Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 519

hello are these sources considered reliable in context of this edit

''Katoor dynasty traces its origin to Ayub Baba an adventurer from Khorasan who came to Chitral in 1520.^[1][2] He was son of Mirza Kamran and grandson of Babur.^[2][3]'^[4]

this edit was reverted by @Sutyarashi per these source being non rs Dragon22121 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with them. The University of the Punjab (sources 2,3,4) is very much a proper university and the "Research Society of Pakistan" is part of it. Timothy Venning (source 1) has multiple academic publications to his name. WaggersTALK 07:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks i am reverting it since the user hasnt given me any sufficient reason or tried to reply Dragon22121 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do be careful, because even if you're right, edit warring is not advised. Try to start a discussion in Talk:Katoor dynasty as well. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi

Rustin times, an LGBTIQ+ Nigerian blog is being disputed and believed not to be a reliable source (because it’s not on Nigerian reliable sources noticeboard) and I will love any editor to vet their content. It’s a website I have known since 2020 (for me) to publish queer content. Obinna Tony (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Passing by and wanted to pitch in here with some observations for others to make more informed judgments of. In my sample of 10 random, recent articles from the website (across all their sections, including news and op-ed), all but two of them were written by Timinepre Cole. Looking up her name, I've found one article written by her in Al Jazeera (source) and one in Teen Vogue (source), and she seems to have been interviewed in Dazed here and Vice here. The other two were not attributed to any author beyond "The Rustin Times".

Looking a bit deeper, it seems like this source used to have Harry Itie as its editor-in-chief (per his website here and as verified by some of the older articles like this one -- "Boye Black" seems to be a pseudonym for Itie, given that https://therustintimes.com/author/boye/ redirects to his bio). I also found articles credited to "Roi Petite" and "Love Matters Naija", the latter of which seeming to be a separate Nigerian organization. It's unclear who their present editor-in-chief is or when Itie stepped down, and no new articles have been posted since 2024.

I'm not too convinced of its reliability myself, since it does seem like a WP:SPS for the most part. I'll leave it primarily to others to discuss, though. Leafy46 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

This is what self published blog usage says, "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"

This means it can be used in a case where the publishers are experts in this case and this source is contested for being used on a Nigerian LGBTIQ+ articles. Obinna Tony (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Obinna Tony, you do not conclude or force words into editors. That being said, there has not been any consensus herein. It is still an unreliable source as the case may be. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Offering context to editors based on where it's being contested isn't forcing words. You are the one doing it with your last sentence. Two editors established it's WP:SPS and one also alluded that the writer is a expert in the subject. And I'm offering context based on what self-published blog reliability says. Obinna Tony (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hard to say this seems more than a WP:SPS. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Found on the article Francesco del Bene, the magazine publisher Aspire Navigators. I'm assuming you can just contact them and they'll make a whole e-magazine with you on the cover? --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Another source there has the title "Francesco del Bene: The Silent Force Behind Global Finance and Institutional Stability". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What is this site...? https://aspirenavigators.com/serge-deuvletian-the-man-who-learned-purpose-through-struggle/ — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Flicking through a few of their articles they appear, at least in part, to be AI generated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction. The link was to World Business Insights - both of which feature a man named "Serge Deuvletian" on the front page. A search for that name also leads to Achiever Magazine. Seems they're all part of a network? --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 12:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the latest magazine cover from World Business Insights is this, and the latest Aspire Navigator is this, I don't think it matters which one it is.
Either they're both PR outlets picking up the same business, or they're the same business with multiple outlets. Probably reliable for details that would be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, but I don't think it's independent of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

All three of these websites are basically self-promo AI written spam garbage and should be spam blacklisted.

• https://worldbusinessinsights.com
• https://www.achiever-magazine.com
• https://aspirenavigators.com

These also appear to be in the same network:

• https://globalentrepreneurinsights.com
• https://impaakt.co
• https://theexecutivelens.com

Blacklist them all. qcne (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sukenik, Danielle (11 April 2025), Pornography may be commonplace, but a growing body of research shows it causes lasting harm to the brain and relationships, The Conversation, doi:10.64628/aai.rpkqq49d6

Is this reliable for ? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC) tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As an attributed claim, maybe. But is it making a medical claim? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a doctor writing it, based on cites to medical studies which seem well-received. Is that sort of thing MEDRS suitable? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really as that is why MEDRS sourcers are peer-reviewed medical journals. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Colin: if memory serves you are well versed in MEDRS. Does this topic/claim fall into the remit of a "medical claim"? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The policy does not provide that it is required to be a medical journal.

"Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

The Conversation article meets this standard. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not a WP:BESTSOURCE for this claim, which would be something published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Katzrockso (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The papers that paper cites seem well received? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It (the edit) conflates between pornography and PPU. The post conflates between correlation and causation. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think The Conversation meets the standard for MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Marks, David F.; Murray, Michael; Estacio, Emee Vida (2018). Health Psychology: Theory, Research and Practice. SAGE Publications. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-5264-1206-5. Retrieved 7 November 2024. The majority of studies in this field are cross-sectional surveys of low quality.

Unless this major flaw gets addressed, there is no way to know for sure. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This is from 2018. The Conversation article cites several studies that are more resent than this. It also compares a 2022 study with a 2005 study and shows how the impact is getting worse. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The irony is that the YouTube video included at that page is seven years old, but it is a lot more epistemically responsible, and honestly tells us what it is unknown. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Is the youtube video in the Conversation article? PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For the record, the video is What Does Pornography Do to Your Brain? on YouTube. Starring Hank Green. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says the article is untrue? Otherwise, it's OR.

It's a systemic review of the studies that we currently have. It is written in a reputable journal that publishes subject matter experts. She certainly is a subject matter expert. Due to the potentially harmful effects, there probably will never be a "double-blind" study showing that pornography is harmful so despite the significant amount of studies, holding a reliable source to a "causation" standard is unrealistic.

"Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies to address certain questions, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, the question is not whether it's "true", but whether it complies with WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined above (reputable source, subject matter expert with a systemic review of the studies), it does comply with MEDPRS. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A journalistic article it not the same as a systematic review published in a peer-reviewed journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As outlined above, that is not the standard required by the policy. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to trust my own judgement over what is MEDRS. The problem is that you're pushing sources that say that pornography, is harmful, when high quality sources say that the academic evidence of harm is mixed/inconclusive. The first page of the book "Fifty years of academic research on pornography" (freely available on researchgate) (2022) says:

Lobbyists argue that pornography has negative effects, including that it: "increases problematic sexual activity among teens, normalizes violence against women, contributes to sex trafficking, causes problems in intimate relationships, and is ‘potentially biologically addictive.’" (Khazan, 2021) However, despite this vigorous and visible campaigning against pornography, Khazan notes that the evidence on the issue is not clear: ‘Whether porn is actually harming the health of adults who watch it is frustratingly hard to determine’ (Khazan, 2021, np). Despite the assertions of campaigners that pornography has straightforward effects, it is difficult to get a clear overview of what academic research tells us about the relationship between the consumption of sexually explicit materials and healthy sexual development.

The abstract for the first chapter of "Pornography and Public Health", published in 2021 (accessible here) says:

Pornography is being indicted as a public health crisis in the United States and elsewhere, but the professional public health community is not behind the recent push to address pornography as a public health threat. While pornography may not be contributing directly to mortality or acute morbidity for a substantial percentage of people, it may be influencing other public health problems, such as sexual violence, dating abuse, compulsive behavior, and sexually transmitted infections. However, the evidence to support pornography as a causal factor is mixed, and there are numerous other factors that have more strongly established associations with these outcomes of interest.Throughout history, repressive forces have inflated the charges against sexually explicit material in order to advance a morality-based agenda.

Clearly, something more nuanced is needed here than just "pornography harmful". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that one book is the definitive source of the effect of pornography? What reliable source do you have that makes this more reliable than The Conversation? Again, I'm citing a reliable source per wikipedia guidelines with a subject matter expert reviewing multiple studies. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The post simply reflects her own opinion, nothing more than that. It is not a peer reviewed scientific article in any meaningful sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, the 2022 study is evidence of use, not evidence of harm. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. This is increasingly looking like trying to jam in a source that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. And there are good reasons to want to be strict on this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The study references children viewing pornography (10 and under). It is well-established that children viewing pornography is harmful. She cites 12 studies in total so it's not like her research rests on one study. The Conversation article demonstrates the "growing body of research" statement. I'm fine if you want to clarify that it pertains to "problematic" use. I think that's a fair compromise but the article belongs in the wikipedia article. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, the issue here is that the Conversation source is not WP:MEDRS compliant. Furthermore, the 2022 study should not be used in any ways that indicate WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What is the basis for it not being compliant? It's a reliable, secondary source, authored by a subject matter expert that is a review of several studies. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It is well-established that children viewing pornography is harmful. Nope, it's not. That's a moralistic assumption, not a result of empirical science.

There are tentative conclusions that watching pornography could be bad for minors. But hard evidence is direly lacking.

What did Zillmann manage to show? Minors exposed to porn become liberals. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. The Conversation is none of these. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's narrowing the definition to "ideal."

This is the definition:

"Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It is grossly insufficient for a broad claim that pornography is harmful to the human brain such as what you wanted to include and where we would reasonably expect WP:BESTSOURCES. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

But when I click on the reliable sources, The Conversation comes up.... I don't see how a reliable source, with a subject matter expert, summarizing 12 different studies that show a growing body of research as harmful is grossly insufficient?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/all/The_Conversation PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDASSESS, it's a weak source (e.g. no peer review). While the claim you made is bigger than life.

It's simply an opinion article with a list of sources, not a systematic review.

Willoughby and Dover explicitly do not make a causal claim. Same applies to Guidry et al. And to Andrie et al. And to Kühn and Gallinat.

Conclusion: by positing a causal relationship from porn to lasting harm, Sukenik has misread those papers. And that's a leap of faith, not logical reasoning. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 And this is precisely why we don't use weaker sources for broad medical claims. Simonm223 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I got pinged for my view on MEDRS. All reliability tests must be viewed in the context of what text one wishes to insert in an article. There are two claims: "it causes long-lasting harm to relationships and to the brain." The first is not a WP:BIOMEDICAL claim. I'm sure adultery causes long-lasting harm to relationships, but I don't think anyone here would reach for The Lancet in order to source that idea. An article in The Conversation written by "a licensed marriage and family therapist" may well be adequate for that claim, though editors at the article should weigh a variety of sources to determine if this appears to be a consensus view. We aren't talking about a rare disease or obscure fetish here, so there should be no shortage of good sources. The second claim is that it causes harm to the brain. That is most certainly within the remit of MEDRS. It may also be an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, both in terms of that policy clause but also generally: this isn't some chemical or virus that passes into the brain to damage it. For example, if someone claimed reading science fiction caused Alzheimer's, you'd be deeply sceptical, and that's without "reading science fiction" having any moral controversy. So all the more, we should demand the best sourcing.

But the problem for the Conversation author's assertion that this activity changes the brain is the age old correlation is not causation and the source they cite explicitly says However, the observed volumetric association with PHs in the striatum could likewise be a precondition rather than a consequence of frequent pornography consumption. The paper does propose mechanisms whereby this could be an effect rather than precondition, but separating the two is hard. It isn't impossible though, and it is possible for the scientific community to be convinced of an effect (smoking causes cancer) without double-blind randomised controlled trials. What we ideally want, is a MEDRS source stating this causation link is accepted wisdom. Whereas here we have editors trying to extract that from a single author in a non-MEDRS source citing a piece of research on 64 men's brains from over a decade ago. And that research explicitly notes that causation is quite possibly a mirage.

PerseusMeredith, when tgeorgescu noted the source might be wrong to assert that link, you said Do you have a reliable source that says the article is untrue? Otherwise, it's OR. That's not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. There are all sorts of claims made in potential sources that do not have their negative counterpart in reliable sources, but which we will not include on Wikipedia. This is nothing to do with OR. Indeed, editors arguing things on talk pages never has anything to do with OR. Editors conducting research and drawing conclusions only risks OR when claims appear on the article page. This asymmetry in claims (where a contested claim doesn't often have its rebuttal in reliable sources) is very common and we deal with it by insisting on the highest quality when editors disagree.

If this was an uncontentious claim, it wouldn't be so bad, but it clearly is contentious. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/The Conversation limits its reliability to "the authors' areas of expertise". The author here is a relationship therapist, and I'd say the effects of pornography on relationships is within that domain (with the caveat about weighing a variety of sources). But physical and biochemical effects on the brain? No. -- Colin°^Talk 08:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my MEDRS concerns were also about the "harmful to the brain" part rather than the "harmful to relationships" part. I wouldn't include the relationships part either but that's simply because the opinion of the author is likely undue to make wikivoice statements about what is or is not harmful to relationships and not because of any fundamental reliability concern. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

ERI Economic Research Institute is being used as an argument for justifying that Luxembourgish football clubs are professional clubs. This appears to be based on https://www.erieri.com/salary/job/football-player/luxembourg

However, after some searching online, I am led to believe that as the data is an aggregate of internal and third-party surveys, and not public records, it fails Wikipedia's "verifiability and editorial oversight" standards.

Can anyone confirm or deny this? I am trying to understand why another user is trying to insist that because of this data, all clubs in Luxembourg are professional, when the local consensus is that only a few top-flight clubs are semi-professional, which all others simply amateur Phil 12:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if we accepted the source as reliable it doesn’t make that claim and it’s a daft argument anyway. Presumably the site has an estimate of the average salary of a uk footballer, and yet semiprofessional and amateur clubs exist in England albeit competing in lower divisions than the professional sides. Morwen (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Luxembourgish not Luxembourgeois?! ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

source compared to google estimated wage of "lower pro level" player, confirms top division clubs are that category;

mr phil had a 4 years old source (private lawyer article covering national players leaving local league early) regarding league status, but latest source shows simply that clubs sustain themselves, and any opposite club source will be respected

thanks and best regards ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The latest source, erieri, does not state that clubs or players are professional, semi-professional, or amateur. Taking the total average wage and assuming all clubs are therefore professional is "original research" and your opinion. There is no fact cited. Phil 06:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://wsfc7.com/football-salary-in-europe-by-league-from-amateur-to-professional-2026/

They fall under "lower professional status" monthly salary, discussion nowhere near proving opposite ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35484-17 This is not the place to discuss your assumptions. See Admin Noticeboard, Project Football, or your old talk page. This is to discuss the more general question of the erieri website's reliability. Phil 16:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the inference goes beyond what the source actually states. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't make the claim that the editor you're referring to is making. That said, I would consider the source itself to be generally reliable for salary, cost of living, and executive compensation data, but not much else. I read through their methodology tab and found it to be pretty rigorous, enough so to be trusted by a number of companies of various sizes. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me note that this is relevant here given the "Broaden the range of permissible sources" element of that proposed project. What do they want to broaden to: Reddit? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to be coy about this, Sanger has been very clear elsewhere online about about his intent. The purpose is to better align Wikipedia to his own personal politics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Actively, as I said on my response there, I was unaware of the political issues. All I knew about Sanger was that he was the fellow who thought Wikipedia would never work. So with a track record like that... Will they succeed? I would bet 5 to 1 against it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't comment on Reddit, but in various interviews Sanger has stated we should cite Breitbart and Fox News, and that we should be directly citing religious texts for article content more. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Which ones? Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• The speech wars come for Wikipedia --Politico
• MAGA Melts Down Over Wikipedia ‘Blacklist’ --Yahoo News

"His 'Nine Theses' proposals would partly make Wikipedia more like a freewheeling social media site, with features allowing the public to rate articles, upload competing articles and post X-style community notes. Sanger also argues that sources like Fox News and Breitbart should be on more equal footing with the New York Times."

Also see: User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Can Be Biased On "Disputed" Issues, Says Co-Founder Larry Sanger - NDTV - Sanger suggested that one of the key challenges lies in Wikipedia's heavy reliance on what it considers "reliable sources". According to him, "A lot of Hindu sources are essentially blacklisted. One is not able to use them on Wikipedia. And this is not just a Hindu thing, either. The same is true of a lot of Israeli nationalist sources or just Christian confessional sources. These things are ruled out. And then there are other policies that matter."

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

For the second point, no. Religious texts are primary sources, and are often authored by numerous scribes over a few years. In many cases, there is already tons of analysis from scholars, see for instance Textual criticism of the New Testament. We should strongly favor secondary scholarship, as ancient manuscripts were not always copied faithfully (cf. Interpolation (manuscripts)). And wasn't Larry Sanger banned from Wikipedia recently? SVG-image-maker (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeing Bubbleblabber used as a source on some articles; looking at the site, it feels amateurishly put together, and feels like a blog without a clear editorial policy. What do you think? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a page with a list of contributors but all the articles on the front page are from the Editor-in-Chief so looks like a de facto self-published blog. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree this is closer to a blog than anything else, but I do see recent posts from other paid contributors. I would personally treat this as an okay source for verifying straightforward factual details about the covered shows, but I wouldn't treat it as a reliable source for notability standards or include its editorial views (especially if those clash with other reliable sources). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Some previous comment at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#How_reliable_is_Bubbleblabber_as_a_source? and Talk:Battle_for_Dream_Island/Archive_1#Should_Bubbleblabber_be_removed?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The site is WP:BLOG and should not be considered an acceptable source. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

In Talk:Clair Blank/GA1, @Usernameunique has used Yellowback Library as a source. As far as I can tell, it's a privately published journal, apparently not peer reviewed. I can't find any mentions of it in ProQuest or JSTOR, but Username claims it's the gold standard in this area. Opinions? RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not this? https://archives.lib.usf.edu/repositories/2/resources/396 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems reliable to me. It's a magazine that seemingly has editorial review, a la WP:KIRKUS, and I'm finding mentions and lots of citations to it in RS books , lots of WP:USEBYOTHERS. You wouldn't find this kind of magazine on JSTOR usually. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be the Susan Anita Grossman in question. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yellowback Library is a monthly periodical that's been running since 1981—nearly 50 years. It is one of the only publications devoted to the collecting of and research into children's series books (e.g., the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew), and contains much information found nowhere else. It's certainly a niche publication—it's about a hobby, after all—but it contains serious and deep research, and contains many articles by people who are educated professionals in their own areas. The same editor (Gil O'Gara) has managed the journal since its inception.

The articles used in Clair Blank are by Anita Susan (Sue) Grossman, who I believe is or was an academic; Very Polite Person's link appears to confirm that. Back in the 1980s, she reached out to Blank's publisher Grosset & Dunlap, which gave her Blank's last known address. She then sent a letter to that address and eventually travelled to meet Blank's widower and sons, who gave her extensive background and copies of Blank's correspondence with her publishers. This led to two articles in Yellowback Library, where are still the cornerstone of all information related to Blank. For example, Blank's bio in Something About the Author (link) is fully reliant on Grossman's articles.

As I see it, there are two levels of reliability here. First, YL is presumptively reliable as to the domain of children's series books. Second, the two articles at issue here are reliable (and foundational) as to Clair Blank. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to assume at all these are not WP:RS. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

For Ibokun, someone used KakakiOodua Online News as one of the sources. I checked it out and it seemed like only one person contributes to the site, but the news looks reliable, so I am not sure. Here is the link SVcode(Talk) 22:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the "About Me" page on the site, and it appears that the site is a self-published blog. Per WP:BLOG it would generally not be an acceptable source. Seems like a pretty cool guy though! Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:: Thanks! SVcode(Talk) 16:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy to help! Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm having trouble interpreting WP:UCRN in context of Talk:Steam Controller (1st generation) § Requested move to Steam Controller (2015).

Specifically I would like opinions on the following

• using sources' titles/WP:HEADLINES for parenthetical disambiguation and article naming

i.e. titles that clarify the context by using parenthetical disambiguation, but no longer use it in the body

• using WP:VENDOR and WP:SELFSOURCE in article naming context
• using WP:USERGENERATED content in support of choosing what is "commonly recognizable"

Tracerneo (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is really meant for discussing the reliability of sources, rather than questions about policy interpretation. I think you should ask you question on the Article Naming policy talk page, or maybe the WP:Teahouse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Paul, Jamie (21 June 2023). "The Culture Wars Come For Sex Research". Queer Majority. Retrieved 21 June 2026.—is this WP:RS? For Judith Reisman. Asking before performing edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, Jamie Paul is the Managing Editor of Queer Majority, and there is no editorial/publishing position listed as being above that. As such, this should qualify as a WP:SPS, and the the question is whether Paul is an expert in whatever you're seeking to cite from the article... which would be easier to tell if we knew what you were citing it for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The edit is . Also . tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops. He seems pro-LGB, but anti-T. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

These look like the sort of things where SPS material is of particular concern. You're citing him for his insights, but his bio says he has a BS in film and a background in business -- nothing that qualifies him as an expert in what he's talking about. Unless you can point to outside usage that marks him as an expert or these specific statements as being worthy of attention, it's best to forego them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There is the WP:REDFLAG of "autogynephilia", otherwise the article seems professionally written. Meanwhile, I have self-reverted. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems it is WP:CITED in several articles, so I will go with established precedent. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Being used in Wikipedia articles means very little, Wikipedia is used thousands of time even though it's explicitly unreliable per WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is there any WP:USEBYOTHERS? Searching, I can't find any real coverage of it at all. It's obscure enough that my inclination is to just say that they have no reputation, which means they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and are mostly unusuable. Usage in Wikipedia obviously conveys no weight (in fact, if it weren't used at all the logical conclusion would be "why even discuss it?"; by definition, sources usually have to have some usage before we start discussing whether they're reliable.) But I'm basically just not seeing anything that would make this reliable. The fact that it looks professionally written doesn't carry much weight, either; as RS says, anyone can create a website and claim to be an expert. RS is about what other high-quality sources say about them. If nobody has said anything, they're not reliable (in practice sources like that sometimes squeak through for uncontroversial things that nobody sees any reason to challenge, in the same way that uncontroversial statements can sometimes go uncited entirely if nobody bothers to challenge them; but if it ever comes down to a dispute, you need to point to actual external coverage or WP:USEBYOTHERS or something along those lines to demonstrate a reputation.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Untitled Runeterra MMO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across this article recently, and think it needs trimming down and removing the inappropriate references right now, since it has:

• reddit
• YouTuber discussing leaked information
• a tweet thread from leaker
• Primary sources (universe.leagueoflegends.com / www.leagueoflegends.com), which normally have use in Wikipedia, but they take up about 50% of the references in this article. They are just too many of them.

I bring attention here not just to ask opinions, but because I already tried cleaning it up, and the page's creator kept reverting it back without explanation. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There are a few RS used (Rock Paper Shotgun; PC Gamer; IGN; mmorpg.com; GamesRadar+; Eurogamer), but the vast majority of sources are not RS. The Youtuber (Necrit (aka Nunyo)), has multiple videos cited, but I can't see them published anywhere else that would confer their Youtube output as a RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just removed the whole poorly sourced sections, especially the "Setting" which is basically cruft entirely nabbed from primary sources or other non-RS like those. The page's creator should respond per WP:ONUS. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources used are leaks.

Marc Merrill did retweet the 2028-2030 release date tweet. You can find it the repost of https://x.com/RiotMMONews/status/2061773243355144589 at https://x.com/MarcMerrill. It's literally still on his personal twitter page. Reddit is simply the only place this retweet was discussed, there is no other more reliable source for this information, and linking the tweet itself would not work as Twitter has no feature to easily link that someone reposted a tweet without requiring 3+ buttons of interaction.

The Youtuber discussing "leaked" information is in fact simply a video about a deleted Tweet by a Riot Games employee. Once something has been tweeted by an employee it is no longer leaked information. It has already been reported on by RS news publications. https://www.mmorpg.com/news/brian-holinka-is-now-principal-game-designer-on-riot-games-league-of-legends-mmo-2000138202

The Twitter thread cited is simply from an account with the name "Leaks" in it, none of the content in the tweets are leaks. The entire thread is a compilation of public Greg Street tweets. You are free to search for each Greg Street tweet individually and relink them if you wish, I simply considered it a hassle and linked the quote tweets instead.

You have completely butchered the article of half it's use simply because you don't consider a YouTube video an adequate source despite the fact the YouTube video in question is literally an interview with the developers of the game in question. You have deleted the section about the art style of the game for no reason despite the source being an interview with the Art Director Greg Faillace himself.

I could see an argument for the Setting section being removed but given that the MMO is likely still years away from having confirmed information, and that the setting of the world is the largest confirmed factor, I believe it is useful to readers to give them a brief summary of the world the MMO will be set in. That one I can see arguments against but the rest of what you are doing is ridiculous. Gauzecard (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Tweets in the majority of cases are not RS. This is one such case. The same goes for YouTube. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What Cdjp1 said. See WP:RSPYT and WP:RSPX. Reddit is simply the only place this retweet was discussed, there is no other more reliable source for this information The best course of action is not adding it yet. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• The issue is twofold; first, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If no such sources have covered it yet then we can't, either; threads on social media aren't generally enough. And beyond that there's the issue of WP:DUE weight; if no significant sources cover some aspect, then that implies that those things just aren't significant aspects right now. We can always expand it later as more coverage appears, but we can't cover things that don't have reliable coverage yet. --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The Untitled_Runeterra_MMO#Previously_confirmed_features section looks a bit WP:FANCRUFT-y. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The entire article seems to be little more than a collection of poorly-sourced fluff concerning the hypothetical content of a project which apparently isn't going to be released for another four years. If the project is notable at all, the speculative fluff isn't. Anyone remotely familiar with games development will know that more or less everything is subject to change, and that one can't build a sensible model of what will eventually result for random snippets, whether 'leaked' or from official sources (much of both being meaningless promotion: e.g. "innovative gameplay concepts"). If people want to engage in speculative guesswork, Reddit provides an appropriate platform. Wikipedia doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• We definitely can't cite Twitter here directly in any case; Twitter posts fall under WP:SPS, and none of the exceptions that would allow us to cite a social media post (eg. WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:EXPERTSPS) apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/substack-profited-from-paid-nazi-and-holocaust-denial-newsletters-investigation-finds/ It is basically a platform where anyone can create a newsletter... and authors can make the contents for subscribers only. So, it's inherently attractive for spammers to promote hook articles in order to entice more paid subscription to their blogs/newsletter. The platform itself gets a cut of the subscription revenue, so there is a financial incentive for the platform to list cash crop articles in recommendations. Should it be deprecated? listed as not recommended? Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this to WP:RS/N, not here. This is the page for meta-discussion about the noticeboard, not the actual routine discussion of sources. Morwen (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I did indeed. I moved the whole thing over after I realized. Graywalls (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Substack is a blog hosting platform and, as such, anything on it is covered by WP:BLOG. An article might be reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:EXPERTSPS but it's otherwise unusable in current policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also didn't notice we were on the talk page. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a direct financial incentive for the article author to increase subscribers as the money directly lines the author's wallet. So there's a strong motive for authors to want to increase visibility, thus looking for places to shoehorn their presence into high view articles as opposed to trying to improve article and susceptible to intentional contamination susceptibility as monetized HubPages contents, which is deprecated. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait until you learn about newspapers being for-profit...--00:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC) --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

A large portion of the online resources we use as sources have an economic model behind them -- advertising, sales of books, subscriptions, whatever. Whatever significant distaste I may have for Substack, I don't see how the things-are-done-for-profit-and-could-be-promoted-here differs. This is a site for primarily self-published pages, including many that would qualify for WP:EXPERTSPS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

How would you say it's any different from blogspot, HubPages, wordpress, etc? Graywalls (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately it's all down to the TOS. All of the sites allow people to post self-published content and none provide any sort of editorial oversight or factchecking. The main difference is what the site considers a violation of their TOS. However the presence of bigotry and misinformation doesn't mean that everything on the site is useless or incorrect. If the 2025 Nobel laureate in physics created a Substack blog and started writing about physics, then they would still be a reliable source on the topic even though the site also hosts blogs where people post absolute nonsense.

Basically, we just have to verify that the person in question is an actual trusted authority on the topic. Substack allowing white nationalists to pour out hate on their pages just means that extra verification is needed to make sure that the blog is legit and the person is an authority. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If the 2025 Nobel laureate in physics created a Substack blog and started writing about physics, then they would still be a reliable source on the topic even though the site also hosts blogs where people post absolute nonsense. but then, it would be the same even if it was on X, Weebly, FreeWebs, etc Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SPS says: Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The only exception is BLPs: Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

But the task of verifying that prof X is actually prof X remains. Does substack allow any one to post as anyone without verification? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably, but if the person is a named person you can always... google them. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I said that because because before Umberto Eco died, I saw an article by him that complained that someone had started a Facebook page for him without his knowledge and he only found out about it much later in a real conversation with a friend. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We put WP:RSPWORDPRESS up on the basis of more than a dozen previous discussions here (and a quick check of a few shows they were around individual actual sources of concern); it was more than just that someone could misuse it. Do we have a track record of spammy Substack self-cites, or of improper use of a Substack subdomain as a source that isn't just quickly dealt with by a simple editorial response? I'd be utterly fine with creating a WP:SUBSTACK redirect to WP:SPS (just as WP:WORDPRESS is), but I am unconvinced of the need for anything further. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wordpress also isn't deprecated, let alone blacklisted like HubPages.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we need platform-by-platform discussion. Suppose there's been numerous extensive discussions on the now defunct FreeWebs/Webs and an RSP entry had been created. There's no reason that we can't apply the same consensus consensus to Weebly, assuming community agrees they're comparable. Graywalls (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You brought this to this board (well, to its talk page) as platform-specific. Different sites, even though they could be described similarly, may have a different culture leaving a different impact on Wikipedia editing. You haven't shown any need to do this for Substack, no problem that it has created. We have WP:SPS in place as a recognized way to deal with sites like this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And there's also proper journalism that's done to substack. Ultimately it's just a CMS and a payment platform. Whether a particular substack should be treated as reliable is up to the editorial policies and suchforth of that particular substack. Morwen (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

However, proper journalism is hard to do with non-author dependent editorial control. Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the best way is to avoid substack altogether. If a big time professor has anything important and nonfringe to say why would he go to substack. He would publish it as a departmental report. Let us forget substack, please, please. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree!. It should be treated just like HubPages. Graywalls (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Some big time professors write blogs (see, e.g., Princeton historian Kevin M. Kruse's blog, which used to be on Substack and moved to ghost.io, and Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck's blog on Substack). There is no reason to avoid Substack altogether. Analyze the individual blogs by whether their authors satisfy EXPERTSPS, just as you would with any other SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

With that said, should it be just be treated equivalently to WP:WORDPRESS? Despite the monetization spam hazard. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is exactly the same as Wordpress from a reliability point of view. Which is to say, usable on a case-by-case basis, just like every othervself-publishing platform. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think people don't monetize their wordpress.com blogs in various ways? Here is Wordpress.com telling people how to add Amazon affiliate links to their pages. Here's how to create a paid subscriber newsletter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Without Substack, we wouldn't have much of the reporting by one of the main journalists who reports on the Church of Scientology: Tony Ortega's Underground Bunker. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I did not know and still do not know who Ortega is. But maybe you have a point that some cases should be considered. But it would have to be done very very carefully. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, he has his own website , where all of the same stuff is, so we would have much of the reporting. Still, it is an SPS either way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ortega seems to have quit posting on his website in favor of using substack.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem to be the case ? The same stories are mirrored on both sites (the email newsletter is through substack). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Those are just little stubs of headlines only; the article content isn't there. The actual articles are only on the substack, like this one. That's what I've dicovered over time, especially when I wanted to use a URL to one of his articles for a citation in Wikipedia.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Huh, strange arrangement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ortega is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (quoting from WP:SELFPUBLISH). Substack has become a reliable email delivery platform for both subject matter experts and amateurs, and handles free and paid subscriptions well, so that writers need not also deal with that. You can't judge the platform based on the amateurs. At this point, it has become mainstream enough to be a reliable posting and delivery platform. One needs to check on the author/channel rather than blindly downgrading all of Substack.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's as reliable as any other platform that allows self publishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As the other people here have said, it is equivalent to Wordpress; many, many neo-Nazis have used Wordpress, so I don't see what relevance the link here is. Everything there is an WP:SPS, and if it is published by someone who knows what they're doing it is an WP:EXPERTSPS (and so still cannot be used for BLPs and such). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with editors who have said it is an SPS platform that should be treated case by case like other SPS platforms, including Medium, Wordpress and Patreon. Like literally any platform (including print newspapers), monetisation may incentivise bad editorial standards, but that's not a reason to blanket avoid. I would say that as the business model for good freelance journalists to earn money from good journalism erodes more and more, they are increasingly turning to platforms like Substack and Patreon to earn through their journalism, so monetisation itself is not the issue - the lack of monetisation of legacy platforms is in fact the problem. Thus lots of good journalists are now using Substack and as their primary outlet Patreon as their primary outlets. Three examples in my topic area: https://democracyforsale.substack.com/ https://michaeldeibert.substack.com/ https://www.patreon.com/spencersunshine Generally, stuff they self-publish might not be as credible as stuff they publish on other platforms, or more ephemeral, but we can easily ascertain that these are good sources to use by e.g. checking the authors' Muckrack entries.

Secondly, Substack is a pretty high quality platform to use, so we're seeing both established well edited collective publications move there, e.g. https://thepoliticalquarterly.substack.com/ https://orwellfoundation.substack.com/ or launch there, e.g. https://futuresofdifference.substack.com/ In these cases, Substack is just the publishing tool, and these aren't self-published, any more than academic journalists that use Wordpress as a content management system.

In general, we need to see WP:SPS as a far less blunt instrument than some editors think of it. There are good and bad newspapers, good and bad newswires, good and bad books - and good and bad sites hosted on platforms like Wordpress and Substack. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Since their pay is directly dependent on number of paying subscribers and since the pay is more direct, as opposed to their payroll not being tied to subscription count, it encourages sensationalism coverage on individual level and this is what we should take into consideration in the scope of reliable source discussion. Even though they may do fact checking, I still believe one person in charge contents of anything has significant issues with reliably demonstrating inclusion worthiness. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Graywalls, if you think "encourages sensationalism" is a reason to downgrade a reliable source, then every newspaper with an online presence and a huge editorial staff should also be painted with that brush. We unfortunately have to live with clickbait, and even the most revered longstanding news media outlets are guilty of it on a daily basis. "Sensationalism" is unfortunately mandatory these days in order to get attention, readership, and revenue. That argument falls flat.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We're really only discussing EXPERTSPS use, and I see zero reason to think that experts get more subscribers when they're more sensationalistic. Subscribers are looking for their expertise. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPS, there is not much more to say. If someone wants to bring a particular edit here, we can discuss that edit and proper use or disuse of that particular SPS (and sure, the author's conflicts might come up). As always, work to find a better source. Perhaps, the bigger problem might be WP:DUE or astonish, etc.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Your point is spot on, I don't understand why this conversation is so vibrant given WP:SPS and WP:BLOG Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A few years ago I mentioned that we were going to have to come up with some way to account for the existence of Substack as independent publication came to constitute an increasing share of journalistic output. At the time, the general response if I recall correctly was that I was a stupid goddamned idiot and this would never happen and it was a complete waste of time to even bring it up. However, I think it really does need to be addressed at some point. The traditional distribution models of most media are changing as we progress through the 21st century; the sooner we come up with some way to comprehend this the better off we will be (assuming we plan to exist in ten years or so). jp×g🗯️ 20:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think of this right away when I posted this, but I think it's very much similar to WP:FORBESCON. A platform where journalists who have worked also independently publish their own stuff. And HUFFPOCON and FORBESCON are both rated low on Wiki. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON was only needed because it was easy to mistake those posts as being actual Forbes material, which carried some degree of reliable source respect. There is no such confusion with Substack,. It may be time for you to recognize that basically everyone has recognized that this is covered by existing WP:SPS, that you have presented zero actual occurring events that would require special attention, and to drop the stick. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This is inane; there is an overwhelming consensus in this discussion (because the situation is completely straightforward), please stop writing nonsense. Is there some concrete question (about a particular source on a particular article) that this is about? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No need to depreciate Substack. It’s a self-publishing platform, so it falls under WP:SPS like other blog or newsletter hosts. Reliability depends on the individual author.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Are the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Virtual Library considered reliable sources for content at Red triangle (Palestinian symbol). The specific content in question are these two sentences:

• The website of the Anti-Defamation League states that the symbol is often associated with antisemitism, but not necessarily so.
• Or Shaked of the Jewish Virtual Library has taken a critical perspective of the symbol, writing that it glorifies violence.

It was argued that is an acceptable usage of the source because these are opinion pieces and their usage is attributed, but I disagree. Although reliable secondary sources quoting ADL's opinion could be reliable.

The relevant discussion that is happening is at:

• Talk:Red triangle (Palestinian symbol)#Removing unreliable sources
• Talk:Red triangle (Palestinian symbol)/GA1 (scroll to the bottom)

I would appreciate the community's opinion and if I'm being too hard-headed here, please let me know.VR 19:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:ADLPIA, the ADL is generally unreliable where the I/P conflict is concerned (which this certainly falls under) and therefore generally shouldn't be cited directly for anything contentious, which this certainly is. Its opinion could be described via a reliable secondary source, if due, but if secondary coverage is lacking then it shouldn't be included at all. And the WP:RSPJVL is a WP:GUNREL source in its entirety. Now, these listings of course are just in general... but for a contentious and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim like this related to a highly-sensitive CTOP, they're totally unusable. (I would say that as a general rule, when dealing with sources that are both highly partisan and unreliable, the sorts of things that people want to cite them for tend to be the very things they shouldn't be cited for, ie. dramatic, and therefore exceptional, claims that no better source can be found for.) Also, the argument someone tried to make in the discussion that this could somehow be outside of WP:ADLPIA is so shocking and clearly unreasonable that I would say it strains good faith - something like that (where someone is taking, and doubling down on, a position that is manifestly unreasonable) is probably better taken to WP:AE rather than WP:RSP; even a brief glance at the article makes it clear that this article falls under PIA in its entirety, and the sources themselves are entirely about the conflict. It is possible that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:CTOPs or the scope of the I/P or something along those lines, but either way someone who is going to edit a CTOP needs to do better than that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a case where the ADL's attributed view would be relevant. Springee (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn’t we need a reliable secondary source to be sure of that, even if intuitively it feels right? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Both sources have already been specifically noted in past discussions as inappropriate for a topic such as this. And even attributed use would only be appropriate if there was significant secondary coverage of the original organization/group's stance/statement itself, which I presume doesn't exist in this case. So, both unreliable for the subject matter and not WP:DUE either for attributed use. Silverseren^C 21:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes this. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Yad Vashem considered a reliable source? Specifically, can this document be used as a source on Wikipedia?

I want to use the source to support the ideologies of Ustaše, but @Peripteros called it "pointed" and challenged its reliability.

The discussion is here: Talk:Ustaše#add to Ideology

Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Very much context-dependant. In this case, the document says that the Ustasa murdered half a million Serbs. There are far better sources for how many Serbs were killed by the Ustasa, and this figure is far above the academic consensus, and leads me to conclude that Yad Vashem is not reliable in this context. It isn’t an area Yad Vashem has strong academic ties to, they are more focussed on anti-Semitic crimes than the genocidal policies of the Ustasa against Serbs. Academics like Tomasevich, Pavlowich, Hoare, Ramet etc have discussed the numbers of Serbs (and others) killed in Yugoslavia in considerable detail, and are far preferable to pdfs without specified authors that make broad claims but do not state where they got the numbers from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This dispute is about adding ideologies of the Ustaša to the infobox, not about how many Serbs they've killed. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The same document you want to use contains inaccuracies about the numbers of Serbs killed by the Ustasa. Why would anyone assume that it was accurate in other respects? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:SKYISBLUE? Are you really suggesting that if they had killed 500.000 Serbs we couldn't say that they have an "Anti-Serb sentiment", but if they had killed more Serbs then we could?

I am struggling to understand your position/argument here. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

this figure [500 thousand] is far above the academic consensus, and leads me to conclude that Yad Vashem is not reliable in this context

The premise here seems to be wrong. Our own article includes estimates that are higher and lower than the 500k figure. Yad Vashem is a reliable source for Nazi crimes - even if in this case we might want to use scholarly sources that discuss Ustashe specifically. Alaexis_¿question? 09:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That article isn't the best, and it uses Yad Vashem for the higher figure. These are not Nazi crimes, the Ustashas did this all on their own. The preponderance of academic estimates is more than 100,000 less. USHMM is a far better source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The article also cites much higher figures

These figures included 400,000 Serbs (Alexander Löhr); 500,000 Serbs (Lothar Rendulic); 250,000 to March 1943 (Edmund Glaise von Horstenau); more than "3/4 of a million Serbs" (Hermann Neubacher) in 1943; 600,000–700,000 in concentration camps until March 1944 (Ernst Fick); 700,000 (Massenbach).

So the 500k figure doesn't seem to be an outlier. Alaexis_¿question? 11:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

USHMM is a far better source. You say that, but in this edit you removed a USHMM source, saying they [USHMM and Human Rights Watch] are not "subject-matter experts" on the NDH. We don't require RSes to also be SMEs (if SME even applies to organisations). Can you quote the relevant policy or guideline that influnced your edit? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yad Vashem is reliable for Holocaust related matters but this specific document is a general educational summary not peer-reviewed scholarship. That said the characterisation of Ustaše ideology it contains is well supported in the academic literature, as the sources assembled by Cdjp1 show. KeystoneUEA (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone off course. The issue is whether the Ustasa were antiserbian, not the number of deaths they caused.
Would this help, or is it still to indirect:
"The Ustaša was, first and foremost, anti-Yugoslav and thus implicitly anti-Serbian ..." p. 1715
Iordachi, Constantin; Miljan, Goran (17 November 2023). "'Why We Have Become Revolutionaries and Murderers': Radicalization, Terrorism, and Fascism in the Ustaša–Croatian Revolutionary Organization". Terrorism and Political Violence. 35 (8): 1704–1723. doi:10.1080/09546553.2022.2077730.
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

While Yad Vashem is GREL, in my opinion, a lot of their hosted PDF documents are lacking in what we'd like to see as indicating them as documents of some import. Now on the anti-Serbianism, alongside ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion, I have also found the following.

1. Trifković, Srdja (1990). The Ustaša Movement and European Politics, 1929–1945 (PhD). University of Southampton. The Ustašas refused to acknowledge that having a Serbian national consciousness was not a political act or in any sense something one [did not] intentionally choose. Such an admission would have made their anti-Serbian policies look like a campaign against innocent people.
2. Bartulin, Nevenko (2008). "The Ideology of Nation and Race: the Croatian Ustasha Regime and its Policies toward the Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia 1941–1945". Croatian Studies Review - Časopis hrvatskih studija (5): 75–102. In a welcome critical analysis, Mark Biondich has recently brought attention to how little the Ustashe were motivated in their anti-Serbian measures by Catholicism. and In that sense anti-Yugoslavism was actually more central to Ustasha ideology than anti-Serbianism.
3. McCormick, Rob (2008). "The United States' Response to Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia, 1941–1945". Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal. 3 (1): 75–98. Fully embracing the anti-Serb views of Starčević and Frank, and believing that a professional revolutionary organization was needed if Croatia were to gain its independence, Pavelić, a lawyer by training, established the Ustaše along the lines of Bulgaria's infamous Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO).
4. Levy, Michele Frucht (2009). ""The Last Bullet for the Last Serb":1 The Ustaša Genocide against Serbs: 1941–1945". Nationalities Papers. 37 (6): 807–837. doi:10.1080/00905990903239174. His son Dido suggested that Anti-Serbdom was "the quintessence of the Ustasa doctrine, its raison d'etre."
5. Korb, Alexander (2010). "Understanding Ustaša violence". Journal of Genocide Research. 12 (1–2): 1–18. doi:10.1080/14623528.2010.508273. Only in late 1942 did the Germans increase the pressure upon the Ustaša to curb their aggressive anti-Serb policies. and Ustaša anti-Semitism was also of a particular kind, as it was shaped by the anti-Serb ideology.
6. Gavrilovic, Darko (2016). "How the ustasha regime exploited prejudices and stereotypes about jews in creating the myth about enemy". The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University: 78–84. It should be mentioned that the Ustasha ideology had its specificity compared to other similar movements, and those were anti-Yugoslav and anti-Serb feelings connected with confessional and religious intolerance.
7. Retchkiman, Golda (2020). "The Ustaše and the Roman Catholic Church in the Independent State of Croatia". Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe. 40 (1): 78–96. The Ustaša movement was fundamentally anti-Serbian and since its creation in 1930, it spread odium against the Serbs.
8. Bartulin, Nevenko (February–April 2023). "Race Theory versus a Religious World-View: SS–Ustaša Relations and Islam in the Independent State of Croatia". The English Historical Review. 138 (590–591): 222–250. doi:10.1093/ehr/cead025. Accordingly, the Ustaša state’s extreme anti-Serb policy was viewed as a threat to both the NDH’s existence and German economic and military interests in the Balkans.
9. Škiljan, Filip (2025). "Abuses against Serbs in the Districts of Otočac and Brinje in World War II with a Special Focus on Religious Conversions". Balcanica. LVI: 177–204. doi:10.2298/BALC2556177S. Mile Budak was one of the Ustaše leaders from Lika who held anti-Serbian speeches in Lika's villages and towns.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I would also note, looking at the article, we would probably want the notion of anti-Serbianism to be covered in more depth (if RS support such weight) in the body text, to justify inclusion in the infobox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

These sources look significantly more robust and credible than what was originally proposed. I will defer to editors with more subject matter expertise to see how they're implemented on the article. Readers will undoubtedly want clarity on the differences between (a) anti-Serb, (b) anti-Serbian, (c) anti-Serbdom and (d) anti-Serbianism. Is anti-Yugoslav also added? Are these concepts contextualized within ultranationalism or are they separate? Is it anti-Semitism? Was this ideology of the Ustaša, the organization's leaders, or the NDH – all three? Does sentiment or policies equate ideology? Questions to consider while working through these improved reliable sources. Peripteros (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The Ustaše rounded up Serbians and beat them to death with sticks, because they were Serbian. They were antiserbian, antisemitic, anti-Yugoslavia, they were many things, all those things were part of their ultranationism as such hatreds are generally apart of ultranationalism. Whether is was the ideology, leaders, or NDH only matters as much as reliable sources make note of it. In the end such distinctions mattered very little to the people being beaten to death. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:SEALIONING. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

anti-Serb = anti-Serbian = anti-Serbdom = anti-Serbianism.

In addition to this, as is quite often the case, there were other bigotries that formed the ideological framework of hate including anti-Yugslavism and antisemitism. The sources show that these ideologies were held by the Ustaša and it's leadership, and were enacted as policies and actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

anti-Serb = anti-Serbian = anti-Serbdom = anti-Serbianism. while I think it’s pretty clear that the Ustase were all of these (I mean, what with the mass murder and all), abstractly it is possible to imagine an anti-Serbianist position that is not anti-Serb — probably a lot of nonviolent support for Slovenian or Albanian language use over the history of Yugoslavia would fall in that category. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

probably a lot of nonviolent support for Slovenian or Albanian language use over the history of Yugoslavia would fall in that category.

Slovenian was the official language of the Socialist Republic Slovenia, along with Serbo-Croatian. Albania was never part of Yugoslavia, although Albanians were a recognised minority within Yugoslavia, and Albanian was one of the official languages in the Kosovo Autonomous Region. So no, that wouldn't explain "anti-Serbianism". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think you have understood my point at all but I also don’t think it’s worth arguing about (especially not with someone who thinks I might know about the minority languages of Yugoslavia but not know whether Albania was every part of Yugoslavia? I mean ok whatever). ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

And such language policies and positions are not what are under discussion. What is under discussion is whether the Ustaša were anti-Serb/ian/dom/ianism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! I'm sorry for derailing it further. No more off-topic posts from me! Feel free to collapse the off-topic posts. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes and you wrote that these are synonymous and I disagreed with that claim while also pointing out that the wrong claim doesn't affect the underlying truth that all of these terms (including the relevant one, "anti-Serb") apply to the Ustase. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources identified by Cdjp1 are vastly superior to a no-author pdf by YV. I also agree with Cdjp1’s observation that anti-Serbian sentiment needs to be properly laid out and cited in the body in order to be included in the infobox. Ideology in infoboxes is often subjected to what is known as genre-warring on music articles, without making the case within the article itself. The above sources should enable a proper explanation of the anti-Serbian sentiment of the Ustashas within the body of the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And I'd say that we don't, per WP:SKYISBLUE. We also have this article: Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. I am not saying that we use Wikipedia as a source, I am saying that Ustaše's anti-Serbian sentiment is so well documented and known, that asking for sources for it stretches WP:AGF.

At the time of you opposing the inclusion of "Anti-Serbian sentiment" in the infobox, the article contained these sources:

• While initial focus was against Serbs, as the Ustaše grew closer to the Nazis they adopted antisemitism. source: Goldstein, Ivo; Goldstein, Slavko (2016). The Holocaust in Croatia. University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 9780822944515
• During World War II in Yugoslavia, the Ustaše went on to perpetrate the Holocaust and genocide against its Jewish, Serb and Roma populations,[34] source: Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3615-2.
• Korb, Alexander (2010). "A Multipronged Attack: Ustaša Persecution of Serbs, Jews, and Roma in Wartime Croatia". Eradicating Differences: The Treatment of Minorities in Nazi-Dominated Europe. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 145–163. ISBN 9781443824491.
• "While German troops were still in several places in Croatia, the Croatians began a beastly persecution of the Orthodox [Serbs]. source: Rummel, Rudolph J. Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder; Transaction Publishers, 1992, p. 75. ISBN 9781412821476;
• characterized by intense anti-Serbism, antisemitism source: Lampe, John; Iordachi, Constantin (2019). Battling Over the Balkans: Historiographical Questions and Controversies. Budapest: Central European University Press. p. 267. ISBN 978-963-386-325-1.
• The movement advocated a racially "pure" Croatia and promoted genocide against Serbs—due to the Ustaše's anti-Serb sentiment—and Holocaust against Jews and Roma via Nazi racial theory, and persecution of anti-fascist or dissident Croats and Bosniaks source: Fischer, Bernd J., ed. (2007). Balkan Strongmen: Dictators and Authoritarian Rulers of South-Eastern Europe. Purdue University Press. ISBN 978-1-55753-455-2.

(not an exhaustive list)

@Peacemaker67 Can you please explain on what grounds you opposed the inclusion of "Anti-Serbian sentiment" in the infobox? Did you even read the article? It has plenty prose and sources that support the inclusion of it in the infobox. Now you say it was Cdjp1's sources that satisfied you. Can you tell us what was wrong with the sources already present in the article? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Those sources mention the specific persecution of (1) Serbians, (2) Jews, (3) Roma, (4) Croats, (5) Bosniaks, (6) Orthodox Christians, (7) Bosnian Muslims, (8) communist Partisans, (9) Gypsies, and (10) Yugoslavs, among others. Which ones get added to the infobox? The article's current sources and the ones that Cdjp1 collected meet Wikipedia's higher-grade sourcing requirements for contentious topics. The original request and provided sources did not. Why is the article's current sourcing and current mention of anti-Serbian sentiment in the infobox insufficient? Peripteros (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

All of the sources in my comment are from the article and were present in the article at the time you and Peacemaker67 opposed the inclusion in the infobox. My point is that the sourcing in the article was already "high-grade" enough. But whatever, getting more editors involved clearly changed your mind, which is the point of inviting more editors. I will now add "Anti-Serbian sentiment" to the infobox and I trust it won't be reverted. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly this whole thing is quite close to WP:SKYISBLUE. Alaexis_¿question? 15:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Apparently we need high-grade sources to say that the organisation that invented the "Serbcutter" was anti-Serbian. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, from the sources I pulled, while they do mention a litany of bigotries, they do mark how the anti-Serbianism of the Ustaša marked them as distinct to the other fascists they worked alongside. Such of point of distinction is very much the type of thing to be highlighted in an infobox as to what makes the group in some manner 'unique'. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I suppose my confusion is where we highlight ideological significance. In this situation, the state of being anti-Serbian is listed twice back-to-back. For example, those sources mention that this organisation perpetuated an entire holocaust against the Roma people, impacting nearly the entire Romani population. Are we not able to say this organisation had Anti-Romani sentiment? Using our typical blue sky guidance on contentious topics seems a little off. Didn't this organisation perpetuate the Jewish holocaust in Southeast Europe as well? Surely, that reflects Anti-Semitic sentiment. Peripteros (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Fun fact, it's not an either-or situation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, those will be added in as well. Thanks. Peripteros (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Just in case anyone comes to this thread in the future to check Yad Vaashem’s reliability, I don’t think there’s any question that it’s reliable for the Holocaust and related topics. It doesn’t have the level of academic freedom that a university research institute usually does, but the researchers who work there are highly regarded scholars. I’d maybe not use it for politicised topics where Israel has a stake (Gaza or Armenia, for example) but the Holocaust and related WEII ethnic cleansing is absolutely in its wheelhouse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The scholars associated with YV are reliable sources. Also, being published in a YV journal is not a sign of unreliability if the author is a known scholar. However, I would stay away from official statements and articles that are anonymous, since YV is very heavily invested in politics. The article listed by OP has no author and no references, while other sources on the topic have both, so why do we need it? The approach should be to find the strongest sources and use them, not to argue for weak sources when strong sources exist. Zero^talk 01:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

In some recent edits on Julia Vickerman page, a user justified keeping this article by saying "...I also think it's ok to include the harassment claim since it comes from a WP:NEWSORG covering existing court documents."

While it has been stated on WP:YAHOONEWS that "Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable," this falls into the second part of that summary: "Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top." I say that because the Yahoo.com article is from Wealth of Geeks Editorial Staff. There is a page on editorial policy on the Wealth of Geeks, but no mention of any staff members. The only person related to the site, that is mentioned, is someone described as "journalist and personal finance expert Michael Dinich" as the founder, on this page. Personally I am skeptical of the above-linked article on yahoo.com as I feel it is not a reliable source (and that article cannot be found on the Wealth of Geeks site either), is a listicle, and believe that it should not be included in the Julia Vickerman page. I only found the article as reprinted on statfolio.net but nowhere else.

I look forward to hearing from you all. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear that the report was republished on Yahoo doesn't mean anything, the reliability stays with the original source (in this case Wealth of Geeks). Wealth of Geeks editorial policy and disclosure page say all the right things. Whether there are staff members beyond Dinich isn't made clear on their website, the about us page has a section for "Meet the Geeks" but doesn't actually list anyone. However Glass Door has reviews from people who have worked there and Rotten Tomatoes lists their reviews with bylines, so it seems to be a fully staffed outfit and not a one man job. I can't find use by others, but Yahoo aren't the only site that syndicates their reports. So I think it could be reliable dependant on what it's reporting.

I don't think this is the highest quality source, and listicles are poor sources in general. As to the specific article and it's context I don't think it's reliable. Allegations of sexual harassment need better sourcing than this, especially for a living person. As to the question of notability I don't have any comment, I'll leave it up to other editors to answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. I agree with you on listicles. I can also agree with you with how allegations need better sourcing than this. People have been trying to add articles like this about Vickerman to the Twelve Forever page for years, but so far they have been removed. Thanks for your comment. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I also agree with ActivelyDisinterested. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to get some opinions on this. Talk broadcasts primarily on DAB and through YouTube live streaming. They have well known (right leaning) reporters including Jeremy Kyle, David Bull, formerly Piers Morgan, along with respected down-the-middle journalists such as Trisha Goddard and Mark Dolan. I've used them previously for their coverage on UK by-elections and as a source for comments from experts and party members. Some of their programs are (in my view) biased toward Reform UK, however I would compare their general reporting to LBC (reliable per WP:NPPSG). I've found Talk tend to interview people that Times Radio generally do not. This gives them some use-cases for British political event/election articles. (I would not use them for WP:BLPs due to potential bias.) 11WB (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there any current issues with TalkTV, has someone called it into question, or do you want to use it by have concerns? Their output is generally opinion or interviews, which could be relevant if attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I added an attributed reaction to an article a while back and it was removed as part of a paragraph rewrite (I would have to go back and locate the specific diffs). Asked for a second opinion as opinionated sources are generally considered unreliable, however Talk do run more down-the-middle programming after their morning schedule. This is a case of me not feeling confident enough to make the judgement myself and not wanting to cause issues in the future if and when citing them. They haven't been discussed anywhere on the project before, so a brief discussion to double check is better than just guessing in my view. 11WB (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Is SJMC Japan by the Texas State University reliable? I want to use it on The Kyoto Shimbun and they have a lot of articles about it. (Example). Their about page states that it is blog for Texas State School of Journalism and Mass Communication‘s Education Abroad Program to Japan. I'm not sure if this is okay to use. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems OK for non-contentious factual statements. It's not notable enough for opinions or perspectives, and not rigorous enough for disputed debates. To take this example from your link:

"The Kyoto Shimbun was founded in 1879 and has had several name changes since. It started off as the Kyoto Current Events Paper and was renamed the Sunrise Newspaper before settling on its current name. Like its name, the Kyoto Shimbun has evolved since its founding, reflecting the dynamic changes within Japanese society."

I think it's an OK source for the first few sentences, since those are basic, probably non-disputed claims. The last sentence is an opinion, and the source is not notable, so I don't think it's a good source for that. That's my understanding of reliability and notability, but I could be wrong. Mevsherd (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you want to cite to it? It looks to be in effect an undergrad student paper, so while it may not be unreliable, really we should be looking for better sourcing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

AllMusic is designated as a generally reliable source for music reviews at WP:ALLMUSIC, which is a consensus I am not here to challenge. What I am here to point out, however, is that it appears that they are using AI to write feature stories as of late -- check any of the features here, where, as of late, their pieces feature hallmarks of AI writing as outlined at WP:AISIGNS. While the reviews still appear to be fine, I think there should be extra caution with the pretty clear signs that they are using AI to write articles now. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of those features are bylined to Greg Prato. Personally I'm not seeing AI signs in the first 4 of those as the use of vocabulary is more esoteric, unformal and music genre specific than the formulaic AI results in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to anything specific in regards to the suspicion of AI usage? Fundgy (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will use this article as an example. There is undue emphasis on the song that is the subject of the article's autobiographical nature; I know that is the thesis of the feature as a whole, but it frequently calls attention to the autobiographical qualities in ways that interrupt other analyses (cf. WP:AILEGACY). Additionally, other portions -- "It isn't simply about one histo‌rical moment—it i‌s about the inevitability⁠ of change, whether i‍n society, careers, or⁠ pe‌rsonal fortunes" -- use the AI writing style that the image at WP:AISIGNS outlines, with the whole "it's not just/simply about blank, it is [insert grand if not exceptional description here]." Even if it's not entirely AI-generated, with how much content has been pumped out by Prato in the "features" section over the last few weeks, I do get a certain feeling that his writing has developed a certain content farm-esque approach. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That article does seem a bit suspect. Though, it seems better researched than what I would assume an AI would come up with. Maybe he just writes a bit formulaic? His writing well predates AI, so I'd be curious if there have been any suspect changes to his writing style in the last few years. I tried looking around to see if Prato has ever made a public statement about AI, but I'm not sure. I did find this article for Ultimate Guitar which is a bit related. Fundgy (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Greg Prato described here Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• I wonder if that website assumes that this song also applies to their reliability. As AI comes in, reliability flies out of the window. So the decision not to challenge the previous consensus may need to be revisited sooner or later. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Bounding into Comics is considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia. Examples of information that supports this consensus is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics", Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#Bounding into Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3#Bounding Into Comics. I proposed adding it to Edit Filter 869, but EggRoll97 informed me that deciding whether to deprecate the source and not just consider it unreliable should be made here. I am wondering if we should agree to deprecate this source and not just consider it unreliable. Z. Patterson (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Deprecation is usually only used for the worst of sources, and requires community consensus via a request for comment. Is there something about Bounding into Comics that makes it so much worse than other generally unreliable sources? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3#Bounding Into Comics, Link20XX found that as of the date he posted it (10 October 2023), Bounding into Comics "is a notorious supporter of Comicsgate, ... described Viz Media as 'displaying their ... level of disrespect for Japanese media and has written that Crunchyroll (has a) habit of licensing censored versions of anime'". The claim made by Bounding into Comics towards Viz Media is false, but Link20XX stated that Bounding into Comics's statement about Crunchyroll is misleading, as Crunchyroll itself does not censor anime for television broadcasting. Xexerss concurred. In a different discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics", PrincessPandaWiki and Masem found the site to be untrustworthy, but Markworthen said that the site's "affiliate disclosure is buried in the footer, which clearly violates Federal Trade Commission requirements that disclosures be 'clear and conspicuous'." Z. Patterson (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

All of that shows that it's an unreliable source, but isn't necessarily a reason to deprecated it. Deprecation is generally used for sources that are causing wide spread issues for the encyclopedia. If all the websites that post junk or undisclosed advertorials were deprecated then the deprecation list would be literally endless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that Bounding Into Comics has been a clearing house for American culture war slop as well as being unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Can't we say that bounding into Comics should just be used for comics and related based reviews but make a distinction between citing it for those purposes (or to verify something accompanied by another source) and say it isn't reliable for incendiary culture war stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka653 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I mean, unfortunately comics aren't some sort of culture-war free bubble. FWIW it seems to have posted 11 reviews of comics in the last two years. Morwen (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Since deprecation is usually for sources that cause problems across Wikipedia and not just bias or recurring reliability issues, I think the current unreliable designation is sufficient here.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No; the thing we are supposed to do when writing articles is use the brains attached to the inside of our skulls to determine whether a given source is of usable quality or not. If this process does not work, we are simply cooked. jp×g🗯️ 20:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation It's already marked as unreliable, which is enough. We don't need to ban every bad site. We can just use our best judgment and common sense. Staticspector (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Is diggit magazine reliable? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99, reliable for what information in what article? Their stated focus is:

Diggit Magazine is a central working tool in the bachelor Online culture: arts, media & society and the masters Culture Studies. Students, researchers, lecturers, visiting researchers and guest lecturers work together to form an online community that is the engine of the e-zine. Diggit Magazine was conceived as a new learning environment and a new learning tool that is integrally interwoven with the entire curriculum. The foundation of the magazine is the Diggit Community.

• Students, faculty and guest lecturers all have their own profile within the community and collaborate on research and publications
• The online community is inextricably intertwined with the offline curriculum.
• The content is always connected to one or several teachers and one or more subjects.

Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Im working on Draft:How to Be Ace: A Memoir of Growing Up Asexual, and I was wondering if I could use this as a source Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be a paper written by a PhD student. It wouldn't have any weight toward notability of the book. I would attribute any analysis that you use in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks! Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Schazjmd, this looks like a fine source to use with attribution in a Reception section. Looks like your draft meets WP:NBOOK, so I'm not concerned about the notability angle. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Previous consensus has marked Hansard as a Perennial source, which I agree with since it's all subjective speech transcripts. 1 2 3 4 The problem is this seems to have marked all of the parliament.uk sources as perennial, including bills.parliament.uk which holds factual pdf copies of all bills since 2006 along with facts like who sponsored it and where it is currently in parliament. Some links can be found on the page for member details or a session transcript but clicking on them directs you out of bills.parliament.uk and into members.parliament.uk or hansard.parliament.uk and so they are not actually on the bills.parliament.uk page.

There is also votes.parliament.uk which only reports the votes of any divisions in either house which I would argue is not perennial or subjective. There are probably other subsections of the parliament.uk site that should be recategorised as well but I haven't personally read through them all and checked them to be comfortable listing them here in this discussion.

So my proposal is bills.parliament.uk and votes.parliament.uk being marked as generally reliable sources while leaving Hansard and the other subsections under perennial/marginally reliable as they currently are.

Thanks – Mesidast (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC) (First discussion so if details are missing let me know)

Hansard is listed on the perennial source list because it has been discussed many times, the result of all those discussions are the same. They are a WP:PRIMARY source, and the same would apply to bills and member details as well. They are usable and reliable in the way as other primary sources. If they're separated they exact same wording would apply to bills.parliament.uk and votes.parliament.uk, they're not secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I would argue is not perennial what do you think perennial means? Morwen (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Was the Nazi collaborator Andriy Melnyk an antisemite? Wikipedians discuss!
(@Korwinski, Joko2468, and ~2026-32415-50: courtesy ping for the participants.)

Some issues that arose in the discussion:

• Is Yuri Radchenko, a scholar of Holocaust studies and Ukraine–Jewish relations, a subject-matter expert on the Holocaust and antisemitism in Ukraine?
• Can videos be reliable sources?
• Does the essay Wikipedia:Articles with a single source apply to citing Radchenko in a section of the article?

All that and more awaits you if you join the discussion at Talk:Andriy Melnyk (officer)#Role in the Holocaust! TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I did not say Radchenko is incompetent here. Just that his view is the only one presented, and he himself in the provided openly available sources does not accuse Melnyk personally of either antisemitism or participation in the Holocaust. In the attached video Radchenko says he thinks (exact words in Ukrainian 53:11) that his views had somewhat changed due to overall antisemitism and that OUN(m) antisemitic publications couldn't have been published without his approval. Neither does he say the same about entire OUN/OUN(m), though I guess we can count antisemitic publications as such. He only singles out actions of the some of the OUN(m) members in Kyiv, which I don't dispute. But that's hardly a characteristic of either Melnyk or entire OUN(m). So overall in my opinion for now until any other research presented, any such information that doesn't concern Melnyk himself should be transferred to OUN(m) article and the rest should presented in the format "according a scholar of Holocaust studies and Ukraine–Jewish relations Yuri Radchenko [information]". That is unless there will be any other credible source corroborating that story. In such case it won't be necessary. Korwinski (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Is one of the officers who is singled out Melnyk? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No. In that source it's primarily about Roman Bida «Gordon» [uk] and some others OUN(m) members with events starting during Babyn Yar executions on 29–30 September 1941. But at that point Melnyk was in Germany where he was under house arrest since late July 1941. Korwinski (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

If it does not mention him, it canot bd sued to say anything about him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I found this article, by Neil Karpenko, published in March 2021 in Public Seminar. It calls Melnyk an antisemite in no uncertain terms: This narrative is a falsification aiming at whitewashing an anti-Semite and Nazi accomplice. [referring to Melnyk] and:

In 1943, Andriy Melnyk supported the Nazi command’s initiative of creating the 14th Waffen SS Division (later renamed the 1st Galizien Division). While officers of the division were mainly Germans, troops were staffed by Ukrainian Nationalists. In a speech, Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler thanked the personnel of the division for “having improved the beautiful Ukrainian landscape by ridding it of its Jews”. The 14th Waffen SS Galizien Division was not intended for the battle-front; its main tasks were punitive actions against civilians: Jews and Poles as well as partisans combating the Nazi occupiers.

The article also says that Melnyk collaborated with the Nazis before the outbreak of the war: On December 25, 1945, Colonel of the Abwehr (German military intelligence) Erwin Schtolze, under interrogation, revealed that Andriy Melnyk had begun to cooperate with German special service before the outbreak of war

Karpenko is a "PhD, Ukraine’s history and politics researcher residing in Toronto. Contributing author to Haaretz, The Hill Times and Morning Star" so I think this article is WP:DUE. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The Karpenko article does look like an appropriate citation for describing this historical figure as an antisemite. If it's the only source we should probably attribute the statement rather than using wikivoice but Karpenko is a professor with a relevant specialty so I think he definitely counts as a subject matter expert here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There're multiple issues with him:

1. It doesn't state anywhere in what field he got his PhD or what was his thesis.

2. I don't see any proper publications from him. Just a few articles in Haaretz and Eurasia Review.

So not sure what exactly qualifies him as an expert. And in regards to "Andriy Melnyk supported the Nazi command’s initiative of creating the 14th Waffen SS Division". Can you provide any other source saying that? Maybe I am wrong or searching with incorrect keywords, but I don't see any other sources supporting that statement. Korwinski (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

History News Network has called him "an independent expert on Ukrainian politics and history". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think they did. It's not an original publication. In the top it says it's a republication from EurasiaReview where they must've taken his title and description. Korwinski (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, that is not correct. eurasiareview describes him as "Neil Karpenko, PhD, Ukraine’s history and politics researcher residing in Toronto. Contributing author to Haaretz, The Hill Times and Morning Star". The "independent expert" bit seems to be an original addition by the HNN. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say they are identical. But in case you'll look closely, you will see that it's actually not even a republication. On HNN it's an abridged text with a link in a bottom to a full article on Eurasiareview. Korwinski (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Either way there's nothing to suggest Karpenko cannot be used as a source here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't know what he got his PhD for. No academic publications. None of the publications contain any sources. All his publications are marked as Op-eds/Opions like the only publication on Haaretz in 8 years. In case you think it meets WP:Verifiability, then I guess I have no choice but to accept. But in my opinion those are disguised blog posts with only thing in common is that they are all about Ukraine on different non-consistent topics. Korwinski (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Haaretz and Eurasia Review are "proper publications" - if you mean you want to see academic publications from him that's a different question altogether. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Haaretz is a good publication but this is an op ed, and his only one. Eurasia Review is low quality. Morning Star is pro-Kremlin. He does not have any academic affiliation or scholarly publications. His PhD is not

listed in any databases. In short, I don’t think he’s a good source. And if he’s the only source, let’s not say it BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Here's a source for that claim (bolding mine):

73 As part of the negotiations leading up to the establishment of a ‘Ukrainian National Army’ a number of possible variations were considered, one of which envisaged the establishment of a Ukrainian Directory headed by Shapovalov, similar to that which had existed from 1917/1919 under Symon Petliura. According to this proposal which was supported by both the Melnyk and Bandera factions of the OUN, all political rights of this temporary Ukrainian Government would be acknowledged by the Reichsgovernment. The ‘SS-Schützendivision Galizien’ would form the basis of a 100,000 strong Ukrainian National Army, which would comprise of three or four divisions. Its commander would be a Ukrainian while its Chief of Staff would be a German. See circular from Dr Witiska to the Heads of Departments III B, (Dr Ehlich) III B (Dr Buchardt) IV B, VI C (Dr Hengelhaupt), IIIB -Bo./Ot.–LN 1209, Pressburg, 2.Februar 1945. Betr.: ‘Angebliche bevorstehende Regelung der ukrainischen Frage’. SA.

^[1]

I could not find Volume 1. That could have more information. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't. It talks about late 1944-1945 German concessions to Ukrainian nationalists, where SS Galizien would become the core of a Ukrainian National Army. Not that SS Galizien creation itself was supported by OUN(m), OUN(b) or Melnyk himself. In fact OUN(b) was creating UPA simultaneously with Germans creating SS Galizien, so OUN(b) leaders opposed to it's creation (Logusz, page 64). Korwinski (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't say the leaders opposed the creation, it says the opposite, in fact. It says that after the leaders of OUN(b), OUN(m) saw that the creation of the division was inevitable, they had to either render support to it or remain neutral. So that's another source that corroborates that OUN(m) supported the creation of the division (or at the very least was neutral to it).

If the OUN(m) supported making SS Galizien the official army of Ukraine, is that not support of the division's continued existence? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That means they had accepted it de facto, not that they had organised and actually approved it. But in any case I’m not sure how many times do I need to repeat that OUN(m) and Melnyk are not the same thing. The topic under discussion is Melnyk himself and his hypothetical antisemitic actions and views. So you trying to mix them together when Melnyk was under arrest is at very least odd. Especially given how many times I already had to remind you of that

Currently no other source confirms Melnyk was in favour or even aware of the creation of SS Galizien. And even in case we hypothetically assume both that and that he had supported the transformation of it into Ukrainian Army, how does that confirm his antisemitism? OUN(m) was not in charge of the orders given to the unit and it was not created to fight Jews which themselves by 1943 were already mostly in ghettoes and camps. So while there were some instances of their actions against Jews, no source puts responsibility for them on Melnyk or even OUN(m) leadership. Nor do they confirm Melnyk's antisemitism or participation in Holocaust. Korwinski (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That means they had accepted it de facto

But earlier you said so OUN(b) leaders opposed to it's creation The two are not the same.

you trying to mix them together when Melnyk was under arrest

Yet you said It talks about late 1944-1945 German concessions to Ukrainian nationalists Melnyk was released by the Germans in July 1944. Presumably in late 1944 he was out and about.

To me, this whole thing is WP:SKYISBLUE:

• collaborated with the Nazis since before the war and then during
• supported or at the very least was neutral towards formation of SS Galizien
• OUN(m) leaders collaborated with Nazis, and were on friendly terms with OUN(b), their differences were over tactics, not ideology afaik
• Melnyk was aware of antisemitic writings published by OUN(m) and didn't oppose them
• OUN(m) members participated in the Holocaust by killing Jews

At this point I feel we need RSes saying he wasn't an antisemite. But OK. I expressed my opinion, I have notified RSN, I found a bunch of sources. I'm gonna take a pause from the discussion before it becomes an endless back and forth. Hopefully other editors join in and we get more opinions. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

And? Their situation was de facto being forced to accept something that was created without their consent. Did they have the means to stop it? No. So what's left for anybody to do? Tell themselves that it doesn't exist? In either case it's not the topic of this discussion, unless you have source that confirm that a) he in fact approved creation of SS Galizien or his comrades joining it and b) That SS Galizien was created to target Jews.

• collaborated with the Nazis since before the war and then during [...] OUN(m) leaders collaborated with Nazis, and were on friendly terms with OUN(b), their differences were over tactics, not ideology afaik

All pre-WWII European countries were antisemitic to various degrees, not sure how specifically collaboration with Germany at that time was any different than simply being a politician from Poland with it's antisemitic policies, diplomacy, trade and military relations with Nazi Germany. Mind you that nobody knew that Holocaust was going to happen. With all the resources that the West had, they had learned about it in Karski's reports.

• supported or at the very least was neutral towards formation of SS Galizien

No secondary source was provided to confirm that. No source was provided to support that it was created to target Jews. OUN(m) members were part of SS Galizien, but no source was provided that a few examples of the units actions against Jews were done under OUN(m) orders. So I'm not sure how even OUN(m) organisation is here to blame.

• Melnyk was aware of antisemitic writings published by OUN(m) and didn't oppose them

Radchenko says that in his opinion antisemitic materials couldn't have been published by OUN(m) without Melnyk's consent. In case you phrase it like that, I don't mind adding it to the article. But saying that he was aware is not supported by any of the provided source. Otherwise Radchenko wouldn't say that it's in his opinion, but would have stated it as a fact.

• OUN(m) members participated in the Holocaust by killing Jews

Did all of them? Do any of the sources hold him responsible for the actions of the some of his comrades? Especially given that most if not all of them had happened after his arrest, when he was not in charge thousands km away? Korwinski (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Mind you that nobody knew that Holocaust was going to happen.

The Holocaust didn't only happen at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor. Before the Germans came up with the industrial killing of Jews, there was a "Holocaust by bullets": The Holocaust in Ukraine represents the first phase of the Holocaust in which an estimated 1.5 million Jews were shot to death at close range in ravines, open fields, and forests.^[2] (It wasn't just in Ukraine, but also in Hungary, Belarus, Romania, etc. but we're talking about Ukraine.)

Here are some more sources about Waffen-SS Galizia, OUN, and various police units and auxiliaries that participated in the Holocaust.^[3][4][5][6] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Your argument was “collaborated with the Nazis since before the war and then during”. Holocaust by bullets" didn’t happen in Ukraine when OUN had started relations with Abwehr, nor when they were partially involved during invasion of Poland. Melnyk’s involvement into WWII before arrest and then release in September 1944 was 3-5 weeks during which none of the OUN(m) units or units with OUN(m) members meant to fight Jews in any capacity were created. He had appealed twice to create military units, but in both cases nothing said about creating anti-Jewish units in any capacity. And in both cases it was declined. So I don’t know how it could be an example of Melnyk’s antisemitism or participation in Holocaust either.

I didn’t see any mention of Melnyks approval or participation in any of that. Can you quote where does it say that in those links? Korwinski (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is in the wrong place. It should be in the article talk. This page should be used for discussing the quality of sources only. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The Aviationist sometimes makes claims that are not corroborated by other sources. For example, this article states that an Italy-owned MQ-9A Reaper drone was destroyed by Iran during the 2026 war. However, the only other source I could find is from The EurAsian Times, which has been deemed unreliable by Wikipedia editors. This makes it difficult to determine whether such a claim is fake news or simply underreported.

While The Aviationist says it has editorial guidelines as well as ethics and fact-checking policies, anyone publisher can put such information on its website. Furthermore, The Aviationist calls itself a "blog" rather than a news agency.

I checked the archives, and it doesn't look like this source has been mentioned before. Does anyone have an idea how reliable this source is? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

They seem to overtly link to here: https://www.itamilradar.com/2026/03/25/satellite-analysis-the-aftermath-of-the-iranian-attack-on-the-italian-predator-base-in-kuwait/

As source of analysis for the destroyed MQ-9. Is the issue because they are reporting this before others? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It turns out the event actually occurred three months ago; this would explain the lack of articles on Google News. I expanded my search and did get a few more hits, although of them appear to be major outlets. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, it's unreasonable to expect major outlets to carry stuff like this often. You need industry sources (such as this). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Author of the Aviationist article: David Cenciotti. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Would he be considered a subject-matter expert based on our criteria? If so, then I think we could consider The Aviationist to be reliable. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If our criteria says he's not, our criteria is objectively fucked. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Cenciotti and D'Urso at least are SMEs (I can't speak to the other authors) and as a reader and citer of the site, I'd say that The Aviationist is generally reliable, but occasionally with caveats -- they sometimes publish speculation that would be unacceptable OR by our standards (which is not atypical for military sites that are attempting to do open source intelligence) but they occasionally don't do the best job of indicating that's the case. Areas to watch out for in particular are when they do (or republish) visual imagery analysis and make identifications of equipment or aircraft types/variants. These, I would treat as requiring attribution and clarification that they're not statements of fact, unless backed by an additional secondary source. But as a general rule of thumb, yes, they're one of the two most widely followed military aviation sites (along with TWZ, who frequently cites them). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the source Cartridges And Firearm Identification by Robert E. Walker, 2013, CRC Press, a RS for the following statement:

A drum magazine is a type of high-capacity magazine for firearms.

The source says: Drum magazines have a high ammunition capacity, well exceeding box-type magazines.

Here is a link to the source on Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/CartridgesAndFirearmIdentification/Cartridges-and-Firearm-Identification

You have to navigate to page 229.

Here is a link to a page that includes Walker's bio: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Field_Guide_to_Ghost_Guns/0xVQEAAAQBAJ?hl=en Lightbreather (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This goes back to the drum magazine article but there is a difference between colloquially referring to something as having a high or higher capacity and what some see as a political term of a high capacity magazine. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The article in question is Drum magazine. The discussion is here: Talk:Drum_magazine#Deletion_of_"high-capacity_magazine"_by_sockpuppet_Iljhgtn

This is a misleading statement of the issue at hand. The sentence in question is the opening sentence of the article and provides a piped link. Since this is an opening sentence it should have a consensus description. Also, there is a debate as to what is a "high capacity magazine". Some sources simply mention it as a term to describe a magazine that is bigger. Others are using it to mean a specific thing, typically a magazine that exceeds a legal limit. It's a term that typically has a political meaning rather than a technical one. Springee (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It also should be noted that part of the issue at hand is piped links in the article opening. Springee (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hold on, for what article? Link please. That's a requirement. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. The article is Drum magazine. Lightbreather (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Read literally, it's a descriptor stating that drums generally contain more rounds than box magazines. The PPSh-41 was intended to be used with mainly drum magazines, so does that mean that their box mags were "low-capacity magazines"? Also the high-capacity magazine section seems a bit U.S.-centric. Stikkyy (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add these articles related to economy in the United States and some European countries but I don't know if dpa is reliable or I should look for a better source. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This website is run by Deutsche Presse Agentur, so the default assumption would be that it is a reliable WP:NEWSORG. Looking through their history on the Wikipedia article, it seems like there's been a few controversies historically, but all seem to have been addressed with retractions/apologies (which is what we'd expect from a generally reliable publication), and none of the controversies seem particularly recent. The most recent prior discussion of this source is here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I hope to establish a consensus regarding the reliability of two Filipino indie magazines, Parcinq and Kasing2.
The site for Parcinq is actually down. I have no idea what's going on with them, if they're now defunct like Nylon Manila or just in the process of moving to another domain. Their most recent posts on social media are from just a few weeks ago.
Their Marketplace page is still up and they state there that they are a magazine, not a blog or whatever, and print issues are available for purchase.
Parcinq is used in quite a number of articles, including ones with GA status. I checked the Archived version of a few of their articles:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20220529055649/https://www.parcinq.com/post/ghosting-in-different-languages
• https://ghostarchive.org/archive/Lq9yd
  

It seems fine to me. The journalist who wrote the second article, Hans Carbonilla, also has a bunch of entertainment bylines at The Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Philippines' newspaper of record.
The tone is light and gushy sometimes but that's expected from a lot of pop culture magazines. They do at least actually talk about the music. I think the archived pages from this magazine are acceptable for pop culture, would you guys agree?
As for Kasing2, they are Visayan-focused so it seems very, very niche. Their About page lists a roster of editors and staff writers. Their editor-in-chief and founder, Julienne Loreto, is cited in a number of Wikipedia pages with Good Article status, e.g.

• Shirt (song)
• First Luv
• Maharani (song)

And a lot more articles
I'm not sure if this would be enough for Loreto to be considered a "subject expert" (in this case, for music I guess) per Wikipedia standards. But yeah, Kasing2 states that they have rigorous editorial standards. It seems that their editors are legit at least, unlike say, The Honey Pop (fan-edited K-pop site).
For me, this magazine seems reliable/acceptable for pop culture and Visayan topics, but the articles marked as "Fiction/Literary" are not reliable, only the Non-fiction ones. I don't see anything objectionable in the Non-fiction content, e.g. this article with exclusive details about a BINI song's creation and this short news piece about a P-pop group's comeback. Let me know if you guys agree or disagree. Handsome Ellis (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Parcinq was discussed here in June 2025, although there wans't a clear consensus as to whether it's reliable (Archive link). Searching online, I see there's a fair amount of coverage of Parcinq's output in other, more established sources like GMA and ABS-CBN (, , ), so absent evidence of foul play or other issues on their part, I would be inclined to consider them reliable for entertainment coverage.

Kasing2 lacks the same level of WP:USEBYOTHERS (the closest thing I found to it is an interview in &asian , another source of unclear reliability), but they say all the right things on their editorial policy and masthead pages, so I would be inclined to consider them usable, at least for non-WP:EXTRAORDINARY/controversial claims relating to entertainment in the Philippines, and as you note, obviously their published fiction is not a reliable source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! The Parcinq consensus definitely seems long overdue.

As for Kasing2, what would be considered "controversial"? Are the things they say in their reviews fine to use, like the Lagi song details and their not so positive review of Hell University?
I wanna clarify as well that &Asian does actually have generally reliable consensus for pop culture.

Thanks again! Handsome Ellis (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I think those use cases all seem fine, by “controversial” I was thinking more along the lines of reporting on potentially criminal activity or other scandals, which occasionally come up in entertainment magazines _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Handsome Ellis (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Cited Article: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation: A Myopic Watchdog? . Site: Halifax Media Co-op. Author: Ben Sichel a local high school teacher. Cited to support a claim in Wikipedia article Canadian Taxpayers Federation: In 2010, the same federal director told the Halifax Media Co-op, "We don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change ..." (The unnamed director was Kevin Gaudet.) Viriditas added that, I claimed it was poorly sourced, we disputed on the talk page, impasse. I'm repeating my arguments here about the "We" quote.

The source is the Halifax Media Co-op article by Ben Sichel, who doesn't bother with the journalism checklist Five Ws -- skipping Where or When or Why and condensing What so we can't know what words immediately preceded or followed those ten words.

Now here's something with more Ws, a transcript from the House Of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (FINA Committee) Meeting March 17, 2021. The Chair Hon. Wayne Easter was Liberal MP Malpeque. Mr. Peter Fragiskatos was Liberal MP London North Centre. Mr. Aaron Wudrick was federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The meeting was to discuss bill C-14 Economic Statement Implementation Act. ...
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
... Climate change is, I believe, the central challenge of our time. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
It's certainly one of the biggest challenges of our time. I don't dispute the reality of climate change. I don't have strong views on most of the rest of that bill. The main focus we have, the main concern we have, is with the debt ceiling. I would note that there is an easier way to get these measures passed: produce a federal budget. We would welcome seeing a robust federal budget, and then we could debate the validity of the policies contained in it.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
A budget is going to be presented, Mr. Wudrick.
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
That's great.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
Does that mean, then, that the view of the Taxpayers Federation has changed? I'm quoting one of your directors, Kevin Gaudet, who said on behalf of the federation, speaking for the group, that “We don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change”, adding that initiatives such as cap and trade are in no way proved to reduce CO2 emissions. Does that mean the organization now believes that climate change is a human-made phenomenon, predominantly?
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
Yes. Yes.
Well, you say that he's speaking “on behalf of” the CTF, we don't actually have a corporate view on those issues. We're not an environmental organization. I personally—
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm running out of time. I think any organization worth its salt, even those that are focused on the economy, and especially those focused on the economy, will recognize, Mr. Wudrick—
The Chair:
Peter, we'll have to allow Mr. Wudrick to respond. Go ahead, Mr. Wudrick.
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
I absolutely agree that man-made climate change is real and it is a serious concern.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
Okay. Well, that's good to know, but it's interesting that one of your directors is of a different point of view. I don't mean to—
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
That was 12 years ago, so with respect—
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
It's good to see that things have evolved.
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
Certainly.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
It's not an attack here, but I take issue—
,,,

So in 2021 a Canadian Taxpayers Federation director told a commons committee that yes the Federation thinks climate change is predominantly human-made but the Federation takes no climate change stand, the long-ago words attributed to Kevin Gaudet were not on behalf of the Federation, the director himself thinks climate change is real and serious. Thus the Halifax Media Cooperative article is not just a poor source, it's refuted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the first time I think I've someone put forward that the word "we" does not include the speaker within it. The source is not refuted. Seriously. How did you think this was a refutation? Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, you were indicating the former director of this organization is in the habit of using the royal-we without referring to the organization he was then director of. Either way, "we" generally refers to a group that includes the speaker.Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't indicate that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the problem: report that their director said ""We don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change”, adding that initiatives such as cap and trade are in no way proved to reduce CO2 emissions." and that twelve years later another director said that human caused climate change is real and that they don't have an official position on it. Rolluik (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I see the problem: poor source for saying the Federation is into climate denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like the Halifax Media Co-op source is reporting what a CTF director said in 2010, so it’s fine for sourcing that statement. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BUNSHUN, I understand it's not a reliable source for topics relating to BLP and politics, but what about interviews? Would they be fine as long as it's clearly attributed and stated in text, i.e. "Person stated through Bunshun that..." lullabying (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Miminity: I am pinging you as you have started both discussions about Bunshun in the past. I would really like your input. lullabying (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it is fine. The problem with Bunshun (and basically for every Shukanshi) is their unethical investigative journalism and entertainment reporting ( ) is heavy reliance on rumors and sensationalist headlines which is against WP:BLPGOSSIP. For me Bunshun is okay for interviews with attribution, if the person in the interview is the topic. It is unacceptable for controversial BLP topics, especially first-hand reports. Marginally reliable for uncontroversial BLPs, reliable for non-blp. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I realize that; I was just wondering if the reliable sources could be updated to include that interviews were OK. lullabying (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's see first what other thinks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, one of my articles was flagged a week ago at WT:DYK for using Bunshun and following the short discussion, I think it is appropriate. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Can the relevant information from the interview be sourced from nowhere else? While an interview from such tabloids, for non-controversial or about-self statements, may be usable (even if I think tabloids should not be used at all), it being from a tabloid that is known to freely peddle in holocaust denial and antisemitism provides copious apprehension to citing such a rag even in the prior described situation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• comment It's best used for opinions and reviews, not for proving the article is important enough to exist. Staticspector (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I am preparing Draft:BiggerZ and would appreciate independent feedback on whether the following sources are sufficiently reliable, independent and substantial for establishing organizational notability under WP:NCORP:

• CardPlayer Lifestyle, “Online Poker Payments and Crypto Gaming Habits”
• Yogonet International, “From crypto only to multi-currency gambling and what BiggerZ reveals about the next stage of payment flexibility in iGaming”
• Motorsport Week, “Why live betting is changing how fans follow motor race weekends”

I have used BiggerZ's own terms in the draft for only for basic operator, licensing and geographic-restriction statements, not to establish notability. Even though I found many PR articles, syndicated releases, affiliate-review sources and celebrity collaborations, I've not included them and they're promotional and company sponsored. I have excluded.

My concern is that the CardPlayer Lifestyle and Yogonet pieces use promotional or product-led language, while the Motorsport Week article is primarily about live motorsport betting rather than BiggerZ itself. But these are the best sources and I don't think they're bad per say.

Would any of these sources count toward the multiple significant, independent secondary sources required by WP:NCORP?

Thanks in advance! TrishaDias (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that the article is clearly LLM-generated, in direct contravention of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models, any comments on sourcing would be redundant. Please don't waste our time with bullshit-bot generated slop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AndyTheGrump apologies if that's the impression that was given but the article wasn't LLM generated. I would really like to know if the 3 sources count for notability as the remaining sources I can find are just PR articles and affiliate articles. Your advice would be helpful :) Thanks TrishaDias (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. Even ignoring the obvious LLM style, your edit summaries are complete nonsense. This, for example in no way whatsoever describes the edits actually made. Don't treat us like idiots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @AndyTheGrump for your feedback. This is my first time doing a Wikipedia article. Did I use AI? Yes. But the breakdown of information was purely based on what could be found. Is there anything you recommended that I do better? Your expert opinion would mean a lot 😊 Thanks. I would like to start writing articles regarding regulated brands. TrishaDias (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

TrishaDias, could you clarify why the page as currently written includes 4 subsections that repeat the exact same text? To be honest, admitting you generated that with an LLM may actually be the least damning path forward, as it's difficult to imagine why a competent writer would make such a mistake. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

On the matter of the actual sources, none of the three cited sources look reliable (, , ), as they are unbylined pieces in obscure publications covering a topic (gambling and crypto) known for rampant self-promotion and unscrupulous business practices _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosguill for your comment. Now that you mentioned it, I too see that they're unbylined articles. Thank you for this. Like I mentioned, this is my first time doing this and what I was looking for was articles that weren't sponsored. TrishaDias (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:BiggerZ is the palce to discuss this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. And judging by the draft content, quite possibly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Meanwhile, WP:Source assessment is another way to evaluate the sources covering BiggerZ. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I am seeking input regarding whether a source is sufficient under WP:RS and WP:V to support a direct quotation attributed to Emperor Menelik II in the article.

The quotation is currently sourced to Man, Know Thyself by Rick Duncan (p. 328), which states:

"On the signing of the treaty, Menelik said 'The territories north of the Merab Milesh (Eritrea) do not belong to Abyssinia nor are under my rule. I am the Emperor of Abyssinia. The land referred to as Eritrea is not peopled by Abyssinians – they are Adals, Bejaa, and Tigres. Abyssinia will defend his territories but will not fight for foreign lands, which Eritrea is to my knowledge.'"

My concern is not with the surrounding historical events or interpretations of the Treaty of Wuchale, but with the sourcing of this specific quotation.

Although Duncan attributes the statement directly to Menelik II, the book provides no footnote, endnote, or inline citation indicating where the quotation originates. While the book contains a bibliography, there is no way to determine which, if any, of the listed works is the source of the quotation. I have also been unable to locate this quotation in independent scholarly works or primary source collections.

This quotation is historically significant because it attributes a direct statement to Menelik II regarding the territorial status and population of Eritrea. My question is whether a modern secondary work that reproduces such a quotation without identifying its source is sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, or whether a quotation of this nature should instead be supported by a source that explicitly documents or attributes it.

For context, this issue has already been discussed on the article's Talk page, and the article was temporarily protected due to edit-warring over the quotation. I am not asking for a determination on the historical merits of the quotation, only whether this source is sufficient under Wikipedia's sourcing policies to verify it. Quintessentialpenguin (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Man, Know Thyself by Rick Duncan is published by Xlibris, so it's selfpublished. The policy on self published work is covered by WP:EXPERTSPS, which says that it would be reliable if the author is an expert in the field and has "previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I can't find anything to show that Rick Duncan has published works other than different selfpublished books. So it looks like a better source is needed for the quote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• https://action.allout.org/en/
• https://www.24heures.ch/

Both used in: Human rights in the Kurdistan Region, LGBTQ rights in Iraq, LGBTQ rights in Kurdistan, Murder of Doski Azad and Zhiar Ali. It is utilized in these articles exclusively to verify the 'existence' of a file that constitutes an original research flag.

Concerns:

1. action.allout.org is a user-generated advocacy platform where anyone can create a campaign, launch a petition, and collect digital signatures. Because the content and the "signature" metrics are fully crowd-sourced and lack independent editorial oversight or professional fact-checking, does this platform fail WP:SPS for establishing objective encyclopedic facts?
2. 24heures.ch is a localized Swiss daily newspaper operating behind a strict paywall that requires a paid digital subscription to access. While it may be a reliable source for local regional news within Switzerland, can a paywalled, regional source be considered reliable for establishing broader, global, or historical facts outside of its local reporting scope?

As I said, both sources were added merely to prove the existence of a flag, whereas neither of the sources explicitly mentions the flag itself. Zemen ✧ 05:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

action.allout.org is user generated and unreliable per WP:UGC. A courtesy link could be included if other sourcing are reporting on a particular campaign but it shouldn't be used to verify anything.
The reliability of 24heures.ch is not effected by having a paywall, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. 24 heures is a national Swiss newspaper, it would be generally reliable in the way of other national news organisation per WP:NEWSORG. Whether it's reliable in context is difficult to say without links to the contested content and the specific 24 heures report being used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

24 Heures is a very reliable paper. Reporters Without Borders notes it as one of the most significant newspapers in Francophone Switzerland : "In French-speaking Switzerland, the leading papers are 24 heures, Tribune de Genève, Le Temps, and La Liberté." But yes in context it may vary, but it being paywalled is irrelevant and it is not a small "regional" paper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and @PARAKANYAA: ​This flag was already removed after a talk page discussion because it had zero reliable sources. But the same user who made the flag just put it back everywhere, using a 24heures article from literally 7 days ago to try and validate it. The 24heures article doesn't even mention the flag. It just randomly shows up in the background. Using a brand new news photo's background to sneak an unverified, user-made flag back into articles is a clear WP:OR. Zemen ✧ 22:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources need to directly support the content they're meant to verify, that is the source in this case needs to explicitly mention the connection between this flag and the LGBTQ community in Kurdistan. I don't have access to the full 24 heures article, but if the only connection is that the flag appears in a picture then that's not enough. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you said it was unreliable for being "regional" and Swiss. I reject this argument. I agree that it showing up in the background of a photo is not good sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

So what is the next step now? Is there a permission to remove both the file and the sources from the articles? Because the creator of the file believes thier sources are reliable. I'm certain that if any user removes the file/sources, the flag's creator will just revert the edits, as is already visible in the article histories and what they have done on other projects. Zemen ✧ 12:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Revert them and point them to this discussion. If they still believe the sources are reliable then they can make their case here. However this board can't do anything about editors behaviour, it's not an admin board. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

both sources were added merely to prove the existence of a flag, whereas neither of the sources explicitly mentions the flag itself This isn’t a question of source reliability, then (the remit of this noticeboard); perhaps you want WP:NORN instead. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Since the file creator insists these sources are valid, I opened this thread to verify their reliability. Plus, an administrator actually suggested I bring the discussion here. Zemen ✧ 12:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

So here's the thing: 24 heures is a reliable source. AllOut is, as rightly pointed out by yourself and others WP:UGC. But the question of whether the Swiss newspaper is reliable doesn't really touch on the important question of whether the newspaper actually verifies that queer Kurds use a Kurdish rainbow flag variant. I was able to access the 24 heures article and dug around to see what it said about the Kurdish pride flag that is visible in the headline and what I found was this Des milliers de participants défilent lors de la Lausanne Pride 2026, brandissant drapeaux arc-en-ciel et pancartes dans un cortège coloré.

Now I know not everybody speaks French but, just to be clear, it is just talking about a rainbow flag. It doesn't mention the sun motif or any connection to Kurdish national movements.

So, to recap, AllOut is not a RS because it is UGC. 24 heures is a RS but, in this case, it fails verification for the information it is being used for as it does not identify that flag as Kurdish. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I also agree with the advice above that, while there is reasonable grounds to revert, this seems more of a WP:OR problem (or a WP:AN problem if they won't drop it after seeing this discussion) than a WP:RS problem. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree 100%: one of these sources is a reliable source, but that’s not actually what the dispute is about. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Final consensus: The first one is totally unreliable, while the second one is a reliable source, it completely fails to verify the flag in this case. If the file uploader keeps pushing it, I'll take it over to WP:OR or WP:AN. Thanks! Zemen ✧ 14:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I have been lurking on Portal:Current events for quite a long time now and I keep seeing unreliable sources being added. Be it Arab News for the US-Iran conflict, WP:AAPOLITICS or Al Arabiya (this one mostly in the past, so much I added an entry to WP:RSP for it) for international politics, Xinhua for a bunch of stuff that makes me mildly raise my eyebrows but I am by no means an expert in judging this.

This comes in what I perceive as "waves", right now at the time of writing I would say it is relatively calm and the currently visible current event pages are okay enough. Theres many temporary accounts/not logged in users adding to this situation but also a variety of established users. If I have the energy to do so, I occasionally try to find a replacement for bad sources but I have not much energy to actually argue with users and I remain mostly a lurker. But to me it seems this might be something bigger because of the sheer variety of user accounts adding unreliable sources at times. I kindly request some more opinions on this situation. NetSysFire (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

With Current Events, most likely it is really down to the fact that the topic is in the news, so we will have lots of outlets racing to get report matters and get views. This will then occur alongside the whole breadth of editors on Wikipedia wanting to provide up-to-date information, and not all of them will be familiar with RS, so they will be adding whatever articles they've found or that have come across their social feeds.

This is to say, I don't think it is anything particularly bigger than what we are already aware of (from history, some editors acting on behalf of pressure groups, states, etc.). Is there a possible structural solution we can implement to prevent the issues you've seen? Maybe, but I am not knowledgeable enough to suggest what such may be. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's a question better asked at the village pump, as it's more an issue with the current event process than the reliability of any particular source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Found this source being used but I am not sure its a reliable source? https://www.foodreference.com/html/fquickbreads.html Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Per , seems like a WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. Thanks Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Per the author may be a subject matter expert in the relevant field, but there's no evidence of prior reliable, independent publication. Idacticus (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Rodney Glassman’s article is poorly sourced. Much of it points to his own political campaign website and those are notorious for being fluffed. ~2026-38085-98 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources such as these can be reliable for statements by the subject about themselves (WP:ABOUTSELF). I've tidied up the article and markes it for notability, as this is a political candidate who hasn't held office and there's tougher criteria for those (WP:NPOL). The level of self promotion in an article about a living person might be better discussed on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference the article is now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Glassman (3rd nomination). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion there to salt it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• For reference, the article being discussed here: Rodney Glassman. As stated above, the discussion has since moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Glassman (3rd nomination). Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the Columbia Journalism Review reliable for the analysis of Ryan Grim‘s coverage of Graham Platner? FortunateSons (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be. Columbia Journalism Review is a highly respected source. That's a different question than weight - what is this article being used to support? I don't see very much discussion of Ryan Grim in the CJR article. Katzrockso (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Some more context is going to be needed. Grim is only mentioned in passing, and the report covers a multitude of sensitive BLP details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. I‘m guessing this wouldn’t get me over that hurdle either? It’s GREL, but the tone doesn’t scream neutral description FortunateSons (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources can be biased... — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a difference between reliability and suitability. Per WP:VNOT, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, information needn't be added to an article merely because it's true or was printed by a reliable source (especially breaking news). Content that might be appropriate in the Graham Platner article might not be especially relevant to the Ryan Grim article, and vice versa. Journalists write lots of articles, and some even get mentioned by other journalists, but this doesn't mean a biography must include every article that gets secondary mention. Watch out for WP:RECENTISM. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Is biblestudytools.com reliable for supporting the claim that John 3:16 is "the most popular verse from the Bible"? I personally find it odd that a single blog post from a for-profit blog site is being used to make such a subjective claim in the verse's Wikipedia page. PrudentMariner (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

They don't seem to have any claim about this verse one way or the other? Friend of Intellectual Diversity (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Their list of most popular verses is based on searches of their own website. It would be reliable for "it is the most popular verse on biblestufytools.com" but not for the statement as a fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The statement is meaningless as is. In what language of the many, in what country, in which century? Just delete it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to add some information to XSS.is article about forum operator's identity based on this source. sapphaline (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The source is a self-published source, since it's basically one guy's blog. Now, he may be a respected person in the cybersecurity community, but he's still running a personal blog there. I would avoid it for identifying living persons, because at the end of the day it's one person's blog. Even in its own right, the source is hedging as to the true identity of the person they think was arrested (it uses likely arrested) rather than putting it in its own voice.

So, here, I'd try to find other sources that have more of a reputation for editorial controls and review and/or more certainty about the identity of the person. Maybe this is something where we don't have clear information, and that's ok, but that also means we wouldn't want to include article content about a living person when it isn't so clear. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No, per WP:BLPSPS even though he's quite possibly a subject matter expert he can't be used. Additionally if they don't have articles WP:BLPNAME would apply, in addition to WP:BLPCRIME. FDW777 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Krebs is an expert but per the above source is a no go. :Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 10:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Eesti Entsüklopeedia was a print encyclopedia between 1985 and 2011 (as Eesti nõukogude entsüklopeedia [Estonia Soviet Encyclopedia] between 1985-1989) and was digitised between 2007 and 2011. It's generally reliable if somewhat dated and of course tertiary, when secondary sources are preferred. I would say it's reliable for its use in Arnold Kask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The source that was recently removed from the article was geni.com, a perennial user generated source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I was informed about this because of a series of reverts I made:

1. (twice) and

1. undid unsourced claims about his marriage and his children, and a claim about his parents that was sourced to entsyklopeedia.ee but which does not appear in that ref.

2. undid the same content but with an additional www.geni.com/ source, a user-generated genealogy site and thus not a reliable source.

I didn't make any of my reverts because of reliability concerns with entsyklopeedia.ee That's a digitized version of the 15-volume Estonian Encyclopedia (originally published from 1985 to 2007). I don't know anything about it and I have no reason to doubt its reliability. Meters (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

At Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, the article says "The Daily Mail claimed that Lena Dunham gave a speech at the event in which she described American football as "straight guys reenacting gay porn"." This is cited to the Independent, E!, and Buzzfeed, and could also be cited to Entertainment Weekly and Marie Claire (see the article and the talk page for links). Is this sufficient for inclusion? Courtesy ping to @M.Billoo2000:.--Launchballer 13:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but this seems more of an wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just found planecrashmap.com being used to verify aviation accidents, such as at John Glenn Columbus International Airport where it's being used to verify the following:

• On April 23, 1998, a Beech 58 was destroyed and consumed by fire after it collided with terrain during approach to the CMH airport; the pilot died. The probable cause of the accident was found to be the pilot's inadequate planned approach and his failure to follow wake turbulence avoidance procedures by not staying above the glide-path of the preceding Boeing 757, which resulted in a vortex turbulence encounter.^[1]

Looking at the about page of the website, it looks very likely that this is a self-published source, and a bad one at that: Contact regarding the site or its contact should be directed to (Redacted); Many people ask me for specific details on the accuracy of the geographic locations provided. While I can't verify (or even vouch for!) the accuracy of any of the data, I believe the data to be roughly correct. - so not only is it SPS, but they aren't even convinced about the accuracy of their information... I personally think this shouldn't be regarded as reliable. Thoughts? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Clearly self-published, and not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The site is not just bad, it is hopeless. No go, no go. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Ba-dum-tss Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not understand that, but to hell with it. It could not be nice. Goodbye for ever. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought you were making a gentle joke when you said “no go, no go” so I was having a chuckle - apologies if that caused any offence… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you know if https://moviemaps.org/ is reliable? There's little information on the publisher/creator or where they get their data. It seems to be accurate about the particular place I'm looking at (that Ross Park Mall was the filming location for parts of Happiest Season), for what that's worth, but I don't think that's fair as a judgment on general reliability. Ceratarges-etc (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, not enough information to go on, though it looks self-published. For what it's worth, I looked at all the entries near where I live (in the UK) and they were all accurate. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a bit of an odd one. Normally, the word "blog" quite rightly throws up massive red flags... but there are a good number of news outlets which use the word in their URL, and it's perfectly fine because it's not a blog in the traditional sense. This one I'm not so sure about.

Context - this was used to verify the announcement of new routes for United Airlines (diff). My concern is that it appears to be a shop, not a news outlet, and at the bottom of the page it states that the primary source is Simple Flying, which is in itself a deprecated source per WP:SIMPLEFLYING. What do we think? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Judgements of reliability are implicitly judgements of a sources use on Wikipedia. Reliable sources aren't required to abided by our ideas on reliability. So they can base their reports on sources that wouldn't be considered reliable on Wikipedia. For instance the BBC could base a report on user generated content, even if that content wouldn't be usable for sourcing on Wikipedia. They're also not simply republishing Simply Flying's own article, so the question is whether Aviation Shop's blogs are reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Do they have editorial practices in place that ensure fact checking and accuracy, do other sources consider them reliable, and what quality is required of a source in context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh I know SF isn't the be all and end all here - I just listed all I could gather from looking at the page, and that was just one part of it. The problem is, I can't find any information whatsoever about their "Aviation News" website section... the about page is all about their shop, which is obviously the website's primary purpose. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Any update or thoughts? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would add some thoughts. Their a very marginally reliable source, I wouldn't put them anywhere new a BLP and they have a conflict of interest with anything they sell. But for when an airline starts a new route it's probably ok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

(That’s the main reason I commented - to keep LCSB at bay :D) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Keeping this open in the hope a third opinion can weigh in :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally, the blog part is sometimes reliable because a source would fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. This is not a newspaper, however. This seems like it would fall under "random person/business' website", which would generally not be considered reliable outside of primary self claims if the article is about them. Silverseren^C 22:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

What would be your opinion on the diff above - my gut feeling is remove the ref? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah after reviewing the pages I'd remove them. It's clearly a shop that added a news section. They are basically just republishing Simple Flying with very little original work. Not a great source. Staticspector (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. NewAccount7295 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)