Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 400←Archive 402Archive 403Archive 404Archive 405Archive 406→Archive 410

Does WP:DAILYMAIL deprecate RSes reporting on interviews in Daily Mail?

The Craig Murray article had stuff about him claiming to have met the source for the DNC emails citing the Guardian and Snopes. Snopes responded to Daily Mail which was where Murray made most of his claims so its what most sources talk about. I added more information and cited The Hill and The Nation because they debunked Murrays claims in Daily Mail about when he said he met the source

Cambial Yellowing removed it with the edit summary Recycled Daily Mail bits remain not RS and Rmv Daily Mail content

I restored it and said The Nation and The Hill are both RS, and a quote from The Nation debunking Daily Mail isnt recycling it and added Assanges comment on Daily Mail from The Hill

Cambial removed everything again but left The Hills response to Daily Mail, saying It’s still the deprecated Daily Mail. Seek consensus - highly unlikely - for an exception to that side-wide view

The Nation has their own editorial standards and is an RSP, and was reporting on and debunking Daily Mail content. Why would that make The Nation or their response to Murrays claims in Daily Mail deprecated? Or the Hill

If notable people say controversial things to fringe outlets or ones that arent reliable and that gets reported by outlets that are reliable, do we include that Softlemonades (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Generally, we ascribe reliability to the source you are citing. If, say, the BBC is writing something, their endorsement carries, even if the same information was also published in the DailyMail or another unreliable source. --Jayron32 12:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I think one of the points raised in the case against Daily Mail was the claim that they have on multiple occasions fabricated quotes and statements, which is why people wanted to take such a strong stance further than just calling it generally unreliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't trust quotes from deprecated sources. So, no - stop trying to use the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasnt trying to quote anything from the Daily Mail or include quotes from the Daily Mail that The Hill or The Nation re used Softlemonades (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Both sources use explicit in-text attribution to the Daily Mail, which remains the only source for the ostensible claims by the article subject. No source has stated this in their own authorial voice. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The Nation seems clear that Murray said it to Daily Mail, and then questions if the meeting happened. I quoted the second part. The section Last December, Murray, who is a close associate of WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange, told London’s Daily Mail a fanciful story: that he himself received a package containing the purloined e-mails “during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University.” Murray also claimed that “neither of the leaks came from the Russians.” But Murray’s secret rendezvous—which no one has ever corroborated, and for which Murray himself provided no details—supposedly happened in September 2016, long after WikiLeaks published the Guccifer 2.0–linked DNC e-mails, which surfaced months earlier.
What I quoted from The Nation was in their voice and questioning Murrays claims According to The Nation, the alleged meeting "supposedly happened in September 2016, long after WikiLeaks published the Guccifer 2.0–linked DNC e-mails, which surfaced months earlier." Softlemonades (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that's judgement call territory. I'd think that if even they're calling it fanciful, I'm not sure it's due for us to note - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok Im glad it makes more sense, thanks. I wouldnt have added it if it wasnt already included because of him telling The Guardian about it, but not when. I thought if we included his claims we should include RS debunking, even if they refer to an interview in a fringe outlet Softlemonades (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
When discussed back in February 2023, which also involved two reliable sources quoting from the Daily Mail, there was a consensus that we can use quotations from an unreliable/deprecated source as long as the material cited to a reliable source. Whenever this is done, it is under the assumption that the reliable source which is quoting from the unreliable source is staking their own reputation on the line with regards to the quoted content. To quote from Red-tailed Hawk Reliable sources regularly cite things Wikipedia considers to be unreliable sources all the time; it's a basic way that journalism operates. (emphasis from Hawk)
With respect to the content that was removed/restored prior to this discussion, I think the quote from Aquillion If the WP:RS cites a non-RS in a way that is clearly skeptical or cautious, we have to be careful to reflect that in our wording fits. When looking at the paragraph being quoted from The Nation, they are quite sceptical of it. Last December, Murray,..., told London's Daily Mail a fanciful story, and But Murray's secret rendevous - which no one has ever corroborated...supposedly happened in September 2016. If that content is to be included, then our own coverage of it would need to reflect the scepticism that's implied from the source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
If that content is to be included, then our own coverage of it would need to reflect the scepticism that's implied from the source I agree and was trying to reflect the scepticism with the quote from The Nation. If the phrasing needed editing to make that stronger, that sounds like a good edit Softlemonades (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Taking that tack, however, means we are putting more faith in an RS's evaluation of what's an RS than we are putting in our own. We moved Daily Mail to the deprecated status despite knowing that it was at times cited by RSs, I think taking a "fruit of the poisoned tree" attitude is reasonable here. Dealt with a similar thing a few years go where a blog called Gossip Boy had reported that a certain actor said they were gay, then ABC reported that the actor had told that to Gossip Boy, but consensus (though not unanimous) was that it could not be used. (That case wasn't helped by the fact that other normally-RSs had reported that the actor had told it to ABC, rather than to the obscure and short-lived blog.... but at least in that case Gossip Boy was simply presumed not to be an RS, as opposed to the Daily Mail, where we have specifically found it not to be one.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that Murray already made the claims to an RS, Guardian, and gave more information to Daily Mail. Theres no reason to doubt that the interview happened. Should we believe his claims? No, thats why I tried to add The Nation quote. But hes said the same thing to RSes, the only detail that The Nation responded to that wasnt in Daily Mail was when Murray said it happened. But he says the same thing in an audio interview and says that WikiLeaks already had the DNC emails, but The Nation is an RS and uses text so I cited that Softlemonades (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • If a given piece of information has originated from a deprecated source, then it's automatically unreliable for Wikipedia. The fact that it's not automatically unreliable for some other public media doesn't make it more reliable for us. It's the source that's unreliable for us, and not the number of times that the information has been repeated elsewhere. Linking to republished info instead of the actual source sounds like an attempt to game the system. — kashmīrī TALK 18:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    1 wp:agf
    2 not the number of times that the information has been repeated elsewhere The key information I added wasnt The Nation repeating what Murray said in Daily Mail, it was The Nation debunking Murrays claims Softlemonades (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Not true. If the NYTimes quoted a DM interview, then we absolutely can use the NYTimes as the source, we just cannot use the DM directly. Masem (t) 17:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    If a given piece of information has originated from a deprecated source, then it's automatically unreliable for Wikipedia That seems to be an unworkable standard to me. Not only would that rule out a fair amount of content published by reliable journalistic sources, it would also have us discarding a not insubstantial amount of scholarly research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • No, that's not how it works. The "original origin" of a piece of information has no bearing whatsoever on its reliability; only the final, proximate source matters for WP:RS purposes, since we presume that a RS does appropriate fact-checking and verification. Otherwise we're second-guessing an RS and performing OR. As someone said below, it's entirely appropriate for us to cite an RS that is discussing eg. random messageboard postings by anonymous people, or man-on-the-street discussions with random nobodies, or other things we could never cite directly ourselves - in fact, part of the purpose of an RS is to take those unusable primary sources and, through their fact-checking and verification process, turn them into something we can use. If we rejected sources based on the "ultimate" source of their information, there would be no usable sources at all, because everything ultimately comes down to someone doing original research. Now, there's an important caveat here - if we cite the Guardian's description of something that the Daily Mail said, we have to be careful to base our article on what The Guardian says, not on what the Daily Mail says. So if eg. the Guardian had an article saying "the Daily Mail said this ridiculous thing and they're clearly wrong and crazy" (or even if they just attributed something to the Daily Mail in a more staid manner) we would have to reflect that attribution and overall treatment in our coverage. The Guardian in that situation is a valid source for a statement of "the Daily Mail said X" (WP:DUE permitting, which is a whole different question), not for "X is true" in the article voice. But it is usable for that - newsworthy things do happen involving the Daily Mail sometimes; how else would we report them? --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A similar issue was discussed in August last year, see archive 382. Attributing to "the Daily Mail as reported in the Guardian", would appear to be the suggestion from that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • If a reliable source believe an information is valid, we have to go by what the reliable sources say no matter where the information was originally published. Mottezen (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • This seems very straightforward to me. It’s clearly usable. We’re not using the DM as a “source”, and neither really are The Nation and Snopes, which are both very carefully reporting about a story involving the DM. This doesn’t mean it’s noteworthy, but if a few RSs are reporting on this then it probably is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It's clearly usable. For people trying to apply the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine, let's extend this logic. Some random guy raving online about how the US Treasury might make a trillion-dollar coin is unreliable. If a journalist writes an article using this person's claims as a source, is that automatically unreliable because all of this conversation stems from some guy's Internet blog comments? Or what about TMZ claims being repeated, or CoinDesk breaking the news on FTX? The job of someone writing a secondary source is to take the endless sea of varying quality information, and to condense the high quality information into something we can read. Our encyclopedia's WP:RS policy is based on outsourcing that task to journalists/academics/etc as much as possible as they are better at filtering info than us, and based on the description of the dispute above, it sounds like editors want to usurp the role of filtering/sourcing primary sources for the sole reason that "Daily Mail bad any source that discuss Daily Mail content also bad", which is illogical considering we don't apply this standard to secondary sources that discuss literal anonymous comments on blog posts. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 01:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
If a reliable source quotes a statement made in an unreliable source, we can accept that the statement is accurately reported. However, distinguish between "X told the Daily Mail" and "According to the Daily Mail, X told them."
Reliable sources frequently use sources that Wikipedia would not consider reliable. Presumably, their authors are able to assess the veracity of statements made. It's similar to what historians do. They assess a wide variety of evidence about events, and determine what happened. There are for example no written records from the Roman Empire that would meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Nonetheless, books about the Roman Empire may be reliable sources for Wikipedia because we assume the historians are able to analyze the existing records and form conclusions.
TFD (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ripley's Believe it or not

I was surprised to find no (substantial) mention of Ripley's Believe it or not in the archives, so I'll go ahead and ask. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihailo Tolotos, Ripley's was put forth as a WP:RS. Yea or nay? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Ripley's by its very nature is a sensationalist source designed to sell books rather engaged in rigorous fact checking. It's very marginal, and I would place no weight on its accuracy. I'm very unimpressed with the article honestly, the primary sources are a bunch of international non-greek newspapers from the 1930s regurgitating the same claims from each other without any independent corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
To be correct, Ripley's was designed to sell newspapers rather than books; what is being cited is the original Ripley's Believe It or Not newspaper panel, particularly one that ran in many papers on May 9, 1949. So this is material that ran in plenty of papers that we would normally consider reliable sources -- The (Spokane, WA) Spokesman-Review, The Miami News, The Ottawa Journal, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, etc. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've only known Ripley through their books, it still seems like a source even back then, that would be prone to sensationalism regardless of if they were trying to sell books or not, so my view still stands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
No, not a reliable source. Usually found on the comics page. Its purpose was/is entertainment. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Newspapers treat this as a syndicated comic strip and give it no fact checks, so I would consider it historically and presently unreliable in all cases, even when used by a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Yahoo! News, Noticel, El Mundo, Home News Tribune, and Hartford Courant

Are any of the following 5 bulleted sources not reliable?
I am trying to add sources to Jorge Otero Barreto (JOB) but 2 editors (btw, the first editor WP:CANVASSED the second here) object to my adding the 5 sources claiming the sources are not reliable.
The sources are:

  1. Yahoo! News wrote that Jorge Otero Barreto is "among the most decorated soldiers in the Vietnam War".
  2. Noticel calls him "one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War.".
  3. El Mundo. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1989.05.29. p.4. "Un heroe sin haber querido." Obed Betancourt. ""He is considered the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War in all of the United States"
  4. Home News Tribune. Somerville, NJ. 10 Nov 1996. p.2. "Heroes get honors: Perth Amboy pays homage to Puerto Rican veterans." Sean P. Carr. "Jorge Otero Barreto...was awarded an unmatched 38 citations."
  5. Hartford Courant. Hartford, CT. 28 Mar 1996. p.A16. "Puerto Rican March to Strive for Equality." Mike Swift. "Jorge Otero Barreto...decorated 38 times"

The article Jorge Otero Barreto already had other RS sources but, having stumbled upon more sources recently, I wanted to add them to the article.

The RS conflict started when I removed material here that was irrelevant to the subject of the article as it talked about soldier Robert L. Howard (RLH). The entry was, in fact, WP:OR via WP:SYNTH. Some back and forth reverts took place here , here, here and here until an admin here protected the article. Discussion occurred, but the 2 editors (User:Intothatdarkness and User:Mztourist) are in denial, i.e., refuse to admit the 5 sources above are reliable. So it was until it became clear that the 2 editors had an "old ax to grind" and that what really bothered them was something else:
(1) the mere existence of the article, which Intothatdarkness have opposed before (here), and
(2) the fact the statement "most decorated U.S. soldier" was in the article, which Mztourist had opposed before (here).
Their old sentiments then carried over into our discussion as evident here and here.

Thus, although the initial issue for the reverts was the irrelevant material about RLH in an article about JOB, the 2 editors soon stated here ("If the 'unsupported' claims about Barreto being "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War" are removed, there is NO NEED to mention Howard") and here ("Intothat and I have made it very clear that all references to Howard can be removed from this page if the non reliably sourced claims that Barreto was the "most decorated soldier" of the Vietnam War are removed") that they would agree to the removal of the irrelevant RLH material from the article if the statement "the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam war" was removed from the article as well. I had two problems with that:
(1) It's plain common sense that we don't add irrelevant material to articles, and
(2) If there are RS sources to support content that was already in the article, there should be no reason for anyone to object to the addition of such sources.
IAE, I never agreed to that deal but, in the spirit of reaching a resolution, I looked for additional sources still, to share with the 2 editors. Once found (the 5 above) I shared them, but then they changed their tune to [start arguing] that sources from "[[Newspaper#Geographical_scope_and_distribution|'local' papers]" weren't RSs because "'local' papers aren't subject to the same level of verification or fact-checking." Up to that point our discussion had been mostly factual and carried in good faith, but at that juncture it turned purely argumentative, thus opinionated, thus POV, thus one of the main reasons I came to this Board.

IAE, as another way of seeking a resolution, I had also suggested that perhaps the problem was it should read "among the most decorated" (i.e, "one of the most decorated") here but the 2 editors wouldn't agree to that either. That is, both editors were determined not to allow into the article even something that said as little as JOB was "among the most decorated US soldiers in the Vietnam War" and even if it was supported by the 5 sources above because they felt the sources weren't RS source. Thus a reason I am also coming to this Board. The discussion is found here.

Thus, my question, are the 5 bulleted sources above NOT reliable sources?

Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the false accusation of canvassing (the page was on my watchlist and I have been closely monitoring it since first finding it and being surprised by its extreme claims and weak sourcing) and the endless wikilawyering by User:Mercy11, I refer any interested reader to the source assessment table I prepared, which addresses my issues with each of the sources: Talk:Jorge Otero Barreto#Source assessment table. In summary: Yahoo news! copies a Military Times story which contains numerous factual errors about Barreto's decorations and so cannot be regarded as reliable; Noticel is an online Puerto Rican newspaper and so of questionable objectivity when discussing a local hero and story contains minimal details apparently copied from other sources; the El Mundo story is not available online and El Mundo apparently shut down in the early 1990s; Home New Tribune is a RS (I never said otherwise), but the story is not available online and the quote provided has been proven to be incorrect; and Hartford Courant is also a RS (again I never said otherwise), but the story is not available online and the quote provided does not support the claim that Barreto was “the most” or “one of the most” decorated soldier[s] of the Vietnam war. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The post is but a rehash of the unsupported claims at the discussion here:
  • "The source assessment table I prepared..."'......The table alluded to above is of your creation and lacks the support of any cites; it's your own opinion; it's WP:OR. You made your assessment based on your judgement; not a single source is provided to support your judgement calls there. Besides, we don't need a table to determine if a source is WP:RS or not.
  • "Yahoo news! copies a Military Times story which contains numerous factual errors about Barreto's decorations"........Is there a cite for that claim? No, of course, or when the claim was preseneted at the discussion, a cite would had been given. Again, failure to follow WP:V.
  • "Noticel is an online Puerto Rican newspaper and so of questionable objectivity when discussing a local hero".........local heroes are almost always best covered by local papers where most readership interested in the person would be located. It also sounds a biased that you point out it is "Puerto Rican", when you don't point out Home News Tribune and Hartford Courant are New Jersyans and Connecticut paper. Again failure to follow WP:NPOV.
  • "apparently copied from other sources".........More speculation; failure to follow WP:V.
  • "El Mundo story is not available online".........Does that make it not WP:RS? Seems to me that only shows you have no WP:RS to rebutt the cite is valid.
  • "El Mundo apparently shut down in the early 1990s"......What does that have to do with anything? Not only does that fail to equally point out the paper was in business 67 years (arguably, far more than the bulk of American newspapers) but it also seems to imply that stories from papers that shut down aren't reliable and, for that matter, consequentially, that old stories from current paper (NYT, WAPO, etc.) are unreliable. Failure to follow WP:NPOV.
  • "Home New Tribune...the story is not available online"...That is no defense; if I found that story, I was expecting anyone attempting to challenge it would also find it too -- or else not argue it baselessly.
  • "Hartford Courant...the story is not available online"......ditto on my comment above.
  • "the quote provided does not support the claim that Barreto was “the most” or “one of the most” decorated soldier[s] of the Vietnam war."......Excuse me? I am sorry but the quoted word there, "unmatched", has one and only one meaning in English: that no other person matches it.
Mercy11 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
"he's one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War." Not independent, but I think it can be considered reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are basing factual errors on in your analysis? For anyone that can read Spanish here is the El Mundo article. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Correct, and this link to the same El Mundo article take you to the precise wording which, when translated yields "The most decorated Vietnam War soldier in all of the United States".
Mercy11 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
It a brief summary of the paper, the same source says "Founded in 1919, El Mundo was a respected, conservative newspaper from Puerto Rico and was widely considered a key source for news". (the emphasis is mine).
Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Yahoo! News is on the list of perennially discussed reliable sources. Many of this outlet's publications are re-publications from other sources, though. In the example cited, it appears the content was first published via Military Times. I think it would be preferable to refer to the original source via https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2023/03/29/the-puerto-rican-rambo-who-went-on-200-combat-missions-in-vietnam/ ... my opinion. Mztourist has taken issue with this particular article, though, based on factual errors I can't myself vouch for. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    When a source re-publishes from elsewhere things can get tangled. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Agree better to use the original than the Yahoo News version. I presume Military Times is generally reliable (willing to be corrected on that). If Mztourist has identified errors in the article, that feels like original research to me; if other reliable sources contradict this one isn't it better to give both accounts neutrally? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Its very hard to view this as an actual source reliability question and not a content dispute which was mistakenly escalated here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Have to agree, this appears to be a content dispute. If the discussion can't be resolves on the article talk page editors should look into the other options available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    If the content dispute is about the reliability of the sources then it seems appropriate here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    As per Gråbergs Gråa Sång comment this is less about reliability than about the exact wording (the defence.gov source although primary would be reliable for "one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam War" or similar). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Without calling the reliability of these sources in question, I question the reliability of this statement in each of these sources. No one is counting how many decorations each soldiers got in each wars, this information is tabulated nowhere. The statement is thus not evidence-based, and therefore not a fact. It should thus not be mentioned in his article. A quick glance at Robert L. Howard's article shows he received more decorations than Otero Barreto. When I read the Yahoo News! article, I got the sense that this statement was merely an urban legend in his family and home community. Mottezen (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    I stand by everything in the source assessment table. As User:Mercy11 has finally provided a version of the El Mundo article, we can all now read what is says. "The most decorated Vietnam War soldier in all of the United States." is factually incorrect as has been repeatedly explained to Mercy11 previously in 2012 and again in the recent debate (Sidenote: this whole debate started when Mercy11 decided to remove competing information about other more decorated Vietnam War soldiers here:). Barreto apparently received 38 decorations, the highest of which were 2 Silver Stars, the 3rd ranking US award for valor. Robert L. Howard received over 50 decorations, including the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross, the 1st and 2nd ranking awards for valor, so both more and higher-ranking decorations. Hugh L. Mills Jr. received 3 Silver Stars and over 80 other decorations. So as the claim is demonstrably incorrect, the El Mundo story is not reliable (Sidenote from Mercy11's details about El Mundo says it closed in 1986 "the newspaper never fully recovered from the debilitating strikes of the 1980s and ongoing union difficulties." It did reopen in January 1988 before ceasing publication permanently in 1990). Home News Tribune's "an unmatched 38 citations" claim is also factually incorrect and so not reliable. As to whether Barreto was "one of the most decorated" that is open to debate, as there were numerous other soldiers awarded higher decorations (261 Medals of Honor and over 1000 Distinguished Service Crosses) and numerous soldiers awarded numerous decorations e.g. Joe Hooper (Medal of Honor) and David Hackworth. The most that can be said about Barreto is that he was "a highly decorated soldier", but Mercy11 will continue to wikilawyer and obfuscate this pushing obscure sources to try to keep the demonstrably wrong claims. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    You are counting decorations to arrive at whose "the most decorated". That's WP:OR. That's not how WP works.
    Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    There would be nothing wrong with having a passage like "several sources claim him to be the most decorated, which is in conflict with sources that provide an accounting of those decorations" or something along those lines. It's best not to ignore sources from reliable outlets outright, but rather put them into context ... in my opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a 'world fact book'. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    I would agree with that 100%, as I think every reasonable participant would, but with the condition that the other soldiers mentioned here (Howard, Mills, Hooper, Hackworth, etc.) also be equally qualified with similar "context" statements in their respective articles if they currently read the same "Most decorated of the Vietnam war" nonsense. That is, let's not pick on Jorge Otero Barreto alone and be fair across the board. All articles should mention all the RSs that say such as such and such and such, but any claims to "most decorated..." need to be in the context of "he has been called..." as opposed to "he is..." Ideally, no soldier should be called "the most decorated" but simply "among the most decorated" because that's basically where most sources are in agreement. Notwithstanding that, if a RS says the Mr. ZYX is the most decorated, then the source should, IMO, be included but preceded by a clear qualifier that source XYZ "has called him the most decorated such and such" in the context of the other soldiers as well. My point is let's include all RSs regardless of what they say, unless there exist another RS that directedly states that, for example, Robert L Howard is NOT the most such and such. To summarize, IMO, if we are going to use "the most decorated..." I don't see anything wrong putting them all (Howard, Mills, Hooper, Hackworth, Barreto, etc.) all in equal context. If we are not going to use "the most decorated..." nonsense, then we don't even need to put any of those soldiers "in context" because it's obvious that, if they are all considered "among the most decorated...", then no placing "in context" is needed.
    Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    Mercy11 has repeatedly objected to or removed "claim" from the article, along with any attempt to clarify or qualify the statements about "most decorated soldier." They appear to be intent on retaining the inaccurate information. Further, earlier versions of the article contained at least two badges/decorations that didn't even exist when Barreto was in the Army, so it's possible those two were included in the count (since no source provides a source for the tally it's difficult to say, but it does call the tally into question). Intothatdarkness 20:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Please provide diffs, not just allegations. Your insisted (my diffs for this are on my opening paragraphs herein) on keeping stuff about Howard in the JOB article unless I provide RSs, but once I provided the 5 RSs in this RSN above you changed your tune and then started making claims that "local" newspapers aren't valid RSs (I paraphrase). In addition, you too are, now, violating WP:OR; WP is no place to count any medals so we can make comparisons. That's WP:OR, sir/ madam.
    Mercy11 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: As an FYI, I have reverted a participant in this discussion, User:Mottezen, at Jorge Otero Barreto for unilaterally making changes to the article in question that directly impact this discussion yet s/he did not wait until this discussion closes.
Mercy11 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Mercy11 No. Howard, Mills and others demonstrably received more decorations than Barreto as shown by RS and you trying to put Barreto on the same basis as them is factually incorrect and misleading. This is RSN, you came here to argue that 5 sources are reliable, I have proven they are not given their factual mistakes. You claim that counting decorations to arrive at who is the most decorated is WP:OR, but it is WP:BLUE that numerous other soldiers received more and higher ranking decorations and accordingly that the sources claiming that Barreto was "most decorated" or received an "unmatched 38 citations" are plainly wrong and so are not reliable. Look at the Robert L. Howard page to see what RS looks like supporting Howard's status. There are no equivalent RS for Barreto. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Mztourist What you call "proven" isn't based on other RSs stating the 5 Reliable Sources here are wrong in their publication, but merely on your own counting of medals. If those 5 reliable sources (6 with Military Times) were wrong, certainly a journalist, researcher, or some other authority would had already provided a rebuke rather than waiting for an WP editor to do his own original research as you are, and publish such Original Research for the first time in WP, wouldn't you think?
Your tendency to original research --rather than merely reporting-- is again evident in your invitation to the Howard article as your Howard-related text above shows. But, yes, I have taken a look at the Robert L. Howard article and among the things I found is that within hours of my requesting RSs for the claims there, you entered the article and made changes. Two days later, I again entered the article and requested RSs, and again within hours you reentered the article and made edits. That's not bad. What's bad is that when an anonymous IP changed the first line of the Howard's article's lede from "a highly decorated..." to "the most highly decorated..." on 25 July 2021 (yes, 2 years ago), you turned a blind eye and, to this day 2 years later, you have done nothing about it. How do you explain that for an article you have invited me to perhaps a dozen times in that last 2 weeks? So your preference for Howard is what's clearly WP:BLUE and your discriminating against Otero Barreto is evident by your desire to leave the Howard article unaffected instead of treating all such highly decorated soldiers equally, that is, without the claim of "most highly decorated" from the ledes. That information, for Howard, Barreto and any other soldiers, should be left to lower, much, much lower in the body of the article, with little prominence, and preceded by a qualifier such as "he has been called the most decorated" (as opposed to "he is the most decorated"), with RSs to the quotes.
Mercy11 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Mercy11 50 decorations (Howard) is more than 38; 80 decorations (Mills) is more than 38, it doesn't get any Bluer. You came to RSN for views of 5 sources and those sources have been easily proven wrong on the facts. The suggestion that "certainly a journalist, researcher, or some other authority would had already provided a rebuke" is a nice idea, but unless there's a specific reason to do so, such research won't be undertaken and journalists will likely just crib from WP or accept whatever AI tells them. Its abundantly clear that you want to conflate your local hero Barreto with other more highly decorated soldiers, but you have failed to provide RS to support that. Mztourist (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
User:Mztourist, If there is a local hero in anyone's town who deserves credit, I am 110% for it no matter what "local" may entail, whether is your town or that of any other editor here, wouldn't you? Apparently not. Military Times, a respected publication on military matters, calls him "among the most decorated" (although not "the most decorated") as well. Your WP:OR goes against the findings of experts at Military Times which you, then, dismiss as "unreliable" on the basis of your WP:OR. Sorry, but that's not how WP works. Let's talk about RSs, OK? Who has RSs? I have those 6 RSs. What RSs do you have that DIRECTLY disproves the 6 RS's on JOB? What RS do you have that says something like "Military Times is wrong in saying Otero Barreto is NOT among the most highly decorated"? I am not sure why this simple question is so difficult to get across to you. Your only "reliable source", so far, is yourself: comparing and doing your own counting and drawing your own conclusions based on your own counting, and then calling all other true RSs (the 6 above) unreliable on that allegation that your comparisons (aka, your WP:OR) demonstrates the 6 RSs I presented are all wrong. Mercy11 (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Mercy11 As already detailed in my source assessment table, Yahoo News (one of the sources that you brought here to RSN), copied Military Times, so Military Times is not a 6th source. As also detailed in that table, the Military Times story contains factual errors about Barreto's decorations, so its not reliable. I am not sure why you are unwilling to accept documented facts and plain numbers that show that Barreto was not the most decorated soldier, apparently insisting that an RS must explicitly state that in order to satisfy you. Rather than continuing to debate and berate me, why don't you stop and see what other Users have to say here? Presumably that's why you came to RSN, because you weren't convincing anyone on the article Talk Page where there is a consensus against your assertions and non RS. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that extra explanatory note. It seems Military Times isn't viewed in as high esteem as I regarded them and I am good with that. Mercy11 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
To pull out a point from this discussion: in deciding whether a source is reliable, obviously editors can do their own research to reach conclusions. This is totally different from the kind of original research that is forbidden by WP:OR, which is about article content. If Mztourist wanted to write in the article "Credulous news reports have repeated the legend that Barreto was the most-decorated soldier in the Vietnam War, but Howard and Mills received more and higher decorations", that would be a massive violation of WP:OR. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with arguing, on a talk page or noticeboard, that an article published by a standard news org is not reliable, based on personal research into the background and context of the article. (And of course other editors might or might not find such an argument compelling.) --JBL (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The Hartford Courant is a very old and as far as I am aware well-respected newspaper. I am a little perplexed as to how it could be called fundamentally into question. Of course the question is reliable for what. Reliable for the statement that someone is the "most decorated" - why wouldn't it be? That seems like a statement that an editor would've reviewed doesn't it? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
    The Courant article appears to no longer be available online (at least through the link contained in the references section of the article), but the article doesn't cite if for the "most decorated" claim. It only cites it for a tally of awards. Intothatdarkness 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Evening Standard

