This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article "Billionaire CEO surprises UMass Dartmouth graduates with cash gifts" (archived: [1]) likely wasn't written by their staff, given that Charlie Munger died last year and the referenced Insider report [2] doesn't mention him. It grossly mistakes Granite Telecommunications CEO Robert Hale Jr with late Berkshire Hathaway vice-chairman Charlie Munger. AI hallucination, I guess? Ptrnext ( talk) 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• sigh* Goddammit, this sort of BS is going to make the internet such a hellhole. More than it already is. Are we going to just have to make a "reliable only before 2024" note for most news media at some point? Silver seren ^C 04:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit this again. We might need to make a [AI generated source] tag. CycoMa1 ( talk) 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Or something. CycoMa1 ( talk) 04:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's easy to foresee a future where watchdog organizations rate sources based on disclosed and undisclosed AI use. Where sources differentiate by being "AI Free" (for a price). It's always been, the lies are free and the truth is behind a paywall. -- Green C 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• The Times of India is generally unreliable anyway, this just makes it worse ( WP:TOI). Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised if they're using AI to write articles. However, the entry at RSP indicates the general consensus is that they aren't quite generally unreliable. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I recently processed it through WaybackMedic (a link maintainer). We have many links and domains: timesofindia.com, timesofindia.indiatimes.com, m.timesofindia.com, economictimes.com, m.economictimes.com. About 13.5k articles with these two publications, Times of India and Economic Times. They have six more publications. -- Green C 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:TOI was already questionable at best, but this sort of blatantly false content means that a formal RfC is probably in order since WP:TOI encompasses discussions no later than 2022. - Amigao ( talk) 02:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced this story is AI, rather intentional. Why they did this, probably the end result of how they obtain news stories, editorial decisions and their target market ie. monetary issues, not an infowar campaign. It's clearly designed to appeal to two readers: the wiser market who know who Munger is; and the dumber market who dream of a rich man giving them $1,000. They changed the name to someone famous because it is more relatable. They invented fake quotes from students to make the amount seem life changing, really only a token gift.

  My experience with Indian journalism in general is that (sometimes) a good story is better than the truth, particularly when that story advances the larger aim of keeping everyone dumb and happy, maintaining social harmony. I don't think we can eliminate all Indian news sources and the correct action is to accept them but with more caution and verification. Note that Times of India is the largest English-language circulation in the world, it's not like cutting off The Daily Mail or something, it would be huge and given this is the primary news outlet of India potentially very adverse. -- Green C 14:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't editorializing or misleading framing, it's outright fabrication. The only way to verify sources that have a reputation for this is to find a corroborating source, and at that point it's basically a generally unreliable declaration. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The tech industry uses "AI" as a buzzword to describe any piece of technology people don't understand and WP:RSN uses "AI" as a buzzword to describe any newspaper article that doesn't make sense. I would ask that anyone that believes an unreliable source is "AI-generated" try using a large-language model to replicate the hallucinations. It is much more difficult than you think.

Editors are greatly overestimating the capacity of WP:TOI's staff. They've fabricated content before AI ( including for pay) and will do so into the future, though this is much worse than usual. The impact of banning it would be enormous but even so, they're clearly not safe for even basic human-interest stories anymore. Chess ( talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds like we may have to revisit the source tag and totally depreciate the Times of India. Oaktree b ( talk) 05:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. As of this time stamp, the piece remains uncorrected and Charlie Munger is still alive, according to WP:TOI. - Amigao ( talk) 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi all,

URL: https://www.ellaslist.com.au/about-us

Please see:

• Monarto Safari Park
• New South Wales Standard suburban carriage stock
• Central Coast Zoo
• Disneyland in Australia (which is what gained my attention)
• Ella Spira (WP:BLP considerations apply here)
• List of Hi-5 live performances (WP:BLP considerations apply here)

I can see that Ellaslist and ellaslist.com.au have never been created.

Pretty much De minimis, but flagging it here, as I guess I'm obligated to.

Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 10:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be self-published and has no editorialisation but how is it 'socialmedia-ish'? Traumnovelle ( talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"We understand the impact that having strong community and supportive connections can make when you have kids. By making discovery easier at a hyper-local level, we help families make stronger connections in their local 'villages' which help break social barriers and parenthood isolation| https://www.ellaslist.com.au/about-us

OK, I guess I should have been more clear here.: 'socialmedia-ish'" Just a mums and dads website, analogous to any number of Facebook groups.

Does this address your concerns? Please let me know if not

-- Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 11:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess, I would just say it's just one of those random self-published websites by a non-expert littered over the internet that people somehow think are acceptable to cite when they clearly don't meet WP:V. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This will be of interest to many here: RetractionBot is back alive. The userpage will have many relevant categories (all the unintentional citations categories especially need human review).

If you notice a Cochrane Review that's 'retracted', ignore those notices for now (see story's comments for why exactly).

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is Conventionsouth.com a RS. I would like to use this and this.
• Also, I recently added content from Hotelnewsresource.com. Is this an RS.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• What about Meetingsnet.com- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Could some editors go take a look at the row going on there and on the talk page? Feels like this could use some extra eyes... theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

can you provide some info? the talk space's latest thing is from two months ago. User:Sawerchessread ( talk) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(Restored from unanswered archived): I have a question about The South African as a reliable source. I came across this article and it seems they have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt page. I remember last time I came across this, it resulted in an RFC that led to depreciation ( WP:ROYALCENTRAL). So I'm fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE and asking here if we should consider it a RS if its hosting plagiarised content? The C of E God Save the King! ( talk) 05:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Major changes in store for WaPost - current EIC is departing and being replaced by an editor from the WSJ through the end of the year, and then to a new EIC that is also going to oversee a division dedicated to more on-the-spot reporting including use of video and AI supported stories.
No immediate red flags, but one to keep on eye on as these transitions occur. —  Masem ( t) 03:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, worth keeping an eye on.

Would publishing "AI supported stories" affect your assessment of a source's reliability, or would your assessment remain unaffected unless the AI supported stories were of poor quality? Pecopteris ( talk) 03:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My main issue with "AI supported" stories is whether that just means they used AI to write the structure of the article, but all the facts and quotes in it were still real and verified by the editors before and after or...if they just gave an AI some prompts and had it write an article wholesale with minimal checking. Those are two very different scenarios. Silver seren ^C 03:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay seriously can someone make a [AI generated source] tag or something. CycoMa1 ( talk) 03:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I’m of the view AI generated sources aren’t very good. CycoMa1 ( talk) 04:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out by Silverseren above, if by "AI generated stories" they mean that they use AI to craft a struture but a human editor validates facts and edits to be readable, that's not a problem. If they just publish what ChatGPL spits out without validation or editing care, that's an issue. Its impossible to tell from this change what WaPost will actually do, but its worthwhile to watch out for. —  Masem ( t) 04:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Tesla Full Self Driving, where it's OK so long as the driver has their hands on the wheel. What could go wrong? Or tools on Wikipedia where users initiate bots to process 500 articles that make mistakes and users are watching and fixing. What could go wrong? -- Green C 14:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Most bots do a perfectly fine job if they’re put in charge of something hard to get wrong. They make mistakes, but so do humans. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Their next editor was announced as Robert Winnett from The Daily Telegraph in the UK. VintageVernacular ( talk) 04:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A report in WaPo itself on this. VintageVernacular ( talk) 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We've having a dispute with @ SergeWoodzing on whether Jacob Truedson Demitz' Centuries of Selfies ^[1] can be considered a reliable source. This topic has been touched on my talk page and at Talk:Magnus Ladulås (warning: these threads are not well focused on this issue).

