she comments on the lack of scholarship on MS 49. If our best near-source is saying "look, this needs to be studied more", that should be a red flag to us. Woodroar (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @Super Dromaeosaurus can help us; if he is presently in Greece, he can go in a library and find Peter Schreiner, Το αρχαιότερο χειρόγραφο του Χρονικού των Ιωαννίνων, in: E. Chrysos (ed.) «Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27-31 Μαΐου 1990)». Arta, 1992, 47-51. Some photos of the pages in question are more than welcome. ShockedSkater (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am in Spain, so that is simply not possible. I can however get the paper by requesting access to it at

WP:RX. But this could perfectly take months and I am not guaranteed to receive it (or I might after waiting three months). ShockedSkater, would you agree to removing this info from the article and readd it if I receive the paper considering the long wait, so as not to drag this for months? I can also send it to you if I receive it if you want. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk

) 12:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've requested the document, but it is hosted in few libraries, so it is unlikely that I will get it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do I have to agree on something that has to do with a digital manuscript of the 15th-18th centuries, that is available online? I mean, if you have doubts regarding the discovery and lack of peer-review, there is still the manuscript itself, and various sources that state it was already in England in 1727, years before the Ardenica document (1731). You can add "a transcription of the material can be found here"... pointing to Edion Petriti's paper etc. If you send me the article, that would be most welcome. ShockedSkater (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We

don't synthesize sources

to support claims that neither source makes.

The only source currently supporting this claim at

conflict of interest

here.

If someone can get their hands on the Peter Schreiner source, that would be a starting point. In particular, I'm interested if it goes into whether the paper (or the symposium itself) is peer-reviewed or if the source is simply a working paper. At that point, we can (hopefully) answer questions about reliability and discuss whether or not the claim is DUE. But until then, the claim should be removed from the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want to remove the "oldest", fine by me. ShockedSkater (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I just received the paper in PDF. The citation is there, on p. 49: 16ο ἢ 17 αἰώνα. Meaning, of the 16th or 17th century. ShockedSkater (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I received it as well, and I see that statement about the 16th or 17th century.

The paper suggests that these were minutes of the symposium. I'm still unable to find any information about the symposium itself, whether or not its presentations were peer-reviewed, or if the Schreiner portion was based on a working paper or should be considered his final version. (Those questions may seem frivolous, but they're critical factors of reliability.) Policies like

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

would have us look for citation counts or evidence of scholarly influence, from the symposium, publisher, and author. Any thoughts on this? Evidence that we should consider this source reliable?

If the source is reliable, we also need to balance Schreiner's findings that this document is from the "16th or 17th c." with other scholars' findings that the oldest text are from 1731 and later. NPOV would have us attribute Schreiner's findings (as an outlier) at least. (But I may be jumping ahead here.)

Another question that I had: the text at Aromanian language is about the "oldest known written text in the language", which uses a Latin alphabet. Now Oxford's description of the primary source says it was written in "Greek" and "Aromanian (in Greek alphabet)". Is that important? Or that we're discussing a glossary and not a "text" as most would understand it (i.e., some words strung together in that language). Woodroar (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"[O]ldest known written text in the language" is still written in Greek characters, the Ardenica Engraving of 1731, also found in a book published in Venice in 1732, called Βιβλιάριον καλούμενον πίστις, which can be found online.

This being said, probably you should have a look at WP:Peter Schreiner in German, so you get to have an opinion of the scholar in question. Maybe you are splitting hair here, Schreiner bases his conclusions on the type of handwriting used in the document. Even if it were not of the 16th-17th century, as Schreiner states, the history of the collated manuscript positions it as the first written instance of the language. I'm not sure though why Schreiner uses Romanian instead of Aromanian in this paper.

Internal evidence is consistent with the dating, there are certain internal developments that require quite some time, like 2 or more centuries to show up, for example. In Albanian, we had this consonant cluster kl- & gl- shift into q- and gj- in the 17th and 18th centuries. That is, it took approximately 2 centuries to get from kl- < q-. The same can be said for the document at hand. Kavalliotis presents some consistent vowel changes that take quite some time to develop. I think I made myself clear. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that we can't cite Schreiner for something he doesn't say. He doesn't call this the first or oldest written instance of Aromanian, especially when he doesn't even name the language. We also can't combine one source on handwriting analysis and another source on linguistics to make claims that neither source makes. Sources need to explicitly state what we're citing them for.

I did read

Neutral Point of View policy also requires that we balance Schreiner's views against other scholars in this field; if he's the only person making this claim, that's a sign that we should consider waiting for others to confirm his analysis. Woodroar (talk

) 14:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the document yet, but I think we could include a mention of the document as long as it is attributed, and without the "oldest" claim, even if it was "technically" true, we need more sources backing that. There's another claim of an Aromanian old inscription from the 14th century (which would not be verifiable anymore as it would have been destroyed) and I was planning on mentioning it on the article one day. It's not like Aromanian studies are too big anyway, such claims are and will remain scarce, so I think short mentions are due, specially considering they come from notable scholars with Wikipedia articles. If anyone is curious this is the other claim I mean [34] (I wouldn't cite that link though).

By the way, clarifying Woodroar's doubts (if I understood them correctly), the paragraph at Aromanian language we're discussing deals with old Aromanian inscriptions of any type in any script, Aromanian is not standardized even today, and indeed, the oldest inscriptions used the Greek alphabet, as they mostly lived, and still live, surronded by Greeks. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely add the "according to" clause, and the Christ Church MS 49. ShockedSkater (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I remember having read something about the Odyssey of the manuscript, how and when they were brought to England. I'm copy-pasting the whole conversation on the talk page.

I reverted and added a link to this discussion. I see no point in duplicating a long discussion. Better and simpler to keep it on the place it started. Here more editors can leave their opinions too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for writing a page for Schreiner by the way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Much to my surprise I received Schreiner's paper already. ShockedSkater, send me an email so that I can send you it through Special:EmailUser/Super Dromaeosaurus, I'll attach the paper in the reply. I can also send it to anyone else interested. Unfortunately I do not have much free time right now to look into it so I would appreciate it if this thread was left open for a few more days to a week. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• I've mentioned the inscription in the article of the Chronicle of Ioannina [35] and on the Aromanian language [36] (here I also mentioned the other claim I mentioned, I will work on it more in the future). I think it doesn't contain any exceptional claim. This would conclude the issue I believe, but voice any problems you may perceive with the edits. Thank you all for your participation here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Is comingsoon.net a reliable source? Because it is highly use as source/s in different articles (see this Wikipedia search results). It has also discussed here by an IP user in 2021 but there's no clear consensus about it. Regards, 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No clear editorial policy that I could find, and the "About" section only has an ad for the site itself. Not reliable in my opinion. Cortador (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi all

I noticed a weird issue with some references I was using and I think I have a fairly straihtforward solution. Basically DOIs formatted as a doi.org url don't get expressed as proper DOIs by the VE citation tool, they just make normal web links. I've created a proposal on Phabricator to make this different so it converts the URL into a proper DOI. I hope this helps improve the quality of referencing without burdoning editors with knowing that they need to convert the DOI links, and not get into a situation where experienced editors are complaining to new editors to do it "properly" and they "should just know that they need to do it that way" etc.