Emma Loffhagen's 4 May Evening Standard article Matt Healy: The controversies and love life of The 1975 singer and Taylor Swift’s rumoured new man copies wholesale from Matty Healy. I've emailed the publisher to alert them of said plagiarism, but should its reliability be reviewed? Launchballer 20:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is required, the article can't be used as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. So reliability is moot. Earwigs analysis for anyone interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I meant for the Evening Standard generally.--Launchballer 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not only poor journalism but also shoddy editting, and Evening Standard articles should certainly be held with more skepticism due to it, but one instance wouldn't be enough to change the rating of the whole source. Saying that this article is part of Insider the ES's gossip section, using such articles in BLPs is questionable. I suggest waiting to see how they handle this, and if this is a one off or a trend. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • News sources print dozens of stories a day. Finding one that is a problem is such a tiny problem, it doesn't bear dealing with. Now, if you have evidence, in the form of outside analysis by others, that a source like this is regularly doing problematic things (and not just "I found a second bad story" but "Here's an analysis by someone outside of Wikipedia that does these kinds of analyses for a living, and this is what they had to say), then I think we have reason to have a discussion. Playing "gotcha" with sources one bad story at a time is not a great way to deal with them. We shouldn't be doing our own analysis of sources, we should rely on the status of the source outside of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayron32 and ActivelyDisinterested: it's good to log this issue and we should watch out for a pattern but not enough in itself for a policy change. In general, the "Insider" section is made up of gossipy pieces that mix opinion, speculation and reportage and are not good material for BLPs. Note: the Standard's political content has long-standing bias issues relating to its proprietator and editor-in-chief, as well as a recent scandal relating to corporate paid-for coverage, so it's not a strong source, but remains borderline generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: EurAsia Daily/EA Daily deprecation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is rough consensus to deprecate due to EA Daily's frequent Putin-aligned falsifying of facts. While one participant argued for GUnreliable designation instead, citing the source's usage for unpolitical claims, all but two participants were unswayed, countering that such usage were usually replaceable and that EA Daily is too dishonest to trust. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