In my opinion it is not reliable: Demitz is just an amateur, and the book is self-published through Vulkan media. With Demitz, there has also been an incident involving SergeWoodzing where Demitz self-published a paper on an obscure website and it was used as a reference in WP the next day ( Talk:Prince Bernadotte). SergeWoodzing has a stated COI with Demitz, for more information about that see this COI Noticeboard thread. In other words, I have concerns that any claims in the book might be designed to influence WP.

SergeWoodzing's argument is that the preface of the book is written by a respectable historian Ulf Sundberg. According to Serge, He obviously wouldn't have done that is he hadn't reviewed the entire book first, and Serge apparently wants us to regard the book as reliable as the books which Sundberg himself has written. The preface can be read in full on my talk page. In my opinion, this preface written to repay a debt a gratitude is not enough to dissolve the above concerns.

Complete list of pages citing Centuries of Selfies and its predecessor Throne of a Thousand years (which is available at archive.org) can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Throne of a Thousand Years. Of these, Bridget of Sweden displays a strong POV. I believe all these references were added by SergeWoodzing. Should they be removed or replaced by more reliable sources if they can be verified?

Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 09:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What do we know about "Ristesson Ent", the publisher of the 1996 edition? I agree the extensive network of COI edits is troubling. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be essentially the same as commons:Southerly Clubs, an organization chaired by Demitz. This has been discussed at Talk:Jacob the Dacian#3rd Opinion. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems clear then that this is a WP:SPS and all the usual warnings apply.

Digging into this a little, I'm a bit gobsmacked at how much content has been pushed into Wikimedia Commons by what appears to be a small family history society. This surely can't be OK. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Sundberg did not publish the book. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)berg did not publish the book.

Southerly Clubs is not a "small family history society". The organization has a total of over 4,300 members. It has a long-standing OTRS agreement with Commons which has bever been violated. Wikimedia Commons does not allow any images to be "pushed into" it. Are you objecting to their donation and creation of so many relevant images or what gobsmacked you? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the organisation? Who are the members? Does the 4,300 figure include the 3000 "passive" members mentioned here?

What do you mean when you say the organisation has an "OTRS agreement with Commons"? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 12:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am pessimistic about whether anything can be done about that Commons network. There is an occasional useful photo, and Commons does not have very strong content policies, except those related to copyright. What could be done is to limit their spillage into enWP. For example, the number of photos with Lars Jacob (Demitz) posing with a celebrity seems excessive. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Some of the captions at least are undue, like on Dustin Hoffman. I can't see a purpose in calling out a non-notable person just because they happen to be in the same picture as the notable person, especially when a full caption is easily available by clicking through to the source of the image.

I find it dubious that some of the wider collection belongs on Commons: Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.

Also Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host.

In terms of their usage on Wikipedia here, I don't see a lot of encyclopedic value, but rather a lot of personal aggrandisement for the benefit of family members. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 12:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Demitz was paid for his work on Sundberg's dissertation. Any claim that Sundberg wrote the preface to "to repay a debt a gratitude" is insulting to Sundberg as the ethical professional he is.

Sundberg wrote the preface largely due to the book's extensive and reliable bibliography (pp. 182-188) listing and carefully identifying over 350 scholarly works (most owned by Demitz as the list shows), and for the reasons he gives himself.

LIBRIS currently has 7 books by Demitz listed here, LOC has 2 listed here. His books are found in national and regional and state libraries all over the world. So whether or not he is "just an amateur", as nom asserts without much kindness or reliability, can certainly be debated, if necessary. Prefaces to two of his other books (see LIBRIS) are by Kjerstin Dellert and Biörn Riese, Esq. They did not write them "to repay a deby of gratitude" but because the writing in that work is good.

The item on Saint Bridget, as the source citation indicates, was brought up especially by Dala-Demokraten in that newspaper's review.

Sundberg in his preface especially mentions Demitz's beneficial knowledge of English exonyms, which has led to what can be called a campaign by this complaining user to eradicate them all over Wikipedia.

I do not know what Ristesson is or was in 1994 as to relevance here, only that their books have been quite well respected internationally. If I have been guilty of COI input, I am truly sorry. I have intended not to be. Should this matter be judged only on that, now when Wikipedia is allowing people's own websites etc. for sourcing about them?

Behind this noticeboard entry there is personal animosity stemming from my having appealed to nom not to ruin a redirect which once helpfully was for the disambiguation of various Swedish royal women by the same names, so that it, confusing, suddenly went to an article about the name, not about any of the women. Things have been difficult with that user since then and I have asked h cordially to stop being angry. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 11:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It was you who brought up this book quite unexpectedly on my talk page. I came here since I did not feel like discussing it with you alone. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 12:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• ISBN  9789163914805 - Poetry & song lyrics - Publicerad: Stockholm, Sweden : Swenglistic Underground, August 13 2018
• ISBN  9789163314858 - Grenstam - Publicerad: Stockholm : Famsac Stockholm & Blair, 2020
• ISBN  9163050307 - Throne of a thousand years - Publicerad: Ludvika ; Ristesson, 1996
• ISBN  9789198346008 - Prinsarna och prinsessorna Bernadotte i Luxemburgs adel - Publicerad: Stockholm : [Ristesson], 7 juni 2017
• ISBN  9789198346015 - Princes and princesses Bernadotte in Luxembourg's nobility - Publicerad: Stockholm, Sweden : [Ristesson], June 7 2016
• ISBN  9789189179639 - Centuries of selfies - Publicerad: Stockholm : Vulkan, 2020
• ISBN  9789152717073 - Brandgula tillägget 2006 - Publicerad: [Stockholm] : [FamSAC], [2006]

From The Wikimedia Commons page that you created on "Southerly Clubs":

This image comes from the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, Sweden, a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod, Mimical Productions, F.U.S.I.A., Swenglistic Underground (formerly CabarEng), Ristesson Ent and FamSAC.

So 6 of these 7 books appear to be published in association with "FamSAC", "Ristesson", or "Swenglistic Underground", which all come under the umbrella of "Southerly Clubs", of which we are told Demitz is the chairman. The other 1 is published by Vulkan, which Google Translate suggests is a self-publishing company.

A book being available in a library does not mean the book is reliable. A celebrity endorsement does not mean the book is reliable.

WP:SPS applies. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if considered self-published, WP:ABOUTSELF applies as to Sundberg's endorsement of Demitz's bibliography and knowledge.

Riese is hardly just a celebrity. Only his prominence as a bank lawyer landed him in svWP. Not all WP bios are on celebritues.

FamSAC and Swenglistic Underground have their own boards. Southerly Clubs administers their emails, phones etc but has no say whatsoever in their publications or other activity.

National libraries etc do not include worthless books in their collections, particularly not the LOC or British Library. They are very picky.

Ulf Sundberg's preface is what should be discussed as a reliable source. Angry and eager as you are to trash him, you even tried to tag him for notability until you realized on your own that that was an error.

Another factual error of yours; I did not create [3] or negotiate it's OTRS.

You are obviously trying to use this forum to promote your own personal agenda, now ignoring Sundberg. Sad! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Please can you take care to be clear who you are responding to. You are talking to two different editors but seem to be mixing us up.

I will respond to the parts that I think were directed at me.

• ABOUTSELF does not apply to Sundberg's preface because Sundberg didn't publish the book, and it's not about him.
• Riese is completely irrelevant as his preface was on an entirely different book to the one we are discussing.

Relevant re "just an amateur". -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• FamSAC and Swenglistic Underground have their own boards. And yet, this page which you created says Demitz is the Deputy Chairman of FamSAC. So how does he have no say whatsoever in their publications or other activity? Demitz is also listed under Board of Directors & Honorary Members on another Commons page that you created. Hardly independent.