Thanks

08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

See also

b

} 21:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have any information about whether the Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications [37] (open source journal published by an Indonesian university) should be considered as a reliable peer-reviewed journal? I'm leaning yes based mostly on the fact that they claim to be diamond-model (no publishing charge) but maybe someone else has a better basis for a determination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything immediately prompting suspicion of the journal. While lists like Bealls List and Predatory Reports aren't the end all be all, it's also encouraging to see that the Journal of Fundamental Mathematics and Applications appears on neither. With your own experience with mathematics and computer science, I think it's fair to be optimistic about this periodical.

Of course, as the top of this page states, Context is important. Is there a particular article in the journal, page on Wikipedia, or claim made on a page that you are wondering about?

talk

) 19:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a local journal that passes every smell test for being a local journal published by

b

} 21:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. The context is some recent additions to Nine dots puzzle. They seem relevant enough so the only question was whether the source was reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, I am asking is https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/movies/Tiny-Toon-Adventures-How-I-Spent-My-Vacation/ a reliable source for Rob Paulsen Wikipedia article? Frostyibex (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's marginal in general, but if all you want to state is that he voiced x/y/z characters in that video it should be fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I came across someone using this as a source for an actresses' DOB.[38] I was wondering if it's an acceptable source. Because I know when it comes to putting up sources for DOBs, there are very few that actually meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources as there are tons of sites that either web scrape this sort of information from other sites or are user-generated. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this is acceptable. The about page of Netflix Life casts the site as a news website and reports having editors and clearly identified staff. This would suggest Netflix Life is an entertainment publication focused on online streaming entertainment.

talk

) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder that per

WP:BLPN if the source by itself is sufficient since I quite doubt it is. Nil Einne (talk

) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a Fanside website, so in reality any editors listed are working on multiple different sites handling the inflow of content from volunteer or amateur authors. I would hesitate to use anything from a fanaide site for anything sensitive or contentious. I don't think it would be enough for

WP:BLPDOB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 15:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this source reliable to use to prove demands for a Palestinian state in Jordan? There are those who

What do the words “prove demands” mean? What content are you proposing to support with this source, on what article? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you a link to the article concerned. I meant irredentist or unionist claims.. Sakiv (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a non expert that includes this "...a Palestinian state already exists east of the Jordan River; it’s called Jordan." Seriously?

The "Jordanian option", in so far as that was for a time, a thing, was not a Palestinian demand, but an idea to form a Jordanian-Palestinian federation and from time to time, it is brought up in Israeli propaganda as "Jordan is Palestine" and variants of that.

I see the article

Greater Palestine

is nominated for deletion, which on an initial examination of the article I intend to endorse (or perhaps merge).

To answer the question posed, no, it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah because Palestine is only from the river to the sea. You are not in any position to determine whether a source is acceptable or not. How did you know that he is a "non expert? Sakiv (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If he is an expert, then this request is unnecessary? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ as someone who’s been involved in reliability questions for sources on either side, and while this doesn’t inherently make it unreliable, in my experience they definitely track pretty heavily toward the pro-Israel POV and I’m not exactly sure if I’d trust their reporting on the conflict/CTOPs in general (at least without attribution). The Kip 15:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a clearly labelled opinion piece so it's reliable for the attributed opinion of it's author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Reread

WP:RSOPINION, which says: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Chess (talk) (please mention

me on reply) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Is tweets from twitter claiming to be Rob Paulsen considered reliable. I don’t think it is just wanting to ask the opinions of others before I removed source Frostyibex (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if you knew that the tweets were written by the person you think (Rob Paulsen -- who dat?), there would be a question of whether it is

WP:DUE to include them, with the answer in almost all cases being "not". --JBL (talk

) 20:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

He’s an actor Rob Paulsen his twitter and LinkedIn are used as references and I have heard that self published sources like social media, LinkedIn and YouTube channels are not considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia, I wanted to verify that they are not acceptable before I removed them as not acceptable sources. Frostyibex (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. It looks like Twitter is used twice at

WP:DUE) than reliability.
I am not at all impressed by a tweet being used as the only source to support an uncredited voice role in a movie -- that's much more self-serving than a birthdate. The same holds for the use of an Instagram post for a role in Spongebob, and LinkedIn being used for his current place of residence. --JBL (talk

) 22:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. Frostyibex (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

To me this looks like many of the other non-expert SPS we've had issues with in the military history space, Tony DiGiulian does not appear to be a subject matter expert and I'm not seeing anything which suggests that this source is any different from the hundreds of fansites we've already taken action against. Used on a few dozen pages at least. Interesting in hearing other opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Checking Google Scholar shows that Tony DiGiulian and his website, NavWeaps: Naval Weapons, Naval Technology and Naval Reunions, are cited by various nonfiction and academic publications. Non-exhaustive examples of works that cite DiGiulian and NavWeaps listed below:

• Alexander Clarke, Tribals, Battles & Darings: The Genesis of the Modern Destroyer (Pen & Sword Books, 2020)
• Trent Hone, "Learning to Win: The Evolution of U. S. Navy Tactical Doctrine During the Guadalcanal Campaign", Journal of Military History (82, no. 3 (July 2018): 817–841
• Kiearan Hosty, James Hunter, and Shinatria Adhityatama, "Death by a Thousand Cuts: an archaeological assessment of souveniring and salvage on the Australian cruiser HMAS Perth (I)", International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 47, no. 2 (2018): 281–299, DOI:10.1111/1095-9270.12326
• Preston Jumonville, "Barrel 'Droop'", Warship International 122–127, JSTOR 44893807
• Simon Lavington, Moving Targets: Elliott-Automation and the Dawn of the Computer Age in Britain, 1947–67, History of Computing (Springer, 2011)
• Seymour H. Mauskopf, "Pellets, Pebbles and Prisms: British Munitions for Larger Guns, 1860–1885", in Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History, ed. Brenda J. Buchanan (Routledge, 2006), chapter 16
• Robert C. Stern (author of several books of naval history), Big Gun Battles: Warship Duels of the Second World War (Seaforth Publishing, 2015). (Stern also describes the website as follows: "This site covers, in magnificent detail, very nearly all the weapons used by the world's navies in the twentieth century, excepting aviation ordinance.")
• Michael Sturma, Surface and Destroy: The Submarine Gun War in the Pacific (University Press of Kentucky, 2011)
• Corbin Williamson, "The Impact of Institutional Context: Anglo-American Naval Fire Control", in Technology, Violence, and War: Essays in Honor of Dr. John F. Guilmartin, Jr., eds. Robert S. Ehlers, Jr., Sarah K. Douglas, and Daniel P.M. Curzon, History of Warfare (Brill, 2019), 204–217. DOI:10.1163/9789004393301_012

Citation across many different books and articles prompts confidence in DiGiulian and NavWeaps. Based on this, it's reasonable to consider DiGiulian and NavWeaps reliable on naval topics, which is what all these articles and books are citing NavWeaps for.

talk

) 08:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem consistent with

WP:SPS... Thats an argument for a non-self published source, no? The SPS standard is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." and there isn't a used by others exception to that, a SPS needs to meet that standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 08:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

One other node of data for our consideration as a noticeboard: Tony DiGiulian does have trained expertise. The New York Times reports that he is a retired engineer (John Ismay, "Rocket-Boosted but Going Nowhere Fast: The Navy’s Failed Munitions Programs", New York Times, December 6, 2018).

talk

) 08:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken... "Trained expertise" is not part of our reliability standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this 2016 podcast from The Mac Observer a reliable source for Apple community § ScreenCastsOnline? According to The Mac Observer's about page, the website was founded in 1998, gained an editor-in-chief in 2021, and was acquired by Reflector Media in 2022. They posted podcasts during 2016–2023, and this particular podcast was posted before the editor-in-chief and before the acquisition.

I am trying to determine whether this podcast justifies the inclusion of the "ScreenCastsOnline" section in the Apple community article (see Talk:Apple community § ScreenCastsOnline), which also affects the discussion regarding the Screen Casts and ScreenCasts redirects (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § Screen Casts). — Newslinger talk 07:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine, TMO is a long-term Apple reporting site with paid journalists, like others listed on the Apple community page. Ownership is irrelevant; most news media change owners during their existence under conglomeration. (Those RD's are separate issue, and can move to Screencast, per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § Screen Casts discussion).) Jimthing (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to discuss about reliability of Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks,

Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikibooks and Wikifunctions are all unreliable and should be replaced with {{

WP:AGEMATTERS as newer sources may have corrected information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t

° 15:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Army Technology [39] is a source that hasn't been discussed either on RSP or the MilHist Wikiproject page before. In several articles, it's tagged as an unreliable source (1 2 3 4 5), although their editorial standards page seems to indicate to me that they are at least generally reliable, but I'd like a second opinion. Pinging @Schierbecker as they originally brought this to my attention. Loafiewa (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Added Airforce Technology and Naval Technology. Schierbecker (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @WP:MILHIST coordinators: . Schierbecker (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a B2B (business-to-business) website run by a marketing company and is largely written by marketers. I checked about a dozen news articles and their author bios listed no relevant education, training, or experience in actual journalism. Every article includes prominent advertisements for their Buyers Guides. I doubt we can trust anything they publish. Woodroar (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've been reading Army Technology for years and I use it as a source from time to time, very rarely really. I just noticed that they run low-quality syndicated content from their parent company Verdict. These articles (example) typically cite research by "GlobalData", which owns Verdict. This conflict is not disclosed in the syndicated articles. Also, undisclosed cross-promoting of their GlobalData tech/world affairs-focused Instant Insights podcast in this article. Schierbecker (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, nothing about them suggests reliability and some of their content is so bad that I would support deprecation if this was a RfC. I also suspect that there are copyright issues with some of it... Some of their articles appear to be scraped without attribution through some sort of automated or semi-automated process. I've reviewed their editorial standards page and I'm just not seeing the OP's argument (although perhaps they misspoke, "at least generally reliable" is nonsensical after all... There is nothing higher than generally reliable). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

OP gets credit for being way ahead here. He was the one who was removing links to this site. I was the one who originally questioned whether it needed to be deprecated. Schierbecker (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to use this source:

https:// yourstory.com/socialstory/2022/05/aurangabad-foundation-babasaheb-ambedkar-vaidyakiya-pratishthan-bavp-marginalised-patients

for the Hedgewar Hospital page. The article seems well detailed and not written in a promotional style. I would tend to consider it a reliable source, but it triggers the spam filter. Before I ask for the page to be whitelisted, I would like to hear your thoughts on the quality of this source. --Broc (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Given what it's says about itself on its (brands.yourstory.com) brand page, for instance YourStory is the definitive platform for content, connections and communication that powers brand and business objectives, I wouldn't consider it an reliable source, it's a platform for businesses, brands, and entrepreneurs to highlight themselves. If it's been blacklisted in the past I can see why. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I started this conversationn in

The

My question is would a

Do you have proof of fabricated information? Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an example that was bothering me the other day Carl Ramsauer appears as advised by Weber [41] I could not confirm this. See the thesis here: [42].--ReyHahn (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"I could not confirm this by looking at the thesis" is miles away from "it is fabricated", and even from "it is wrong"! That said, I would be particularly cautious about using MGP for historical advisor information in the absence of any other source (as mentioned in the earlier discussion by Kusma, and as acknowledged by the MGP itself). --JBL (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

See page 46 of the thesis, where Weber is acknowledged. —Kusma (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not apply to this case. I have in the past found errors or miscategorizations in the past that I have myself corrected in Wikipedia. It seems that most have been corrected in MGP too. You are right about Weber I missed that.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion here was pretty thorough. In particular, it is not true that it can be "edited by anybody" -- anyone can submit information, but it is not automatically added (i.e., it goes through an editorial process). Neither deprecation nor an RfC is needed, just a reasonable degree of caution in using it. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see why we need this quasi-user generated project as a reference at all. For most notable academics, we should have a reliable biography, which in most cases would mention who their academic advisor was, especially if it was anybody who was themselves notable. If you can't find out who someone's advisor was from reliable sources, perhaps it's not worth mentioning at all. --Srleffler (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The idea is to determine whether this is a reliable source, right? I understand what you mean by "quasi-user generated", but in some sense it is or it isn't, right? The issue with user-generated sources is there's no editorial oversight, but there seems to be editorial oversight here. — Remsense诉 07:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Quasi-user generated" apparently means "actually not user-generated, but I need to make 'I don't like it' sound more convincing"? A significant portion of their data comes not from individuals but from institutions (like mathematics departments), and all of it goes through an editorial process. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all for clarifying the use of MGP. It seems that their platform is notable and more curated than what I expected. The previous discussion was particularly enlightening. I will consider this conversation done.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Though I do not have a particular reference to request feedback on, I welcome any input regarding the maintenance of BBC's description as a reliable source. Please share your thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Assessment of BBC non-English content. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Are these two sources Times Now and FirstPost reliable for stating the following in wikivoice?

In August 2023, large-scale demonstrations erupted in the region of Gilgit-Baltistan, currently under Pakistani control. Protesters are fervently chanting 'Let's go to Kargil' and expressing a desire to unite with India

None of these news sites have a reputation for fact checking per their own pages and may have an apparent conflict of interest w.r.t. the Govt of India. They also have a history of reporting latest events in Pakistan based on social media posts that later turned out to be fake. (Also noting that this is about a viral twitter video, not actually verifiable per any news websites in Pakistan or other reliable and independent international media sites.) Codenamewolf (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Per their About Us page, Times Now is part of the same media conglomerate as

The Times of India

, which RS/P describes as biased toward the Indian government and somewhere generally toward unreliable. It's not quite as clear-cut for FirstPost, but with their usage of "Pakistani-occupied" rather than "disputed" or similar for the regions in question, I'm not sure if I'd trust them as an objective source on Indo-Pakistani territorial disputes.

In short, I wouldn't consider them reliable for this topic. The Kip 23:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FirstPost is at best weakly reliable, use with extreme caution due to sensationalism and pro-Modi bias.[43][44][45][46] On this particular topic, one solution would be to say something like “media supportive of the Indian government reported that—-“? There was lots of fake news circulating about these protests.[47]BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Both FirstPost and TimesNow are unreliable for purely political subjects. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Journal's website[48] One of the sources used.;[49] I can';t find information about the author, Saksham Jain. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks questionable, given the extremely broad scope of the journal if nothing else. [50] They claim that articles are peer reviewed, [51] but just how much subject-matter expertise can reviewers realistically have over such a wide range of topics? I'd have to suggest that unless it can be shown that the journal has been repeatedly cited by WP:RS for the specific subject matter concerned, or it can be shown that an article author has subject-matter expertise, we shouldn't consider any journal with this sort of indiscriminate scope as WP:RS. Or at least, not as meeting the expectations for a 'peer reviewed' journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say extremely questionable. One of the perks of publishing with them is "No extra charges for additional authors". It also hasn't been around long (2 volumes). Also the "editorial head" is described by the journal as "Dr. Pooja Roy, hailing from Maharashtra, has an implausible publication background. She is a reviewer at two international journals and has successfully monitored working on newsletters. She has achieved a number of accolades to herself in academic field and her perseverance for research knows no boundaries. Her experience of having worked as Assistant Professor at renowned institutes is incredible and she is extremely passionate about teaching, research and reviewer role. She is also highly adept in handling editorial responsibilities as she has headed almost 6 journals and led them towards success. She has also been the editor of 4 books (bearing ISBN) which have been highly acclaimed. With this stupendous publication and academic background her skills and knowledge are highly profound and her predisposition towards research is highly enhanced." "implausible publication background" is possibly unintentionally accurate. I note the journals she reviewed for or the institutes she was an assistant professor are not named. Erp (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Erp Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Are the books from the 33 1/3 series reliable sources for album articles? Been trying to find some info on Blue Moves for instance, and saw that there is a book in this series which covers that album. On the one hand, the authors are tend to be completely separate from the artist or their label, I believe that in my cases people request to write a book for the series through the 33 1/3 site, which is the big red flag for me here. But – they are published books that seem to have a respectable reputation. I’d mainly be using these books for info on the recording of the album, and also to have cite-able descriptions of the songs’ musical and lyrical content. Personally, it doesn’t seem that different to me than citing a review of an album from a site like Pitchfork or PopMatters, but I wanted to make sure Elephantranges (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Elephantranges (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

33 1/3 is a series published by the academic press Bloomsbury. In its own words, 33 1/3 is a series of short books about popular music, focusing on individual albums by artists ranging from James Brown to Celine Dion and from J Dilla to Neutral Milk Hotel. As a monograph published with an academic press, and authored by a tenured professor in history and anthropology, Matthew Restall's Elton John's Blue Moves (Bloomsbury, 2020) is an ideal source to cite. To not cite this book—when it is possibly the most significant publication on the subject in the past decade—on the Blue Moves page would, if anything, be a tragic failure on our part as Wikipedians.

I'll add that I am confused by you considering it a big red flag that authors for the 33 1/3 series apply to have their books published with the series. That is very normal for academic book series. Most involve a process where publishers have a series and authors can submit book proposals for the series editors' and press' consideration. This is, in fact, part of what makes academic books such reliable, independent sources for both accurate information and general notability: multiple scholars are involved in the process of determining what is worth publishing and how to make it a quality product.

talk

) 01:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, I own several books in the 33⅓ series, and academic publisher aside, the few I have are distinctly non-neutral writing exercises that I would suggest to be particularly careful about before citing. The example right in front of me is the Sound of Silver entry, which is not written by anyone with a credible academic background but a former Stereogum reviewer. The book reads like an extended personal essay and is so far afield from ordinary academic writing that I'd suggest that anyone who claims otherwise hasn't actually read it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As Stereogum is a music review website, that seems like the kind of background that would be suitable for writing about music.

Additionally, I would be mindful that academic writing as a genre has become increasingly (though not universally) personable over the years. To speak by way of example, Harvard University Press' award-winning intellectual history of racism and religious prejudice, Heathen: Religion and Race in American History (2022), incorporates personal vignettes from the author. Qualities reminiscent of a "personal essay" sometimes find their place in scholarship as authors wrestle with positionality or consider the affective qualities of art and literature.

Of course, per Wikipedia policies about maintaining a NPOV, we wouldn't necessarily repeat the partial expressions of authors in Wikipedia's own voice, but an author interpolating their fondness for the music doesn't seem like it would, on its own, make other content (such as bout information about how an album was recorded, or what the musical or lyrical content is, which is what Elephantranges mentioned being interested in) un-citeable.

Lastly, series can contain internal diversity of approach. With 190 books in the series, maybe the several in your possession are unusually personal, or maybe Restall's will be unusually serious.

talk

) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding series can contain internal diversity of approach, that's why I said to be careful, rather than exclude (or promote) the series altogether. In any case, writing about music is like dancing about architecture, which is why I try to apply due care to any music criticism, whether it comes from a tenured professor or not. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Publishing are not just, or mainly, an academic publisher. They made most of their money from being the first to publish the Harry Potter series, after bigger London publishers rejected it. They generally put out high quality books though - are these from the academic division? I think not, though a random sample of authors seem to be academics or at least experienced music journalists. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, Bloomsbury added academic publishing but not long thereafter stopped it, or anyway stopped adding to what they were already publishing, directing writers whose academic works were already in a Bloomsbury pipeline to this or that alternative publisher (definitely including Routledge). (No comment on the 33⅓ series: I know nothing of it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Have they stopped? From what I gather, Bloomsbury Academic is still publishing. They have a six-volume anthology series on the cultural history of exploration scheduled for publication in September 2024, later this year. In the 33 1/3 series, Bloomsbury is publishing Dolly Parton's White Limozeen (2024) later this year as well, authored by published music critic Steacy Easton.

talk

) 02:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, they haven't stopped. (What made me think that they had? Perhaps just the departure from Bloomsbury of the commissioning editor of the particular book of which I have some knowledge. Hmm.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the publication information page inside the book (seen using Google Books), Elton John's Blue Moves was published with Bloomsbury Academic.

talk

) 02:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense! I have pretty much no knowledge about how publishing tends to work so I wasn’t aware if their process was a commonly used one or not, but that’s all good to know. Thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The 33 1/3 series is published by Bloomsbury Academic (in this example, under "Product details" to the right of "Imprint", it says "Bloomsbury Academic"). The series is

weight than generally reliable music publications like Pitchfork, PopMatters, and Stereogum. I do not see the 33 1/3 series having a submission process as a problem, since academic journals also use a submission process. — Newslinger talk

04:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here is a somewhat tangled tale. This (archived here) is a ZDnet article claiming to have been "Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor and Jack Wallen, Contributing Writer Sept. 20, 2023 at 1:53 a.m. PT". It's got significant errors -- first of all that it links to the distros' webpages with the ludicrous text "See price at", creating sentences like "See price at Linux Mint". As for the rest... I will have to excerpt (emphasis is present in the source).

Linux users who grew up with the GNOME 2.x style interface will also love Cinnamon due to its ____ and ___. Another worthwhile alternative for people who are fond of GNOME 2.x that is also integrated into Mint is MATE because of _____. While Cinnamon rests on the foundation of the GNOME 3.x desktop, MATE is an outright GNOME 2.x fork WHAT DOES 2.X FORK MEAN? Explain that. MATE is also available on Mint.
See price at Linux Mint

Yes -- it really says "due to its ____ and ___", bolded, in an article from September 20th last year which has not since been updated.

Additionally, when I was putting this URL into archive.is, I noticed something quite strange: it said that URL had already been archived... in 2022, over a year before its publication date. That article is here: it's a very similar article with somewhat different information. That one is "Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor and Taylor Clemons, Staff Writer on May 26, 2022, Reviewed by Elyse Betters Picaro".

The 2022 version of the article, which "was published" in May 2022 and archived in August 2022, doesn't have any editor notes in the body text, but it does have something very strange in the lead:

Today, the easiest desktop of all, Chrome OS, is simply Linux with the Chrome web browser on top of it. The more full-featured Linux desktop distributions are as easy to use in 2021 as Windows or macOS.

2021? What?!

Note that they did not just move the URLs around: a Google search for the headline and page title of the 2022 version ("The 5 best Linux distros for beginners: You can do this" and "The 5 best Linux distros for beginners in 2022", respectively) brings up nothing at all. This suggests that the article itself is just having its title and publication date changed every year.

Anyway, all of that aside, the more pressing issue is why they've had an article with TKTK filler text and editor's notes live since September (? - apparently the publication dates don't actually mean anything).

What could this mean? jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@

ZDNet, it's about whether or not we should just list content published by Red Ventures as generally unreliable. This is the third time one of their publications has come here for becoming a blatant content mill and we shouldn't bother rehashing it when it's obvious what the common denominator is. Chess (talk) (please mention

me on reply) 23:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this would actually be the fourth time we've had to mark one of their pubs as generally unreliable or below. [54] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know about that, but it is highly concerning regarding the quality. Would it be possible to have an RfC for an entire group, even if the editorial teams are formally unaffiliated? FortunateSons (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Red Ventures strikes again. At this point I would support listing anything owned by Red Ventures as unreliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is compatible with wiki rules (which I don’t know, to be honest), it sounds like a very reasonable proposal FortunateSons (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Dotdash is an example of a network of sites that are given special considerations. The difference with this spam network is that it has a revenue of $2 billion a year. It's pretty telling that none of their sources listed at RSP have anything above "unreliable" (CNET is only reliable pre-Red Ventures and the last ZDnet discussion was also pre-Red) and imho we might even want to deprecate the whole network so we have it in the edit filter for newer editors. Chess (talk) (please mention

me on reply) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There are underlying issues of concern, such as blacklisted Healthline having brand websites - Greatist.com (recently pruned by me; 8), Bezzy (new; 19), PsychCentral (319), and Medical News Today (MNT, 914) - all of which have links to one another and back to Healthline (parentheses: number of WP articles containing the Red Ventures-Healthline brand links).

Removing the individual links requires an editor(s) to manually remove it, i.e., an onerous task for PsychCentral and MNT. Zefr (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is very unfortunate, I’m sorry to hear that. I am in favour of finding a functional solution to this, the status quo is clearly untenable FortunateSons (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if a formal RFC is proper procedure, but I’d be in favor of a blanket deprecation of any Red Ventures-owned sites. The Kip 03:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC seems like a good idea given how impactful this'll be. There will be major concerns regarding implementation. One of the first questions is if we want to carve out Metacritic as it was briefly owned by Red Ventures but has since been sold. There might be a few other sites that weren't ruined. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point! FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think we'd probably just word the RFC to say that things published by a site owned by Red Ventures at the time of publication are unreliable. After all, they've purchased many sites that were previously reliable, and sites that ended up somewhere else should probably be evaluated on their own merits if the former owner was the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that, but on a practical basis, we should still carve out Metacritic which doesn't have fixed dates for their summaries/review aggregation (it's continuous like Rotten Tomatoes). I think they're a special-enough case since review aggregation/summarization is algorithmic anyways. There could conceivably be a few more edge cases but that's the big one I would take out if we go with "publishing while owned by Red Ventures means generally unreliable" since applying this rule as written would mean digging through archive.org to see when the critic summaries were written and essentially getting rid of review aggregation for video games released from 2020-2022. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with both this comment and with Chess's caveat that Metacritic is an exception. I don't think we're at the point of deprecation here. That's for sources that are specifically anti-reliable: posting misinformation deliberately and the like. Red Ventures sites just don't appear to have much of a fact-checking process, which is what we assume by default for a random site on the internet and is why the average site on the internet is generally unreliable. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  @

  WP:RSP already for posting misinformation. CNET got declared unreliable for posting AI generated content. If you go on ZDNet now the website is chock-full of questionable information like this undeclared advertisement for an AI book creation service [55] written by "StackCommerce". Or great deals on Costco memberships, which is so important they published two articles on it in 24 hours (you get a rebate if you buy them through StackCommerce). [56] [57] If you believe ZDNet, this isn't paid content as their paid content is designated as such in the URL and at the top of the page. Example: [58] Here are some other great deals offered by StackCommerce on name-brand products ZDNet is covering. [59] [60] [61] I don't think many legitimate publications let companies selling products write a dozen+ articles in a week on what great deals they are offering, especially without declaring those articles as paid content. I can see that the evidence presented here is kind of thin at the moment and I hope these sources convince you that deprecation is necessary. Chess (talk) (please mention

  me on reply) 05:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess Ambiguity about sponsored content is again not a deprecation-worthy offense. Deprecation is not for your garden-variety unreliable source. Deprecation is for sources that are anti-reliable, who spread misinformation deliberately, who are actually worse than no source at all. Loki (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @

  WP:RSPS and GameSpot is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources with Giant Bomb as situational (for other reasons, not Red Ventures) with GameFAQs said to be unreliable. Nil Einne (talk

  ) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I'm drafting an RfC statement in User:Chess/sandbox and I've excluded Healthline, CNET, and The Points Guy as previously discussed. Ditto for everything acquired by Fandom. However I did scope it to include ZDNet. Is that scoped well enough for everyone? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Deprecate ZDNet post acquisition by Red Ventures. That hurts to say but it needs to be done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, they've otherwise ruined one of the best computer sources out there. Depreciate it post acquisition. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Please share your valuable opinions regarding the reliability of the source, written by Dr. PC Chaudhury. Here is the information:- Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. I want to use it in caste articles. Thanks. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An RFC is currently open. You can provide your opinions there. Thanks — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please is Business Insider a reliable source, because I want to use it in an article, but it's confusing lots of editors whether it's reliable or not. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 8:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Per the

no consensus on whether Insider is reliable for other topics (RSP entry). Which Insider article are you planning to use, which Wikipedia article do you want to use it on, and what information would you like to include? — Newslinger talk

07:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Treat it with caution, they publish an immense quantity of articles and while some are very good some are native advertising. There is also a significant and longstanding problem with clickbait headlines, but thats not really an issue for us here because we disregard headlines anyways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Treat with caution. As the Gonzalo Lira page featured on this discussion board, I noticed a Business Insider profile of him that is literally copied and pasted from our WP article, so any content of that sort would be circular referencing. As a good rule of thumb, only use a BI article that has a named author and when you click on the author's profile it's clear they are a BI journalist and not one-off contributor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Are the books from the 33 1/3 series reliable sources for album articles? Been trying to find some info on Blue Moves for instance, and saw that there is a book in this series which covers that album. On the one hand, the authors are tend to be completely separate from the artist or their label, I believe that in my cases people request to write a book for the series through the 33 1/3 site, which is the big red flag for me here. But – they are published books that seem to have a respectable reputation. I’d mainly be using these books for info on the recording of the album, and also to have cite-able descriptions of the songs’ musical and lyrical content. Personally, it doesn’t seem that different to me than citing a review of an album from a site like Pitchfork or PopMatters, but I wanted to make sure Elephantranges (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Elephantranges (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

33 1/3 is a series published by the academic press Bloomsbury. In its own words, 33 1/3 is a series of short books about popular music, focusing on individual albums by artists ranging from James Brown to Celine Dion and from J Dilla to Neutral Milk Hotel. As a monograph published with an academic press, and authored by a tenured professor in history and anthropology, Matthew Restall's Elton John's Blue Moves (Bloomsbury, 2020) is an ideal source to cite. To not cite this book—when it is possibly the most significant publication on the subject in the past decade—on the Blue Moves page would, if anything, be a tragic failure on our part as Wikipedians.

I'll add that I am confused by you considering it a big red flag that authors for the 33 1/3 series apply to have their books published with the series. That is very normal for academic book series. Most involve a process where publishers have a series and authors can submit book proposals for the series editors' and press' consideration. This is, in fact, part of what makes academic books such reliable, independent sources for both accurate information and general notability: multiple scholars are involved in the process of determining what is worth publishing and how to make it a quality product.

talk

) 01:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, I own several books in the 33⅓ series, and academic publisher aside, the few I have are distinctly non-neutral writing exercises that I would suggest to be particularly careful about before citing. The example right in front of me is the Sound of Silver entry, which is not written by anyone with a credible academic background but a former Stereogum reviewer. The book reads like an extended personal essay and is so far afield from ordinary academic writing that I'd suggest that anyone who claims otherwise hasn't actually read it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As Stereogum is a music review website, that seems like the kind of background that would be suitable for writing about music.

Additionally, I would be mindful that academic writing as a genre has become increasingly (though not universally) personable over the years. To speak by way of example, Harvard University Press' award-winning intellectual history of racism and religious prejudice, Heathen: Religion and Race in American History (2022), incorporates personal vignettes from the author. Qualities reminiscent of a "personal essay" sometimes find their place in scholarship as authors wrestle with positionality or consider the affective qualities of art and literature.

Of course, per Wikipedia policies about maintaining a NPOV, we wouldn't necessarily repeat the partial expressions of authors in Wikipedia's own voice, but an author interpolating their fondness for the music doesn't seem like it would, on its own, make other content (such as bout information about how an album was recorded, or what the musical or lyrical content is, which is what Elephantranges mentioned being interested in) un-citeable.

Lastly, series can contain internal diversity of approach. With 190 books in the series, maybe the several in your possession are unusually personal, or maybe Restall's will be unusually serious.

talk

) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding series can contain internal diversity of approach, that's why I said to be careful, rather than exclude (or promote) the series altogether. In any case, writing about music is like dancing about architecture, which is why I try to apply due care to any music criticism, whether it comes from a tenured professor or not. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Publishing are not just, or mainly, an academic publisher. They made most of their money from being the first to publish the Harry Potter series, after bigger London publishers rejected it. They generally put out high quality books though - are these from the academic division? I think not, though a random sample of authors seem to be academics or at least experienced music journalists. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, Bloomsbury added academic publishing but not long thereafter stopped it, or anyway stopped adding to what they were already publishing, directing writers whose academic works were already in a Bloomsbury pipeline to this or that alternative publisher (definitely including Routledge). (No comment on the 33⅓ series: I know nothing of it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Have they stopped? From what I gather, Bloomsbury Academic is still publishing. They have a six-volume anthology series on the cultural history of exploration scheduled for publication in September 2024, later this year. In the 33 1/3 series, Bloomsbury is publishing Dolly Parton's White Limozeen (2024) later this year as well, authored by published music critic Steacy Easton.

talk

) 02:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, they haven't stopped. (What made me think that they had? Perhaps just the departure from Bloomsbury of the commissioning editor of the particular book of which I have some knowledge. Hmm.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the publication information page inside the book (seen using Google Books), Elton John's Blue Moves was published with Bloomsbury Academic.

talk

) 02:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense! I have pretty much no knowledge about how publishing tends to work so I wasn’t aware if their process was a commonly used one or not, but that’s all good to know. Thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The 33 1/3 series is published by Bloomsbury Academic (in this example, under "Product details" to the right of "Imprint", it says "Bloomsbury Academic"). The series is

weight than generally reliable music publications like Pitchfork, PopMatters, and Stereogum. I do not see the 33 1/3 series having a submission process as a problem, since academic journals also use a submission process. — Newslinger talk

04:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here is a somewhat tangled tale. This (archived here) is a ZDnet article claiming to have been "Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor and Jack Wallen, Contributing Writer Sept. 20, 2023 at 1:53 a.m. PT". It's got significant errors -- first of all that it links to the distros' webpages with the ludicrous text "See price at", creating sentences like "See price at Linux Mint". As for the rest... I will have to excerpt (emphasis is present in the source).

Linux users who grew up with the GNOME 2.x style interface will also love Cinnamon due to its ____ and ___. Another worthwhile alternative for people who are fond of GNOME 2.x that is also integrated into Mint is MATE because of _____. While Cinnamon rests on the foundation of the GNOME 3.x desktop, MATE is an outright GNOME 2.x fork WHAT DOES 2.X FORK MEAN? Explain that. MATE is also available on Mint.
See price at Linux Mint

Yes -- it really says "due to its ____ and ___", bolded, in an article from September 20th last year which has not since been updated.

Additionally, when I was putting this URL into archive.is, I noticed something quite strange: it said that URL had already been archived... in 2022, over a year before its publication date. That article is here: it's a very similar article with somewhat different information. That one is "Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor and Taylor Clemons, Staff Writer on May 26, 2022, Reviewed by Elyse Betters Picaro".

The 2022 version of the article, which "was published" in May 2022 and archived in August 2022, doesn't have any editor notes in the body text, but it does have something very strange in the lead:

Today, the easiest desktop of all, Chrome OS, is simply Linux with the Chrome web browser on top of it. The more full-featured Linux desktop distributions are as easy to use in 2021 as Windows or macOS.

2021? What?!

Note that they did not just move the URLs around: a Google search for the headline and page title of the 2022 version ("The 5 best Linux distros for beginners: You can do this" and "The 5 best Linux distros for beginners in 2022", respectively) brings up nothing at all. This suggests that the article itself is just having its title and publication date changed every year.

Anyway, all of that aside, the more pressing issue is why they've had an article with TKTK filler text and editor's notes live since September (? - apparently the publication dates don't actually mean anything).

What could this mean? jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@

ZDNet, it's about whether or not we should just list content published by Red Ventures as generally unreliable. This is the third time one of their publications has come here for becoming a blatant content mill and we shouldn't bother rehashing it when it's obvious what the common denominator is. Chess (talk) (please mention

me on reply) 23:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this would actually be the fourth time we've had to mark one of their pubs as generally unreliable or below. [64] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know about that, but it is highly concerning regarding the quality. Would it be possible to have an RfC for an entire group, even if the editorial teams are formally unaffiliated? FortunateSons (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Red Ventures strikes again. At this point I would support listing anything owned by Red Ventures as unreliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is compatible with wiki rules (which I don’t know, to be honest), it sounds like a very reasonable proposal FortunateSons (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Dotdash is an example of a network of sites that are given special considerations. The difference with this spam network is that it has a revenue of $2 billion a year. It's pretty telling that none of their sources listed at RSP have anything above "unreliable" (CNET is only reliable pre-Red Ventures and the last ZDnet discussion was also pre-Red) and imho we might even want to deprecate the whole network so we have it in the edit filter for newer editors. Chess (talk) (please mention

me on reply) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There are underlying issues of concern, such as blacklisted Healthline having brand websites - Greatist.com (recently pruned by me; 8), Bezzy (new; 19), PsychCentral (319), and Medical News Today (MNT, 914) - all of which have links to one another and back to Healthline (parentheses: number of WP articles containing the Red Ventures-Healthline brand links).

Removing the individual links requires an editor(s) to manually remove it, i.e., an onerous task for PsychCentral and MNT. Zefr (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is very unfortunate, I’m sorry to hear that. I am in favour of finding a functional solution to this, the status quo is clearly untenable FortunateSons (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if a formal RFC is proper procedure, but I’d be in favor of a blanket deprecation of any Red Ventures-owned sites. The Kip 03:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC seems like a good idea given how impactful this'll be. There will be major concerns regarding implementation. One of the first questions is if we want to carve out Metacritic as it was briefly owned by Red Ventures but has since been sold. There might be a few other sites that weren't ruined. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point! FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think we'd probably just word the RFC to say that things published by a site owned by Red Ventures at the time of publication are unreliable. After all, they've purchased many sites that were previously reliable, and sites that ended up somewhere else should probably be evaluated on their own merits if the former owner was the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that, but on a practical basis, we should still carve out Metacritic which doesn't have fixed dates for their summaries/review aggregation (it's continuous like Rotten Tomatoes). I think they're a special-enough case since review aggregation/summarization is algorithmic anyways. There could conceivably be a few more edge cases but that's the big one I would take out if we go with "publishing while owned by Red Ventures means generally unreliable" since applying this rule as written would mean digging through archive.org to see when the critic summaries were written and essentially getting rid of review aggregation for video games released from 2020-2022. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with both this comment and with Chess's caveat that Metacritic is an exception. I don't think we're at the point of deprecation here. That's for sources that are specifically anti-reliable: posting misinformation deliberately and the like. Red Ventures sites just don't appear to have much of a fact-checking process, which is what we assume by default for a random site on the internet and is why the average site on the internet is generally unreliable. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  @

  WP:RSP already for posting misinformation. CNET got declared unreliable for posting AI generated content. If you go on ZDNet now the website is chock-full of questionable information like this undeclared advertisement for an AI book creation service [65] written by "StackCommerce". Or great deals on Costco memberships, which is so important they published two articles on it in 24 hours (you get a rebate if you buy them through StackCommerce). [66] [67] If you believe ZDNet, this isn't paid content as their paid content is designated as such in the URL and at the top of the page. Example: [68] Here are some other great deals offered by StackCommerce on name-brand products ZDNet is covering. [69] [70] [71] I don't think many legitimate publications let companies selling products write a dozen+ articles in a week on what great deals they are offering, especially without declaring those articles as paid content. I can see that the evidence presented here is kind of thin at the moment and I hope these sources convince you that deprecation is necessary. Chess (talk) (please mention

  me on reply) 05:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess Ambiguity about sponsored content is again not a deprecation-worthy offense. Deprecation is not for your garden-variety unreliable source. Deprecation is for sources that are anti-reliable, who spread misinformation deliberately, who are actually worse than no source at all. Loki (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @

  WP:RSPS and GameSpot is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources with Giant Bomb as situational (for other reasons, not Red Ventures) with GameFAQs said to be unreliable. Nil Einne (talk

  ) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I'm drafting an RfC statement in User:Chess/sandbox and I've excluded Healthline, CNET, and The Points Guy as previously discussed. Ditto for everything acquired by Fandom. However I did scope it to include ZDNet. Is that scoped well enough for everyone? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Deprecate ZDNet post acquisition by Red Ventures. That hurts to say but it needs to be done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, they've otherwise ruined one of the best computer sources out there. Depreciate it post acquisition. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Please share your valuable opinions regarding the reliability of the source, written by Dr. PC Chaudhury. Here is the information:- Choudhury, Pratap Chandra. Assam-Bengal Relations from the Earliest Times to the Twelfth Century A.D. Spectrum Publications. I want to use it in caste articles. Thanks. — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 14:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An RFC is currently open. You can provide your opinions there. Thanks — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please is Business Insider a reliable source, because I want to use it in an article, but it's confusing lots of editors whether it's reliable or not. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 8:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Per the

no consensus on whether Insider is reliable for other topics (RSP entry). Which Insider article are you planning to use, which Wikipedia article do you want to use it on, and what information would you like to include? — Newslinger talk

07:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Treat it with caution, they publish an immense quantity of articles and while some are very good some are native advertising. There is also a significant and longstanding problem with clickbait headlines, but thats not really an issue for us here because we disregard headlines anyways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Treat with caution. As the Gonzalo Lira page featured on this discussion board, I noticed a Business Insider profile of him that is literally copied and pasted from our WP article, so any content of that sort would be circular referencing. As a good rule of thumb, only use a BI article that has a named author and when you click on the author's profile it's clear they are a BI journalist and not one-off contributor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Article: Awan (tribe)

Issue: There is a very clear and constant POV pushing going on in this article. Since this article became extended user protected, an info box which contains wrong information (NOR), and a unreliable source was added. These are some very basic things which senior editors should take care of. When I highlighted these issues here, no one from senior editors who visit this article regularly replied to it. I also highlighted this issue in Admin notice board here, where admins suggested me to post the issue on this notice board.

The two main issues which I highlighted were the following:

Infobox: Infobox contains unsourced and wrong information. The information is contrary to article because the ethnicity of Awan tribe is not established. Only clue of it is tribe's own understanding of their ethnicity which is Arab. Location of tribe is also contrary to article because infobox gives their location as Punjab, Sindh and Azad Kashmir while the article states that majority resides in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhaw and Kashmir. Similarly, there is no mention in article of language being used by the tribe which according to infobox is Punjabi while the tribe is spread over a vast area and speaks indigenous languages including Lehnda, Pashto, Hindko and Kashmiri. If any language can be associated with this tribe, its the tribal language Awankari and not Punjabi.

I personally don't see any need for infobox because its just a start-class article but if it is to be included than it should atleast contain correct information.

British Raj source: The addition to article which supports the assumption that Awans might have a Jat origin is backed by footnote in a controversial book which itself states that this assumption is derived from a British Raj Gazetteer. There are many British Raj sources which support different origin theories of Awans, according to some they are Arabs, others Greek, Pashtuns and even Rajputs. British Raj sources are extremely unreliable, thus this addition should be reverted.

-- Greentree0 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Which specific source are you referring to? Can you link it? It seems the disagreement is on the content of the sources, rather than if the source is reliable (e.g. editorial oversight). Check out

WP:RS. Ramos1990 (talk

) 06:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about this [1] source. It is an unreliable source and should be removed. -- Greentree0 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This source is not from RAJ era. Timovinga (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you dropped the surrounding ref tags when directly discussing a source so I'll repeat the source you are questioning here: Khan, Sabir Badal (2013). Two Essays on Baloch History and Folklore: Two Essays on Baloch History and Folklore. Università di Napoli, "l'Orientale". p. 40.. The publisher is, on a brief glance, academically respected. Looking at the actual statement in the book in question "similarly, the Awans, said to be of Jat origin (Attock District Gazetteer 1932: 82), claim Arab origins having descended from Ali, the son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, from a wife other than Fatima (ibid: 80)". The writer isn't stating they are of Jat origin but rather citing another source as stating/describing such a claim; the implication is that he doesn't believe they are descended from Ali though he isn't convinced of the Jat origin either "said to be". The wiki article itself also distances itself "However, they are also described as having Jat origins". Erp (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Erp’s observations. Certainly looks like the source has some academic standing. I would say that if other sources exist showing that Awans are Arabs, Greeks, Pashtuns, or Rajputs with good sourcing, they should be ok. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Using a passive "They are also described as ..." is semantically equivalent to "Some describe them as ...", in which case I would immediately tag it with {{

WP:DUE at all. (Remember, a single academic source is not sufficient to describe a wider belief, unless there are multiple sources easily found that verify the consensus. In this case it appears there is one and only one source, who is again only quoting another generally-mixed-reliable source skeptically.) SamuelRiv (talk

) 22:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I plan on improving the sourcing in the article for Melania Trump to get it up to good article status as part of my project to bring all first lady articles to GA. Since this is a more contentious BLP, I wanted to run a couple sources by this noticeboard to make sure there are no concerns about using them as major sources throughout the article for details about her life, including any potentially controversial details. They are:

• Bennett, Kate (2019). Free, Melania: The Unauthorized Biography. Flatiron Books.
  ISBN 978-1-250-30738-5
  .
• Jordan, Mary (2021). The Art of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump. Simon and Schuster.
  ISBN 978-1-9821-1341-4
  .

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Both works are from reputable publishers (Flatiron is a division of MacMillan), both authors are reporters (CNN and Washington Post respectively) so in general both look good. Reading reviews both works rely in part on anonymous sources, so some care with BLP issues should be taken (but care should always be taken with BLPs). In all I can't see anything to discount either source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)