While multiple pro-Putin disinformation sites are included in the deprecated sources list (Sputnik or RT as examples), I've noticed one glaring omission: EurAsia Daily (also called EA Daily), known for promoting disinformation and outright falsehoods that benefit the Russian government's positions, is not included and is used as a source on some articles. I believe that it should be deprecated, and have a laundry list of articles from other sources describing it as uncredible, listed below, with the specific examples of problems:

Sources describing information by EA Daily:

Sources describing EA Daily's pro-Putin position:

Overall, I think that the sheer breadth of coverage on the site's activities establishes a solid case for deprecating EA Daily. However, any further input on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Mupper-san (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know this site and have never used it, so I've looked at the first two examples. In the first one (Fake: Ukrainian cities Kharkiv, Mykolayiv and Odesa Want to “Return to Russia”) EA Daily quotes Putin's advisor Sergei Markov. While the claim itself is false, Markov definitely has been saying it a lot (likely affecting Putin's understanding of the situation) and EA Daily reports it correctly.
The second example is about the Ukrainian refugees in Europe (). They only mention EA Daily as an example of a pro-Kremlin media that does report on the successful integration of refugees ("Даже российские медиа порой сообщают об успехах в интеграции украинских беженцев в местные европейские рынки труда (см. ниже пример статьи на EADaily, пересказывающей содержание нидерландского NLTimes).") contrasting it with the dominant narrative of the failing integration.
Maybe it would be better to provide 2-3 really obvious examples which prove that it needs to be deprecated. Alaexis¿question? 07:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That's indeed fair. However, that being said, I'd argue that the second StopFake article and the EAP Fakes page both indicate significant examples of pro-Putin fake news, as does the reference to George Soros and the CIA plotting to overthrow Robert Kocharyan.
Mupper-san (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow, the Bandera canonisation piece is a real fake news. Definitely should be at least Unreliable. Alaexis¿question? 09:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Unreliable, to fully deprecate would be a step too far. It I oppose fully deprecating as the source may still prove useful for references to material that is not controversial, political, or geopolitical. The use of the source in Mihai Eminescu is an example of a non-controversial use. Jack4576 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per the above, as propaganda, conspiracy theories and fabrication. We shouldn't use this source for anything, including ABOUTSELF. We have 125 uses in article space at present, so it's not a hypothetical problem - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Oppose , we should mark the sources as unreliable instead. A full deprecation would be excessive, I think. Some of the article space uses are uncontroversial and are seemingly okay. See for example the use in Mihai Eminescu to merely reference the location of a memorial bench. If we are to fully exclude sources on the basis that they contain propaganda, etcetera, English Wikipedia will struggle to obtain references to non-controversial information regarding that sphere of the world. Wikipedia's well-documented systemic biases are already bad enough as it is. Jack4576 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per the above evidence. And kill with fire any of 125 uses. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 12:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Oppose not all of the 125 uses are sinister. See for example the uncontroversial use to note the location of a memorial bench in Mihai Eminescu. Perhaps it would be best for any references in relation to politics, geopolitics, or the war in Ukraine to be removed however. Jack4576 (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sounds fair, I didn't thought about that. Of course, such uses are mostly ok. I tried to find some other source about that Spanish memorial, and it's pretty hard. So I'm leaning more to downgrading to Unreliable for anything controversial+political. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 14:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    There are, indeed, other sources on Eminescu's memorial in Spain, however; notably one from RRI and one from the Romanian embassy in Madrid. So, more reliable sources in this case do exist, and I think that EA Daily does not exactly meet standards for reliability given the flat-out false claims about a Moldovan-Ukrainian territorial exchange and the canonisation of Bandera.
    Mupper-san (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Adding onto this, I'm going to note the first addendum to point one on the "Effects of Deprecation" section of WP:DEPS: "Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist." This applies for the Eminescu statue, as not one, but two more reliable sources indicate it. Additionally, it makes outlandish claims even further from what one would normally consider politics; this EADaily article (which is currently cited in the article domestic violence in Russia, I will note) is used to cite the claim that the statistic of 14,000 dead women from domestic violence is widely-circulated. This is evidenced by the Wikipedia article in the next paragraph by listing multiple examples, while the EA Daily article uses this as an example of "proof" that "Western press" is exaggerating domestic violence in Russia. The matter is similarly discussed by Radio Liberty, a more reliable source than EA Daily, and is not used as basis for an outlandish claim.
    So, broadly speaking, this is not simply a problem with politics (at least in what I would think is commonly regarded as politics by Wikipedia users), but it includes issues like domestic violence, and this is the vast majority of cases in which EA Daily is sourced. The Eminescu example is more of an exception, and even then, it's not the sole site which notes the existence of the Eminescu statue in Spain.
    Mupper-san (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    To be honest I would regard domestic violence as a political issue. Particularly in the context of comparisons between Russia & the west, or responding to criticisms by the west. That conflict in narrative is inherently political/controversial. As I'm sure you appreciate, the line as to what is political and what's not isn't a bright one.
    The statute example is but one example. I'm sure there is a fair volume of non-controversial information about Russia that could be gleaned from EADaily; however use of it as a source must be qualified as unreliable especially on controversial topics. It would be overkill to impose a general prohibition on its use. Intelligently being able to parse unreliable sources is one of the core functions of Wikipedia's volunteer editors and I think it is one that is best left to the community on a case by case basis. Jack4576 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    You're exactly correct that domestic violence is a political matter, and much more in the former Soviet Union than the west, which is what I was getting at. But on your bigger point, could the same not be said for other Russian publications, such as Sputnik and RT, which are both deprecated? Generally, if something is truly significant, One would think that other, more reliable sources would report on it, which is noted by the "Effects of Deprecation" (though I do admit that there are exceptions, such as exclusive pieces). Furthermore, I don't think that that Russia is particularly starved of media coverage; much of what EA Daily discusses could likely be found on other sources if it's true. This, in part, loops back to the previous point, and it must be questioned whether or not we can trust EA Daily for information on Russia, given it has a track record of lying about other nations in Russia's "near abroad".
    Moving away from that, A quick glance at the usage of EA Daily as a source indicates that most examples are less like the statue of Eminescu and more politically-focused. There are certain instances where one could justify using it, just as one could justify using other deprecated sources, but I would argue that this is adequately covered by the fact that registered users are able to publish edits that contain deprecated sources, following a warning. Deprecation wouldn't totally stop the usage of the source, as blacklisting would, but rather prevent it from being proliferated and abused by bad actors on English Wikipedia, such as Russian government IPs.
    Mupper-san (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I concede your comparisons to Sputnik and RT, and while its of no relevance here, I also oppose the full deprecation of those sources too for the exact same reasons as I oppose full deprecation here. (I note that such decisions aren't a binding precedent). I wasn't an active Wikipedian during those discussions.
    Russia may not be 'starved' of media coverage, but that is not the point. The point is that a substantial English language source for non-controversial information would be effectively lost, which would be a loss to the Wikipedia project. It is better to qualify the use of such sources; both for the avoidance of bias and to maximise the amount of relevant useful sources that can be used by good faith editors.
    The problem is that a full deprecation means that these sources can no longer be used to demonstrate notability, and is -generally- prohibited (even for registered users). If we are to deprecate the source, it should be made clear that the deprecation is only in respect of political matters, or in respect of matters that might intersect with propaganda efforts. Jack4576 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    I've looked at a page's worth of the 125 uses. Most of them seem to be in controversial areas (Nordstream, Wagner, the Syrian war...) and the few where it used for uncontroversial material could easily be sourced elsewhere, so I support the "kill with fire" proposal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Deprecate - as a shady propaganda outlet for Putin's regime, known to publish falsehoods. What it prints simply can't be trusted, and it's therefore an inappropriate source. Jr8825 • Talk 16:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a lot of examples to go through, so I picked one, "LRT FACTS. Are Lithuanian resorts doomed without Russian and Belarusian tourists?" (Lithuanian National Radio and Television). Considering that according to Tourism in Lithuania, over 25% of their tourists came from those two countries in 2016 (the last year reported), it's fair comment that banning their entry into Lithuania could seriously hurt their tourist industry. In fact, according to the European Travel Commission, "The slowest destinations to recover were in Eastern Europe due to the war in Ukraine and lack of Russian visitors to destinations heavily reliant on this market. Sharpest declines are observed in Finland (-38%), Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania (all -42%)." (16.02.2023) TFD (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    It doesn't really matter if the general thrust of this EADaily story might be true; it matters if it uses made up facts. The LRT piece alleges that EADaily quoted a mayor who categorically told LRT he hadn't spoken to EA and the thing he was quoted as saying wasn't true. The fact that it's plausible makes it more dangerous not less. Clearly unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MIA: Encyclopedia of Marxism

Is the MIA (Marxists Internet Archive) Encyclopedia of Marxism a reliable/good source for the following text in Marietta Shaginyan?

She was one of the "fellow travelers" of the 1920s led by the Serapion Brotherhood and became one of the most prolific communist writers experimenting in satirico-fantastic fiction.

Link to page being cited: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/s/h.htm#shaginyan-marietta
After looking around here (on RSN), there seem to be mixed opinions on the quality and reliability of this source. These bios in particular appear to be written by volunteers with no declared editorial process , and this specific bio is quite short, but it seems to be reasonably accurate. I’ve not edited at Wikipedia for a while and am hoping to clean up this article to jump back in, so taking the very first source here to double check before embarking on a deep dive. Thanks in advance, postleft on mobile! postleft on mobile! 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

MIA isn't top tier, as it doesn't make clear its editorial process or authorship of its contents, but I find it to be consistently reliable: the authors of its own content are subject matter experts on areas where mainstream coverage is usually missing. Unless there is reason to doubt specific material, I'd give it benefit of the doubt. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Per the about page (which also offers some clarity on its authorship) contributions have to be submitted, and this makes it clear the editor has final say over contributions. The current editor is Andy Blunden, who appears to have published several works in the subject matter area. It obviously has a particular bias. Overall it seems reliable, although a better source should be found if the details are contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist these two sites

"China Anti-cult [zh]" and "Kaiwind [zh]" have spared no effort to carry out a large number of politically derogatory propaganda activities against groups disliked by the CCP authorities, especially Christian groups. At least it's a serious violation of Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP.

Links to both sites are listed below:

ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Where are the two sources being cited, and what are they being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
kaiwind.com has been blacklisted in enwiki. But the problem with the other site seems to be much more serious than the previous one. For precedents prohibited for violating the BLP, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316#GNews.org_-_deprecate?. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I asked a question. You haven't answered it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Someone will add this article to an article related to "Falun Gong", proving that he is a "cult". But the Falun Gong group is actually being persecuted by the CCP authorities. For now, Falun Gong is legal at least in countries or regions such as Taiwan, the United States, and the European Union. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Although I am against the ideology of Falun Gong, because I am a Protestant Christian. But freedom of religion is a basic human right, including Falun Gong. And this site goes out of its way to belittle or attack this group. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be asking that a website be blacklisted just in case someone tries to cite it? I don't think we do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
We cant deprecate a source simply because you believe someone may use it to call a group, which opposes race mixing, believes their leader is a living god who can fly, and believes that invisible other-dimensional copies of their leader monitor them, a cult. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia of Latvia a reliable source?

The Encyclopedia of Latvia (Latvian: Latvijas enciklopēdija) is the national encyclopedia of Latvia. An English version of this article has not yet been created. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source? This is the link to the electronic version of the encyclopedia and the home page of the website. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I want to create an article named Torņakalns Memorial to Victims of Communist Terror. Because the main source for this article is this encyclopedia, there are some other sources, you can refer to the Latvian version. I'm not sure if this article meets the criteria for inclusion in the English Wikipedia? ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
When in doubt, check the about page. As a national encyclopedia under the banner of the National Library of Latvia and with a full-time professional editorial board of experts, I would say it seems pretty clearly reliable. As usual, even reliable and academic sources may have a bias/bent, so just be aware of extraordinary claims which promote a national mythos. Curbon7 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Curbon7's assessment.Onel5969 TT me 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and the Swiss Bankers

Daily Game

National Health organizations and news sources for Endemic COVID-19

Is this source reliable for citing this claim?

Indian Times/Indian Times Express

Commentary that calls out UGC in reliable sources

Is 1905.com considered a reliable source?

RfC: Is Tweakers.net a reliable source?

Origin of the Romanians

RfC: Wccftech articles

Deletion discussion of Alderney UFO sighting

Masalha source

Kings and Generals YouTube channel

Request filter for bilibili.com

Theanine

Request filter for baijiahao.baidu.com

Routesonline.com

Reliable sources for UFO sightings in Thailand

Are womenwriteaboutcomics.com and sophia.stkate.edu reliable sources?

Rfc: RepublicanChina.org

Asian Boss

Academic paper finds flaws in the practice of evaluating reliability at the source level

Is native-languages.org a reliable source?

Groong.com

Javad Nazari

Is Vande Bharat reliable and/or major?

Reliablity of Sources on Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974

Is volcano.si.edu a reliable source

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI