Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 403

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 400Archive 401Archive 402Archive 403Archive 404Archive 405→Archive 410

Is this a reliable source for the statement: "The Soviet Union entered WWII in September 1939"

"The Soviet Role in World War II: Realities and Myths, " Mark Kramer, Director, Cold War Studies Project, Davis Centre, Harvard Univeristy. Particularly the following quote: "Another myth is that the Soviet Union’s role in the Second World War began on 22 June 1941, when the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. In reality, the Soviet Union was a leading participant from the very start, colluding for nearly two years with Nazi Germany."

Context is this discussion about a compromise proposal in relation to a RfC for the article Allies of WWII.Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Proposal_for_compromise,_straw_poll)

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The statement is far too blunt to be used at all. Instead, we should provide more details as to the USSR's overall involvement in the war, from the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact through to the German invasion you note in 1941. Avoid speaking in such absolutes, and instead just describe their involvement as to what it was. --Jayron32 12:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The problem is this (all of these threads About Russia's entry into Ww2) are about the info box, where we can't have nuance. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Which is one good reason for not using infoboxes in such contexts. AndyTheGrump (talk)
But also a different argument, and one nor for this forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
We can have nuance in the infoboxes Marcelus (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
An infobox should be a summery of a summery. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
And nothing should appear in an infobox that isn't an accurate summary of what relevant sources have to say on a subject. If nuance is necessary to cover this, and the infobox can't summarise this, it shouldn't go in at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Difficult to get nuance in an infobox and probably shouldn't try. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Slatersteven So would you suggest that we simply list the Big Three in the info box without any dates? There are no dates listed for the other Allies (except those who were former Axis Powers and that's a separate argument.)? If so, would you like propose this on the Article Talk page? I don't want this page to turn into another forum for discussing this issue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, the scope of the dispute seems to be broader. The point AA is advocating seems to be as follows:
  • In contrast to other Big Three members, the USSR was fighting on the German side since September 1939.
  • In contrast to other Big Three members, the USSR joined the Allies not immediately after it declared a war on the Axis, but after it signed an alliance with Britain. Therefore, the starting date of the "Allied" status of the Soviet Union should be linked not to Barbarossa, but to signing of the Molotov-Cripps agreement.
If I understood AA's position incorrectly, I respectfully request them to correct me.
In contrast, I argue that these statement were not found in the sources used by AA, but they were inferred from them by AA, which is explicitly prohibited by NOR. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Far too complicated for an infobox, which is bound to be misleading. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And that is why we should add only non-controversial facts to the infobox and discuss nuances elsewhere. What fact is non-controversial? The declaration of war date. Did USSR declare a war on the European Axis in June 1941? Yes. Therefore, that is the information that should be in the infobox. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: PrivacyTools.io or PrivacyGuides.org websites reliability?

Which of the following best describes PrivacyTools.io or PrivacyGuides.org technology articles?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable

Disclaimer: I may have previously cited either or both of these. Mea Culpa. Summary: Option 3: Generally unreliable for both. Background: As far as I know, neither website has been discussed here previously, but PrivacyTools was previously mentioned (by me) to support a different source. Privacy Guides is a "fork" of Privacy Tools circa 2021. There was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PrivacyTools in 2019, result: Delete. Oddities: The PrivacyTools article creator, User:UnnamedUser, was blocked for puppetry. The only Keep came from User:JonahAragon, who requested Draft restore in 2021 Special:Diff/926083267, and has recently worked on Draft:Privacy Guides (with declared COI). They also cited Privacy Guides to add critical comparative statements (negative towards CalyxOS) to CalyxOS and GrapheneOS, and cited or mentioned PrivacyTools or PrivacyGuides elsewhere: Special:Diff/1146474677, Special:Diff/1146473478. Privacytools.io has been cited a few times. Summary: Both websites are group (or individual) blogs (and advocacy sites) without evidence of editorial oversight, and as such are unreliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  • A RFC seems unnecessary. Of the articles in which it shows up on Wikipedia per the search lined above, one article references a blog, another references Reddit, the third uses it as an external link, not a reference, and the fourth is a false hit - the reference is actually to a similarly-named site on Harvard.edu. Clearly the blog and the Reddit references should be removed. The external link isn't an issue. There isn't really a live question as far as I can tell. Banks Irk (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
    Reaching consensus on the sources and nipping future problems in the bud is one option. Procrastinating until later is another. The other article issues have been fixed. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Eater (website)

As a food website, would this be considered a reliable source for establishing the notability of a restaurant? As an example it is used around 30 times in this article Genoa (restaurant). LibStar (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, reliable for what? Facts about the restaurant or reviews of the restaurant? Of course, it is a reliable source for its own opinions. It also isn't a fly-by-nite publication, as a Vox Media property, it's got serious backing, and the article about the website indicates that other reliable sources consider it "required reading" and it's won four James Beard Awards. Given all of that I would say that the facts reported by the website should be considered reliable, and the opinions of the website (which is NOT a reliability issue, sensu stricto, and as such, are not really the purview of this board) are WP:DUE. --Jayron32 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that Eater is a reliable source for basic facts about a restaurant, and for its own opinions about restaurants. It should also be regarded as a reliable source on notability. I'm a little concerned that its use in the linked article is overdone per WP:DUE. What was on the menu on a particular date is probably a little non-encyclopedic. But that's for the article talkpage. Banks Irk (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd say it's reliable enough, per Jayron32 and Banks Irk. Andre🚐 20:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Eater has a national site and sites for a bunch of cities. The city sites are probably the ones that will come up most, and they're more or less going to be of similar quality to [and a bit bigger than] the food section of a large newspaper (dedicated staff, editorial oversight, etc.). A tricky thing in the case above is that many of the citations are for articles from before it was purchased by Vox. I don't know what it was like back then, but the existence of so many single-paragraph announcement-like articles (which I don't see in the current version of the site) indicates it was pretty different. It was undoubtedly smaller, too, with one person writing nearly all of the cited articles (although that person happens to be a James Beard Award winning writer/editor apparently). Probably fine, but of course those one-paragraph tidbits don't really add anything to notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Do these sources support the claim: "During WWII, USSR was neutral until June 1941"?

Some editors argue that the sources listed below do not support this claim. The sources (and quotes) are as follows:

  • "After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, Stalin abandoned his attitude of pro-Axis neutrality and joined the Allies" (Jan T. Gross. A Note on the Nature of Soviet Totalitarianism. Soviet Studies, Jul., 1982, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 367-376. )
  • "It is interesting to note that Graff Werner von Schulenburg, the German Ambassador in Moscow, regretfully informed his government in early 1940 that the Soviet Union was genuinely determined "to cling to neutrality [...] and avoid as much as possible anything that might involve it in a conflict with the Western Powers""
"The fall of France bolstered rather than altered the British concept. True, the loss of their allies on the Continent momentarily inspired the British to close ranks with the Russians. But the measures taken were too little and too late." (Gabriel Gorodetsky. The Impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy. Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique , Jan. - Mar., 1990, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1990), pp. 27-41. )
  • "The Soviet Union formally declared its neutrality on 17 September 1939, the same day that Soviet armed forces entered eastern Poland." (Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin, the Pact with Nazi Germany, and the Origins of Postwar Soviet Diplomatic Historiography. Journal of Cold War Studies, Fall 2002, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 93-103. )
  • " The underlying message seemed to be that Moscow had acted to protect its own interests, was distancing itself from Berlin, and was concerned not to become involved in any wider conflict. One scholar [Gorodetsky] has written that the Soviets, in the ensuing days and weeks, 'resorted to strenuous efforts to placate Berlin and consolidate their own neutrality' "
"British policy towards Soviet Russia did lurch and waver over ensuing months, notably during the Winter War. It is true, for example, that the British Government was much closer to declaring war on the Soviet Union during the Finnish campaign some four months later than it was over the Soviet invasion of Poland." (Keith Sword. British Reactions to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland in September 1939. The Slavonic and East European Review , Jan., 1991, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 81-101. )
  • "Even before Soviet entry into the war the British had hinted at or proposed some kind of general settlement. For example, in October 1940 London had proposed an agreement that in return for the USSR’s benevolent neutrality there would be consultations on the postwar settlement, de facto recognition of Russian territorial acquisitions in Eastern Europe and British economic assistance to Soviet defence preparations" (Geoffrey Roberts. Ideology, calculation, and improvisation: spheres of influence and Soviet foreign policy 1939–1945. Review of International Studies (1999), 25, 655–673.
  • "In Britain at least, it is customary to say that the Second World War began in September I939. Yet what actually began then was a limited European war, confined to Britain, France, Germany and, briefly, Poland. Since the mid-I930s. British military planners had worked with the nightmare worst-case assumption of a three-enemy war-against Germany, Italy and Japan-but the latter two powers remained neutral, albeit malevolent, in September I939. On the sidelines too were the Soviet Union, which signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in August, and the United States, whose stance was one of neutrality tilted benevolently towards the Allies.. " (David Reynolds. 1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) , Apr., 1990, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 325-350. )

Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, it is customary to mention and tag the users, which are concerned.
Our discussion wasn't about neutrality of USSR until June 1941, but about the date when USSR entered WW2. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think these sources confirm that the Soviet Union entered WW2 in 1941, as you claimed. This is what our discussion is about (Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II#Proposal_for_compromise,_straw_poll). Basically, none of them address the issue of SU entrance to WW2. Marcelus (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, no. I would like to know opinia of uninvolved users, and I am NOT going to continue the Allies of WWII dispute on this noticeboard.
Here, I am asking a very simple question:
Some users believe the above sources do not say that the USSR was neutral until 22th of June, 1941. And I am asking whether these sources support the claim about Soviet neutrality or not? Paul Siebert (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
You said "some users believe", specify which users and where. Also this board is to check if sources are reliable, not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard. Also "opinion", not "opinia". Marcelus (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, it is to check if sources are reliable in context. The problem is that the statement isn't really well considered; for example the term "neutral" can have far too many definitions in historical context. We would need to define what we mean by "neutral" (neutral as in "not involved in any treaties or pacts with others? Neutral as in declared neutrality? Neutral as in not actively fighting? Etc.) If you define what you mean by "neutral", you can just avoid the term altogether. You can say things like "Do these sources support the statement that the USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939" or "Do these sources support the statement that the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September 1939" or "Do these sources support the statement that the Soviet Union signed the Anglo-Soviet Agreement on 12 July 1941". --Jayron32 14:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you need to adress it to @Paul Siebert rather than me Marcelus (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I was addressing your incorrect statement "not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard" We actually usually ask for context when discussing sources, reliability in context (as in, alongside of the Wikipedia text that the source is being asked to verify" is very much what we do at this board, and not in any way a misuse of it. It is, in fact, using it exact as it is intended. If you read the instructions at the top of the page, it specifically asks for "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports." So, no, I was not addressing it at Paul Siebert. I am addressing it directly, and unambiguously at you, Marcelus, for the blatantly false claim you made at 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC), when you said "not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard." which is a direct contradiction of the clear instructions at the top of the page. --Jayron32 15:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Please change your tone. This noticeboard exists to verify the reliability of a source, in the context of the content it is supposed to support. It does not exist to verify that a source supports specific content.
@Paul Siebert is not asking whether Gorodetsky's book is reliable as a source for the claim that the Soviet Union was neutral before 1941. Which would be the correct use of the noticeboard. Paul Siebert is asking whether Gorodetsky's book (and other sources) supports the statement that the Soviet Union was neutral. Which is incorrect use of the noticeboard.
This is not a question of reliability, it is a question of the proper selection of sources and the correctness of their interpretation. This is a fairly simple difference, expressed directly in his question (Do these sources support the claim...), I'm surprised you didn't catch it.
Leaving that aside. The instructions clearly ask for information such as the Wikipedia article in which the source is being used ( in this case Allies of World War II) and the exact statement in the article that the source supports. The absence of the latter is particularly problematic. Because contrary to what PS says in the submission he does not want to use these sources to support the statement about the neutrality of the Soviet Union in 1939-41, but to support the statement "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941", that he is trying to put in the article.
So this is not only a bad use of noticeboard, a badly worded request, it is also an attempt to manipulate the participants in this discussion, in order to "win" the RFC on another t/p. Marcelus (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding: this is not only a bad use of noticeboard, a badly worded request, it is also an attempt to manipulate the participants in this discussion, in order to "win" the RFC on another t/p. I pre-agreed with you on that, by already saying as much several times. I don't see where any statement I've made in this discussion indicates that I think something differently than that. Perhaps you can tell me where I made a statement to make you think i would have disagreed with you there, so I can clarify myself. I would not like to be misunderstood. I clearly think (and as far as I can tell, already stated several times) that the OP was wrong to start the discussion here. --Jayron32 18:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
t. I am addressing it directly, and unambiguously at you, Marcelus, for the blatantly false claim you made at 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC), when you said "not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard." which is a direct contradiction of the clear instructions at the top of the page.
The claim wasn't false, as I explained it to you above. Marcelus (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Like below, the statement is far too blunt to be useful in understanding the nuance of the relationships between the parties involved. Don't make such blunt statements and instead merely describe the events and relationships directly. --Jayron32 12:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    I am not discussing nuances here. I just want to know if these sources say the USSR was neutral. Paul Siebert (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    Matter for concerned editors to determine, assuming those sources are reliable. In which article does the disputed phrase appear? Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    (ec)This is a 'discussing nuances' noticeboard. Context matters when it comes to assessing whether a source can be cited for a statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    The statement "During WWII, USSR was neutral until June 1941" is not a statement that should appear in any article, because it glosses over the events of the time, and is far to broad a brush to paint those events with. The sources themselves are reliable enough for describing the events they describe. The statement is not even wrong, in the sense that it oversimplifies the relationships between the USSR and the other countries participating in World War II. I'd avoid making it altogether, and instead merely describe the events in question. --Jayron32 13:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Selfstudier, @AndyTheGrump, @Jayron32: In the Allies of World War II article t/p, there is a discussion about how the date when the Soviet Union joined the Allies should be indicated in the infobox. The main discussion was between 22 June 1941 (the date of the German attack) and 12 July 1941 (the first British-Soviet agreement). @Paul Siebert argued in favour of the first date. A compromise proposal was made to write "Soviet Union: at war with Germany from Jun 1941", Paul Siebert in favour of the version "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941", claiming that the SU was neutral before this date. Some users, including myself, believe that this wording ignores Soviet aggressions in 1939-41. Marcelus (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    That's not a reliable source issue. That's merely an issue of how to describe the events in an infobox (as others have noted, infoboxen are terrible devices for conveying nuance). This forum will not be able to provide any help in resolving the issue. You're just going to need to talk it out on the article talk page and arrive at a consensus. You cannot short-circuit the consensus-building discussion by throwing sources at the issue. --Jayron32 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    I agree, that's what I said in my other comment here Marcelus (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: WRT The statement "During WWII, USSR was neutral until June 1941" is not a statement that should appear in any article... seems to be a straw man argument. Some people may believe I want to add the statement about Soviet neutrality in that or other articles. Actually, the situation is opposite. Of course, it would be incorrect to say that the USSR was strictly neutral during that period (similar to e.g. Sweden). However, it would be equally incorrect to describe it as the Axis co-belligerent, similar to Germany or Japan. We have a historical fact: before June 1941, the USSR was considered a neutral power by all future Allies, therefore, it would be incorrect to say it was "at war".
    The truth is somewhere in the middle, and it would be equally misleading to claim the USSR was "totally neutral" or it was "The Axis ally". Ironically, I never proposed to add the explicit claim about USSR's neutrality. In contrast, the OP insists the USSR was a combatant in the same sense as Nazi Germany. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    Of course, it would be incorrect to say that the USSR was strictly neutral during that period, if you think so why do even make this request? Just to trick people in confirming something you don't believe is true?
    In contrast, the OP insists the USSR was a combatant in the same sense as Nazi Germany, who is OP you talk about? And where did he made such claim? Marcelus (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Jayron32:@Selfstudier:@AndyTheGrump: I see that some additional explanations are needed.
    This my question was caused by the fact that I was accused of spreading false information that was not supported by RS here and here. Actually, the question I asked at the top of this section was a not completely accurate summary of four statements. These statements are as follows:
    1. The USSR declared neutrality in 1939;
    2. From Sept 1939 till June 1941, the USSR was officially considered as a neutral power by Britain, France, and other major powers.
    3. The USSR officially abandoned its neutral status in June 1941, immediately after Barbarossa
    4. At the beginning, the war that would later be named "World War II" was a local European war between Poland, France, Britain, on one side, and Germany on another, whereas the USSR (as well as the US) were neutral.
    I am not asking if the source support these claim in some context, because these claims are true or false irrespective to any concrete context.
    So far, I am leaving beyond the scope NPOV or relevance issues. I perfectly know our policy, and I know that verifiability does not warrant inclusion. I also KNOW that a context does matter. However, all of that should be discussed later, after WP:V and WP:NOR issues have been resolved.
    Therefore, I am rephrasing my question more accurately:
    Leaving NPOV and similar issues beyond the scope, do the above mentioned sources contain the claims ##1-4, and do they explicitly say that? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

So it is a question of interpreting whether those sources contain or explicitly say a particular wikipedian-written statement. And a statement which is inherently ambiguous unless one specifies the definition-at-hand for "neutral". IMHO in cases like that it is best to avoid such characterizations which have multiple meanings. IMHO either way that it a judgement call that is outside the scope of this board. This board would determine whether or not it is considered a reliable source with respect to the text which cited it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity here.
The statement "The USSR declared neutrality in 1939" is not ambiguous, because it is absolutely clear WHO declared (the USSR, a state), WHEN did it do it (in 1939), HOW the declaration was made (in the same way as other official statements made by a state), and what exactly "neutrality" meant (not Coulomb neutrality, not gender neutrality, but, obviously, a neutrality in political and military sense).
The statement "From Sept 1939 till June 1941, the USSR was officially considered as a neutral power by Britain, France, and other major powers" allows no double interpretation, and it is absolutely unambiguous: The USSR was officially (in terms of the international law) considered neutral by absolutely concrete states: France, Britain, as well as Japan, Italy, the US etc.
The statement "The USSR officially abandoned its neutral status in June 1941, immediately after Barbarossa" is absolutely unambiguous: it abandoned neutrality by declaring a war on German and all its allies except Japan.
The "At the beginning, the war that would later be named "World War II" was a local European war between Poland, France, Britain, on one side, and Germany on another, whereas the USSR (as well as the US) were neutral." was almost verbatim taken from the cited source, and it should be understood in the very same context that the author of that article used.
Therefore, I have no clue what kind of a judgement call do you mean. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert you keep WP:BLUDGEON the dispute, and now you are moving it here, for no good reason, other than to cause more confusion, and only because you were "losing" the dispute on Talk:Allies of World War II.
The matter is very simple. Your proposed text: "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941" is false. Because SU was at war before Jun 1941. Alternative text: ""Soviet Union: at war with Germany from Jun 1941" is much better, because it short, correct, and conveys the most essential information in this context.
The rest of the things you are talking about are political buzz, gestures that have little relevance to the reality of events. We are interested in facts, not political declarations. The Soviet Union proclaimed its neutrality in 1939, just as it proclaimed that it had not attacked Poland, that Finland had attacked it, that the Baltic states had democratically become part of it, and so on. These were all lies. We are interested in how historical reality is described by contemporary, independent scholars.
Also, most of what you say is completely unrelated to the topic. It is strawman after strawman. You say: The statement "The USSR declared neutrality in 1939" is not ambiguous, but nobody claims otherwise. Yes the USSR declared neutrality, but that does not mean it was in fact neutral. The statement "From Sept 1939 till June 1941, the USSR was officially considered as a neutral power by Britain, France, and other major powers"}, ok maybe other powers considered them as a neutral, but that doesn't mean they were in fact neutral. That is a completely different topic. The statement "The USSR officially abandoned its neutral status in June 1941, ok the USSR stopped declaring itself neutral at that time, but that doesn't change the fact that they were in fact neutral before that. We are still dealing with a political declaration, not the actual state of affairs. Similarly, today Russia continues to claim that it is not at war with Ukraine. And prior to 2022, it claimed to be a neutral state vis-à-vis "internal fighting in Ukraine". This is an important historical fact. But it does not mean that it is true.
At the beginning, the war that would later be named "World War II" was a local European war, ok but that does not change the fact that according to today's scholars World War II started in 1939. At the beginning of the Hundred Years' War nobody knew either what it would be called or how long it would last or what its size would be. And to say that Edward III's claim to the French throne was the cause of the Hundred Years' War is not false.
This is my last comment on this forum on this topic. Because I get the impression that you are only here to drag this discussion out, move it to the next place, hoping to exhaust the other side. Marcelus (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I thought I explained myself quite clear. I am here for one simple and concrete reason. The whole story is very simple.
Step 1. Some users accused me of making t/p statements that are ostensibly unsupported by reliable sources.
Step 2. I provided several sources that I believe are reliable, and these sources say, almost verbatim, exactly what I say.
Step 3. The users who previously accused me of making false claims continue to do so.
In that situation, it is quite natural to come here and to ask the question that I asked.
Let me reiterate it: this question was caused by the accusation of spreading false information that is not found in any reliable sources. I provided several sources that, imo, clearly and unequivocally say exactly what I say. In that situation, we either come to consensus that these sources do not say that (... see ##1-4), or you should apologise and concede "well, I was not right, your claims are based on whet RS say. However, that is just one side of truth, and we need to think how to present information in a correct and unbiased was".
And, at that point, it would be my turn to agree with you. And I would have said: "Yes. You are absolutely right. The USSR cannot be described as a fully neutral state during 1939-41. Let's think together how to adequately present this information.".
THAT is how normal, intellectually honest people conduct a discussion.
Remember, the whole conflict started not with my attempt to introduce the claim that the USSR was neutral in 1939-41 (I believe such an explicit claim would be an oversimplification, at least, because one source presented by me describes its status as "pro-Axis neutrality"). However, the explicit claim that it was non-neutral would be an oversimplification too.
Therefore, I was pretty satisfied with the current version of the infobox. It provides no controversial details and contains no claims that contradict to what majority RS say. I proposed a new wording because other people decided to make the infobox more specific (thereby making it more misleading).
All of that can and should be discussed (and easily resolved) in a calm and respectful discussion. However, to continue this discussion you should either prove that my sources do not say what they (in my opinion) say, or apologise for claiming that I am spreading false facts. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
So you are chosing WP:ICANTHEARYOU approach. Marcelus (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This is more applicable to you: in this thread, I am trying to separate a minor issue (accusation of spreading false information) from the bigger issue (which doesn't belong to this page).
Actually, I've just left a detailed responce to your post at the "Allies... " talk page, which addresses your general concern in more details. I hope I was able to clarify my vision of the roots of our disagreement. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Russian defence ministry as source for ceasefire violations in Azerbaijan

Is the source mil.ru a reliable source to support a table of ceasefires?

 —Michael Z. 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a primary source, so if there are reliable secondary sources which describe the violations we should use such secondary sources. From what I see in the article, most of the *other* sources used for ceasefire violations are Armenian and Azerbaijani media and official bodies, which are likely to be biased and possibly not reliable (Azerbaijan is somewhere near Russia when it comes to press freedom). If this is all we have at the moment, I think it's worth retaining the list, considering that the information is clearly attributed.
There is also a question of due weight (not for this noticeboard) - is the list of ceasefire violations actually necessary for that article? Alaexis¿question? 19:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Russian Ministry of Defence is biased and possibly not reliable (this is not UN peacekeeping). See the article section on #Criticism.  —Michael Z. 21:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, being criticised by both sides is a good sign :) Alaexis¿question? 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And yes, the list is WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Please join in the article’s talk page.  —Michael Z. 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I would honestly just remove that entire table. The major violations are covered right above in prose, where some of the Russian claims can also be included with attribution. It seems a little out-of-scope to include a list of every little scrap. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I would oppose to usage of ANY information obtained from the governments of the states involved in an open military conflict. In addition to the fact that that would be against WP:NOR, such sources can contain a deliberate misinformation. I am pretty sure the same is true for Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (they also engage in disinformation, which is absolutely correct and justified). All information of that type must be analysed by experts and summarised in some good secondary source, and only after that we can use it. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That's a legitimate approach, but if in this specific case only Ru MoD information is removed, the article will not be improved as what will remain would be just Armenian and Azeri accusations (this is one of the references: Armenians commit terror act in Nagorno-Karabakh region - are we sure that is more reliable that RuMoD reports?). I would support overhauling the section using reliable secondary sources (if they exist). Alaexis¿question? 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobase publishing

There are 2 threads in archives so far regarding Infobase publishing. One is from 2011 and another is from 2014.

The issue was raised after Talk:Pakistan/Archive 22#Paleolithic.

Publishing company still describes itself as "Infobase Publishing is one of America's leading providers of supplemental educational materials to the school and library markets." I don't think that makes it reliable. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why resources for education markets would be a bad thing; it means it's not popular crap: "With thousands of titles and numerous award winners, Infobase provides students, librarians, and educators with authoritative, reliable resources supporting the curriculum across a wide variety of subject areas, from history, science, and literature to careers, health, and social issues." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Can you specify exactly what Infobase publication is being used and for what? The specifics will matter since the main concern with Infobase is that their target audience is school children and therefore the works are written by non-specialists with an eye towards comprehensibility rather than precision. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable As pointed out in the prior linked discussions, Infobase publishes for elementary, middle school and high school markets. They are tertiary sources. Moreover, WP:RS states that university level textbooks might be used as reliable sources. It does not list primary and secondary school texts as reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Depends on the publication. There are some publications that indeed focus on high school and below, but they also do publish works for undergraduate students and for general purposes (such as several editions of The World Almanac prior to 2020). Those sorts of publications seem to be of the same reliability of those introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias that are noted as citeable in WP:RS, as they are published more professionally and have a higher standard of rigor relative to their K-12 materials. That being said, we should not be using their content that is targeted at primary school or middle school students. Painting the publisher with one broad brush is an oversimplification given their diversity of product offerings; it would be like declaring McGraw Hill's college textbooks unreliable because they also sell middle school history books. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Northern BC Backroad Mapbook

I've been gathering sources to rewrite an article and I came across this Northern BC Backroad Mapbook. I'm uncertain if it would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Volcanoguy 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, maybe? On the one hand, the author, Russell Mussio, is the same name as the publisher, Mussio Ventures Ltd., which makes this likely a self-published source, which means we need to look and see if others consider it a reliable source. Is Russell Mussio a well respected cartographer or geographer or expert in a field related to the material in the atlas? Is the specific source in question frequently cited by other reliable sources? That's how you'll want to go about analyzing it. Not all self-published sources are unreliable, but it does mean that other hallmarks of reliability need to be quite a bit extra to make up for that. --Jayron32 18:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I poked around the corporate website and this doesn't feel like a self-publishing venture: . What were you planning to use it for? Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I plan on using it for describing routes that can be used to gain access to Mount Edziza in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. Three routes are shown in this map book on page 88: Yukon Telegraph Trail, Buckley Lake Trail and the Buckley Lake to Mowdade Lake Route. Volcanoguy 07:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the information is likely to be non-controversial, and that the maps you've cited should be sufficient absent any controversy. --Jayron32 12:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Shout Out UK

Is Shout Out UK a reliable source? I want to use this article from them for a draft about commentary YouTube, but looking at their wiki article, they seem to be some sort of advocacy organization? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That article you cited not a work of scholarship or journalism, but one of opinion, as can be seen from the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, as such WP:RSOPINION applies here; basically it should be used only to report attributed opinions of the writer only, and should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, even when citing it and giving proper in text attribution, we need to also assess if this person's opinion is worth even citing in an attributed manner: Are they widely recognized as an expert in the field for which you are citing their opinion? Do their opinions carry such weight that other reliable sources cite them or give them credence? That sort of thing. --Jayron32 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the credibility and usefulness of the sources for the Alan Singh article in tatters?

Do the sources for this article lack credibility? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I came across this article while fixing errors, there's a lot of background detail in the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: Will this article be removed from Wikipedia? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
That will be resolved at AFD, not here. If you believe that your article should not be deleted, you need to make your best argument at its discussion page there. Banks Irk (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Banks Irk: , Are both these sources useful for the Alan Singh article? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No. They are not reliable sources. Banks Irk (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Banks Irk: This article has been reviewed. So will it not be considered important? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Karsan Chanda: There is a deletion discussion herewhich you are invited to participate in, do not open discussions anywhere else, it is there that you need to contribute. It is not that the article is not considered important, we need "significant coverage" of Alan Singh in a good source. Significant coverage means a couple of paragraphs about Alan Singh at least. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter and WP:ABOUTSELF, again

We'll see what happens, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that happened: Twitter Blue verification controversy. Wikipedia, you gotta love it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think Twitter can still be used for ABOUTSELF comments, what's changed is how to check that the account is legitimate. Before it was possible to rely of twitter verification to ensure the account was the actual individual, now it seems suggestable to verify that from a secondary source. With mistakes likely due to a much reduced team doing the verification, and the system changing on Musk's daily whims, it seems best not to rely on twitter alone to ensure the account is actually the subject in question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No checkmark: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ABOUTSELF requires that there be no reasonable doubt as to the comment's authenticity; part of the reason Twitter was frequently used for ABOUTSELF stuff while eg. Reddit was not was because of its verification process. So it should probably be used less. (Even if an editor is like "oh, I personally know this is their real account based on previous coverage", it's easy to miss a slight difference in the name.) And generally speaking, situations where there's no reasonable doubt as to a particular tweet's authenticity are also going to be ones where there is secondary coverage anyway, making citing them via ABOUTSELF unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • As we have a number of fake accounts (it seems), no Twitter is no longer usable for about self. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Well idk, if a subject has publicly stated hey this is my Twitter then its still ABOUTSELF. Dont forget that this applies to blogs, and we didnt require the blogging platform to say we have verified the person claiming to be whoever. What has changed is we relied on Twitter saying this is actually such and such's Twitter feed. Now we have to rely on some other reliable outlet, like a news source reporting its such and such's Twitter or the subject publicly stating it elsewhere. nableezy - 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
But we should use caution with outstanding claims even when reported by a normally reliable source, as there have been problems with them confusing parody accounts for the real thing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • If an account is confirmed to be run by a particular person it should still be usable as WP:ABOUTSELF, but twitter's own verification systems seem increasingly unreliable for such confirmation. It may be worth updating WP:RSPTWITTER to reflect this? Perhaps simply: Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Should we update it given the apparent consensus, or wait for more people to comment? Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    As per my comment I'd support that change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Now that Twitter Blue is only indicative of subscribing to a service, rather than actual verification (in fact, numerous trolls and fake accounts have gotten Twitter Blue), it isn't worthy as a way to establish identity anymore. It is a completely different functionality that happens to share the same icon. With or without Twitter Blue, anyone can claim being someone else on Twitter, making using it for ABOUTSELF risky. I also support the proposed change to WP:RSPTWITTER, and the use of other sources to confirm the identity of a Twitter account. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    "Anyone can claim being someone else on Twitter"
    I'm not sure that there's evidence, supporting that, though I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can provide some. But even so, long before Elon Musk, checkmarks were often taken away from confirmed users for ideological reasons. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    When you buy a checkmark, with the new Twitter Blue system, there's no verification involved except for giving your phone number for the payment. As seen just below in the conversation, even a gold tick (for which the process is slightly more involved) got given to the fake "Disney Junior UK". Your other sentence is pretty much a red herring, as we're not talking about verification pre-Musk, but Twitter Blue post-Musk, two entirely different processes (and even if Twitter did really take away some checkmarks, it didn't make other checkmarked users less verifiable). Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • note by the way that the other new tick colours, gold and grey, aren't trustworthy either. Twitter gave "Disney Junior UK" - a spoof name - a verified gold tick. We just need to note that the ticks can't be relied on any more and you'll need some off-Twitter way to verify who it's run by - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't we do better than "verified in some way" on the twitter entry in WP:RSTWITTER. How about "verified by a reliable source (such as a responsible news article)" or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Twitter's own verification instantly lost all merit the second Twitter Blue rolled out. casualdejekyll 23:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually, yeah. At an absolute bare minimum, we ought to remove ...if they are verified accounts or... immediately, since Twitter no longer provides account verification as such. Does anyone object to that removal? It seems uncontroversial to me, since it refers to a service Twitter no longer provides. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    Yep, I support that change as a bare minimum. Twitter Blue is not account verification, despite a similar icon, and they were even distinguished on Twitter itself (in the period when both were still present) by clicking on the icon on the profile. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    I've removed the clause about verified accounts; we can revise the wording further if necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe "verified by a reliable source or by the person themselves (e.g. on their official homepage)? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
    Good idea - I was thinking about a way to word the fact that Twitter Blue isn't sufficient for verification anymore, as people might still mistake it for the old "verified" icon. Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News shutting down - what now?

Arabia GIS and UNDP (Repost)

Primary and unreliable sources on Singaporean crime articles

theodora.com

A video from 24 Horas

Heritage Times (India)

Fascist-era censuses

Any reason CBS News is not listed in the RS/P?

RfC: Infobae

eurogamer.net - potential issues

WeChat/Weixin

More royalcruft

Militaryland.net

Is this article an rs for a BLP?

Beepworld.de

Is Rich Swier aka Dr Rich a reliable source at all?

Egypt as a belligerent in the 2023 Sudan conflict

United Authors Publishing

Charles Fisk and ClimateStations.com

Arabia GIS and UNDP (2nd Repost)

More on the reliability of BtVA

Bruce Fein (2009). Model Indictment for Genocide Against Gotabhaya Rajapakse and Sarath Fonseka Proposed to the U.S. Justice Department. Washington DC: Tamils Against Genocide.

CSQ

John 1:1

shootermcgavin.com cited in Lewis Manly

Rfc on Irish Central

Reliability of the Daily Telegraph for politics?

New York Post sports coverage

Good-enough sources on food storage

Vishwakarma are the brahmin as per vedic text.

Rotten Tomatoes reliabilty

AI content mill pseudo-news sites

Statista - April 2023

Are these sources reliable for use in an entry of the EOKA terrorist organisation in the List of designated terrorist groups

Is "In God They Trust? The Religious Beliefs of Australia's Prime Ministers, 1901-2013" by Roy Williams and Kim C. Beazley, 2013 a sufficient source for a name to be included in a list of people with a specified mental illness?

Reliability of CNA (TV network)

RfC: Adding Stacker to list of reliable sources

Determining the reliability of Max Arthur Maculiffe and "Guru Ki Saakiyan"

Vishwakarma Brahmins are Brahmins!!!

Dubiousness of Indian sources w.r.t Pakistan

Reliability of theafricareport

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks