Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396

User:David Gerard keeps removing a Daily Mail source I added to One Pair of Eyes (TV series). It isn't the only source for that episode either, and it follows the guidelines.

That's all David seems to do... Removing references from sources like Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Star, News of the World, Metro, GB News etc which have all been listed as Generally Unreliable or Deprecated by this liberal community, without reading them.

Even though I see mistakes from left wing sources like The Guardian and The Independent every single time I read a story from them.

The reliable source guidelines [] here says:

"The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context."

And then the linked About-Self Hashion section in those Daily Mail guidelines here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which says:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

• 1 - The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• 2 - It does not involve claims about third parties;
• 3 - It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• 4 - There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• 5 - The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Danstarr69 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

DG is right and you should self-revert. That use of DM is not about the Daily Mail, but about an episode of a tv show. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with FFF Andre🚐 03:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers and Andrevan.

What are you talking about?

The Daily Mail reference was written by Shirley Conran who presented one of the episodes, and was simply a brief mention that she made the episode.

As I've proven, it follows the guidelines.

The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion.

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties.

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. What that means is that an article by Shirley Conran can be used as a source for information about herself. Not about the show she worked on. Andre🚐 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It is just a tv show, surely there is a better source than the Daily FMail. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Zaathras it is about herself.

She made a show. She mentioned she made that show in an article written by herself.

This is why Wikipedia annoys the hell out of me.

(Personal attack removed) who don't follow your own guidelines.

IMDB is much better, as at least factual information is never removed.

People like David go around being unconstructive removing proof of things.

Someone later down the line will see the information he's removed references from no longer have a reference, so will remove the information.

"The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Danstarr69 (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A self-published article can't be used for "I made a show." It can be used for "I have 3 teeth." Claims about the show necessarily involve third-parties. Shows aren't made by 1 person. Andre🚐 03:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan I repeat:

"Usually in articles about themselves or their activities"

I'd call making a show an activity. Danstarr69 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is completely untrustworthy. They fake everything from interviews to bylines. And in this case there is no reason to use it - I just added a cite to the BBC's Programme Index instead. MrOllie (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie whereas The Guardian and The Independent can't even get simple facts correct, yet they're regarded as Generally Reliable.

If those two are Generally Reliable then all the right wing sources should be classed as Generally Reliable too.

Just last week I saw The Guardian and The Independent writing incorrect stories about the Newcastle United F.C. shirt thief, which they got from reading false information on Twitter. Danstarr69 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Every outlet gets it wrong occasionally, even the WP:GENREL, but that's not relevant here, it's an OTHERSTUFF/whataboutism type argument. There's a community consensus that the Mail is not reliable. If you want to start a discussion to reconsider the Independent we certainly could do that. Andre🚐 04:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

But we can easily find better sources. There's no reason to use the Daily Mail in this situation, even if we could - higher-quality sources are always preferred over lower-quality ones, so even if the Daily Mail weren't deprecated we wouldn't want to use it here. More generally, while it's sometimes unpopular, removing low-quality sources (and, sometimes, things cited to them) is a necessary part of maintaining an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an extremely valuable and high quality source when it comes to writing about women in popular culture, a well known blindspot of Wikipedia's content. It writes more stories than any other newspaper, has a large cadre of respected women journalists and contributors, and as such, has a market leading proportion of women readers. These are inconvenient facts for Wikipedia editors, who have never let the reliably reported facts about the Mail's actual business practices as observed by neutral industry analysts get in the way of their at times visceral hatred of this one specific publication. Views that by and large are only ever presented here alongside highly biased if not highly inappropriate sources to support them. The irony is always palpable, and highly relevant. DefJamKlapp (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What needs sourced, that "Danger at Work" was episode 35, or that it was presented by Shirley Conran? Gimmetrow 03:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gimmetrow it already had a source for the date, just like every single episode.

That Daily Mail reference was just one of a few sources I could find talking about the show in general, which I added to some of the episode numbers when I created the article, as there aren't that many talking about that old show, as like most old shows, especially in the documentary category, they get forgotten about, even by the networks themselves.

Now someone has added the exact same reference which was already added to the episode date, so now it's been added twice.

Why is the Daily Mail reference uselful?

Because it gives a little bit more information about the episode, and where it can apparently be found.

Shirley Conran "The year after our launch, the BBC asked me to make a one-hour film about any subject I chose, for their series, One Pair Of Eyes. I made a film about the problems of the working mothers I knew personally; it was called, Danger, Women At Work!"

"Looking back, I can see this was a follow-on from the pioneering work we had started without realising it — on Femail. That film is in the historical Feminist Archives, where I believe the first copy of Femail Magazine should be." Danstarr69 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Great - this is all about information that is not about Shirley but about the BBC, about the magazine, about the show, about the archives, about the working mothers. We can only use Shirley for info about her and her alone. Her activities, yes, but the instant you start talking about anyone external to her it's not reliable. Andre🚐 04:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

My confusion was that the article text doesn't say anything more about Conrad other than presenter. None of the other stuff is in the article. Is the link like "further information" or an "external link"? And at least it's obvious the duplicated ref is the same ref. Gimmetrow 04:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's another source, also by Conran, with a lot of info about the film. Colorful stuff. The piece in the DM is not actually self-published, so there's a lot of misunderstanding above. There's a specific carve-out for using DM to say things about DM, and it doesn't apply here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misreading it. I was reading it as a Daily Mail article is unreliable but may be used for about-self statements about the authors of the articles, essentially treating it as self-published. If it is meant to mean that the Daily Mail is only usable for sources about the Daily Mail that is an even narrower carveout. Either way, no good in this case. Andre🚐 04:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, Andrevan. I re-read RSP and it turns out my understanding is not grounded in any explicit statement. If you ctrl-f for "aboutself" on that page, you'll see multiple other sources that have similar notes about ABOUTSELF, most of which make it clear the exception is meant for statements about the publication or its publisher. I think it's reasonable to think this means that the Daily Mail's exception is meant for the same sorts of things, but it would also be reasonable to assume that the different language means the exception is different. Shrug. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

in other policies, you're supposed to directly alert someone if you start a noticeboard dispute about them - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the title of this thread, here is a word for David Gerard. BRAVO. - Roxy the dog 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

David Gerard is absolutely right about this. This instance is not a DM usage about the publication itself, but rather about an episode of a tv show. As far as I know, the Daily Mail is not, itself, a tv show. (at least not yet, by the graces of fate). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The particular edit here doesn't fit the exceptions that the WP:DAILYMAIL1 closers allowed for, such as opinions and old stuff. Since it's true that "general" doesn't mean "always" and there's no reason to doubt the matter in context, I support the objection. However, I don't expect there will be enough support to overturn in this case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that The New York Times does not meet WP:MEDRS. We should rely on scholarly literature not newspaper articles.--عبد المسيح (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this the same Daily Mail, that erroneously described Constantine II of Greece as being a nephew of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

To the people commenting in this section, what is being said about the actual validity of the source for this specific statement? Are the actual claim here that the Daily Mail wrote a fake article and published it under the name of some lady, with completely fictitious quotes talking about a TV show she made? This seems both implausible and easy to confirm/disprove: can't we just ask her if that's what she said? jp×g 04:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sadly this is treated as a reliable source in many articles. Maybe some of the authors are experts, I didn't find any. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says that it specializes in "non-fiction reference" works aimed at Children. While this may mean it is simplified or written at a level appropriate for younger readers, that doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Such sources are likely tertiary sources, but otherwise not particularly due more or less scrutiny than other tertiary sources. --Jayron32 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 As I implied, the authors I saw were not subject matter experts but writers of children’s books. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, then find different sources. --Jayron32 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How is that in any way a useful reply. That's just another way of saying I shouldn't have brought this here. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you don't find that it's reliable, don't use it. You asked for people's opinion on the reliability of the source. My opinion, as I stated already, is that one should use different sources because this source doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS. I'm not sure why you are upset given that it seems you are of the same opinion. Weird. --Jayron32 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think juvenile non-fiction such as this (textbooks for kids) are acceptable as an WP:RS (WP:TIER3 IMO). I wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but for basic facts, I don't see why this publisher should be considered unreliable. Obviously I'd change my mind given specific evidence of unreliability by this publisher. But is it unreliable just because its aimed at a juvenile audience? No, I don't think so. Obviously we can do better in terms of sourcing, but that doesn't mean it can't be used. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that publications targeted to schoolchildren should not be used as sources. WP: TERTIARY says that introductory-level university textbooks can be used as reliable sources. Elementary and secondary level textbooks are not listed as examples of reliable tertiary sources. I think that omission is telling (and I can think of a number of reasons that schoolbooks would not be reliable...but I won't belabor that question). I believe that the publications at issue here, which are heavily illustrated 40-50 page books consisting of dozens of paragraph-long mini articles on the general subject-matter of the book, are not reliable sources. If you look at how these books are being referenced, the cited text is never more than a passing, incidental factoid. If these books are to be used as reliable sources, we might as well base literary plot summaries and character studies on Classics Illustrated. Banks Irk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add that this was my take and the reason I brought it here. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

what is the reliability of this website when i googled it says, "Chinese Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia website involving all Chinese knowledge fields, providing you with the latest and most complete Chinese encyclopedia entry knowledge." I'm not aware whether its user generated site or not. Can it be considered reliable for citing as a source for a Chinese artist? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources are unreliable, until proved to the contrary. The website in question does not disclose its editorial policy, and is an unreliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable, it does appear to be user generated content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with everyone else, this doesn't look like a reliable source. I can't find any details about how they acquire there articles, not find anything online showing nthe site as reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this website a reliable source for anything, in particular a BLP? No author and its Facebook site makes me think it's more or less a personal website.. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per and , anonymous WP:SPS, so not really good for anything in WP-verse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång's analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Could use a wider perspective here - this site "thisis50.com" seems to be popping up quite frequently alongside known SEO/PR sites that pretend to be news. It's usually pretty easy to spot these kinds of SEO sinks, but this one appears to be different: it seems to be group blog created by 50 Cent and others, branding itself a "Top Entertainment & Hip-hop Blog." It's not clear how any of the names being dropped are still involved on the site.

While there may be legitimate content in there somewhere, there is a tremendous amount of material that is PR/SEO puffery, and is not clearly labeled as paid content, nor is there any hint of an editorial process. Worse, there are dozens of ads for paid placement on other PR sites (examples: , ). There are also SEO "experts" on fiverr and other gig sites promoting the same "guaranteed placement".

Since there's no attempt to distinguish the paid placement from any legitimate content, if any, I'd like to start removing the 230+ references to this source, but would like to make sure I'm not missing anything, given the context. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The business model seems to heavily involve undisclosed paid content, so I would support removing the references. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

An editor claims the Mint (newspaper) and Open (Indian magazine) to be "not reliable newspaper sources" as per "wikepedia relaible source list." Hence, they cannot be used to source what he feels to be "extremely rude, negative, and controversial" fact. Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPMISSING may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, the editor is incorrect about how RSes work at Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians, hope you are doing well. Need your comments on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam. I want to cite one peer reviewed journal article, but before citing need comments on its reliability. Many thanks. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing, though it shouldn't be. The paper under discussion is using multiple blogs as secondary sources (see pp. 179), including a blog blacklisted by Wikipedia (!), used for the claim that 27.123.253.x would like to add to the article (https://www.qadrishattari.com/p/habs-e-dam.html but replace .com with .xyz).

The website of the journal also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF) as a credential, which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. See also the thread below on SJIF, which is a similar fake 'impact factor' metric cited on the journal's website.

It would be perhaps be helpful if a few more editors would weigh in on Talk:Badi'_al-Din#Habs-I-dam, because 27.123.253.x is explicitly refusing to drop the stick. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What is sufficient to support the claim that a subject is advocate or activist for diversity? this and this seem to support the claim. However, User:Melcous asserts this claim is not verifiably supported per this edit. Do I just need to reword the claim or is something wrong with this source?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger My point was that a person saying in interviews that there should be more diversity in an industry (which all the source you cited at the time said) does not make them an activist. Please also note WP:COI which says If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Melcous, So if I am understanding you that was not an issue with the source, but my editorial interpretation. If it does not make one an activist, does it make one an advocate. What about with the second source? I think there may be other sources on the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I stumbled across this diversity advocacy on her social media.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger my main issue is that you are writing about someone you have a close personal relationship with and you are interpreting sources in ways that tend to overstate and "puff up" their achievements, which is one of the reasons WP:COI editing is a problem - it is hard for you to be objective about this. Nothing I see in any of the sources you have pointed to would support the inclusion of this content. Also note that the tweet you are referencing is not publicly available, tweets are not independent sources, and generally speaking (without being able to see the tweet) a tweet in and of itself is not what is generally considered advocacy (and in fact the reply that is publicly viewable simply says "Thanks for sharing your experience". Melcous (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Melcous I do understand that I may not be entirely objective. The point of creating a draft and seeking feedback and discourse with other editors is that the pursuit of an article of encyclopedic merit is possible with oversight and feedback. The Nosh article has a full paragraph that says the following: "In recent years, Vernón became an outspoken voice and champion for diversity within the food and beverage industry. In speaking engagements she routinely spoke to the need for a more diverse set of founders and leaders, both in order to reach a changing consumer base but also to inspire new patterns of thought. At times, Vernón even criticized the industry for engaging in unconscious bias, helping minority founders share their own stories of the microaggressions and stereotypes that they’ve faced." The bizwomen article says the following: "In her roles at General Mills, Vernon also called for more diversity in the food and beverage industry." Although this content may not support her being an activist and inclusion in activist categories, I feel that I have produced reliable sources to support her status as a diversity advocate. My sister did lock her Twitter in a response to Elon Musk. I don't exactly know what she means by this or whether I should expound any further on what she has stated to me privately by text. Do we treat a locked Twitter any differently than paywalled content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• The standard bar would be for an independent, secondary source to state in its own voice (i.e. not in a quote attributed to Vernón) that Vernón is an activist/advocate/advocates for/etc. Merely citing an example of something that could be considered advocacy is insufficient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Although the publication seems to be an RS, I am not sure I can include the Hidden Figures content. Is this interview a sufficient source for the content to be included as it? Since Biz journals have an editorial structure do we assume the content is sufficiently varified by their publication? Alternatively, can that content be sourced to this podcast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Can someone opine on whether this is a sufficient source to support Hidden Figure status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Need some help with this. COI editor and subject User talk:Gryanwiik performed a "cleanup" which I reverted; it seemed like whitewashing to me. They disagree; see the article talk page and their talk page. They really want the article gone. C.Fred, last year, declined a PROD but sent it to AfD, which was inconclusive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. I think the person might well be notable but in part that depends on the coverage in the Norwegian press. What this article needs is a good review/assessment/edit by an editor who can better figure out what to do with the sources than me, and your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As a note on this, I didn't decline the PROD so much as it was ineligible for PROD, because it had been previously proposed for deletion and contested. As Drmies noted, what the article may need is somebody with skill in Norwegian, on account of the sources. But above all, the article needs to be reviewed by independent editors. I have no problem with the article staying, but because of the BLP issues in play, I'd prefer it be after multiple editors have affirmed the state of the article than from just a no consensus result at AfD. (Disclosure: I have no connection to or contact with Ryan Wiik, save for on-Wikipedia interactions with the editor who holds himself out as Wiik.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred, thank you for the correction. Listen, I'm having one senior moment after another--I really should have put this on BLPN. Still, there's sourcing questions here--you think I should leave it here or move it? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies At some level, anywhere that bring additional eyes to help is good. Since there may be a concern with the Norwegian sources, this is as good a place as any to start. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to ask about the reliability of this website. According to a user editing the Dragon Ball Super: Broly article, Showtime Analytics is "literally the most accurate source you could possibly get and where all these reporting sites like Deadline and Box Office Mojo get their numbers from in the first place." Despite this, I just found four articles (including the previous mentioned) directly citing this website; in all of them, the website was cited by the same user. I can't find evidence of their claim nor previous discussion about the site, so I want some input about it.

On another note, there is another issue in the way the user is citing the website, which I already reported on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dragon Ball Super: Broly. I would appreciate any comment on it. Xexerss (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Over at James A. Lindsay, there is a dispute occurring that seems (to me, at least) heavily predicated on what we make of this source. There are also opinion/news issues, but I think this is the place to start. The mechanical parts of reliability (staff and whatnot) seem largely met to me, but it does describe itself as "surreal" and the like. Moreover, while I have tried to investigate whether it has an appropriate reputation for an RS, the unfortunately common name is frustrating most of my attempts. I would love to get others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Its reliable but I think you've identified that like with similar sources the opinion/news issue is going to be the major stumbling block. In particular articles by Nathan J. Robinson should probably be treated as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase my position at the James lindsay article here. The magazine appears to deal with publishing arguments and persuasive style articles. I would put it's content as equivalent to editorial content on a newspaper, as such reliable for the opinions of the author, but not reliable for statements of fact. When looking into the magazine, I didn't find any indication of it's use by others to see if the opinions covered by the magazine are of high enough quality to be included in a BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly a charitable paraphrase of your position, the one on the article talk page flirts with the fringe a lot more. There you seem to be questioning whether there really is an academic consensus that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the sourcing provided doesn't meet the requirements called out in WP:RS/AC. I don't weigh in on the subject at all. If we want to assert academic consensus on a subject, we have to source it appropriately. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not how it appears to an outside observer, you appear to be casting shade on the very academic consensus itself (you do agree that the academic consensus exists, correct?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that meets WP: RS/AC? Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant, and RS/AC actually makes that point. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that makes it appear to impartial outside observers that you are pushing a fringe theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, enforcing our sourcing requirements means pushing a fringe theory. Good to know that that is your position on the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And now you're just being disruptive and facetious. Have a nice day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This section is about the use of Current Affairs, which is simply used to support that Lindsay has promoted the conspiracy theory. Sourcing for statements to the effect that there is no secret conspiracy of academics who are attempting to destroy western civilization is a separate issue - but if we're going to litigate that here as well: The sourcing standard for that is not WP:RS/AC but WP:PARITY. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest any discussion on the merits of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is done on the talkpage of that article. It will only lead this discussion into chaos otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. We should focus on Current Affairs Magazine. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My question is answered to my satisfaction: reliable source, but as with many, need to be cognizant of opinions. Thanks to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for facts. A not particularly prominent opinion journal focusing on somewhat contrarian opinions, so reliable only for the opinions of contributors and not good for showing due weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

In this talk page thread, there is a discussion about the reliability of a paper published in the Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science (website). There are various reasons why the paper itself is not reliable in context (see the thread on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam above), but here I have a question about a metric used by the journal itself to present itself as reliable.

On the journal's website, it cites a Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) of 8.28. But this SJIF factor (see http://sjifactor.com/masterlist.php) itself seems rather dodgy. Whenever I type in the name or ISSN of a journal which I know to be highly reputable (e.g., Middle Eastern Studies, Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies), I get 'There is no record with this parameter'.

I'm wondering whether this 'impact factor' includes any reputable journals at all, and if so, in what proportion? More broadly, is SJIF a reliable metric? Interestingly, Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science on its website also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF), which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. Would SJIF perchance be similar? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: you called SJIF "fake" here; would you happen to know more? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thompson Reuter's JIF is the gold standard in that space. I believe that SJIF and RJIF are competitors of questionable merit, not sure they're fake exactly but certainly not as widely used or reliable. IMO JIF is the only one I've ever seen used to evaluate an academic for a position or tenure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The only impact factor that has any weight is the ones compiled in Journal Citation Reports, all others are fake. That includes SJIF, GIF, and anything else with the word 'impact factor' in them that is not produced by Thomson ISI/Clarivate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:UPSD will flag the SJIF as a dubious metric. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks a ton for that! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Impact factor is more of a metric for people who wish to publish with the journal. It is not in an of itself a stamp of approval for any paper. What matters on wikipeida is editorial oversight of some kind (e.g. fact checking process in place). If a paper is unreliable or not good, in your eyes, and is from a journal that does do peer review, then try looking for a paper from another journal challenging that paper. Can try google scholar to find many papers.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thought if a journal advertises fake impact factors, that's a pretty clear red flag that it's a terrible publication to begin with, and shouldn't be cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Headbomb. For sure that would be a red flag.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, looking for some further perspective on the matter of UK bus fleet lists.

I might be slightly biased from past contributions to that site, but bustimes.org, a UK-wide tracker of buses using timetables and tracking data from the Bus Open Data Service, began allowing registered users to make edits to 'fleet' sections of operators that have buses tracked on the service.

Unfortunately, I believe that now makes the site fall under WP:UGC, and I'm of the mind the the site should be considered highly unreliable when referring to bus fleets; timetables shouldn't be, however, I don't see any problem due to them being taken from BODS and uneditable by users.

I contend depreciating fleet list sourcing because users are free to change about tracked buses such as about bus type, bus livery and branding (there was a major internal conflict over this making routes harder to see in March last year), and crucially, whether a bus is withdrawn or not, at their own will - there have been edit wars about this in the past, see: , and . The site itself also says, very boldly, at the top of fleet list pages:

This is an unofficial and probably incomplete list of [operator] vehicles (or their ticket machines), created purely as a by-product of the live bus tracking system.

Remember: Ticket machines IDs don’t always correspond with the actual vehicles they’re attached to. Equipment is often swapped between vehicles.

Vehicles don’t always track all the time. If a journey isn’t listed, it doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t operate.

I've removed a few fleet citations using Bustimes already, replacing those with fleet figures from either the operator or local/bus industry news sites, but I was wondering if there was wider consensus on this from other experienced editors. Not entirely sure if this really should be an RFC because I personally think the reliability issue is pretty clear-cut, but again, I'm open to different opinions. Hullian111 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, anything which can be edited by any registered user is WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. Unless there's anyone disputing the facts as you have reported them, this seems totally clear cut and in no need of discussion Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that it is not currently an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Noticed this site being added to several articles. It doesn't appear to have the necessary features to be a reliable source, and may be a sales portal for Amazon, but I thought I'd seek some additional opinions. Thanks - wolf 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• My initial reaction was that this was that it's just another of hundreds of military history fansites regularly cited here, that are nothing more than self-published group or individual blogs. But in this case, reviewing the "about us" page, it appears that the principal author and editor is actually a subject-matter expert who has been extensively published in other reliable publications. So, I think that this source, contrary to all expectations, is actually reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We've deprecated the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Just as well, really - I was chatting to a couple of ex-GT journalists who confessed that they used to make up nonsense specifically so they could get it into Wikipedia! They concurred that deprecating the GT was absolutely the right move. Both are now working for solid RSes, I'm glad to say ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OH. MY. GAWD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

one of them was paying for (well, expensing) the evening out, which is the ideal condition to get journalists to admit things - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, in what area did they do it? Alaexis_¿question? 09:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I continue to believe the BtVA should be considered an unreliable source. I started an RfC a couple of months ago on this topic but it failed to attract any attention. I said this then: How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy. I still agree with everything I said. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Without any links to, well, anything, this is not a useful post. Can you explain exactly what is the problem here, using diffs to guide editors towards the problem you are describing? Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look reliable for very much, if anything. What do you mean, it was listed as reliable? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
    • previous thread, previous previous thread Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Eldomtom2, I was thinking of commenting on your previous RFC. I think we need more links on their process to make a clearer decision. I see that previous discussions on reliability have been fairly short so probably a good idea to get deeper into this.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my issue with them. All I can find by looking on their site regarding their process is this and this, and from the descriptions there at best their process is on par with Mobygames, which we don't consider a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, is this work by Meduza reliable enough for mentioning, with attribution, the first explanations for the 2023 Brovary helicopter crash? Mhhossein ^talk 06:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There's also also another source on this matter. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial here and this is pretty much what was reported by other sources. Why do you (or someone else) think it may not be reliable? Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say Meduza is generally reliable though regrettably they often repost social media messages (with attribution). Their own materials are usually fine, both in English and in Russian. Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In my experience it is generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on revamping the article Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization), which hasn't had any substantial updates since 2009 despite still being an extremely active organization to the present. The problem is, as a grassroots activist group, it isn't well covered by news, and as a student activist group, student news coverage is often way too difficult to find if there is any. That said, it's very well covered by FightBack News, since most of the articles about SDS are written and submitted by the members of SDS themselves, making it a primary source. The site itself is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but its paper is open to circulating news from groups unaffiliated with the Organization, including SDS.

I would frankly argue it is reliable, despite politically motivated claims to the contrary. As someone who's attended some of the protests being written about, it's one of the best sources for information from the perspectives of the organizers. Again, these are often effectively primary sources. It would be a shame if I can't use this as a source as it would basically leave the article as is, which is to say extremely inaccuarate and outdated without much ability to add information about the work SDS has carried out in the last 14 years. Thoughts? -Skyler 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the article as it stands is that about half of the sources are SDS sources and some of the others are dubious. I would argue that the Alternet source, which needs to have the archive at [https://www.alternet.org/story/49557/the_%2760s_are_gone%2C_but_one_of_its_most_controversial_organizations_is_back] is ok because it is written by Astra Taylor. The whole politics section is self-sourced. Just as I would argue for a right wing article, this needs to be based mainly on secondary sources, and it isn't. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's doable. -Skyler 15:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing needs to be reliable and independent. Sounds like FightBack News fails that second part, if articles about SDS are written by SDS then they are self published sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Legacy.com an RS for the date of death of Truddi Chase? Nightscream (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it can be. It works with newspapers. But if there are newspapers on Chase's obituary, it may have better standing - assuming they too are consistent with the dates. I do know that newspapers do get peoples age and dates of birth and death wrong too since many news articles are not fact checked well - with say youtubers who have died.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked into Legacy one other time since this was asked and this is what I found. As part of the obituary process, Legacy requires information to authenticate that a death occured. Usually a contact from a nursing home, or other end of life service. According to Legacy they pass this information onto the newspaper so the newspaper can use it in its own fact checking processes. Since this was apparently published in the Washington Post's newspaper, which is generally reliable, we can presume this is also reliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "since this was apparently published in the Washington Post's newspaper, which is generally reliable, we can presume this is also reliable" is correct. Most such entries are announcements that someone has paid for, not editorial content. Where does legacy.com state that it requires evidence of a date of death, and that it passes such evidence to a publisher? EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you actually go through the process on Legacy to get an obituary one of the things you need to provide is a contact from a death care provider and a name of a death care professional which Legacy says may be used by the newspaper affiliates to verify the death. So it's not Legacy which verifies the information, but the newspaper, in this case the washington post, which would have to verify the information. So the reliability is dependent on the newspaper and not Legacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So in other words, the citation is reliable in this case, but this does not mean that Legacy.com is reliable as a general rule. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if an honest-to-goodness reliable source has the information, like WaPo, why do we need to cite Legacy.com at all? --Jayron32 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Because we don't have the honest-to-goodness reliable source. The editor who added the cite added the Legacy.com page, and I couldn't find the original WaPo article via Google. Nightscream (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How do we know that Legacy.com is actually citing a WaPo obituary? If it isn't reliable, maybe that isn't true either. --Jayron32 14:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The first three respondents above indicated that it is reliable. Nightscream (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Legacy.com works as an affiliate for multiple newspapers for their obituaries. It's not so much that Legacy is citing WaPo, but WaPo links to Legacy for obituaries. If you go to washington posts obituaries, and click the search death notices it takes you to legacy.com's search function for the washington posts's obituaries. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

But, that just means that the obituary exists at WaPo, and Legacy is just scraping WaPo for the obit. What I am saying is that Legacy.com is redundant here: Either it allows you to find the actual obit at WaPo and read it yourself, which means don't cite Legacy, OR it claims to be doing so, but when you look you find that it can't actually be done, which also means don't cite Legacy. WaPo already exists. Use Legacy if it helps you find the original issue of the Post to find the obit itself, if you want, but cite the original. --Jayron32 16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but WaPo providing the link function to search for obituaries is an obvious use by others situation. We trust Legacy for this because WaPo trusts legacy for this. If the original can't be readily found, which would be very likely for local print versions of WaPo, then there is no reason to not use legacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats not a "use by others situation" obvious or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How WaPo, a highly regarded source, uses legacy is a use by others situation. In this case they use legacy uncritically by providing the search function from legacy directly on their obituaries page. The death notice search function on WaPo's obituaries page is Legacy.com. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Using a search function is not the same thing as using something as a reliable source. This is not a "use by others situation." Many sites use Google to provide a search function, that doesn't make Google a WP:RS RE used by others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you just not follow this entire discussion? The reliability on legacy is dependent on the reliability of the news org publication. Legacy acts as an affiliate for the newspaper, and provides online archival of things that would make it to physical print, but may not be on the online newspaper. Death notices published by WaPo are handled online by Legacy. You can see this by going to WaPo's obituaries and clicking on any of the death notices, they go to Legacy, with a note on legacy saying it was published in the WaPo. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can circumvent this entire question by saying in the article, "It was reported by Legacy.com that Foo Barson died on date", and let the readers decide how much to credit the information. BD2412 T 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't do that. Ever. But Legacy.com is a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We should do that for relatively noncontroversial claims such as the specific date of death for a subject for whom it is uncontested that they are dead. We can never be 100% accurate—even the New York Times makes the occasional mistake—but we can always point the reader to the best available information. BD2412 T 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

True. We provide the best available information, be it from The New York Times or Legacy.com. We don't ask the reader to work it out. That's our job. If it is uncontested, then we present it to the reader. The reference provides the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What about using the "via" parameter in the citation template like I did here? Cite WaPo as the original source, but Legacy in the "via" parameter as the source that reprinted it, where we, the editors, found it? Would that be an acceptable compromise, at least until the original article, or a substitute, may be found? Is Legacy not reliable enough to even do this, as the other editors above opined? (Just asking.) Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Back to "one of the things you need to provide is a contact from a death care provider and a name of a death care professional which Legacy says may be used by the newspaper affiliates to verify the death"... but does that cover the date of death or merely the fact that a person has died? EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI last month I asked a similar question in a specific case at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive344#Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP and the general answer was paid obits are OK to use for date and maybe place of death. I'm not sure how far that consensus goes, but I hope we can put some guidance at WP:OBITUARIES. Levivich (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that one at the time. I would probably have disagreed, or at least recommended more caution, but it's archived now. EddieHugh (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7:: "We don't do that. Ever."

Well, actually, we do do that, in particular when we need to emphasize the attribution of the information, like when we attribute an opinion to a film critic in an article on a movie, or when we describe positions held by different sides in a controversial matter, or when we present a direct quote, etc.

Btw, hope your legs are healing well. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Are the following authors and works reliable sources with respect to Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)?

• Baberovski, Yorg (2010). Враг есть везде. Сталинизм на Кавказе [The enemy is everywhere. Stalinism in the Caucasus] (in Russian). Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN) Fond «Prezidentskiy tsentr B. N. Yeltsina». ISBN 978-5-8243-1435-9. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022.
• Balayev, Aydyn (1990). Азербайджанское национально-демократическое движение 1917-1929 гг [The Azerbaijani national-democratic movement in 1917–1929] (in Russian). Baku. ISBN 978-5-8066-0422-5. Archived from the original on 7 November 2022. {{cite book}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 6 November 2022 suggested (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Coyle, James J. (2021). Russia's Interventions in Ethnic Conflicts: The Case of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59573-9. ISBN 978-3-030-59572-2. S2CID 229424716.
• Hasanli, Jamil (2015). Foreign Policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan: The Difficult Road to Western Integration, 1918–1920. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-36616-4.
• Kazemzadeh, Firuz (1951). The Struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921. New York: Philosophycal Library inc. ISBN 9780802208347. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
• Korkotyan, Zaven (1932). Խորհրդային Հայաստանի բնակչությունը վերջին հարյուրամյակում (1831-1931) [The population of Soviet Armenia in the last century (1831–1931)] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan: Pethrat. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2022.
• "Les musulmans en Arménie". Le Temps. 25 July 1920.
• Levene, Mark (2013). Devastation: The European Rimlands 1912–1938. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191505546.
• McCarthy, Justin
• Mammadov, Ilgar; Musayev, Tofik (2008). Армяно-азербайджанский конфликт: История, Право, Посредничество [Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict: history, law, mediation] (in Russian) (2nd ed.). Baku: Graf and K Publishing House. ISBN 9785812509354.
• Tarasov, Stanislav (7 July 2014). "Зачем Азербайджану Новая «Историческая Родина»" [Why does Azerbaijan need a new 'historical homeland']. iarex.ru. Archived from the original on 14 October 2022.
• Volkova, Nataliya G. (1969). Gardanov, V. K. (ed.). Кавказский этнографический сборник [Caucasian ethnographical collection] (PDF) (in Russian). Vol. 4. Moscow: Nauka. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 July 2022.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of these seem to be good academic sources: Coyle, Hasalni, Kazemzadeh, Levene. McCarthy might or might not be acceptable; would have to be attributed ("according to"...). The Le Temps article is a hundred years old and would have to be treated as a primary source. The others are very hard to evaluate. Basically, we are looking for academic texts by academic historians. There are academic journals on genocide studies which may have useful articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Itsmejudith Coyle's book makes lots of WP:Fringe claims and tries to write Armenians out of the history of Nagorno-Karabakh. Coyle also denies the destruction of the Armenian cemetery in Julfa and has been called out for this by another academic. Hasanli is a genocide denier. The Kazemzadeh source is very old now and was outside his specialty area, I can also quote lines that show he had a bias if you would like. And the reliability of the Levene source isn't being questioned so much as the reliability of a single line within the source, which Levene uses McCarthy as a citation for. Levene also makes a comment in his footnote for McCarthy where he indirectly acknowledges McCarthy's reputation ("though with the unfortunate corollary that McCarthy radically downplays the specifically Armenian catastrophe"); not being willing to call McCarthy a genocide denier shows that Levene shouldn't be considered a reliable source for Armenia and Azerbaijan topics. It seems that Levene's field is Jewish history, and he also apparently disagrees with the UN definition of genocide. --Dallavid (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Coyle has been director of Middle East Studies at the US Army War College. You will need a very good argument to show that he is not generally reliable. Hasanli is clearly very close to/part of the Azerbaijan government, but the work cited is published by Routledge. Kazemzadeh, yes it is getting old. Levene is exactly the kind of scholar whose work we should be using. The book review you cite says that his definition of genocide is actually wider than that of the UN. These are just comments on the sources per se, and do not relate to how they are used in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith, Hasanli's book was published by well established reliable scholarship such as Routledge 2 years after he joined the opposition, so he had no governmental ties when the book was published.

Firuz Kazemzadeh was a respected historian who wrote a number of published books related to the history of Caucasus. With regards to his book being very old now - I don't think it should be a huge problem, considering that WP:OLDSOURCES is mostly for cases when the subject is science, politics or fashion related, but when it comes to history, the guideline states that historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith On page 3 of Coyle book, Coyle calls Armenians "recent arrivals" in Nagorno-Karabakh and claims there were no Armenians before the 19th century, a common negationism in Azerbaijani historiography. Coyle is claiming the Artsakh (historical province) and Principality of Khachen didn't exist. On page 13, Coyle promotes Azerbaijani conspiracy theories blaming Armenians for the Sumgait pogrom as credible, which no reliable source would do. McCarthy has had his work published by the University of Utah and lectured at the University of Louisville, so I do not believe it is safe to assume every source is reliable just because it has an academic publisher. Turkey is known to provide funding to these institutes. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be right but Coyle could only be dismissed as a source on the basis of academic reviews. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Coyle has been criticized for academic dishonesty by another academic. Coyle has also been cited extensively by Armenian genocide denier Michael Gunter to write about Armenians hostilely. --Dallavid (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgot to ask an opinion on one more source:

• Hovannisian, Richard G., The Republic of Armenia, Vol. I (1971), Vol. II (1982), Vols. III & IV (1996) Berkeley: University of California Press - Is it considered mainstream academic history? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

20th-century ones are too old and shouldn't be used because newer sources are available, per WP:AGEMATTERS. The 21st-century scholarship published by established academic publishers (Springer, Routledge, university presses) are the best sources to use (WP:TIER1). Specifically:

• Baberovski 2010 - I do not know if ROSSPEN is reliable or not. My inclination is not to trust sources that are published in authoritarian countries without free speech protections (like Putin's Russia), especially about controversial matters, especially if this source contradicts other sources published elsewhere, because I don't know if the source will be independent of the authoritarian government. But for all I know, ROSSPEN might have a stellar reputation as an academic publisher, I'm not familiar enough to say one way or another.
• Balayev 1990 -- not OK, too old (WP:AGEMATTERS)
• Coyle 2021 - OK, recent scholarship (WP:TIER1)
• Hasanli 2015 - OK, recent scholarship
• Kazemzadeh 1951 - not OK, too old
• Korkotyan 1932 - not OK, too old
• Le Temps 1920 - not OK, too old
• Levene 2013 - OK, recent scholarship
• McCarthy - what is the citation?
• Mammadov 2008 - no idea, not familiar with the publisher
• Tarasov 2014 - probably not OK. The source refers to itself as an "essay", so it doesn't look like peer-reviewed scholarship. iarex.ru appears to be a group blog (). It might be OK as WP:EXPERTSPS but I'm not familiar with the qualifications of the author. See my comments above about Russian publications, which apply here as well. Given how much recent scholarship is available, it's probably not necessary to use this source.
• Volkova 1969 - not OK, too old
• Hovannisian - not OK, too old

Levivich (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Assuming every source with an academic publisher to be reliable is probably safe at least 90% of the time, but it's still a very flawed reasoning. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey was published by University of Utah Press but has been widely criticized for promoting genocide denial. Armenian History and the Question of Genocide by Armenian genocide denier Michael Gunter was published by Palgrave Macmillan. Turkey is known to funded western academics to promote genocide denial narratives, so it's wrong to assume academic publishers are incorruptible. In situations like this, shouldn't we be able to tell that if a source is full of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE content, it's not reliable? --Dallavid (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see Gunter in this list, so I'm not sure what relevance he has to these sources. It's not possible for a source to have WP:UNDUE content, that's a policy that applies to Wikipedia articles, not sources. (We don't require a source to be neutral.) I see no evidence presented here that any of the scholarly publications on this list are considered WP:FRINGE; maybe they are, but I just haven't seen the evidence presented yet. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich ZaniGiovanni's above comment explains why Coyle promotes fringe theories as fact. And here is the quote that proves Hasanli is a genocide denier. Also, Levene isn't being disputed as a source so much as one sentence from his book, for which he uses McCarthy as a citation. Levene does acknowledge that McCarthy is an Armenian genocide denier but only calls it "unfortunate", for which I do not think Levene should be considered a reliable source for Armenian topics. --Dallavid (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are Den Fami Nico Gamer and Automaton Media considered reliable sources? It appears that both websites have been used in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia (some of which are GA) for mostly Japanese video game/anime subjects, and they appear to be reputable within gaming communities in and out of Japan. I'd like to hear what others think, especially if you understand Japanese. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

My take on this kind of tech-related site is that if it is widely known in its industry and appears to have editorial review rather than being crowd sourced, there is no reason not to use it for citations until it is challenged. Industry sites are going to be the only sources for a lot of this kind of material so our usual go-to general news RSs are not going to yield much. That said, I don't read any Japanese so I can't analyze these sites for you to see if they are subject to editorial review or are just printing unvetted articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe both are reliable sources. They both have solid editorial review boards, and they have been used in articles like Stable Diffusion. Japanese gaming celebrities have also given exclusive interviews here, such as Masahiro Sakurai. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Chain D.L.K. is an English-language Italian webzine that focuses on ambient, industrial, electronic and experimental music (mostly underground genres that don't get written about in mainstream publications). As far as I could find, this webzine was never discussed on here, so I'd like opinions whether or not it can be added to the list of reliable sources.

The website is currently linked to citations in nearly 100 Wikipedia articles.

The webzine's header claims that it was started in 1994, but the Wayback Machine only has snapshots from 2000 on, which is still pretty old. Most webzines don't last this long. From one of the webzine's archived pages, it would appear that Chain D.L.K. started out as a physical magazine in the mid-1990s, before becoming fully digital (which might explain why there are no older digital traces).

The magazine/webzine was started by Marc Urselli and Maurizio Pustianaz, and has had hundreds of writers over the years. I'm not an expert with this website, but I have read several of their reviews and interviews over the last 15 years, usually stumbling on them by accident when looking for information on artists from the genres listed above.

Opinions, please? Bricks&Wood talk 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done some work on a BLP about someone whose career is in film and TV, and have been searching for additional references. One of the searches I did was on their purported birth year, in case I could shake loose some acceptable source in order to add it and other biographical info; like many in showbiz, this person has a date of birth out there on the internet, but overwhelmingly on non-RS sites such as IMDb. It has however been added to Wikidata (with no reference), and thus is in other-language Wikipedia articles. I found the British Film Institute page on them also has the birthdate (and birthplace). I find one previous discussion here of BFI as a source, which focussed on its reliability for genres and for films in general, but not its reliability for biographical data on living people. I would consider the BFI an adequate source for a person's filmography, and have used it for that in the past. Is the BFI website a reliable source for a living person's date and/or place of birth? (The page in question is here.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a generally reliable source for factual BLP. However, if it contradicts other reliable sources, then put both and attribute. And if it is the only source saying, for example, "Bradford, 1973" when every other source says "Cleckheaton, 1977", then inclusion may not be justified even though BFI would usually be reliable. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above. BFI is a generally reliable source, with the standard caveat that no source is perfect, and if it stands out in stark contrast to other reliable sources, go with the preponderance of sources. --Jayron32 14:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I used it to add the birth info as well as reference filmography items, and will add it to the Wikidata entry. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No source is perfect but BFI is about as generally reliable as it gets. Holds major film archives and staffed by real experts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I recently removed a link to http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk being used to support the claim that Juicy (The Notorious B.I.G. song) is one of the top Hip Hop songs of all time. The claim still stands, as it's well-sourced to other reliable sources; but Rock List Music is being used throughout Wikipedia, mostly to source "best of" claims. Is it reliable or OK to do that? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I should ask as well if it's a copyright violation just to copy lists from other publications, which the source seems to do. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright in lists —DIYeditor (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a SPS to me, should be treated as Julian P White's blog. I don't know who that is, if they're a subject matter expert then the opinions need to be attributed and if not the source should be removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This site has supposed copies of lists from other sources, there's nothing to show it's a reliable source. As the lists are just copies the original source could be used, if it is itself a reliable source and can be tracked down and confirmed. The copying of lists from other copyrighted sources seems rather problematic, not sure if it's enough to blacklist it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if the website, Archaeology-World.com can be used as a reliable source. The article where it has been questioned is at Out-of-place artifact. The source seems to be professional, and not some blog or fansite, but I get why any source used in the article is going to be questioned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable for anything. About the same as Ancient Origins, which was deprecated, spam blacklisted, and all references removed from the 'pedia. Same should happen with this source. Although they mostly do articles on real subjects, they are sprinkled through with articles like this WP:FRINGE pseudoarchaelogical Atlantis BS. Heiro 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

100% with Heironymous above. I know it only as a purveyor of woo and am aware of no reputation for accuracy. Perhaps I can be shown to be wrong with sources, but I would be surprised. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

What about this source seems to be professional? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Anything real they publish will be found in better sources, anything they publish not found elsewhere is is almost 100% gonna be bullshit. Heiro 18:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Spam blacklisting ancient-origins.net was inappropriate as there was no evidence of it being used for spamming, and the same applies in this case. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus was reached here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 354#ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source. As you well know. Heiro 19:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Per their own disclaimer page "All the information on this website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. archaeology-world does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (archaeology-world), is strictly at your own risk. archaeology-world will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website." Heiro 19:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That's enough to disqualify. Articles are written by the "team". No evidence of expertise. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist - I'm on mobile so I won't (and shouldn't) link them, but many articles with the " Archaeology World Staff" byline are copied verbatim from other sources without attribution. –dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. It doesn't get any more of a consensus than that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

After attempting to help in cutting down the size of the marketing section of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, I noticed that one of the sources used for it is The Guardian. Now, normally this wouldn't be an issue, however it appears to be a newsletter from The Guardian. I don't think this is one of the blogs mentioned at The Guardian's sections as it doesn't have a blogpost tag, however it does seem to be written purely from the opinion of the writer of The Guardian. The source I'm referring to is this one in which the writer seems to be strongly against video game movies (which I think they're overreacting but that's my opinion and not relevant here). So should these be considered on the same level as The Guardian's blogs or not? I'm not looking to start an RFC for this quite yet, although I'm willing to if this gain enough attention that one might be warranted. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's very clearly WP:RSOPINION anyway, I don't think "The Guide" being a newsletter is really either here or there, as it seems to fall under the same editorial aegis as the rest of the publication. As ever, smarter people may have more insight! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we ought to make WP:RSOPINION less reliant on self-disclosure, and more reliant on common sense. Media literacy experts commonly point out that many articles published by WP:NEWSORGS can either mix news and opinion, or be full-on opinion pieces without being literally labelled "Opinion" at the top. Here's Poynter, as one example among many. We shouldn't rely on whether the word "Opinion" is prominent, but rather use our judgment. RSOPINION should include some equivalent of Poynter's "opinion vs news" poster.

If a news article reports on a new Supreme Court decision, that's news. If it compares it to previous Supreme Court decisions, that's analysis (may or may not be attributed, depending on whether it promotes a certain PoV). If it support or criticizes the decision, that's opinion (and should be attributed to the author).

Here, your newsletter is clearly opinion. It's written in a very casual tone ("Seriously, is all this worth the hassle?"), uses "I" pronouns, and promotes a single point of view rather than being a synthesis of others' PoVs. So we should attribute. Why does it matter whether the word "Opinion" is there? DFlhb (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guide and other Guardian "newsletters" (The Guide has been going for many, many years but has recently been branded as one of many "newsletters" to which readers are encouraged to subscribe: https://www.theguardian.com/tone/newsletter-tone) is as reliable as any other non-news section of the paper. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree on reliability (separately from the question of whether to attribute). There's certainly no reason to remove it as a source. DFlhb (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove it as a source. I just wasn't sure if this should be treated differently than Guardian's blogs. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hadn't realized their blogs were WP:MREL. My bad. DFlhb (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Nah it's alright. I wouldn't have asked here if it wasn't clear how these newsletters should be treated. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:TRANSFERMARKT, the Wikipedia community currently rejects Transfermarkt and it should not be used in articles nor does it confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I will copy and paste a comment from Hans Footballscout2023, which was added to the archived discussion and invite anyone to comment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Transfermarkt has become a RS in the time being and has been used in the last 10 years by professional clubs for their scouting and even for their annual financial statements (to determine the MV). The whole procedures of Transfermarkt have changed since 2013. You can't create a profile on your own. You can only make a request/suggestion with your sources and then the data-analysts and moderators do their due dilligence in this process. So only after their approval you might find a change. So nothing you find on this website is self-published immediately. Only after validation you will find the changes.

If you still don't believe it, do some research regarding transfermarkt yourself and who the users are. Alsof try for example to edit something of Lewandowski's page. I think we both already know that you'll never be able to adjust a single thing. That says enough. Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Looking over the website, it appears to be basically a moderated wiki for football stats.. Their FAQ page shows that the data is all user submitted (though different access levels grant users different levels of being able to submit information). This page describes the process by which people can change data on the site. I'm sure its a fun site, and I'm also sure its "good enough" for most casual fans to get all sorts of data on their favorite players, but that doesn't mean it meets the highest standard necessary to pass WP:RS. --Jayron32 15:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I completely agree. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There's not much difference between the data change process on transfermarkt and the data change process on soccerway, except that soccerway (afaik) doesn't have an actual written process. I've submitted corrections for French appearance data and teamsheets to soccerway before by both email and twitter DM and they've been changed based on the sources I supplied. I expect the same changes could be achieved on transfermarkt. Both have moderation in place to validate submitted data, so I'm not seeing a whole load of difference? Gricehead (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a WP:USERGEN, so shouldn't be reliable, unless there is editorial oversight. Databases should never be used for notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It certainly can't be used to show notability. Arguments that it's reliable because soccerway is as bad, are not going to go well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hans Footballscout2023: please continue any Transfermarkt comments here and not at the individual AfDs, as that may be considered disruptive. Do you have any comment to make on what the users above have said about TM? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello all, I have become sort of fascinated by this issue--during a (civil) dispute on Talk:Libs of TikTok, I pointed to a letter signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Children's Hospital Association talking about a "campaign of disinformation." Now, the letter does not explicitly name Libs of TikTok, but let's set that aside as a battle for another day. If we assume, arguendo, that the letter refers to Libs of TikTok, would this be a reliable source that the account had engaged in disinformation? I am honestly of two minds, and would love input. Nothing is riding on this particular determination, but curiosity compels me to ask. Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be a source for "the AMA has said". Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

+1. It would be an acceptable use of a primary source to illustrate what they said, but I don't think it would be an acceptable source to cite the underlying facts at argument. --(loopback) ping/whereis 19:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am coming around to this view as well. Got myself a bit turned around in a rabbit hole there for a bit! Thanks to both of you. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Are Future Tense columns published in Slate governed by WP:RSOPINION? I'm reading the description of the columns and Slate labels the pieces as daily commentary published on Slate, and it seems to be a cooperation between the magazine, the New America think tank, and Arizona State. Commentary pieces tend to be treated as opinion and think-tanks tend to be WP:MREL, though I'm not sure the extent to which ASU is involved in exercising editorial oversight. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If Slate itself is reliable I would tend to assume that such a column would be reliable for any statements of fact, and reliable only as the publisher's or writer's opinion for any opinions or speculation. Particularly it could be used to corroborate other sources I think. WP:MREL sounds right to me.

Which does make me wonder who we rely on for assertions about the future. Scientists in the case of global warming/climate change. Engineers and scientists in the case of computing and AI? Do such statements need to be attributed, generally speaking? Some things in the climate change article about what will happen in the future are attributed (e.g. to WHO), some are stated as fact (based on scientific models it seems). When an expert predicts something will happen in the future, do we examine how they arrived at that in determining whether to attribute it or state it as a fact? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm somewhere in the same ballpark; WP:MREL also sounds right to me. In general, I wouldn't consider journalists to be experts on predicting large-scale future events to such an extent that we'd place something in Wikivoice just because a journalist wrote it. Things where there is a sort of scientific consensus (such as that greenhouse gases are a problem and releasing more of them will make the Earth substantially warmer) seem to be in a whole different ballpark from a journalist writing that AI will take over P% of the functions performed by employees currently working X job by Y year. Personal speculation can sometimes be included as attributed opinion (it makes a bit more sense WP:WEIGHT-wise sense to do this when secondary sources give weight to the opinions, but those considerations are more specific to particular use). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I think what we need to see here is what is being used by this column, where is it being used at Wikipedia, and for what purpose. Without having some Wikipedia content to comment on, I can't see what sort of useful discussion we can have. We have limited resources here, and can't pre-assess every single article at every single source and decide ahead of time whether or not to give a source a stamp of approval; that's not really what we should be doing here. We need to triage our discussions and deal with sources that are actually being used at Wikipedia. Can you show me an objectionable use here, or are we just idly having a chat about what we think about the column in question? --Jayron32 13:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the Source Notes column gets used fairly frequently w.r.t. covering the Wikimedia communities, but I'm a bit troubled by articles like Should ChatGPT Be Used to Write Wikipedia Articles?, Why Wikipedia’s Medical Content Is Superior, and How Should Wikipedia Cover When Brands Manipulate Wikipedia?, each of which appear to be written to express as reported opinion rather than as a sort of news coverage. To Celebrate Wikipedia’s 20th Birthday, Try Editing It fairly explicitly includes claims of opinion (As do-good activities go, it seems to me that occasional Wikipedia editing is not nearly as difficult as, say, composting food waste in an apartment and At the time, I thought his assessment of social media was rather harsh, but I’ve begun to think that he was largely right. If the choices are between volunteering a few minutes’ time to make Wikipedia better or else passively consuming more social media, the active option is superior), and typically those things are indicators that those columns are opinion pieces.

Three separate articles in the column are cited in Reliability of Wikipedia, we cite it in Knowledge equity to support the Wikivoice statement that [t]he challenge for social movements to expand entrenched beliefs related to open and free knowledge in a politicized society involves social justice challenges in practice, though we use in-text attribution for the column in Racial bias on Wikipedia, as well as for a separate Future Tense work in Ideological bias on Wikipedia. I'm just not getting a firm understanding of how the community approaches the source w.r.t. its coverage of the Wikimedia communities, and whether or not this is the sort of thing that carries reliability for contentious claims in Wikivoice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)