A deputy chairman cannot publish h organization's books on h own. Neither can a chairman. They are not owners, only board members. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• National libraries etc do not include worthless books in their collections, particularly not the LOC or British Library. They are very picky. Legal deposit libraries hold vast collections and being included in those vast collections does not imply reliability.

LOC does not accept deposits of foreign publications. Only donations they consider valuable. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Another factual error of yours; I did not create [4] or negotiate it's OTRS. I didn't say you did. I said you created this page (and you did).

So what is an OTRS agreement anyway, and who did negotiate it, and what does it say that should influence our judgement of the reliability of a book that it published? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You brought up Commons. Commons is irrelevant here. If you want to discuss this at Commons, go there! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(Aside: please don't interleave comments)

"Just an amateur" is perfectly accurate, and one professor liking the book isn't enough to make the author non-amateur, and isn't enough to undo the self-published nature of the book.

The author is clearly intimately involved in the publishing organisation to a degree that makes the publishing organisation non-independent, and thus the book is still a self-published source.

Whether the LOC values the book or not is independent of whether the book is a reliable source of facts for a history article. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 13:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You are trying very hard to tell us that someone is clearly intimately involved in something, as if you knew that for a fact. And you also infer that you have lots and lots of knowledge about these things, these organizations and these people, which we have no actual reason to recognize. A for effort, A+ for ego, F for insight. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

A deep understanding of how Ristesson Ent and the other clubs work and what they do is not required here. Ristesson Ent is not an established publishing house, Demitz has had a position in its board, and it mostly or exclusively publishes books by Demitz. That is enough to establish it as non-independent of Demitz. As for the status of 'amateur', the onus would be on you to show that Demitz is an established subject-matter expert. Self-publishing books is not enough for that.

We might also discuss whether these books can be considered reliable despite being self-published. According to WP:USINGSPS, a reliable source has the following characteristics:

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. N
2. It is published. Y
3. It is appropriate for the material in question, i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
4. It is a third-party or independent source. Y
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. N

There is no evidence that the first and the fifth condition would be met. The third one depends on context. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 08:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The Times of Israel has shown itself to be biased in favor of Israel on multiple occasions, such as this article where they put an Israeli report above internationally recognized reports about Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, and this article where they refer to Sde Teiman detention camp as a "field hospital", and the civilians held there as "October 7 suspects". MountainDew20 ( talk) 02:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have they published anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict that has been shown to be false? Pecopteris ( talk) 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a question of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Opinions and controversial facts sourced to the ToI are unlikely to be due unless balanced with contrasting opinions, attribution is likely necessary in many cases. The use of "field hospital" to describe a detention camp is unlikely to be due at all.

It will have very useful factual information about the Israeli perspective on the conflict, especially the thinking of members of the genocidal regime and its armed forces, but it must be used with care due to its level of bias, the lack of freedom of speech and level of self-censorship within Israel at the current moment. Boynamedsue ( talk) 05:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@ MountainDew20 First of all your tone is highly problematic. This is not how we start discussions here. We present questions for discussion. We don't give orders to the entire Wikipedia community. Second, there is nothing problematic with the article about the "famine". It just reports about the position of the Israeli health ministry on the subject. Third, regarding the Sde-Teman facility, the Guardian and CNN also say there is a field-hospital there. Vegan416 ( talk) 08:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

They describe it as a field hospital at a detention camp, which is different. The whistleblowers' evidence regards torture at the detention camp as a whole. Saying Sde-Teman is a "field hospital for October 7th suspects", when in fact it is a detention camp for any males captured by the Israeli army in locations they deem likely to hold Hamas/other fighters is worrying. This is a good example of why we must use ToI with care.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The ToI article also describes this facility in the same way "The hospital is near the city of Beersheba in southern Israel. It opened beside a detention center on a military base after the October 7 Hamas attack". And "Israeli human rights groups say the majority of detainees have at some point passed through Sde Teiman, the country’s largest detention center. Doctors there say they have treated many who appeared to be non-combatants". You apparently didn't read the whole article, and judge it based only on the title... Vegan416 ( talk) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The wording is bad in the article in several places, the article draws a line between the two facilities that no other source does. Again, I think it is clear that the degree of bias and limitations on free speech in Israel means that we need to be careful with these type of sources. This of course does not mean we can't use it. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have shown that the Guardian and CNN also draw a line between the facilities. Also it seems that the people who were the sources for this article worked in medical jobs there, so the emphasis on the hospital part seems reasonable. I also disagree completely with your claim that there are significant limitations on the freedom of the Times of Israel. This article actually proves the opposite. Vegan416 ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they published an article about Sde Teiman and did some journalistic work themselves to investigate the abuses committed by "their" side actually shows that it's a reliable and valuable source. Alaexis _¿question? 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the better Israeli media in my experience, a little biased but comparatively less so than others. Byline "TOI staff" should be avoided and attribution for controversial material, but otherwise I think its OK. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

All sources on this are biased, and by that I include the New York Times etc., which the other day attributed to the Israeli government a plan which other sources said substantially met the core demands of the Hamas authority, a plan which Israel promptly rebuffed. Were bias the criterion, then we would be close to having no secondary sources at our disposition. Nishidani ( talk) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Its news reporting is better than most of the Israeli press. Its opinion pages are frequently written by lunatics and should be ignored. Zero ^talk 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell us which of the writers featured in the OPs section here today is a lunatic , and why do you think so? Vegan416 ( talk) 09:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ToI blogs are obviously unreliable unless written by an expert. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Come on Vegan416, you can't be telling people "We don't give orders to the entire Wikipedia community" (which is not really a rule, rather, a popular activity/comedy goldmine), then ask someone to name names, thus potentially violating WP:BLP. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 10:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't order him. I asked him. Can't you tell the difference between ordering the entire community to stop using a source, and asking someone a question? Also, obviously Zero did not use the word "lunatic" here as a certified psychiatric diagnosis but rather as his political opinion, which therefore doesn't violate WP:BLP in any way. Vegan416 ( talk) 10:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I can tell the difference between 'order' and 'ask' using the difference in symbols. That's probably why I wrote 'ask' rather than 'order', although I can't be sure. Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you. I was merely pointing out what looked like a mistake to me. If you are interested in testing WP:BLPTALK, it's probably better to do it yourself. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 11:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who labelled here a whole group of specific people as potentially "lunatics". So whatever concerns you may have regarding WP:BLP should be aimed at Zero and not at me. Vegan416 ( talk) 11:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition to Nishidani's point, our policies do not require reliable sources to be unbiased or even neutral. They do require them to be accurate in context of the material they are being used to source/reference. The issue with the TOI isnt one of bias, its that it frequently publishes what amounts to Israeli government line with little-to-no editorial comment or critical evaluation. So when the Israeli government goes into misinformation mode, the TOI reflects this. Its incredibly low-value when compared to most reputable non-Israeli news organisations on the subject of Israel government and state actions, even taking into account bias. Its certainly reliable if you want to know what the Israeli government wants people to think/believe. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a few examples of them uncritically reporting something you would describe as: Israeli government goes into misinformation mode, the TOI reflects this. Its incredibly low-value when compared to most reputable non-Israeli news organisations on the subject of Israel government and state actions, even taking into account bias FortunateSons ( talk) 13:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ToI is generally reliable for good reasons. They do original reporting (though I concur with others that some of their opinion pieces are of mixed quality in text and author), but removing any citation simply because it’s ToI will be highly inappropriate 99% of the time. Bias (which they are significantly less affected by than many others) is not unreliability. FortunateSons ( talk) 12:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Boynamedsue, Nishidani, Selfstudier and Alaexis. No source on this contentious topic is perfect; we should be wary of being overreliant on any one source; but bias is not unreliability and this is basically usable with the usual caveats. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Bobfrombrockley here. TOI is generally reliable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This may not be obvious to most editors, but the central use-case for TOI and, to a lesser extent, JPost, is as aggregation of Hebrew-language media. Many stories are only available in English via these outlets, and they are usually reliable translators. NOTE: This is to the exclusion of specialized legal, religious, or military subjects. TOI and JPost do not have the expertise to translate these articles correctly (no one with legal, military analysis, or Orthodox-religious higher education on staff) and the result is often seriously distorted.

Although w/r/t religious and technical detail a similar concern attaches to every daily newspaper, I would never prefer TOI for any claim that a monolingual outlet had equal ability to report. For example, I spoke with Jacob Magid last year for a story regarding UN diplomacy. He had badly misunderstood his source, unlike mainstream outlets. There is no reason to use TOI for such a claim.

Anyway, there's a category of such publications for every foreign language, and it does no one any good to restrict our citations to equal-quality foreign-language sources that most editors can't even evaluate. GordonGlottal ( talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draft article under construction Imitation of a non-Muslim's by a Muslim (still in user space)

• Here are two books by two different research fellows associated with S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Singapore.

• First book is published by Springer Nature singapore and Second book is published by Imperial College Press London.

1) Hassan, Muhammad Haniff. Civil Disobedience in Islam: A Contemporary Debate. Singapore, Springer Nature Singapore, 2017. P 35. (Author: Muhammad Haniff Hassan is a Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests Islamism, wasatiyah, and contemporary Islamic jurisprudence.)

2) Ali, Mohamed Bin. Roots Of Religious Extremism, The: Understanding The Salafi Doctrine Of Al-wala' Wal Bara'. Singapore, Publisher Imperial College Press, Distributor: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2015. P 10. (Author: Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.)

• Please help confirm if above two books can be accepted as WP:RS?

• Just for record:Another input request at WP:NOR/N is about distinct and different sources hence not WP:FORUMSHOP.

Bookku ( talk) 03:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you some good reason for distrusting those sources? Books from those publishers would normally be accepted as reliable sources without question. NadVolum ( talk) 17:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Both seem to have editorial oversight so both are RS per wikipedia's definition. Ramos1990 ( talk) 03:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Colombia has an RfC for studies on genetic ancestry of Colombians. 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. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Are these two sources WP:RS for her their date of birth: [5] and [6]? Many thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

With no comment on the DOB, doesn’t D’Arcy use they/them? FortunateSons ( talk) 10:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have adjusted my question above. Although I think her gender at birth, which presumably also still appears on her birth certificate, is well-known. Or are you suggesting that one or both of those sources are not reliable because they mis-gender her? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It was just a reference to your edit, not to the sources. Thank you for changing it! FortunateSons ( talk) 10:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You have no opinion on the sources? Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not familiar enough with the person or the specific sources, I could speculate, but last time I tried my hand at WP:DOB, I was in the significant minority.

If I had to say: The List (magazine) and Russh seem fine on reliability (with a very surface-level check), but I would look for a few additional RS or a direct statement (perhaps on social media) by them, just to be on firmer ground regarding widely published.

I would recommend that we wait for a few others to join in, just to be sure. FortunateSons ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources from "social media" tend to be dismissed as unreliable, although I have seen birth dates supported by "Happy Birthday" tweets on X. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re right: an Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF use can be helpful as secondary confirmation, in line with WP:DOB, A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. FortunateSons ( talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The List say the right things about concern for factual accuracy and so forth, and publish contact details to submit corrections; Russh have a similar policy but I can't find any information about how to submit corrections. The authors of both pieces ( [7], [8]) have apparently also published in magazines I would normally consider reliable for this sort of basic celebrity biographical information (one for Vogue, the other for GQ and Vulture). I don't see any particular reason not to consider these reliable sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

On the basis of that appraisal, I would be happy to add. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Could Harold Perkin and his The Third Revolution: Professional Elites in the Modern World be considered a reliable source about Heydar Aliyev? The book could be found here, the relevant part on pages 138-139. According to Wikipedia article about Perkin, he is considered a respected scholar, but in a different field. He is not an expert on Azerbaijan or Heydar Aliyev, never published any specialized researches on this topic, and only makes passing mentions of Aliyev in his book. General topic of the book is not Aliyev or Azerbaijan, but "the rise of a global professional society since the Second World War". In the paragraph about Aliyev, Perkin makes completely false statements, such as this:

Quote: Aliev thrust himself to the head of the Azeri People’s Front, and was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the republic in time for independence in 1991.

In reality, Heydar Aliyev never led Popular Front of Azerbaijan, who were in fact his political opponents. Apparently, Perkin mixed Abulfaz Elchibey (whose actual surname was also Aliyev) with Heydar Aliyev, which shows that Perkin had no real knowledge of the subject. Generally, the two paragraphs dedicated to Aliyev read more like yellow press than a serious research, and contain other unrealistic claims.

In my opinion, if a source shows clear lack of knowledge on the subject, and makes false claims, it cannot be considered reliable on that particular subject. In addition, according to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. This I believe is clearly the situation with the Perkin's book. Grand master 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I think Grandmaster should've linked the relevant talk discussion in their post here, no? Otherwise, how editors would know the context of what we've already discussed?

Anyway, please see the discussion about Perkin: Talk:Heydar_Aliyev#Harold_Perkin_falsified_Aliyev's_biography.

Obviously he's a reliable source; being an esteemed historian, his book is also published by established Routledge with a peer-review process. The surname confusion quote in the page 139 that Grandmaster cherry-picked to invalidate Perkin isn't even included in the wiki article of Heydar Aliev. Also the confusion doesn't come from Perkin himself but from The Independent news article that confused the two Aliyevs, so Perkin shouldn’t be blamed for when he was misled by another source.

And as if Perkin's credentials aren't enough that he's a clear WP:RS published by an established publisher with a peer-review process, there is an actual review of Perkin's book too (that Grandmaster omitted mentioning here), praising the book for being well written and an excellent reference for political science and history:

• “The book is lively and well written. Surely controversial and thus worth reading. As an essay targeted to the public at large, it is a work of culture and finesse. It will make an excellent reference for one of those undergraduate discussions that so usefully open or close a political science, history, or even economics course.” [GIANNI TONIOLO, Duke University, The Journal of Economic History 1998]

And as if this wasn't enough, there is another book which verifies the same things Perkin said (the things that are actually cited in the Heydar Aliev article), like the sex services info which is confirmed in this other book too:

• "Among these volunteers, there were women, and the organization's property holdings solved the problem of secret rendezvous for them and their men friends. This was perhaps the key sense in which these flats were 'secret'. Using his official position, Geidar Aliev would encourage his 'volunteer' helpers to make love to him. One of them went along with it but then changed her mind and kicked up a fuss. This was after Stalin's death, and the terror of what had been Beria's outfit eased for a while." [The Soviet Mafia by Arkady Vaksberg, page 176]

It should be noted that after I provided the Vaksberg book basically verifying what Perkin said, Grandmaster tried to discredit Vaksberg and his book too with WP:OR commentary [9], but to no avail because WP:OR is not accepted on Wikipedia, and to top this off, there is an actual positive book review for Vaksberg and his work as well, it even praises the Azerbaijani chapter in particular:

• the most interesting chapter is the one on Aliev and the Azerbaijan mafia. The recent civil disturbances involving the surviving communist leadership, the Aliev mafia and the popular front leadership becomes more comprehensible after Vaksberg's analysis. [10]

Basically after all of this, seemingly having no further replies to my arguments, Grandamster brings the discussion here to this board because apparently Grandmaster wants "third party opinions" [11], even though we already had a third party in the talk discussion ( Hipal) who also disagreed with Grandmaster's personal views [12]. Vanezi ( talk) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to link the discussion at talk of the article, apologies for that. Otherwise, Perkin actually took all the content about Aliyev from Vaksberg, which Perkin himself acknowledged, but due to not being familiar with the subject Perkin mixed up the facts. And as I wrote above, Perkin made only a passing mention of Aliyev in 2 paragraphs of the book that is generally dedicated to a different subject. Grand master 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Heydar Aliyev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over at the article talk page, you were asked to provide sources. Your not doing so here makes it seem that this is a personal issue based upon OR. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you need a source that Heydar Aliyev did not lead Popular Front? We have articles about Popular Front of Azerbaijan and Abulfaz Elchibey, and you were provided a few sources at talk. If that's not enough, here's more.

Audrey L. Altstadt. Frustrated Democracy in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan. Columbia University Press, 2017. Quote:

The Popular Front was formed in secret meetings of academicians and literati during 1988-89. Some of its members were already known as dissidents, including the fifty-year-old Abulfez Aliyev, a historian who worked in the Academy of Sciences' archives. He had formerly worked as a translator in Egypt and taught at Baku State University, then was jailed in the mid-1970s for anti-Soviet activity. He emerged as a leading personality in the Popular Front and was dubbed the "messenger" (elchi). His family name, a very common one, was later replaced with "Elchibey" (adding the honorific "bey" to the title). At the first congress of the Popular Front in 1989, Elchibey was elected the organization's chairman. Among the other leaders were men and women in their mid-thirties, including Etibar Mamedov, Isa Gambar(ov), Leyla Yunus(ova), and Zardusht Alizade, all of whom later founded political parties.

This is from Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2003:

The year 1989 began quietly in Azerbaijan before accelerating to a terri­fying climax. On 16 July, the Popular Front began its second phase of activity by holding its first congress and electing as its new chairman Abulfaz Elchibey, the man who would later become Azerbaijani presi­dent in 1992. Elchibey was a former dissident and scholar of the Middle East who, even his critics conceded, had great personal honesty and moral authority.

I can cite many more sources about Abulfaz Elchibey being the leader of PFA, if needed. Grand master 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

Following the instructions for this noticeboard, what claim currently being supported by a Perkin reference are you questioning? -- Hipal ( talk) 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm questioning reliability of this source for this particular article in general. Grand master 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Then you're probably wasting everyone's time. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed a mistake that no one with a passing knowledge of Azerbaijan would make. Considering that Azerbaijan is not the topic of this book, I wouldn't use it for anything Azerbaijan-related. Alaexis _¿question? 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Can the publication The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka (Report) [13], published by the Tamil Information Centre authored by Lutz Oette in December 1997 can be considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia? It doesn't seem listed in Lutz Oette list of publications in his profile at SOAS University of London [14] and the Tamil Information Centre [15] seems to be an advocacy group. Kalanishashika ( talk) 07:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Kalanishashika, Lutz Oette is a professor of international human rights law and this publication in particular has been cited in other reliable sources such as " Peaceful Intervention in Intra-State Conflicts: Norwegian Involvement in the Sri Lankan Peace Process" (p. 272) and " The Psychology of Nationalism" (p. 157) both published by well-known academic publishers. Given the author's credibility and the report's notability, it can be used on Wikipedia too, with the publisher name explicitly attributed if need be.--- Petextrodon ( talk) 10:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Petextrodon: It's important to note that an appearance in a list of references from a reliable source does not demonstrate reliability. A reliable source can say "Reports like [X] are completely wrong on this point." and then list [X] in their references. It's not enough that the report appears in the bibliography because it really matters how the publication is mentioned in the books.

I haven't checked for these particular books for how they mention this report, so I'm making no specific comment on this Oette reference. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Right. My point was that it has external coverage by RS for its notability so it's not some fringe publication.--- Petextrodon ( talk) 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is that it could still be fringe and/or unreliable. Those two books could just as well say "Fringe voices such as [X] say that the Earth is a cube". You'd need to pull up how the report is actually mentioned in those books, ideally with a quote. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 11:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, there are academic books on misinformation where a source's listing in their bibliographies should not be used as evidence of being reliable or non-fringe! — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 11:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I get that. But the author himself is a notable and qualified authority on the matter. Dispute seems to be about the publisher "Tamil Information Centre" which can be characterized as pro-Tamil. The book is found in several university libraries: https://search.worldcat.org/title/822544097 --- Petextrodon ( talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If the publisher "Tamil Information Centre" is pro-Tamil, then it can't be an independent source. Furthermore, are we talking about the same Oette here? Professor Oette doesn't seem to acknowledge this report in his works [16]. Hence this looks neither independent nor reliable. Kalanishashika ( talk) 15:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Kalanishashika Yes it's the same Oette who has shown a longtime interest in the Tamil human rights issues. In fact, Seoighe (2017) that you recently removed thanked him in the Acknowledgements. Works mentioned in that website are relatively recent. The report in question is from the 1990s. In any case, Tamil Information Centre can be explicitly attributed if needed.---- Petextrodon ( talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Petextrodon, I disagree. There is no link established between Professor Oette and the Tamil Information Centre publication. You yourself stated that the Tamil Information Centre is Pro-Tamil. How can a bias source be used for such a serious accusation such as Genocide. Kalanishashika ( talk) 15:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"There is no link established between Professor Oette and the Tamil Information Centre publication"

What do you mean by that? Are you saying the publisher just lied about the authorship and named a random public figure who could then sue them for libel? It makes no sense. I don't know much about Tamil Information Centre but they look like a Tamil rights advocacy organization. I didn't cite the report for the publisher but the competent authority on the matter. Publishers can be explicitly cited. Even reputable human rights groups are technically advocacy groups.--- Petextrodon ( talk) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Kalanishashika ( talk) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. Also, NGOs like International Crisis Group and UTHR are considered reliable here despite them also advocating a particular policy thus not fully politically neutral: both have publicly advised Tamils to renounce separatism for example. Reports by the Tamil Information Centre are also cited by other reliable secondary sources: " War and Underdevelopment, Volume 2" (p. 207) I see several more in google books. If it's enough for a Oxford University Press publication, then Wikipedia can handle it too.--- Petextrodon ( talk) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think one can reasonably take this to be the same Lutz Oette as the one at SOAS based on the "About the Author" on the third page of the report. He is now a professor at an established institution but was not then (he was a recent graduate at the time of publication). He does not include this report in his publications and writes the report as the Tamil Information Centre:

Based on the findings of this study, the Tamil Information Centre (TIC) urges the government of Sri Lanka to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in particular Article I, V, and VI.
—  The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka (Report), p. 76

As such, I do not think the reliability of this particular report should be based on his current expertise. It is a report published by the Tamil Information Centre, written from the perspective of the Tamil Information Centre, and as reliable as the Tamil Information Centre. It is certainly reliable for the point of view of the Tamil Information Centre ( WP:ABOUTSELF), but what needs to be determined is:

• Whether it is reliable for statements of fact beyond "the Tamil Information Centre wrote a report that said ____".
• Whether any inclusion of the Tamil Information Centre's report is of due weight.

Hope that helps. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 19:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There has been a misunderstanding here. The report has been authored by Lutz Oette, which is explicitly mentioned in the introduction, it is the afterword by the publishers 'Tamil Information Centre' which is referring to the preceding study by Oette. Furthermore, the TIC explicitly thanks Oette for authoring the study in the 'acknowledgements'. The 'Tamil Information Centre' definitely cannot be taken as the authors of this study. Oz346 ( talk) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What's the extraordinary claim being made? OP didn't mention a specific claim (which makes it more difficult to answer OP's question, since reliability can vary by context). Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"Lutz Oette, an international law specialist, examined the reported cases of enforced disappearances of thousands of Tamils between 1984 and 1997 and stated that they fell within the definition of genocidal acts." This is the line on the Wikipedia page Tamil genocide which the report is being cited for. It is already being explicitly attributed to Lutz Oette and not being said as a statement of fact in the Wikipedia voice. I see no issue with its inclusion. Oz346 ( talk) 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Hydrangeans, this is used to make to claim Lutz Oette, an international law specialist, examined the reported cases of enforced disappearances of thousands of Tamils between 1984 and 1997 and stated that they fell within the definition of genocidal acts. in Tamil genocide. This is an extraordinary claim. Kalanishashika ( talk) 13:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not an extraordinary claim, it's a fact, Lutz Oette did state this. It would potentially be an extraordinary claim if it was said without attribution in the Wikipedia voice, which it is not. It has been explicitly attributed to Lutz Oette as his opinion, not said simply as a statement of fact. Oz346 ( talk) 16:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If the claim under question is that Oette said this, then it isn't an extraordinary claim if the source is Oette (or a publication Oette wrote), unless it's unusual and exceptional for Oette to consider these enforced disappearances a genocide—has Oette contradicted this in other publications?

If the claim under question is that genocidal acts were perpetrated against Tamils, is that extraordinary either? Simply searching for "Tamil genocide" quickly yields The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka: The Global Failure to Protect Tamil Rights Under International Law (Clarity Press, 2009) written by Francis Boyle, also a specialist in international law. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 17:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point, my first attempt was to verify if this publication was written by Lutz Oette and it doesn't appear on his official profile or Google scholar profile (when I checked). I also noticed that Oette has written a lot on the Sri Lankan Civil War in his formal work, however I couldn't find any reference to genocide (did anyone else have any luck). 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Kalanishashika ( talk) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with MarkH21, this appears to be a selft-published report of the TIC and as pointed out by Petextrodon, TIC is biased. Kalanishashika ( talk) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Second everything MarkH21 in above comment. This is a self-published report by TIC, which can be used only as a source for their views with proper attribution, and only if those views are due. Abecedare ( talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Lutz Oette is the author, and TIC is the publisher. It is not self published. TIC are not a legal scholarly group and do not have the capability to author a report such as this, they are merely the publishers. In any case if there is any doubt on the authorship, Lutz Oette could be directly contacted to clarify. Oz346 ( talk) 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Lutz Oette is a Professor of International Human Rights Law in SOAS University of London are reputed authority in Human Rights. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Since there are scholarly sources that reference this work, we can be pretty sure that there was no fabrication and Oette did make this statement back in 1997.

Whether it can be used on Wikipedia is a matter of WP:DUE. Is he the only one who held/holds this opinion? Alaexis _¿question? 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Lutz Oette is an authority on human rights and is the is the Director of the Center for Human Rights Law at SOAS, University of London not only in Tamil issues but also in other issues here DW The Guardian AL Jazeera. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

These seem to be fairly recent. What was his authority in 1997 when this report was published? Kalanishashika ( talk) 14:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A friend of mine recently remarked that all mention of this organization seems to have been scrubbed from the web. Curious, I looked for them on Wikipedia, and found that archived webpages from them were used as refs on articles related to '90's industrial/electronic band My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult. This is the context I would have expected, but Mindway Corporation was a fan club that sort of developed into a cult centered around the band. They probably should not be being used a source even for simple things like track listings, which I assume would be available elsewhere. (note that there are a few other organizations with the same or similar names that do not seem to be related to this group) Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages at erenow.org are cited in 14 articles. When I tried to view one of those sources, I got some odd website behavior that made me think the domain had been hijacked. I can't find archive.org versions of all of those cites. Before I remove the ones that I can't replace with archived urls, could someone else validate whether there is really a problem with that domain or it's just me? Schazjmd  (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing no issues with the website. I followed the links in the first five articles in the search results at your link, all without any problems. I searched the site using it's internal search engine for "Canada" and "Malta" and viewed the first three hits for each, again without any problems. I didn't check whether the articles verified what they were being used for, but the title did match in all cases where it was given. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the double-check, @ Thryduulf, I must have browser issues or malware unrelated to the site. Schazjmd  (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just in case, I've gone through and made sure archive.is has a copy of all 14 (although I've replaced 1 with a copy of the book at the Internet Archive library). Archive.org seems to be forbidden by the site's robots.txt but archive.is doesn't respect that so it works. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The website allmovie.com, which previously contained independent summaries of films, and actors, has, apparently in the last month or so, switched to short summaries based on Wikipedia entries, headed "Description by Wikipedia". This would seem to make it an unsuitable source for these articles, but it's not clear how pervasive the change was (are there still some articles that are usable?) Can anyone throw light on what the changes have been, before its rating as a Reliable Source is changed? Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that there needs to be a larger discussion again; Allmovie is used on about 10,000 articles, they've restructured their internal data so most existing links do not work, and they've dropped a lot of content like reviews and non-wiki descriptions. On a quick glance, the mirroring appears to be a massive copyright violation as they are not using the material under the correct license, nor are they crediting the authors as required. "Rhythm One" no longer owns this farm, it was purchased or transitioned somehow to "Nataktion LLC" in May of 2020. This seems to just be a very small, straight-up marketing company that is cutting material under license (from some other data stream) and cramming as many ads as possible on each page. It may be best to have separate discussions on Allmusic and Allmovie, as there still appear to be staff reviews on Allmusic. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think AllMovie is usually an external link template. If it meets WP:ELNO (which I believe it already did anyway), we can remove that template en masse. But if it's used in article bodies, is there a way to ensure archiving for when it was reliable before? Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If Template:AllMovie name and Template:AllMovie title need to be removed from EL (and eventually deleted as these aren't citation templates), then they should be sent to WP:TFD so the correct bots can help. Gonnym ( talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Enough other sites use Wikipedia as a source that there's a great danger of circular references when they site Wikipedia and Wikipedia cites them... wasn't there an XKCD comic about that? (Yeah, here it is.) *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Good find. I think there needs to be a RfC regarding Allmovie. I've been dubious about it's reliability for actor bios even before it started using bios from Wikipedia as it had the incorrect DOBs listed. And there used to be fact sheets at the bottom of the actor pages. The actor bios on TVguide.com had the same things. So it looks like Allmovie was copying/pasting stuff beforehand. There actually hasn't been an official consensus on whether or not it's a reliable source. But even that doesn't stop it from being ref spammed on Wikipedia. Kcj5062 ( talk) 11:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Another issue I noticed during a recent AfD discussion is that the ratings on there are extremely questionable. It looks like they give every (released?) film a rating, even when they clearly haven't had someone watch it. For example, try looking up any lost film. I arbitrarily chose Across the Pacific, Within Our Gates, The Call of Youth, and Badger's Green, and all have star ratings on there. hinnk ( talk) 07:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Orlando Figes ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see the Talk page on my entry, Orlando Figes. Archive evidence has come to light (the Stephen Cohen Archive at Princeton Uni. Library) that should be admitted as a reliable primary source (indeed, the only reliable source) about the role of Memorial in the cancellation of the Russian publication of my book The Whisperers in 2012. The evidence contradicts the reports in the press which suggested that Memorial was officially involved in the cancellation. This is not true, as confirmed by the head of Memorial, Roginsky, in a letter to Stephen Cohen, which also makes it clear that the "Memorial" report was in fact the report of a single researcher. This is also not reflected in the wikipedia entry. I have been told by the active editors that the archive evidence is not considered reliable by Wikipedia policy whereas an inaccurate newspaper report on the role of Memorial IS a reliable source. This is obviously absurd. I am posting this here in the hope of a resolution before considering my legal options. Orlandofiges ( talk) 14:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not, how it works here. We prefer secondary sources over primary: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (from WP:OR) Best course of action is to find a better secondary source and persuade other editors the old source is outdated. Note legal threats (even veiled ones) may lead to a swift block ( WP:NLT). Pavlor ( talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the archive in Princeton, I understand that any content placed by an expert to a public domain is already a publication, obviously of WP:SPS nature. Hence, one can use it per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS if it helps to clarify something and the author is a well known expert, such as Arseny Roginsky, telling something in the area of his expertise. It does not mean we should use it (such materials are typically undue), but I think we can. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

See [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blackout_challenge&diff=prev&oldid=1227635674 with an edit summary "Removal of contradiction. Choking is older than the internet, and the internet was not invented by tiktok as the media from stolen territories insinuate. Moreover, the source is unreliable." The source is The Indian Express which RSNP says is generally reliable. And “stolen territories”? The editor is User:Westernethinicity33. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Whether it's unreliable or not (it's probably OK), there are plenty of better sources [17] [18]. And the editor concerned is talking gibberish, there's probably a CIR issue here. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've reverted three edits that removed sourced content, and warned the user pretty sharply. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC).

@ Black Kite At the moment almost all of their edits have been reverted, and I've asked what " the media from stolen territories insinuate." in two edit summaries means. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No response. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable and generally reliable. The Indian Express is a well-established news organization that regularly covers Internet culture as one of its many topic areas. —  Newslinger  talk 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am concerned with the reliability of this source https://lifestyle.tribune.net.ph/nhcp-celebrates-90-years-gears-up-for-centennial/

Kindly comment whether the source is reliable or not. Thanks

Best Uncle Bash007 ( talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The source is used in the linked article /info/en/?search=Bataan_Provincial_Building Uncle Bash007 ( talk) 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Tribune appears to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, the lifestyle section may not have as much editorial oversight as the news section but I see no reason it shouldn't be reliable. I do wonder if the content it's supporting in the article is due, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the building. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 13:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the site metalshockfinland.com a RS for heavy metal and/or biographies of musicians? The source of the dispute rests in Articles for deletion/Troy Stetina (2nd nomination) where an editor argues the source is a “respected source of info” and it is cited over 50 times. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, as I'm unsure on the reliability question, the particular article mentioned in the AfD is an interview so wouldn't count towards notability as it's not independent of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

is this source reliable? it is used for a dyk nom and according to its respective article, it is a tabloid. more info here. thanks! Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

From 1966 and for football coverage I'd say yes, it was one of the two local newspapers in Liverpool at the time. I wouldn't say the article referenced counts as the type of 'tabloid journalism' Wikipedia is concerned about. Orange sticker ( talk) 08:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable generally speaking. Not a tabloid in the sense of our rules.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PubPeer is a postprint peer review website with WP:User-generated content. It came up four times in the archives WP:RSN "pubpeer".

This discussion [19] ends with User:Hemiauchenia saying: "Clear exclude unless this gets picked up by other sources like Retraction Watch or something like an expression of concern is published."

Earlier, User:Hemiauchenia also wrote [20]: "When academics complain about peer review I don't think that it is a rejection of review entirely, it is simply that having a public review of a paper where many people can contribute like PubPeer is better, rather than only a few reviewers."

A concrete case in which this source has come up again is a BLP of an academic [21]: a journal has issued an official statement of redundant publication and there is more information on PubPeer, posted by an anonymous user, but which is verifiable. Someone at WP:BLP/N suggested asking advice here. Perhaps @ User:Hemiauchenia can weigh in?

My reading is that this particular combination of sources is sufficient (after all, what more sources can one expect to find in a case like this?), which aligns with the archived post, but is there consensus on this? SocialEpisteme ( talk) 10:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained to you by mutiple editors at BLP/N, PubPeer is ruled out by WP:BLPSPS and the original journal statement is ruled out by WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is true that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source", but you don't have the reliable secondary source which is essential for this debate to even begin. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:JFHJr suggested asking about it here, which is what I did. PubPeer has come up a few times, so it would be helpful to have a general view on this, also for other cases. SocialEpisteme ( talk) 11:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

SocialEpisteme: it looks like you have a resounding NO WP:CONSENSUS on two fora. Sorry for the delayed response; work is nonstop and this little farm needed me more. Cheers! JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as last time. Comments made in PubPeer are self-published and not appropriate as sources. It is not enough for sources to merely exist, they must demonstrate that the issue is significant enough to warr mentioning in the bio.ant Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable as it's user generated content, so it can't be used for any verification purposes. This is doubly so for BLP articles, where even if it was reliable it would still be unusable per WP:SPS/ WP:BLPSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the posters above, PubPeer is anonymous/pseudonymous, self-published user-generated content. I dont see any way in which this could be a WP:RS even if some accounts can be linked to well known people. Basically no, PubPeer cannot be used as a source. -- hroest 11:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

At online dating, there is some disagreement about the reliability of a source concerning divorce rates of people who met through online dating.

The source is Relative Strangers, Harry Benson, Marriage Foundation, 2021

Harry Benson is a pro-marriage advocate who is a team member of the Marriage Foundation. His profile at Marriage Foundation is available in this link.

My position is that this is a self-published source, and it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. I am unable to find evidence that Benson could be considered a subject matter expert. CommonKnowledgeCreator, on the other hand, disagrees. He suggests that it doesn't really matter if the source is self-published or not, and that Benson may in fact have training on statistics (he is currently a doctoral student).

The talk page discussion at the Wiki article can be found here.

Thanks for reading. Amaebi-uni ( talk) 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Elspamo4 ( talk · contribs) keeps reinstating a citation to a predatory journal in Doha Corniche, e.g. [22].

The so-called "American Journal of Environmental Engineering" (why an American journal would accept a Qatari submission is already a red flag) is published by Scientific & Academic Publishing, one of the more horrendous predatory publishers out there.

This is not a reputable source, nor a peer-review outlet, and the defense that its author is a head of departement, and that the paper is hosted on a university website, does not make this paper reliable.

I move that this paper is purged from Wikipedia, just like any other SAPUB papers, per WP:PREDWHEN.

If it's true that the Doha Corniche "role as a gathering place, often referred to as the "urban majlis", is integral to Doha's identity and social fabric", then there will be other, actually reliable sources, that will talk about it.

Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to self-revert since you raise a very good point that a non-predatory source should be easily found for such general statements about a prominent landmark. I won't re-add this reference or journal. Elspamo4 ( talk) 21:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see if this is a predatory journal. I see some blog websites talking bout SAP, but not better sources on it. Perhaps I am missing something. If it is predatory, it does not hurt in finding another source like a magazine or article saying similar things. It is getting harder to track these publishers. Ramos1990 ( talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

SAPUB is obviously predatory [23]. It's a junk outlet with fake impact factors. There's a reason we have them on our edit filter list. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why a source by a subject-matter expert published predatorily is not considered reliable, when an expert’s self-published source is? (Not necessarily related to this particular case). ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically a SME could publish in a predatory journal and be considered reliable, it would be judged as a self-published source. So per WP:SPS they would need to have been published as a SME in the relevant field by other reliable independent sources first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fact that an 'SME' who mostly publishes with predatory outlets is very likely not an SME at all. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Blue Virginia is a popular political blog covering Virginia politics written by Lowell Feld (arguably a subject-matter expert in Virginia politics) since 2005. I view Blue Virginia as a reliable (albeit biased) source that is self-published by a recognized expert so requiring in-text attribution in certain uses.

In addition to content written by him and a team of writers, they also provide daily news roundups with granular updates added by Feld in the comments (see for example, yesterday's roundup and comments section), arguably a limited form of coverage. These comments are used extensively in Virginia political articles as citations for endorsements (see for example, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia).

WP:POLEND requires that for endorsements by individuals, they should "only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources".

While Blue Virginia/Feld is reliable and (in most cases) independent of the candidates/endorsers involved, is simply reposting endorsements is sufficient coverage to meet the WP:POLEND standard or should such endorsements be removed?

(FWIW: I think WP:POLEND should be adjusted so that endorsements from notable figures in a district can be included with reliable sourcing even if not independent, but I am not sure how or where to go about getting consensus for such a change.) Dcpoliticaljunkie ( talk) 14:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Field appear to be an subject matter expert per WP:SPS, so would be reliable for non-BLP content. I don't see that simply reposting endorsements would be secondary coverage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 13:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical on using Blue Virginia ( sitelink) for BLP content. Its stated goal is to be a group blog with the goal of electing a specific type of Democrat. It could be run by an SME (I don't have time to dig in on that). But, even if it were run by an SME, "X endorsed candidate Y" is almost always going to be making a claim about a living person when the endorsement is in the context of a U.S. House race, so that sort of exception seems inapplicable here.

If the website is merely re-hosting some sort of press release, then one could reliably cite the original press release as such, and use via= field to identify the source. But the existence of a release is not sufficient for inclusion under WP:POLEND, which requires that Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources. After all, simply reposting endorsements is plainly not independent coverage of the endorsement itself.

(As an aside, if a single partisan political group blog is the only place covering a particular endorsement—even if the endorsement was made by a notable person—it's probably not something that belongs in an article for reasons that proceed from the principle of due weight. That being said, such a determination may well be outside the scope of the reliable sourcing noticeboard and might be better handled on the talk page of the relevant guideline.)

— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @ Red-tailed hawk + @ ActivelyDisinterested. This was also my view which I started to implement but I self-reverted given how many of these are sourced entirely to comments in Blue Virginia.

On the aside: I may at some point open a wider discussion on the WP:POLEND criteria for individual endorsements on the relevant talk page but understand concerns about weight. That said, even with local news becoming hollowed-out in a lot of the world, I think there's some inherent weight to a notable local politician in a locale endorsing in a race (ie., state sen Lashrecse Aird endorsing state sen Jennifer Boysko in the VA-10 primary is, I believe, due despite the sourcing given that Aird is a state senator representing the congressional district in question). As you said, not the right venue for that discussion though. Dcpoliticaljunkie ( talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The apparent occidental preoccupation with "endorsements" to the side; WP:DUE is always "per the sources", never "despite the sourcing". Rotary Engine ^talk 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if East India Story is a reliable source, specifically to support the biographical information in Dasari Subrahmanyam. The article about him has a named writer. The website's About page says "There is need to clear this wronged image and showcase the splendor of this entire region in all its social and cultural splendour", but I cannot definitively tell from this how much or what bias the writing on the site has, and how much oversight or quality control there is. I see that the website requests submissions, but again it's not clear whether this is effectively self-published or user-generated content or whether there are processes to prevent publication of inaccurate material. The About page says that "www.eastindiastory.com is a product of Dream Alchemist LLP", but I can't find much about that company either. Thanks. Tacyarg ( talk) 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The profiles of authors on the website suggest that this is more of a venue for hobbyist-writers than an edited and fact-checked publication. And the purple prose of the particular piece jam-packed with superlatives, doesn't engender trust either. It would be better instead to track down the 2011 India Today issue in which Subrahmanyam was apparently profiled or the biography by Dasari Venkata Ramana. Abecedare ( talk) 15:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(Restored from unanswered archived): I have a question about The South African as a reliable source. I came across this article and it seems they have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt page. I remember last time I came across this, it resulted in an RFC that led to depreciation ( WP:ROYALCENTRAL). So I'm fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE and asking here if we should consider it a RS if its hosting plagiarised content? The C of E God Save the King! ( talk) 18:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• A lot of their web content looks AI-generated. The "Furry Fun Fact of the Day" [24] is not exactly fun, because it's about feline distemper. And no human puts an exclamation mark on "However, feline distemper has an unexpected quirk – some cats who survive the initial infection become lifelong carriers!". Unsurprisingly, at the bottom of the article ... "Artificial Intelligence assisted in compiling this article." Meanwhile, a lot of the other "stories" are tabloid gossip and trivia [25]. Probably needs a discussion to deprecate. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I suspected as much @ Black Kite:. That is why I wanted to hear from others because if it wasn't for RFCBEFORE, I'd have started a depreciation RFC right away. The C of E God Save the King! ( talk) 19:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

    Certainly needs to be used with caution, paying attention to the author. If they are staff, it may fine but some articles are written by those described as "content creators" or similar (ex. [26] and [27]). I have also come across articles written by marketing/PR professionals. Also their TOU has a statement "The opinions of advertisers, writers, commenters and contributors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheSouthAfrican.com, Blue Sky Publications (Pty) Ltd or any of our affiliates." It is unclear what is meant by "writer" or "contributor" S0091 ( talk) 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    Here's an example of articles written by a marketing professional [28]. S0091 ( talk) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Could I get a third opinion on this source recently added to open-source license? The grammar and some of the claims in the cited paper struck me as bizarre, but I am unfamiliar with the symposium:

• https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1620054
• https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/document/1620054

Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ ( talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are bottom-level references, journals and proper books are better. They're better than blogs, but not by much. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

And more specifically, that's a workshop paper - it's not part of the main conference, and was probably written as an overview of a short presentation or discussion. Looking at the full text, the author's classification of licenses is not quite as nonsensical as the abstract makes it sound, but it's (at best) now 20 years out of date. The economic point it makes is not developed in detail or based on references. I wouldn't use it as a source. Adam Sampson ( talk) 01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The abstract here is really one of the least coherent paragraphs of text: Licenses of open source software (OSS) are quiet various but can be categorised into three. That is GPL (GNU general Public License) like, LGPL (GNU Lesser general Public License) like, or MPL (Mozilla Public License) like. Although there are numbers of licenses, most of OSS projects are accepting GPL or GPL compatible. In reality GPL is one of the most effective powers for distribution; self-reproduction system in it. More over it also has economic "positive network externality". This mean that open source software is better for basis of social infrastructure.

Uh... what? jp× g 🗯️ 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Japanese researchers trying their best to write in English. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's more than a grammar issue, the "categorized into three" thing makes no sense -- what about apache, mit etc (which I'm pretty sure are more used than MPL)?? jp× g 🗯️ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They explain what they mean immediately after. GPL-like licences, LGPL-like licenses, and MPL-like licenses.

Either they aren't aware of MIT/Apache/etc.., or they consider them to be GPL-like / LGPL-like / etc.... I haven't read the full paper, so I don't know which of the two they mean. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah so it's Japanese who are responsible for valley-girl genes like "egf-like module containing mucin-like hormone receptor-like 1"... JoelleJay ( talk) 09:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Weeks after " The Sign's" DYK appearance, another Series 3 episode-- Cricket (Bluey) ( draft)--is more or less likely to meet WP:NEPISODE if we persevere hard enough. If this essay below passes WP:RS, then let me know and I'll give it a go soon enough. (Thankfully, the source site du jour does have a WP article, but I'm asking here in advance as a precaution.)

• Kaplowitz, Matthew (2024-02-20) [2024-01-16]. "The Most Popular Bluey Episode in Australia Hits Way Different in the US". Fatherly. Bustle Digital Group. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

-- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Slgrandson, the source looks reasonably reliable to me, and Fatherly has regular and apparently uncontroversial use on other articles. From googling, I'd say there are enough other sources to support notability even if this one is rejected. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for the tip--not to mention there are a few more pointers at WP:Library's ProQuest. Setting it up at AFC any day from now. Take care! -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)