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.

The Historisches Lexikon Bayerns is published as a wiki, but appears to have an editorial structure and is organized by the Bavarian State Library (an arm of the Bavarian Ministry of Sciences and Arts). There are many authors (identified in bylines on top of their articles), but the credentials or authority of the authors are not generally clear. The version histories of the articles don't seem to clarify when a version is considered done. It has a large German-language section, and a small list of articles translated into English. How should we regard this source, including for potentially controversial topics such as its coverage of Nazi-era Germany? (To provide a concrete example, let's consider whether citing the HLB article " Blutfahne der NSDAP" in our article Blutfahne would be satisfactory.) TheFeds 00:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes i'd say in most contexts it can be used as a valid source and probably can be treated similarly to national biographies or national/state encylopedia you find in the English speaking world. The wiki aspect (that a wiki software is used) shouldn't be an issue as it does not provide an "anyone can edit" feature.

As far as that specific article is concerned. First of all as far as the content is concerned I'm not seeing anything that would be controversial. As far as the author is concerned a quick check/search indicates that he has published some NS-related stuff in proper historical journals and is quoted in some reputable books on the subject. So he seems to be an expert on the nazi era in Bavaria. However I didn't find any biographical details regarding his education & career. My overall conclusion is, that he seems ok as general source for the Blutfahne article, except for highly controversial/disputed aspects maybe.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

From my correspondence with the author of a different article, who asked me for an informal peer review, I gather the following: At least someone on the advisory board reads the articles before they get published (not by the authors themselves but by library staff). Should be mostly solid information for a more general audience. -- HHill ( talk) 20:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with Widewalls and the reliability & independence of their artist biographies? It seems to be a commercial site for art sales and auctions based on their About Us. It's currently used in several WP artist biographies.

At Talk:Nelson Saiers#Altered page, the article subject is requesting inclusion of material from this biography of the subject. My initial guess is that it's as good as an autobiographical primary source since these commercial listings tend to take material directly from the artists, although it's unclear to me if this kind of source lends any WP:WEIGHT / WP:PROPORTION so any additional input here is welcome. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 07:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved to WP:URLREQ

• Yong Choon Kim (1981). Oriental Thought: An Introduction to the Philosophical and Religious Thought of Asia. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 7. ISBN  9780822603658.

• Ali Ünal; Harun Gultekin (2013). The Prophet Promised in World Scriptures. Tughra Books. p. 253. ISBN  9781597848237.

Thanks in advance.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 13:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Slatersteven, context is key, but a very quick scan tells me the former source is pretty solid--the author being a professor emeritus at the University of Rhode Island--while the second is a bit more mysterious. Again, reliability does not exist in a vacuum. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Slatersteven:, @ Dumuzid:, Please take a look at here.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 13:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me they are an RS for that. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TheEagle107 -- I left my thoughts on the article talk page. The short version is that I don't think reliability is a problem, but I don't care for the relevant section of the article. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Both are rs, particularly the first, since it has an academic publisher. However rs says that context matters. An introduction to Asian religions written by a professor and published by an academic publisher is where a reasonable person would look for an accurate and neutral description of Hinduism. A book about Mohammed written by an Islamic scholar and published by a publisher of Islamic books would not be my go to source for Hinduism. Just because an otherwise rs contains information about a topic does not mean it should be used. The less relevant to the topic a source is, the less likely that it's descriptions will be accurate or mainstream. I would not use for example a book about Mars by an astrophysicist as a source for 19th century literature. TFD ( talk) 16:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It may be the case with religious books that the author is credentialed but the faith forward study is something we just would not use. The introduction of the second book is enough to rule it out as RS "That is why Islam, revealed by God and conveyed to humanity by Prophet Muhammad, is universal and eternal. A Prophet inculcates the Creator's grandeur in the minds and spirits of human beings..." Spudlace ( talk) 04:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Re the Yong Choon Kim book, Rowman and Littlefield are legitimate publishers of a variety of academic and popular books. But I would be cautious about any book offering an "introduction to the philosophical and religious thought of Asia" as many English language books on various Asian philosophies often tend to be somewhat dismissive, rely on shaky historical or linguistic foundations etc. English-speaking academic philosophy (I don't know so much about theology/religious studies) is still rather behind on a proper detailed understanding of the philosophical and religious thought of Chinese, Indian and other Asian cultures. A somewhat obscure single volume summary published in 1981 may be reliable in the WP:RS sense of the word, but to properly understand the subject in context, you might want to consult more recent sources that go into more detail. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! So I was attempting to copy and paste the Slime Rancher page to my sandbox so I could start work on a specific section of it, when I was warned while trying to save it because one of the references (levelskip.com) was on Wikipedia's Blacklist. So I took a look at the discussion and it wasn't about levelskip.com but a whole bunch of other websites associated with one parent website. However this didn't really help me understand why levelskip.com is on the blacklist. Could anyone help me understand? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 ( talk) 18:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Blaze The Wolf: if you've already found the discussion, it would help greatly if you would link to it so people don't have to search for it again. But anyway I don't understand what you mean by "wasn't about levelskip.com but a whole bunch of other websites associated with one parent website". This discussion MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2020#HubPages.com niche domains was about all websites associated with HubPages. Yes that included other websites, but it also included levelskip.com which is in between hobbylark.com and letterpile.com. The about us page levelskip.com/about-us confirms that it's still a part of HubPages

If you have unique gaming knowledge, we'd love to have you on our team of writers. Feel free to check out our Editorial Policy and write your own article! LevelSkip.com is part of the parent company HubPages, a place to discover and create original, in-depth, useful, media-rich pages on topics you are passionate about.

Of course this also confirms the concern mentioned in the previous discussion still seems correct namely that it seems to mostly just let random people write articles with little editorial oversight. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Nil Einne: Ah ok. That was something I couldn't tell just by looking at the page. ― Blaze The Wolf ^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Financial Express

Rfc please, is the above a reliable source for establishing notability of Draft:Online Gravity - See Draft talk:Online Gravity for discussion. Amirah talk 15:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The book Massacres of Tamils (1956 - 2008) [9] was published by the North East Secretariat on Human Rights, which is the human rights wing of the LTTE [10] (a group designated as a terrorist organization). The NEOSHR was noted by many human rights groups (such as the HRW) for attempting to whitewash LTTE's crimes and having clear ideological links to the group [11]. Is it considered a reliable source?. And, what about other publications made by the NESOHR?. This book has been used in a number of articles throughout Wikipedia. Amritsvāraya ( talk) 11:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Well firstly NESOHR are not the same as the LTTE, an armed group. The members of NESOHR did not take part in armed conflict like the LTTE. Secondly, it was not human rights groups which accused NESOHR of being an attempt to whitewash the LTTE, but an US diplomat, who is hardly a neutral source. A cursory glance at NESOHR's publications shows clearly that their main function was to document all the mass atrocities committed against Tamil civilians by government forces, which many international human rights groups were not covering in detail. NESOHR is the only group to cover all the massacres:

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=37441

The head was a Christian priest, who later got assassinated by government forces:

/info/en/?search=M._X._Karunaratnam

And another member was a civilian woman N. Malathy who later wrote a book on her experiences with the organisation, she said this:

"Some leading members of citizens’ committees in Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Trincomalee, and Batticaloa, led by Fr. Karunaradnam, got together and put pressure on the LTTE to create a civilian human rights body. NESoHR was the outcome of these two independent processes, and as such NESoHR retained a level of independence from the LTTE."

Source: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/12962741

As they lived in LTTE ruled areas, they were likely affiliated with the LTTE on a civilian level, but were not active members.

There was a similar wiki dispute regarding the use of Tamilnet as a source, and it was decided by Wiki admins that it was a reliable source.

The NESOHR source was published by an independent publishing house, and it still fits the criteria of reliable source. Oz346 ( talk) 13:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit replaced another source. [12] Sadly this is one of those editors who has never found their talk page, so if I revert they're likely to replace it again, at least that's my experienc. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It's registered anonymously via Namecheap (i.e. with the whoisguard option to hide the whois information), is also hosted via that service and I don't see any information about the site's owners or authors given on the site. They list a few sources for their information, however. It appears to only currently be used in 12 articles and in the first case I checked it had been added by Raibisu43, a now blocked sockpuppet. — Paleo Neonate – 16:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: thanks very much for this. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE would not seem to bar use of advertisements/advertorials (Wikipedia:SPONSORED) from 1954 since nothing is now (in 2021) being sold or marketed. Or would it? Such as, in the following:

The homes were marketed as having air-conditioning. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

Djflem ( talk) 22:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It shows the fact, but I can see an objection as WP:SYNTH/original research - did a source at the time note this? But I concur that this would just be using a primary source for a fact, and not count as promotion - David Gerard ( talk) 23:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Used as above, it is probably fine as far as promotional concerns go. However, I wouldn’t draw the threshold at the advertised product no longer being sold; claims made in old advertisements can still paint the company’s history in a more positive light and could thereby be used in a manner that misconstrues a company’s reputation or quality at a particular point in time. If, for example, we cite an advertisement from 1980 to say that Mercedes-Benz was the first to introduce XYZ feature into its automobiles on the basis that the advertisement says so, I think that sort of stuff would still be promotional with respect to the brand itself. Older advertisements are primary sources that probably can be sparingly used for HOW a product was marketed, but I am not sure that they would ever be considered reliable for much else. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 23:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• For context, the article in question is about the Green Meadow, Delaware subdivision. A previous version had several paragraphs which were just quotes of advertisements by the developer, along with "The houses gained popularity in the area for their air conditioning, as a heat wave was sweeping through the area at the time" written in Wiki voice, sourced to a pair of ads. In my opinion the proposed wording "The homes were marketed as having air-conditioning" is an improvement but still raises some concerns.

NPOV is a major issue with self-sourced content like this. Articles should be written from the viewpoint of independent reliable sources; even if advertisements and marketing statements are clearly labeled as such, they still only present the point of view of the developer. Was AC truly a major selling point at the time? Were buyers actually attracted to these homes because of the heat wave, or is that just something the builder came up with to boost sales? Was this really the "most talked about" subdivision in the area? Did people actually want to live near freeways and shopping centers or did these things turn out to be more of a nuisance? We need independent sources to put these claims in context and present an unbiased view. Even if ads are attributed as such, they still only present the developer's self-interested view which does not serve our readers well. There are often aspects of a topic that we simply don't cover because no independent sources are available.

In this case we do actually have an independent source, a "Community Profile" newspaper feature from the 1990s which included interviews with longtime residents. One person did mention that air conditioning was the reason she chose Green Meadow when it was first built, but there were also no trees yet and she had to drive to the post office until mail delivery was implemented (funny how the developer didn't mention that). I think it's reasonable to include a brief mention of AC based on this source, but it begs another question: Why would we ever need to cite an ad in this context if we need independent sourcing to back it up? Why not just use the independent RS in the first place? – dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Business Today

Rfc please, is the above a reliable source for establishing notability of Draft:Online Gravity - See Draft talk:Online Gravity for discussion. Amirah talk 16:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• It would help - it's a review in an apparent RS - but it wouldn't be sufficient to meet WP:BOOKCRIT; you'd need at least one more. Ideally, you'd have a lot more evidence of independent notability than two book reviews - David Gerard ( talk) 16:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, User:David Gerard,

  I have found a couple more sources, would they also help?

  • Financial Express
  • e-Review of Tourism Research 14, no. 1/2 (2017)

  Amirah talk 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Financial Express is a second RS of substantial content. I also see live mint.com has an excerpt, a few side remarks about it, e.g. Western Sydney University notes on or The Hindu. That’s still not much.

Cheers 
Markbassett (
talk) 03:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. source: The source in question is an article in the Slovenian newspaper Slovenski Narod from 1904. The full edition is available from the Digital Library of Slovenia here where it can be downloaded as a PDF. For those without a grasp on South Slavic languages, the text can be highlighted, copied, and pasted into a web-translation for a decent idea on what is being stated. The article in question within this newspaper edition is "Položaj v Macedoniji" which is based on a conversation with revolutionary leader Hristo Tatarchev.

article: I added this article as a source to the article of Hristo Tatarchev (and was promptly reverted).

content: I used the source to support two sentences I added: diff. I essentially paraphrase two points explicitly stated in the article, one being that Turkish reforms were insufficient in his view and the other that his organization would never allow Macedonia to join Serbia or Bulgaria.

I look forward to any guidance from uninvolved editors regarding why this source can or cannot be considered reliable for the purposes I had attempted to use it. Thanks. -- Local hero ^talk 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other editor involved in this issue. The article in the newspaper is used by User:Local hero in historical context. However per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical scholarship is generally not:

• Journalism
• Opinion pieces by non-scholars
• Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
• Any primary source, etc.

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

• Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
• "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
• Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
• Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography, etc.

That means if somebody want to use such a primary source (newspaper clipping in a language that is unclear to all the readers of the English-language Wikipedia and older then 100 years) it must be supported by recent scholarly books in English, etc. Thanks. Jingiby ( talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ll quickly note that the page you reference is not a Wikipedia policy and that this newspaper source is not a “clipping” as the full edition is available. Looking forward to input from uninvolved editors. -- Local hero ^talk 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify that the idea backed by this newspaper's article contradicts with a lot of secondary WP:RS cited in the same article ( Hristo Tatarchev). Jingiby ( talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The website http://todor66.com is being used as a reference on a number of basketball, handball, volleyball articles. Having looked at the website, I consider it to have all the hallmarks of a self-published source - amateur look & feel, owned by a single person, only operating on http not https as any credible website would these days.

I have heard from one editor today who claims it is the only source of information regarding game results on the (geographic and amateur) fringes of these sports and therefore it must be used. I don't consider that to be a valid argument as poorly sourced information is no better than unsourced information.

I would appreciate the comments of others on whether they would consider this to be a reliable source? 10mmsocket ( talk) 15:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The above assessment seems quite right. No information about the author whatsoever, besides their (supposed) name (which happens to be the same as that of a Bulgarian footballer who died 20 yrs ago, so I can't find absolutely anything to suggest this would be an acceptable SPS). No indication as to the sourcing of the information either. If this is the only site which reports some information, then, yes, that information does not go on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@ 10mmsocket and RandomCanadian: added to WP:UPSD to facilitate cleanup. It's in a lot of articles [13] so coordinating with WP:SPORTS should be a priority. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me know if/how I can help. I would like to think my mission here is to help clean up original research and unsourced content. 10mmsocket ( talk) 17:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I posted this on the talk page of Mona Lisa and have been directed to check here.

Can podcasts be used at all? If yes, is it as references or external links? I want to contribute quoting the episodes from the two widest known podcasts on Art History: ArtCurious and The Lonely Palette.

Here is an example from ArtCurious about Mona Lisa: https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/1

It also has the transcript.

Please suggest! - Veera.sj — Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 6 August 2021

Note: re-added after auto-archive.

Hello. source: The source in question is an article in the Slovenian newspaper Slovenski Narod from 1904. The full edition is available from the Digital Library of Slovenia here where it can be downloaded as a PDF. For those without a grasp on South Slavic languages, the text can be highlighted, copied, and pasted into a web-translation for a decent idea on what is being stated. The article in question within this newspaper edition is "Položaj v Macedoniji" which is based on a conversation with revolutionary leader Hristo Tatarchev.

article: I added this article as a source to the article of Hristo Tatarchev (and was promptly reverted).

content: I used the source to support two sentences I added: diff. I essentially paraphrase two points explicitly stated in the article, one being that Turkish reforms were insufficient in his view and the other that his organization would never allow Macedonia to join Serbia or Bulgaria.

I look forward to any guidance from uninvolved editors regarding why this source can or cannot be considered reliable for the purposes I had attempted to use it. Thanks. -- Local hero ^talk 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other editor involved in this issue. The article in the newspaper is used by User:Local hero in historical context. However per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical scholarship is generally not:

• Journalism
• Opinion pieces by non-scholars
• Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
• Any primary source, etc.

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

• Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
• "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
• Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
• Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography, etc.

That means if somebody want to use such a primary source (newspaper clipping in a language that is unclear to all the readers of the English-language Wikipedia and older then 100 years) it must be supported by recent scholarly books in English, etc. Thanks. Jingiby ( talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ll quickly note that the page you reference is not a Wikipedia policy and that this newspaper source is not a “clipping” as the full edition is available. Looking forward to input from uninvolved editors. -- Local hero ^talk 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify that the idea backed by this newspaper's article contradicts with a lot of secondary WP:RS cited in the same article ( Hristo Tatarchev). Jingiby ( talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

See earlier discussions: February/March 2020 RfC, November 2020, May 2021. RSP summary at WP:TOI: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government.

I regularly come across TOI articles which copy content from WP articles, and which are in-turn used as citations, making WP:CIRCULAR. One such examples: Sreerama Chandra at 18:21, August 28, 2021 which was copied into TOI article [14] on 4 September 2021, about the subject and his background. The article was then sourced (thankfully only the Bigg Boss contestancy at the moment). WP:ICTF has consensus on not using TOI to source BLP details such as birthdate.

Should TOI be considered generally unreliable, or maintain the status quo of 2020 RfC outcome being "between no consensus and generally unreliable". In either cases, I'd propose extending the summary statement at WP:TOI, to include not considering for BLP details, especially when it comes to subjects related to films. Should it also include anything about circular references? — DaxServer ( talk to me) 10:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's possible both pieces originated in a press release. Generally I support the status quo which permits uncontroversial content but with caveats for biographic details and politics, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If its being pulled unattributed from a press release thats just as big an issue for us... Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Circular citations are unambiguously not reliable. Spudlace ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'd also support not downgrading it to generally unreliable for the same reason Atlantic306 mentions, i.e, there are a lot of uncontroversial content that can be and is sourced to it. Though I think the RSP entry doesn't have an adequate summary on why it is unreliable and how to use it. It should at least mention that the paper contains undisclosed paid news and that it should not be used to establish notability or to source anything that's remotely contentious i.e, it should be removed if it's questioned in any context.

I have also left a notice regarding this discussion on the Noticeboard for India-related topics. I'd suggest notifying relevant noticeboards whenever you start a significant discussion or proposal, it informs others who might be interested and improves participation in the discussion itself. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! — DaxServer ( talk to me) 14:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Tayi Arajakate: I would in general avoid leaving notices about RSN discussion on topic area noticeboards unless one notifies a wide range of them (for instance here there are five relevant topic areas but you’ve only notified one of them), selective notification can be a WP:CANVASSING issue. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I don't know how this can be construed as canvassing but alright I have left a notice at WT:JOURNALISM as well now, not sure what the other three places would be. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t personally have an issue with it, I’m just letting you know that best practice is to cast a wide net and that some will object if you don’t. India and Journalism is probably wide enough, the other topic areas noted on the talk page are media, newspapers, and brands. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I have left notices on WikiProject Media and WikiProject Newspapers now, brands seems too tangential to me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a little torn here. a) there's clearly serious questions about reliability. b) however, we don't exactly have a surfeit of English-language media sources in the subcontinent, and as a result low-profile topics, in particular biographies of low-profile people, are often short-changed. c) however', if there's serious concerns about a source, should we be relying on it for determining notability anyway? At the moment, I feel the optimal solution is to allow using it on a case-by-case basis, but noting at RSP that any TOI sources we use should be checked for evidence of churnalism and/or copyvio. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Standards across the Times Group have been in decline for at least two decades, its sad that this is where we’re arrived but its not our fault. As much as it pains us thats what generally unreliable looks like and we’re poor editors if we let our personal feelings about the source get in the way of that acknowledgement. If they turn around and start moving back up the reliability scale (perhaps by going back to the bare minimum required of them by global editorial standards) we can reassess but I’m not seeing grounds for any finding other than generally unreliable or deprecate. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I would let the consensus of the previous discussion stand. If it is the weather in Delhi on 17 June 2021, say, fine, use it. It is the smog in Delhi and its relation to reduced life-spans there, not fine, forget it. Keep for easily verifiable facts; avoid for anything with even remotely political implications. I don't think you will get too many people weighing in though. It hasn't been that long since the last RSN notice. I am appearing only because I was mentioned there in the closing note. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed that It may sometimes be reliable as a source for somet specific plain fact , but it is unambiguously totally unreliable as a RS for the purposes of notability under the GNG--too much of what it publishes is slighly disguised advertising. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Used in Anarchism in Brazil for the claim that anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist organizations participated in the 2021 Brazilian protests

  Vandaw (August 12, 2021). "Only Revolt Can Bring Down Bolsonaro". Facção Fictícia. CrimethInc. Retrieved September 11, 2021.

• No prior RSN discussions; prompted by WP:@ discussion
• Special:LinkSearch/https://crimethinc.com

CrimethInc. is a decentralized anarchist collective of autonomous cells that publishes articles, zines, and books about and for the anarchist movement, per our own article, which also cites Harper's: "CrimethInc’s core function is the creation of propaganda". I've always taken it for granted that this source is unreliable for newsworthy statements of fact in an encyclopedia, having no semblance of editorial control, e.g., fact-checking policy, reputation for accuracy, or journalistic reputation/pedigree, nevertheless considering its ideological bias. But this view was contested so looking for outside opinions both on this case and the general use of this source on Wikipedia, considering its other uses.

In this case, the claim itself is relatively innocuous, but that said, if it's noteworthy that anarchists meaningfully participated in the 2021 protests, is there really no other source for this claim? The ref itself, as noted in the linked edit above, is a repost and translation of a noblogs.org blog. My stance is that it's unregulated content. I'll let the other discussants—@ Blue Rasberry and Grnrchst—chime in with their own stance. czar 02:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there any coverage in, say, Folha de S. Paulo or similar sources? Putting aside the questions of RSN (which I believe the source fails spectacularly by self-admission, so it might only be usable for WP:ABOUTSELF statements). Arguably that would mean CrimethInc could be used to say that these protests indeed took place, but the question here is of notability. You know, if there is a dozen of anarchists protesting near, say, Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine) with transparents reading something to the tune of "Down with the government! Down with the parliament! Down with the courts!" and really nobody cares, we shouldn't either. (I specifically chose this country as normally, if some big cheese called for such civil disobedience, such calls would have been endorsed by quite a lot of folks there, see Euromaidan, Orange Revolution). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both Czar and Szmenderowiecki above. I happen to love many of the things that CrimethInc has put out over the years but would never dream of using them as a WP reference. If something is notable it should be possible to find a better source. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it is an OK source for this claim. Anarchism is heavily un-represented in mainstream sources and so it's often good to use anarchist sources on details of anarchist activities, and this would be one of the better anarchist sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about sourcing for statements of fact, not for anarchist opinions on anarchist affairs. Also on what basis is this one of the better anarchist sources when we have no indication of editorial oversight? czar 15:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anarchist opinions. I'm talking about facts about anarchism and anarchists, something that many mainstream sources struggle to do. For example, anarchist involvement in protests in Brazil (or Greece, to take a recent series of reports in the magazine) might evade the notice of some mainstream journalists for various reasons, but potentially be due in articles on said protests. I think it is one of the better such sources because it has been around for a while and earned a reputation for being more professional than many other publications in the milieu. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 21:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Just because Crimethinc is a collective doesn't mean that they have no editorial standards. And they do get some really interesting interviews sometimes which it would be a shame to discourage us from citing. More directly relevant to the question, It's Going Down, which does have published editorial standards has republished many many articles by them. Loki ( talk) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a debate about using Tidal as an reliable source for album credits. Some editors think it's only use for promotion because it's a streaming service, while others think it's useful because most albums these days have been released for digital download then physical copies. Should the website be only use for album credits and not anything else? TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 05:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are the examples of the album credits from Tidal [15] [16] [17]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 06:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't see those not logged in. Where does Tidal get its information? I know Spotify gets info from the uploader, and also used an old dump of AllMusic at some point - David Gerard ( talk) 10:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@ David Gerard: Tidal used to have the credits in full view without ability to logged in, I guess they change that (much to my annoyance). Tidal gets their information from the album's label. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 11:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @ Kyle Peake and Throast: in this discussion. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 11:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If information is provided by the label and displayed without editorialization, I don't see how it would be unreliable as a source for album credits. Throast ( talk | contribs) 11:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a reliable source since the label provides the credits, also the part about not being accessible is irrelevant because it can be accessed on archive 1 and sources like The Times, Rolling Stone and The New York Times have limited access but are considered fully reliable. -- K. Peake 12:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a primary source, I wouldn't go overboard on reliability though. The labels are sloppy as hell with metadata other than artist and title in my experience. I'd trust a screenshot from Discogs more - David Gerard ( talk) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@ David Gerard: @ TheAmazingPeanuts: I don't have a Tidal account and I can see the credits just fine; perhaps that's a platform-specific issue? I'm on desktop. Although, opening those windows a second time I'm now getting a login prompt that I can't click past so I can't scroll through the pages and see the full credits.

As for the original question, I'm in agreeance with Throast. So long as we know it's primary-source info (e.g. from the act's record label) then I don't see why it couldn't be useable. Same goes for Spotify, Bandcamp, et al, in my opinion. QuietHere ( talk) 14:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We just had a similar discussion about using Spotify for release dates ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Spotify as primary source for release date and labels), and I pointed out there that the release dates provided by Spotify are not always correct, and I would imagine the same applies to Tidal. So I wouldn't call them reliable for release dates, at least... whether they can be trusted for other primary information such as writing credits, I'm not sure. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a better option than using the record label as a primary source for album credits. Secondary sources rarely list them in full and if the album has no liner notes, the label (through sites such as Spotify and Tidal) remains as the only usable source. I think it's safe to assume that the record label gets the album credits right in the majority of cases. At least I'm not aware of record labels spewing out faulty album credits en masse. Throast ( talk | contribs) 18:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I've seen the record companies be sloppy as hell, specifically in data on Spotify (where release dates are often whichever re-release that particular remastering might be) - David Gerard ( talk) 20:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Release dates are quite different from album credits. Dates are often confused. In terms of credits, the label would have to confuse names/people instead of numbers, which I assume is less likely to happen. If you had specific examples of incorrect credits being published via Tidal, that would be much more helpful in this discussion. Throast ( talk | contribs) 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@ QuietHere: I don't have any problems with using Tidal as a source for album credits, but some editors might not agreed with the use of it since the website is a streaming website, and streaming websites such as Apple Music and Spotify are often frowned upon. Which is why having a discussion here is the best thing to do. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 20:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@ David Gerard: If you can't see the credits clearly, here are the archives so you can get a clear view of them [18] [19] [20]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 02:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Gallic Chronicle of 452: Translation and Commentary

This appears to be a ?blog? Is this a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. TFD ( talk) 23:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it is a blog? Therefore unreliable? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear: At first glance, it doesn't appear to be reliable. Apart from being a blog, the author is clearly not an expert on the subject. Is there anything in it that isn't covered in RS? M.Bitton ( talk) 23:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Said author/translator calls the Priscillians, Manicheans. This is refuted by "Medieval Heresies: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam", page 46. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not RS. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it is a blog and therefore not rs. It's on the author's personal website and although he contributes to pundicity, his articles are labelled as a blog. Even if it were not a blog, it's analysis by a non-expert, which also fails rs wherever it is published. Even if it met rs, it would not be the best source. TFD ( talk) 00:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fails RS, he's clearly not an expert. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear, The Four Deuces, M.Bitton, and Doug Weller:. Added to WP:UPSD, used on ~211 articles. Probably want to get help from Wikiprojects to clean this up. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is actually an expert and we should treat this as an SPS by an expert. See his publications for George Washington University Program on Extremism, [21] the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at Kings College London, [22] [23] Washington Institute, [24] American Spectator, [25] The Atlantic, [26] MECRA, [27] Jerusalem Post, [28] Foreign Affairs, [29] CTC at Westpoint, [30] The Hill. [31] Also quoted as an expert by The National, [32] Al-Jazeera, [33] Bloomberg, [34] Arab Weekly, [35] Telegraph, [36] AFP, [37] France24. [38] Usable, attribute for anything contentious. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, here are all the references that I have considered to be extremely reliable but still would like to get everyone else's opinion about what they think. Topic of discussion here is that whether Afghanistan was a British PROTECTORATE state or not after Second Anglo-Afghan War and I am stating that it was but the other editor refuses to agree and keeps reverting the changes. So if you can take a look at these references below, please state Ye or Ney to these references or any feedback would be helpful too. Reference 1, [39] states Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.

Reference 2, [40]. Reference states that 1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.

Reference 3, [41] Reference states that At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.

Reference 4, [42] Reference states The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....

Reference 5, [43] Reference states In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain.

Reference 6 [44] Reference states Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.

Reference 7 [45] Reference states by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops.

Also below information from the historical association site by Faiz Ahmed who is a historian of the late Ottoman Empire, Afghanistan, and modern Middle East from Brown University [46]. Here is his article on Afghanistan as British Protectorate. [47]. Here is what he states in his article: When the 26-year-old Amanullah ascended the Kabul throne in February 1919, Great Britain retained control over Afghanistan’s foreign affairs, rendering the country a British PROTECTORATE. 199.82.243.108 ( talk) 17:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There is an RfC on Apple cider vinegar dealing with whether the sources say there is "no evidence for any health claims" or "insufficient evidence for any health claims". MarshallKe ( talk) 17:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe that News of the World is a good source; it's clearly generally unreliable. But I don't believe there is any purpose to keeping it deprecated, as was done in 2019 ( Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 279#News of the World). News of the World has no functioning website and hasn't since it was closed in 2011. Even in the RfC it was mentioned that it was used a grand total of 50 times. What does deprecation actually prevent here? According to WP:DEPS, deprecation means a source is considered "generally unreliable" and is additionally added to edit filters that prevent the source from being added/warn when they are. What editors are spending their time finding dead website links from more than a decade ago to add trivia? Deprecating News of the World only serves to clog up edit filters and make them harder to maintain. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@ David Gerard, ProcrastinatingReader, and Newslinger: pinging the three most recent editors of Edit Filter #869 (deprecated sources). From a technical standpoint, how much does the presence of this deprecated source gum up the edit filter? How much ongoing maintenance is involved? Do you support efforts to shorten the list? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how many sources are in filter 869. It should only contain deprecated sources, but there is no technical limitation as to how many sources it can contain. If this is a source not used much (the OP says there are 50 usages), then it can't even be adding many entries to the log. There could be good non-technical reasons to shorten the list of deprecated sources, but there is no abusefilter-related issue here off the top of my head. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Um… why would having a working website matter to deprecation? Deprecation applies to old fashioned “dead tree” paper media as well as on-line media. If you find an old printed edition of News of the World in your local library, it is still deprecated. Blueboar ( talk) 20:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ Blueboar: Because deprecation is purportedly not different from designating a source as "generally unreliable" aside from those filters. If you find a copy of News of the World, you're not supposed to add it if it's deprecated or not. I don't get what deprecating does above and beyond just designating a source as "generally unreliable" at RSP can do other than the filters/quasi-blacklist. Either way we're not supposed to use "generally unreliable" sources and generally I've seen Option 3 supported many times when a source is too "minor" to be deprecated but still obviously unreliable. I don't really think deprecating News of the World has any benefit over just saying it's generally unreliable. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per the above, there's no reason to remove it from the list - David Gerard ( talk) 20:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, I've considered whether it's worth breaking up filter 869 - at present it warns the editor that they've added a deprecated source, but doesn't tell them what source it is, and some editors have been confused by this and just saved through it when they've added multiple sources to an article. Perhaps a version that warns "You have added [name of source], please don't do that" for each source? I dunno, does this sound like a good idea?) - David Gerard ( talk) 20:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Would quickly become unmanageable. We have like 45 deprecated sources or so, that'd be 45 separate filters. Much harder to track the logs too. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! So I'm currently trying to figure out whether these 2 websites could be considered reliable sources. They are used on the article University (film) although only the first source goes to where it's supposed to (most likely because it's an archive). Looking at them they don't appear to be all that reliable but I can't really tell what is and isn't reliable all that well. ― Blaze The Wolf ^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 20:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Blaze The Wolf: They are. Indiaglitz is used on many Indian film articles. This source is good for the basic coverage - The Hindu and Times of India are better, but those are also excepted. Sify is ok for sci-fi and fantasy films, but it is used sparingly.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 02:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. Well the article it's used on doesn't appear to be a sci-fi or fantasy film and the Indiaglitz links simply go to one of the many main pages of Indiaglitz. ― Blaze The Wolf ^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 13:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• ihorror.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• swiftheadline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I need to assume that this sources aren't considered reliable?: ( [83] [84]) I don't see them listed at RSN.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 02:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No, those are not reliable sources. Not every source is listed on the "perennial sources" list; that just is a reference that contains ones we've debated to death and are tired of having to relitigate 1000 times. There are billions of webpages out there, we haven't checked every one. We trust people to be able to apply WP:RS on their own in good faith. The sources you asked about carry no hallmarks of reliable sources, and appear to be 1-person projects. -- Jayron 32 15:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Krauss reliable for his attributed and quoted opinion given at Quillette.com in regard to a paper written by Daniel Mansfield re Si.427 (see also the discussion on the talk page).

The RFC for Quilette says " "..Editors note that Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim." Selfstudier ( talk) 17:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Krauss is not a relevant expert on the use of mathematics in Ancient Mesopotamia, so the answer is no, regardless of the reliability of Quilette. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Krauss isn't an expert on ancient mathematics, and Quillette isn't even good for wrapping fish. So, no. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier is being noticeably tendentious and biased here in pushing for inclusion of this low-quality source that supports one position while at the same time pushing for the exclusion of sources by established experts in ancient Mesopotamian mathematics that contradict this position. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

On searching on Google for content on Vinod Pande, I found a nicely written article at https://second.wiki, and what was confusing was the footer that said "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.". The article appears to be written according to Wikipedia standards and formats, but it could not have been copied from Wikipedia because I did not find anything similar on enwiki, nor could I find a deletion history.

I looked for other mentions of second.wiki on enwiki and found that the Carl Hau article references this website extensively. I then found that second.wiki is listed as a Wikipedia mirror at WP:Mirrors and forks/STU#second.wiki. How can it be a mirror when it has original content that isn't found nor copied from Wikipedia? How can it be used as a source at Carl Hau when it is listed as a mirror? Can I use text varbatim on Wikipedia from the site because it's footer says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License"? Jay ^(Talk) 04:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the Carl Hau page on second.wiki taken from the German Wikipedia and machine translated? The article for the individual appears to be featured on de-wiki, and the German Wikipedia closely mirrors the second.wiki article.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the case! The Vinod Pande article at second.wiki too is also a translation from the German: de:Vinod_Pande. Thanks for solving that mystery, and for adding the Unreliable sources tag at Carl Hau. So I believe we can copy the text available at second.wiki and create the enwiki page for Vinod Pande. And we should remove the second.wiki references from Carl Hau and use the ones from the German page. Pinging Stephencdickson who created Carl Hau. Jay ^(Talk) 11:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my article was inspired by a documentary on TV about Hau but was mainly a translation of the German article-- Stephencdickson ( talk) 16:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the enwiki article references second.wiki which is a mirror and hence should not be used as sources. Jay ^(Talk) 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been discussed before, or if this is the wrong venue (I wondered about the talk page of Wikipedia:Reliable sources)

• Should the categorisation at perennial sources could be enlarged to differentiate between a source's use as fact, and a source's usefulness to establish notability? This goes all the way back to the Daily Mail RfC [85], where the conclusion was that "...the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles".

This, I think, was most unfortunate, as in the heat of discussing the reliability of the Daily Mail, there wasn't a very clear debate about whether notability and factual accuracy need the same sort of source; whether the reliability of a source for establishing notability is actually correlated to its factual accuracy. Put simply: the Daily Mail fabricates wildly, about reliably notable people and issues. A Daily Mail article is a reliable gauge that someone is notable, but you couldn't use it as evidence of their personal life.

So, I think we need three categories of source, not two, exemplified by: (1) The Guardian/New York Times etc. (only publishes on notable topics; is generally accurate); (2) The Daily Mail (only publishes on notable topics; is likely to be inaccurate); (3) WordPress (as a blog-host, publishes whatever users want to say about themselves; therefore is neither evidence of notability, or guaranteed to be accurate).

This wouldn't make a huge difference to WP in general, but it'd cover a few of those cases where you find someone who's attracted a bit of attention, including a few gutter-press articles and a couple of items in specialist magazines. At the moment they're doomed because the specialist magazine, although probably accurate, is deemed too small to be give notability, while the gutter press is deprecated. Elemimele ( talk) 13:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No it should not, if they are not factually accurate then that must raise doubts as to their claims about a person. Now that may well (kind of pass) notability, but then I have been mentioned by the Daily Mail, am I notable? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Familytreedna a reliable a source? Or even a source? An user on Chuvash people claims this is a reliable source. As a ftdna user for years, I can definitely say, this is not even a source; and unfortunately ethnicity articles are overrun with this website, used as a "source". It's more like a forum. Opinions? Beshogur ( talk) 20:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure we’ve already discussed this one at some point but theres so many these days its hard to tell... Like the others its a hard no, they are basically completely useless for encyclopedic purposes. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 04:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No definitely not. A lot of this is just a mish mash of theoreticals even if they did reveal their data sources and linking. As it is for these services, for all we know it's just a random number generator looking up data. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to know if the7eye is allowed to be used on Wikipedia as a reference, especially on Walter Soriano page. Soriano has filed a lawsuit against the7eye and some other entities. Now, one of the reporters in one of the lawsuits, /info/en/?search=User_talk:Scottstedman, has used the7eye as a reference and made some COI edits that no one is accepting to revert despite false information.

How come the7eye can be trusted in Soriano's case? If someone has filed a case against them, then why won't they be biased? I am hopeless now.

https://www.themarker.com/law/.premium-1.8283173 = www.the7eye.org.il is one of the entities from the lawsuits. It is hardly run by 4-5 people.

/info/en/?search=Talk:Walter_Soriano = some background about the COI.

Please let me know if in general www.the7eye.org.il/ is an accepted source or not as well in particular regarding Soriano.

Also, are affidavits applicable to be used on Wikipedia?

Thank you SAMsohot ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That description doesn't tally with the article history. The editor you mention made four edits to the article in May, in which they removed a the7eye reference, [86]. Those are the only edits they have made to that article. As another editor said in the thread you started at the Teahouse, you do need to read WP:OUTING carefully. Thank you. -- bonadea contributions talk 22:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Bonadea: Apart from whether the site is acceptable or not, please see some findings I have posted on the talk page. And the only issues are the edits made by the three editors. Two IPs & Scottstedman. SAMsohot ( talk) 22:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Is The Cinemaholic considered reliable? Asking per comments at Talk:Old (film)/GA1. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 22:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say yes. They claim to perform fact-checking and "do not accept unsolicited guest articles, blogs, or posts". Additionally, the site has been cited by Screen Rant, Elle Australia and Yahoo! among others. Pamzeis ( talk) 11:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You know when a scientific journal gives you bad vibes? And then you go find an editorial which says "In order to gain speed in publishing, we shall sacrifice as a regular practice the detailed editorial review usually given articles by the major scientific journals. Many articles will be published after only a review by the Editor."? (There was some follow-up in another editorial four years later, but that had a similar conclusion. With the concerning addition of publishing based on the "reputation and responsibility of the author(s)".)

Journal database links: Springer NLM catalog WorldCat

• Summary of information on the databases: it ran from 1964 to 1972 and was published bi-monthly. It was run by the Psychonomic Society, and was replaced by a bunch of other journals that they still run (I think they briefly ran co-currently). Their focus is on experimental psychology.

Info on the Society: Psychonomic Society's About page. The founders were Clarence Graham, Clifford T. Morgan, S. S. Stevens of Harvard, and William S. Verplanck. [91] Morgan was the editor of the journal and as such, author of the editorials.

I propose that the journal Psychonomic Science should be classified as generally unreliable. Especially because it has been used on articles within the domain of WP:MED and which therefore need to meet the higher standards of WP:MEDRS - for example, Neophobia and Functional specialization (brain). On top of the worrisome content of the editorials:

• it had a habit of citing its own articles/articles from other Society journals ( e.g.)
• an author published in the journal may be published in it multiple times, even exclusively so ( e.g.)
• authors primarily citing themselves ( e.g.)
• citing the founders of the Society ( e.g.)
• publishing articles authored by the Society founders ( e.g.)

Finally, their focus on experimental psychology means they are largely primary sources by WP standards. Their explicit focus was on primary studies, so they weren't publishing heaps of reviews - I genuinely didn't come across any. I just found lists of citations that they thought relevant to given topics. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 03:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to declare obviously unreliable sources unreliable in advance, as we'd be doing it forever. Or is there a specific problem on Wikipedia with this source? Alexbrn ( talk) 03:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I find the examples above lacking in convincingness. More of concern is the removal of peer-review, that's the main issue here. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How should we categorise the World Socialist Web Site, a socialist news website owned by the International Committee of the Fourth International? While they have a clear Troskyist slant and bias, they have also covered a range of international issues that have attracted international coverage including the 1619 Project (where they played a key role in rallying opposition), the Pike River Mine disaster in New Zealand and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Are we allowed to cite the WSWS in articles? I did use a WSWS article in the Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand#Migrants section. Is is safe to use articles from them if the story is covered by other more reliable and less partisan media? Just wanted to get some clarity on the issue. Andykatib 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Though they reliable for their own views per WP:ABOUTSELF. Their views are usually are WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be used unless it cited by WP:RS Shrike ( talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's an opinionated reliable source, and therefore can be used (with attribution when necessary) on any relevant page. It is exceptionally widely cited in academic sources, I've checked on google scholar, and I stopped looking after the 22nd page of citation results. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily disagree with that assessment, but I do vaguely recall this site having been discussed before albeit with a different conclusion. It might be worth to check the archives for older discussions.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• They don’t really draw a hard line between news and analysis/opinion so I would not use them without attribution, that being said they are seriously notable and will often be used by others as a representative Trotskyist viewpoint. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course the opinions of any newsorg are not forbidden by RS and undueness is not WP:RSN's business, but the above comments about opinions are irrelevant because the cite in the article you mention, i.e. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/09/07/nzim-s07.html, supports a fact and is recent. It doesn't look contentious, so if nobody disputes the fact on the relevant talk page, I'd say don't worry about it and the question here is unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that the opinions of most newsorgs don’t appear in their news but in editorial or opinion pieces... You might notice that the linked article makes no such pretense, it begins with "In another attack on the basic rights of migrants...” Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable only for opinion. Some notable socialists post there and they are cited, but there is no indication of editorial oversight and fact checking. Free1Soul ( talk) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the feedback. Will treat the WSWS as an opinionated source. Agree with Free1Soul's assessment to treat it as reliable only for opinion. While they do have factual content, their ideology is first and foremost. They describe certain right wing figures and groups as fascist. They also describe other left-wing groups like the Democratic Socialists of America as "pseudo-left." Within this context, fascist and pseudo-left are opinion labels rather than factual ones. Will be very careful when using WSWS. Andykatib 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely advise to avoid this source for non- WP:ABOUTSELF coverage. Opinions are like assholes, so presenting a Trotskyist viewpoint might be needed somewhere, but that's patently not the case here.

For the two facts you referenced (accomodation supplement not granted for temporary visa holders and the non-renewal of NZ$1M fund), here are better sources:

Radio New Zealand - this one for accomodation supplement

Radio New Zealand, Voxy.co.nz - somewhat less convincing but still better than WSWS - related to the aid to international students Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Szmenderowiecki, will check out these sources. Andykatib 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a question for everyone, would it be possible to have an entry for the World Socialist Web Site for the table on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. This will provide users with clarity about the WSWS' status as an opinionated source. Perhaps once we have reached a consensus on what classification to give it? Andykatib 09:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• The WSWS are effectively a party newspaper, so the upper bar for it would be the Morning Star's "maybe reliable". In practice, it doesn't even meet that; the ICFI are pretty tiny (so we'd run into WP:FRINGE considerations regardless), and their attitude regarding both their former intellectual leader Gerry Healy, and other leftist groups, makes them incredibly suspect. Sceptre ( talk) 12:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly reliable for some niche areas such as the history of American Trotskyism, but generally a poor source and increasingly so over the years, not because of their left-wing bias, which isn't an issue, but because of their increasing amplification of conspiracy theories. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed the website's conspiratorial claims, such as this one. The website has also published several articles denying both the Uyghur Genocide and the internment camps. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] X-Editor ( talk) 21:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In a similar vein, while they have an impressive amount of USEBYOTHERS considering their background, I was unable to find any examples of use by RS for topics other than labor news, so that would be the only topic that it would potentially be ok to use them on. My impression from reading though a few polemics is that WSWS is arguably fringe even within the context of US Trotskyism, and thus it would probably be unwise to cite them for perspectives even on that topic unless there was independent coverage suggesting that their view is significant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Occasionally they might be useful on uncontroversial biographic information and cultural commentary in the arts in cases the information in the main stream media might be somewhat limited. Imho their obituaries for people in the arts and reviews of cultural works are ok, at least the ones i've seen.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's a decent example of potentially ok coverage as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean to "deny" the "Uyghur genocide"? The claim of a genocide against the Uyghurs is an extreme viewpoint that is rejected by all sorts of people, including the US State Department's legal advisors: [98]. Making acceptance of this extreme claim into a litmus test for reliability would be absurd. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes though the whole issue depends on what definition/notion of genocide you use. (attempted/Inded) associations with the holocaust are obviously nonsensical however an argument for a "cultural" genocide seems somewhat reasonable. However imho some of the "denial" articles look pretty dubious in their own right, they read like classic hyperbolic cold war propaganda, where the agenda trumps any sober and somewhat neutral analysis of the facts at hand.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a reliable, opinionated source. Their coverage of American history has been quite prominent over the last two years, and the WSWS has actually been the primary venue in which professional historians ( Gordon Wood, James McPherson, James Oakes and others) have expressed their criticism of the New York Times' 1619 Project. On American history, I think it's accurate to say that the WSWS' coverage has actually been more representative of mainstream historiography recently than that of the Times, difficult as that may be to believe. The noted historian Sean Wilentz recently wrote about this historiographical debate here: PDF link.

Articles in the WSWS are often opinionated, so attribution may be appropriate, but I've seen no evidence that it's less factually inaccurate than any other reliable political magazine. I would put the WSWS into the same category as magazines that cover current events, politics and history from an opinionated perspective, such as Jacobin, Reason, The Atlantic (which is probably closer to the dominant viewpoint among Wikipedia editors, and may therefore appear less opinionated), etc. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 08:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have assembled 9 discussions of WSWS on RSN. Please see the summary in RSP and suggest any changes, if needed. The text seems to be more or less the consensus in my view. (Disclosure: I participated in the discussion in archive 341, too). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, I do not think I an not sure that "generally unreliable" summary properly summarizes the consensus. This is more like "unclear, or additional considerations apply". My very best wishes ( talk) 00:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  The problem with this source is that it is usable in quite a narrow area, while a most other areas I found that the strength of the arguments (and their support) begs for redlisting, if not deprecation (as in case with China). Therefore, on balance, it is generally unreliable. Unclear would mean "folks, it's more or less 50/50". I don't see that 50/50. Propose your own summary. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I support Szmenderowiecki’s summary as well as their evaluation of consensus as it stands. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

OK then, this is hard to say. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like an inaccurate representation of this most recent discussion, but may be more appropriate if taking prior discussions (which I haven't read through) into consideration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled here. The website is exceptionally widely used as a source by academics, that means we should also consider it reliable. It is no more opinionated than the Times, Telegraph or the Observer (all containing strong neoliberal biases) and we accept them. It seems that what people object to here is the nature of the bias (Trotskyist) rather than the actual reliability. Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a very uncharitable reading Boynamedsue, given that many users who suggested it was unreliable for facts specifically said they didn't object to its Trotskyist bias or that it is a notable example of Trotskyist opinion. I think the issue is the conspiracist content. Re USEBYOTHERS, my sense is that (like GlobalResearch) its longevity means it has built up citations over the years simply by coming up in search engine hits (it is listed by Google News for instance), but it is rarely if ever used as a source by reliable news outlets. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

News outlets are inferior to academic sources, the World Socialist Website is cited frequently by academics publishing in peer-reviewed journals and books from academic publishers. This is a higher standard than news organisations. Here are the citations for just 5 WSW sources: 1. Hollywood enlists in Bush's war drive. 2. Zimbabwe: Mugabe’s ”Operation Murambatsvina”.. 3. HIV/Aids epidemic in Rural China 4. The US backs Ethiopia's Invasion of Somalia.. 5. Mass protests against housing shortages in South Africa.

There are hundreds of similar citations for other articles. WP:USEBYOTHERS clearly shows this is RS, even though it does not always separate comment and opinion. It is useable for facts, but care must be taken to ensure what is actually added is fact, that can be examined on a case by case basis.

As for "conspiracism", I do not see evidence of that in the links shown, though I disagree with most of the opinions it gives on Xinjiang. Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"The website is exceptionally widely used as a source by academics, that means we should also consider it reliable.” Lol Boynamedsue, by that standard Inspire (magazine) or one of the Haqqani publications would be reliable because they’ve been cited as sources by just about every academic doing work on global terror. Academic use can’t be evaluated out of context and on its own doesn’t actually say anything at all about reliability. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite right, but do you really think hundreds of academics are looking to analyse the politics of 4.12 International trot sects? If you take the time to look at how they are used, they are cited evidentially, for example:

• David Walsh's WSW article “Hollywood enlists in Bush’s war drive.” is cited in an article in academic journal Cultural Politics in the following manner: "Much has been made of the rejuvenated relationship between Hollywood and the Bush administration post-September 11th 2001 – especially after Hollywood’s top brass (including Black Hawk Down producer Jerry Bruckheimer) pledged to “commit itself to new initiatives in support of the war on terror” just a month after the attacks on New York and Washington (Walsh 2001; Carruthers 2003: 168)."
• J.Chan's WSW article "HIV/AIDS epidemic in rural China" is cited in an article in academic journal Asia Pacific Viewpoint in the following manner: "Blood collection centres had opened in Henan and elsewhere in the early 1990s, en- couraging peasants to donate blood and blood plasma in return for payment (J. Chan, 2001).Local blood banks aggressively sought donors and many poor peasants were happy to sell."

For brevity, I won't include any more, but have a look yourself. It is used as RS by academics. Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Both of those come from 2005. I feel there's (a) been a drift towards conspiracism at WSWS, and older content is more likely to be reliable than newer, and (b) academic citations tend to come from earlier on when there was simply less news content on the web and WSWS was one of the relatively few left-wing news sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley definitely has a point, I don’t remember them endorsing conspiracy theories in the same way back in the day. I will note however that it hasn’t been unsuccessful for them, they’ve actually managed to mainstream themselves by getting involved in public debates serving as a platform for completely non-trot voices (like in the kerfuffle over the NYT project) to express controversial opinions. If someone can find a source which gives us a clear year break or at least gives us a range in which they shifted we could probably craft a more precise consensus. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

At best used by others can suggest reliability, but it is unable to actually establish it... And it definitely can’t override publishing conspiracy theories as they have been doing as of late. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The site is basically a lot of opinion with a few news articles on niche topics. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources wherever they are published and are only noteworthy if they are reported in other sources. The source could be useful for for events that received little or no major media coverage, particularly in articles about topics that receive little coverage. TFD ( talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Can a census be reached for this blog-like website? https://www.the7eye.org.il/ It is run by only a few people and is used by COI on Walter Soriano.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMsohot ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on their about-page and google translate [99] they are a former print magazine, now afaict some sort of group-blog. Possibly individual writers can be considered WP:RS for some things. If they are WP:DUE is another question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion further up the page? Selfstudier ( talk) 23:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be merged as a subsection — Paleo Neonate – 06:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

They do have editorial board [100]. They considered pretty respected in Israel as media critique magazine. I have no idea who is Sorino and if they had COI with them -- Shrike ( talk) 06:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I see this site being brought up just once before at RSN without a definite answer. Fashion Model Directory is used as sourcing for much of Clément Chabernaud, and it looks a bit IMDB-ish, but I’m really not very familiar. They say they recruit bloggers to write for the site so …? ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)