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.

Archive 410

←

Archive 414

Archive 415

Archive 416

Archive 417

Archive 418

→

Archive 420

Someone asked this before in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408#Passionfruit / Passionfru.it but they received no replies. This was a source added to an article in a "further reading" section in Draft:Krew (Youtube group), but I ended up removing it because I didn't recognize the website. That article is https://passionfru.it/krew-warren-james-partnership-2022-1785/. It's an interview, so I guess nothing too unreliable unless they completely faked it. I'm more interested in their general reliability, not a specific article. AKFkrewfamKF1 ( talk) 00:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

They are part of Fragment Media Group, as are the Daily Dot ( WP:DAILYDOT). Reliability isn't inherited, but I doubt they would completely fake an interview. The author of the article was also previously a reporter at the Daily Dot. I can't find any third party discussion of the site, but they did name it "passion fru.it' which really doesn't help. It's not bad enough to be WP:ELNO, so further reading or external links should be fine. Out of caution I would suggest attribution and only for non-contentious/exceptional claims, given its basically impossible to check for a reputation for fact checking etc given its silly name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 12:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to clean up Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans for a WP:FAC run. Part of that involves properly distinguishing it from Campbell's Soup I and Campbell's Soup Cans II and them from each other. The most elaborate source on content for the Campbell's Soup Cans II is this LA art gallery which claims to have "the largest “gallery-owned” Warhol collection worldwide." Can I use them as a WP:RS for Campbell's Soup Cans II?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolver Gallery is a commercial gallery which specialises in Warhol's work. I can't find any evidence that Ron Rivlin, who founded the gallery, has any art history training – our article describes him simply as an "enterpreneur" – and there's nothing I can find on the Revolver website to suggest that their texts are written by (or they employ) anyone with academic expertise in Warhol or pop art. Probably they are reliable for basic statements of fact (edition size, dimensions and so forth); I wouldn't trust their analysis as it is fundamentally written to sell something. At FAC I would expect reviewers would ask you to justify that they are a "high quality" reliable source per criterion 1c; I personally would not submit an article to FAC using a commercial gallery's website texts as a source. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 16:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Caeciliusinhorto-public thanks for chiming in. OK. Definitely understand that the source is unsatisfactory in a FAC in the Campbell's Soup Cans article. I used it for some basic content at Campbell's Soup Cans II. Did I go over the line? TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

While we are on this subject, let me put forth the best of the rest of the sources that I can find for consideration: this and a source about unauthorized reprints- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the use at Campbell's Soup Cans II is fine. I would be cautious about the other two sources you have found to the same extent and for basically the same reasons as the Revolver Gallery one: again they are probably fine for basic factual details. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 18:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thx. No longer watching.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RS or predatory journal? The RS highlight script I use flagged DOI as predatory in this footnote but not in the main link. Different URL/DOI are at Ectopic enamel and few other places, not tagged for reliablity. Not seeing much else, [1] suggests its a minor journal but not seeing predatory flags? Is it an error in our script (I think it's the User:Headbomb/unreliable.js)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the website alone, I do not think it is predatory. The publication policy is fine (ok, the gmail contact address does not look professional, but it’s not because they’re broke that they’re bad). The manuscript guidelines are relatively stringent (if it was predatory, they would be lax). They are affiliated with a non-profit that does not obviously look illegitimate. The one yellow flag is the wide topical scope ("covering subjects that fall under the wide spectrum of science and technology").

Even if not predatory, that does not make articles published inside it as RS. A minor journal with wide scope might have trouble getting good reviews, so it might well publish crap articles. (As I write these lines, the first article is an image-classification paper. I cannot evaluate the research, but using Microsoft Excel graphs for a computer science paper, really?) Tigraan ^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(I have used Google Sheets graphs for my papers, in social science, but published in reasonably high tier-level journals (Scopus/SSCI)...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

PS. Ping User:Headbomb so they can maybe explain why that DOI is flagged? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a predatory journal published by the predatory Indian Society for Education and Environment? See Beall's list. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Headbomb Thanks (but I don't see it here, although the publisher is here?). Then I think we should add their websites to the list the script uses (currently it - they, looking at what we use, there's more then one - is not flagged). @ Tigraan as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Added Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Headbomb See also alt url at Ectopic enamel. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a different journal. No idea if that one is predatory, but it doesn't pass WP:MEDRS for sure. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

My bad, you are right. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

[2] is a website which both asesses bias in news organisations as well as their factuality. It also analyses coverage of different news events based on their left-center-right bias and shows blindspots for different bias categories.

It also shows a lot more complex info about the ownership and funding of news organisations.

I think it would be great to be used in telling the political affiliations and other information about news sites. It could also be useful for analysing if other Wikipedia:Reliable_sources are good as well as discover more potential Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. There are probably other potential uses for it too because it has a lot of nice functionality like being able to narrow down things and stuff like that. H44dyss9900 ( talk) 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally don't have much time for bias checking websites, as this misses the that the website doing the checking is also biased. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why, we do not judge RS by their political affiliations, only their reputation for accuracy. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of using [3] as a source for information on Wikipedia pages of news organisations for their political affiliations, factuality and potentially other data [4] provides. And perhaps use their factuality score for evaluating new (and perhaps current) Wikipedia:Reliable sources too. H44dyss9900 ( talk) 07:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

They take their bias ratings from mediabiasfactcheck.com, allsides.com, and adfontesmedia.com and then apply these bias ratings to the subjects of stories to see how many sources report the story from each bias level. Yeah, that has some interest. But, I don't see that as particularly useful. Let's stick with accuracy. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 19:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the assumption is that the facts in reliable sources will be the same regardless of the political orientation of the media, there is no reason to mention it. It would be silly to say for example, "A post tropical storm hit Florida, according to the left-wing news broadcaster CNN."

There of course is bias in deciding which facts and opinions to highlight in articles. But there is already a policy to determine how to do this (WP:NPOV). Since most media are "left wing," articles will have a "left-wing bias." (Note: by left-wing, the factcheckers mean support of American politicial, economic and military leadership in the world, free markets and a minimal welfare state. By right-wing, they mean a more extreme version.)

Larry Sanger and others have suggested that NPOV should mean balancing this "left-wing bias" with the right-wing bias of Fox News Channel etc. But that's just another bias and there is no reason why it is better than the current one. TFD ( talk) 21:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

These types of evaluations are biased themselves, and this website seems to be an aggregator of such evaluations. Aggregation of bias doesn't remove the bias. This source specifically seems to be a tech startup without journalists on staff, so I'm not sure why we'd consider any more reliable than the sources it pulls from. For articles, if you find anything valuable on the site, follow it to the source, determine if the source is reliable, and use that instead of this. For determining RS, avoid this site. — siro χ o 08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly I like scores and all that and they're a very convenient way of quickly conveying a rough evaluation, but I don't expect it to be very useful here unless there's more information on how the sausage gets made. More detail on how something is biased would probably be seen favourably. As for discovering more sources, there are certainly merits to using multiple news aggregators in case there is a source missed by google, microsoft, gale, qwant, etc, but it wouldn't necessarily be better or worse than any one of those. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 03:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Another useful property of the news site is to see which newssites belong to media conglomerates and see their ownership structures.

Not only could this be useful for decision making about Wikipedia:Reliable sources but it could also be used as a source for ownership of news organisations in their respective Wikipedia articles. H44dyss9900 ( talk) 13:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Tim Ballard#RfC 2 (it's about how/whether to report allegations, based on what sources). Opener of the RfC complains that "no one" responded to the first one, so I guess listing it here should help.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The linked RfC which was claimed to be "ignored" has actually attracted a bunch of attention -- it just happens to be opposed to FMSky's preferred POV by a factor of about 2:1. These related articles could probably use admin attention at some point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone added a link to the website "Rock Informer" to the Heather Baron-Gracie article, and after reading it, I realized the source was garbage that included claims like this:

Heather Baron-Gracie has also collaborated with other artists on various projects. She co-wrote and sang on The 1975's song " TOOTIMETOOTIMETOOTIME", which was a top 40 hit in the UK. ... Furthermore, she has written songs for other artists, such as Olivia Rodrigo’s Deja Vu" and Billie Eilish's " Happier Than Ever".

All of this is nonsense. Given the mishmash of 'facts,' I scanned the text using an AI Content Detector, and it said that was a 52% chance that it was AI-generated. I don't exactly know what the protocol for this sort of thing is, but I feel like this nonsense cannot be tolerated and should be banned on sight.-- Gen. Quon _[Talk] 20:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't need an RFC, it's just AI glurge and can be removed as such. The site is obviously an AI spam site. Even as it would claim it was not, it claims "Rock Informer is a no-cost, online rock music wiki, lovingly curated by skilled editors worldwide, made just for passionate rock music enthusiasts" - which would make it UGC, and just as unusable - David Gerard ( talk) 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Please consider withdrawal of this Rfc, as it doesn't meet WP:RFCBEFORE. That will only remove the Rfc header, it doesn't stop the discussion which may continue, as it is now. Agree with David's other points as well, and the link should not be included. ( Summoned by bot) Mathglot ( talk) 22:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• @ David Gerard and Mathglot: I removed the RfC bit. I included it to be safe, but recognize your points. Mathglot, when you say that "the link should not be included," do you mean it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia as a source? Just wanted to clarify.-- Gen. Quon _[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I was just having a conversation with someone the other day about the new form of media literacy: detecting when something is AI written (my analogy was learning to recognize spam email, but probably harder than that). Google needs to learn this, too, since there are so many of these sites in the top results. For now, for some reason many sites use this exact style/format such that it's recognizable. Can probably just be added to the blacklist like any other spam site. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @ Rhododendrites: That's kind of what I was thinking. I've never submitted a site for blacklisting, though, so I'm in the dark in this regard.-- Gen. Quon _[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I just nominated the site for blacklisting as spam. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Are websites owned by Static Media (Nicki Swift, Looper, /Film, etc) reliable? I know that they may contain advertising, but what about the non-advertising posts/articles? Spinixster (chat!) 02:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it bears mention that what these sites are generally cited for is information on popular culture, particularly films, TV series, and video games, and their fictional characters and elements. That being said, Looper at least has a reasonably thorough statement of editorial policy that declares its independence from influence by Static Media advertising. BD2412 T 03:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

One previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Nickiswift.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:VG/S lists Looper as unreliable. They've got a real clickbait/ churnalism problem with their video game coverage at least. Unlikely it's relegated just to that content area. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The following source pertains to the Douma chemical attack:

I recently came across a review, submitted to the European Parliament, entitled A Review of The Organization For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-Finding Mission Report Into the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Douma: Evidence of Manipulation, Bias, and Censorship. It can be read here.

It is credited to the following four authors:

• Hans-Christof von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
• José Bustani, Brazilian ambassador and first director-general of the OPCW
• Richard A. Falk, Professor Emeritus of international law at Princeton
• Piers Robinson, professor and co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies

This seems quite notable, and I'm surprised that it hadn't been discussed earlier. Perhaps one reason is its size - it is 162 pages long, and contains 192 endnotes, as well as its density and the specialized nature of the subject.

I immediately received a comment that took no opinion on the source, but raised concerns that, essentially, the source would be attacked by POV-pushers. I dismissed this concern. But the next comment was an odd comment from a new user, who described it as "intentional disinformation", for no given reason. To be clear, I've kept up on this story for the last 5 years, and I'm aware of no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the information or the integrity of the authors, one of which famously resigned from the OPCW amidst US pressure during the "Iraq has WMDs" scam.

So, to err on the safe side, I'd like to open this up to the broader community. Would we all agree that the article would benefit from, in some way, using this source? Philomathes2357 ( talk) 04:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The report and Berlin Group 21, have some rather negative reporting by Bellingcat [5] and New Lines magazine [6]. I would suggest trying to find scientific reporting from a more reputable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this seems attributed WP:PRIMARY at best and possibly should be excluded as promoting WP:FRINGE conspiracies, and doesn't appear to have gotten much traction in mainstream reliable sources. Andre 🚐 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The main question is not whether the Berlin Group is a reliable source - the answer obviously depends on what you want to use it as a reliable source for - but rather is it noteworthy for inclusion in the article, which requires it to have some secondary coverage by reliable sources, which it appears not to. But as to whether the Berlin Group is reliable, it's basically another name for the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, a fringe conspiracy theory group, and the authors of this report include at least one completely fringe conspiracy theorist, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] so I'd say no. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/happy-birthday-ainsley-earhardt-131327508.htmlHi, I was wondering if this reliable source of Ainsley Earhardt birthday article is reliable and if I can use this for her infobox? Asking for help on reliable sources, and someone suggested I go to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They said I could use the link that I copied and paste on here, and it looked ok to use. Should I use the link above, and put WP:RS? I know the template for the date of birth, and was wondering if Yahoo is a reliable source. The source Dandielayla ( talk) 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope. A couple of things here: first, the source is Fox & Friends, it's just syndicated on Yahoo; second, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Fox & Friends shouldn't be used for statements of facts, which includes dates of birth. Our DOB policy says that we only include them when they've been widely published in reliable sources. If a DOB hasn't been mentioned beyond the person's own talk show, that's a good sign it's not appropriate to include on Wikipedia. Woodroar ( talk) 12:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, and awwwwwwww man. It was mentioned in her Instagram post, and has been mentioned in the talk show last week. She celebrated her bday last week on set of Fox and friends, and had her colleagues with her. It has been widely published on sources, and reliable sources. Politico had it, and Yahoo also has it. I’m really sry, and I didn’t know that. DOB has been mentioned in each source that I look up, and has been confirmed. I fact checked to make sure she has the correct DOB, and she does have the right birth date. Dandielayla ( talk) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Dandielayla The policy linked by @ Woodroar states "been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." (my emphasis) and IMO, both the FaF and [12] can count as the latter. However, the FaF clip won't run for me, and the Politico afaict only give a date and no year. And I think having a date without year in a BLP would be weird/unnecessary. DOB:s aren't gold to be mined, not having one is fine. A verified social media post by her clearly stating "I'm XX years today!" would be acceptable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok 👌🏻, and I have a Instagram post of her holding balloons on her birthday. I can put that in the infobox, and her DOB along with the WP:RS Instagram post. Thank u 🙏🏻, and I’m really sry. Dandielayla ( talk) 15:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Does the instagram post clearly state her age? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ya, and I commented #47, #47yearsold on it. Dandielayla ( talk) 18:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Dandielayla Assuming you mean this [13], like the Politico, there is no YOB/age mentioned, so it doesn't help. It's very possible that this is quite deliberate on her part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ya, and I agree. It only has the date it was published, and not her YOB. Dandielayla ( talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

And to be fair, it doesn't even verify her date of birth. People could post a thank-you message the same day as their birthday, the next day, or whenever they get around to it. Woodroar ( talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ya, and I agree. I have done that before, and said thank u late when it was my bday. I eventually got around to it, and I posted happy 47th bday on her Instagram post a couple of days ago. I know it didn’t verify her date of birth, and I’m really sry. Thank u for helping, and for tips. I also fact checked her date of birth on all my social media, and on articles. Dandielayla ( talk) 19:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

And yet you added it to the article anyway. Not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m really sry, and I wasn’t going to put it in the article but didn’t know if I should since it said WP:RS in the infobox. I did put the right DOB form, and the WP:RS. Plz accept my apology, and I’m trying my best even tho I’m never good or don’t think I’m good enough. Dandielayla ( talk) 19:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Dandielayla now indef blocked for all editing David notMD ( talk) 14:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Does a documentary cast need sources? If so, is the documentary official website considered a primary source? Is a different source required for appearance mentions on biography pages? Is it different for nondocumentary films?

By my understanding, if the film/documentary lists the person in the credits, it would be considered a primary source, and per policy 3 of primary sources, no source would be needed. I would tend to say the same thing about biography pages that mention that person's apparition, especially if the mention links to the film/documentary wiki page. EntangledElectron ( talk) 16:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Two issues, cast and appearance are not the same thing. Yes, it can be used for crew, but not for claiming who appears in it (after all they can claim that, but use library footage). Slatersteven ( talk) 16:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I also raise the question about the person, not being listed in the credits, but being either orally named or whose name is shown during their appearance. EntangledElectron ( talk) 16:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That is even more iffy, as if they are not listed in the credits, how are they appearing (as I said in archival footage)? We need context to this question, examples. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It was more of a broader question in order to better understand the best practices.

If you need the context, I was trying to mention the participation of some casts of the documentary Is Genesis History? on their own biography page.

Specifically, I wanted to add this information on one of their page, but it was reverted because I didn't mention any sources (You can see a message from the reverser on my talk page). However I noticed that other participants' page didn't mention a source that listed their name, neither did the documentary wiki page. I should note that their names are featured both live in the documentary and in the credits.

As said, I expanded the question for me and others as a reference. EntangledElectron ( talk) 20:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me precise that all casts in said context are live person. There is no archival footage in this documentary. EntangledElectron ( talk) 20:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The question is not if they are living or not, but whether they actively took part in the documentary or if the documentary showed photage of them taken from another source. Someone's name appearing over photage that wasn't taken specifically for the documentary wouldn't be a reason to include them. If people are not listed in the credits it's likely they shouldn't be mentioned. Note that how other articles appear isn't necessarily relevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general it's always best to include a source for your additions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok I see. In my case, they are all actively part of the documentary, and listed in the credits.

So falling back on the initial question, would the official website, listing their name for each segment be enough? EntangledElectron ( talk) 21:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY sources can be used as can WP:ABOUTSELF sources. So a website for a documentary that shows the cast for that documentary should be ok, but such sources should be used with caution for anything exceptional or contenious. Finally be aware that just because something is sourced doesn't always mean it should be included, you may need to convince other editors it should be included (see WP:ONUS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this sources reliable to add to Draft:Mattias Inwood ? https://www.programme-tv.net/biographie/389622-inwood-mattias/ Veganpurplefox ( talk) 01:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Curious on whether other editors think that PaperMag is reliable, either for factual reporting or for attributed opinions. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 01:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely for attributed opinions. For factual reporting, it's probably marginally reliable, but I have a hard time picturing a story that's been covered exclusively by PaperMag and by nobody else, and I'd be a little skeptical of a factual Wikivoice statement that's only sourced to PaperMag.

What prompts the question? Do you have any specific examples of passages on Wikipedia that cite/could cite this source? Pecopteris ( talk) 02:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an article, reference, and article content in mind?

Used as a ref over 2k times. I'm seeing churnalism and gossip. I wouldn't use it for BLP info, and agree with Pecopteris' cautions. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hipal's guidance to avoid this source for BLP claims. Maybe if a more reliable source has already issued a factual report, a PaperMag story could be cited to establish further weight, but I would never use this as my only source for a BLP claim. Pecopteris ( talk) 02:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is a high quality source, but when would it be unreliable, exactly? Sure, use with attribution. For controversial BLP claims - hmmm. Is it used for any controversial claims anywhere that someone wants to challenge? Would be good to see an example. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether the sources mentioned below are enough for a WP:RS/AC claim that the New Testament gospels are anonymous.

Using verbatim quotes: Jenhawk777 claims that Ehrman is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view and that the Holman bibles are not a good example of scholarship of any kind. Neither is she convinced by Witherington and others, who probably share her POV but actually agree with me. By WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority [of modern scholars]" (1 RS). There are other implicit WP:RS/AC claims, e.g. The New Testament : a historical introduction to the early Christian writings by Ehrman (2004) and Lüdemann (2000). She claims that most WP:RS listed at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 are not enough for those WP:RS/AC claims (there are four or five sources which I added later to that list, and were not discussed previously). So of course, I do not want to preserve the word consensus, "most scholars" or "most critical scholars" would do.

There are sources from Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford University Press. B&H Publishing Group, InterVarsity Press, Wipf & Stock, Westminster John Knox Press, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, Pickwick Publications, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Abingdon Press, and Paulist Press are Christian publishers.

The claims that Mark did write Mark are there to show that while evangelicals agree that Mark wrote Mark, they cannot agree among themselves who this Mark was. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the statement "the New Testament gospels are anonymous" should be placed in Wikivoice? If you are, I disagree. I think Wikivoice is overused in general, and I don't see how putting this claim in Wikivoice improves the encyclopedia article. If you are arguing that something like "most scholars view the New Testament gospels as anonymous", I agree wholeheartedly that the evidence you present supports such a statement.. Pecopteris ( talk) 03:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ehrman and Lüdemann implicitly state this is the consensus view. But I am willing to settle for a lesser claim, namely that "most scholars", or "most critical scholars", or "the majority of modern scholars" think that the NT gospels are truly anonymous.

Perhaps I have to give diffs for those verbatim quotes: [14] and [15].

And that's because (surprise, surprise), being stated in the voice of Wikipedia is usually seen as a weaker statement than a WP:RS/AC claim.

I mean, quotes like:

• "Scholars today, however, find it difficult to accept this tradition for several reasons." (Ehrman, 2004)
• "I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public—especially to believers—only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text." (Lüdemann, 2000)

are hard to read as anything else than speaking of the present-day academic consensus. And we know it for a fact, since Ehrman (2005) does cite Ehrman (2004), interpreting it as a citation saying that "Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications". tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Pecopteris IMO this statement: The dispute is about whether the sources mentioned below are enough for a WP:RS/AC claim that the New Testament gospels are anonymous. is a straw man that tgeorgescu has tried to make the discussion about, but it does not in any way accurately reflect what it's been about, from the beginning, for me.

Here is my original question, stated on 28 August: This article uses Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels By David Oliver Smith as a source for the statement that The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD. The second reference on that sentence is without value as it says nothing of the kind, but Smith does in fact claim this on the page given. I was surprised to read this statement as I know of no such agreement amongst NT scholars. So I wondered where he got his information from. I want to know. He offers no explanation, no supporting data, nothing at all on how or when such a conclusion on such a controversial topic was reached. His only reference for this statement is to Randel Helms, a well known mythicist with an ideological axe to grind, and his book "Who wrote the Gospels?" which was published by the self-publishing Millennium Press in 1997. Helms has no data either.

I found one review of Smith's book, on page 167 of the journal "Religious Studies Review" at [16] which says Smith is unlikely to convince the jury of NT scholarship that his conclusions are established by even a preponderance of the evidence — to say nothing of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith is a retired lawyer, and while this implies there is no actual consensus, it doesn't actually discuss any data either. Smith makes any number of sweeping claims and generalizations which should set off anyone's alarm bells that the author is heavily biased. I am concerned this is not a reliable source, and its claims are not verifiable. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a quality source that actually says "consensus" exists. I want that partly because I don't think an actual consensus does exist, and partly just because I think the source is not up to wiki standards. That seems like a simple yes it is, or no it isn't kind of issue.

I also don't vote for wiki voice. But I do agree with stating "most scholars" about anonymity as that can probably be well sourced, or even "the majority" if that can be found, but consensus? That's a whole other animal, and it requires a higher quality source than is currently present.

Using the more accurate "most scholars" would then require the inclusion of the minority view, imo, which is not currently in the article. I am guessing - and it is just a guess - that this is why all the hoo-rah for an entire month over one sentence. Whatever the reason, for me it is, and has been, about the source for that claim of consensus. It is not and should not be about me or what I personally think about any of it. I would appreciate avoiding any discussion in that direction. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, there are WP:RS which WP:V consensus: Ehrman (1999), Lüdemann (2000), and Ehrman (2004). But I am willing to downgrade it from consensus to most scholars. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you both feel that "most scholars" is a mutually agreeable compromise. Is that the case, or am I missing something? Pecopteris ( talk) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Pecopteris and Jenhawk777: Okay, Joshua Jonathan went ahead and has cut the Gordian Knot. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Cool. @ Tgeorgescu and @ Jenhawk777: Do both of you feel that Joshua Jonathan's edit is an acceptable resolution to your dispute? Pecopteris ( talk) 01:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Pecopteris: I'm fine with his edit. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The only edits I see from Joshua Jonathan are from two days ago, and Smith remains as a source in all three. I am okay with "most scholars", and with referencing Ehrman for that, but the question about Smith as a valid source remains unresolved. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

From the evidence you presented above, Smith is not a WP:RS, you have met the WP:ONUS test and it is for others to produce counter-evidence to support his retention. If not, delete. Same rule as applies to every article. [Full disclosure: I am an atheist so have no interest in the outcome.] -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much 𝕁𝕄𝔽. I appreciate that you think atheism means you have no vested interest in the outcome as far as the religious content goes. I am taking that as support for the objectivity of your claim that I have met the ONUS test and Smith should legitimately go. Am I correct in that? If so, first and foremost, thank you. Thank you for your voluntary presence, for your time and for your objectivity.

At the same time, I am dismayed to read that statement. May I be so bold as to point out that it focuses the issue on the religious nature of the content and not the source? Why else would atheism have any impact at all? That shift seems to assume that my objectivity is not as real, or present, or of the same quality as yours, simply because I am not an atheist.

In all the long discussion with tgeorgescu, I tried and tried to explain that everyone has cognitive biases, and we all have to put those aside or fail neutrality. A non-atheist is no less capable of that than anyone else, but each individual must determine that for themselves. I did that long before coming to Wikipedia. I have a BS in world religions from a state university and some grad school time at Vanderbilt and was trained in biblical criticism and the need for objectivity from the beginning of my studies. If you have also made that commitment to objectivity, then I admire and appreciate that, but imo, it has nothing to do with your atheism. That's because whatever you may personally believe must be set aside in order for true neutrality to be achieved - just as for me. If you do have a commitment to neutrality, and if you do have a commitment to maintaining the highest possible standard for the encyclopedia, then I would say you do, indeed, also have the exact same interest in the outcome here that I have.

I believe in the principle of neutrality as practiced by most editors here on WP. I am committed to it. So much so that I wrote and posted an essay on it on my user page. I am objective about my field of study, and no one can legitimately say otherwise. The accusation aimed at me here and on the article talk page (and on other pages) is that I am religious, and that proves I am incapable of objectivity. Instead, that is evidence of bias on the accuser's part, and that evidence is here in the complaint against me, and all over the talk page and others. I choose to overlook it. I focus on what is good for Wikipedia, but I admit, I am deeply disturbed and distressed at finding what looks to be a similar assumption here. Please forgive me, I know this is off topic, but I am deeply distressed that religious positions became a part of this discussion. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to put words into 𝕁𝕄𝔽s mouth, but I think their point was that their comment was coming from an editor who doesn't care about a subject rather than implying anything further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that is precisely it. My point is that a source that fails WP:RS is a source that is worthless and even counter-productive and so should be discarded. The topic is irrelevant. So yes, in that respect I do indeed have the same interest in the outcome as Jenhawk777 does, because of Wikipedia depends critically on RSs. If we say something that relies for its veracity on the supporting citation but that source is unreliable, then the credibility of the entire article is undermined and Wikipedia with it. Evidently it was unhelpful to say why I have no interest in the detail: my intention was to convey disinterest in any theological aspects. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Jenhawk777 It's true that everyone is biased when it comes to discussing the Bible. Atheists are no less likely to be biased than religious people on this topic, they're just biased in different ways. One would assume that an atheist would be biased towards calling the gospels "anonymous", and Christians would be biased towards attributing the gospels to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

If other editors have insinuated that your contributions are less valuable because of your religious belief, that is very inappropriate. At minimum, it's a violation of the principle of assuming good faith. I see the same thing happen in political articles, frequently. It's not good.

With that said, what I think JMF was trying to say is that they're pretty much apathetic about the topic of the gospels, so they don't have strong feelings one way or another about what the article says. Back to the substance of the dispute: I agree that you have met the ONUS test. I think it would be reasonable for you to remove that particular citation, for that particular claim, conditionally, pending further discussion at the article's talk page.

Do you still have frustrations about the article's content that have not been addressed? Pecopteris ( talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Pecopteris, and ActivelyDisinterested I am grateful for this response, genuinely, and for the patience and kindness it embraces. I did understand the comment was intended in good faith. I did understand its purpose. My thank you for it was sincere. That doesn't mean we can't benefit by seeing the bigger picture. I have no doubt whatsoever that JMF meant well. But flip it around, make it an article about race. I come with a source issue and get a comment that the reviewer is unconcerned about the outcome because they are not the same race the article is about, so they have no vested interest in it. I don't mean to be oversensitive, but it wouldn't hurt the work to have a little more awareness than that.

Any concerns I have about content I will address directly on the article's talk page and will deal with the people there. They do their best, I think, to act in good faith and stick to neutrality. We've butted heads for some years now, and I have developed a certain respect for their perseverance. I had that one concern about that source, and now I can remove it, if tgeorgescu agrees. That's all for me for now. Thank you all again. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 I am overwhelmingly grateful for your response. Thank you. It's all right. I'm over it and moving on now. No hard feelings of any kind on my part, and I hope that is true on yours as well. I know you meant well. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree: while what Smith stated is true, he is not authoritative enough to be WP:CITEd for such a claim. The scholarly quality of the books published by Wipf and Stock varies hugely. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you George. That's very gracious of you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I found this site [17] which looking for sources for the Casimir, Margrave of Brandenburg-Kulmbach article, is it reliable? I could not find any prior discussion of it on the RSN. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't be used. Hosts user-submitted content, [18] along with content from Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The site heavily copies and scrapes older Wikipedia articles and generally fails to comply with our license. Other material there is either user-generated or scraped from other sites. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

[19] is a site that I see being used as a source on hundreds of articles (see [20]). My question is this: is it really reliable? It appears to be a self-published source (see the main page I provided, where it reads at the bottom, "Copyright 2023 YB Media, LLC. All rights reserved"), and based on a lot of the sources provided, they appear to be one of those churnalism sites that are generally avoided on Wikipedia (in the tradition of top 10 listicle and "news" sites like WatchMojo, WhatCulture, and Ranker), none of which have entries on WP:RSP but have established consensus not to include).

But what does everyone else think? I think I've made it clear that I don't think it belongs here, but I want consensus to be established about it, since searching the noticeboards for discussion of this source comes up with literally nothing. Is it reliable, am I mistaken? JeffSpaceman ( talk) 01:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was mostly user contributions at the start. It's a brand of https://www.playmaker.fans/ According to https://www.yardbarker.com/help/faq, they do some sort of republishing of others' content. I don't see accuracy and fact-checking as a priority, only monetizing their userbase. -- Hipal ( talk) 01:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking because there are several articles on this website that cite [59]trakt.tv, but I question that site's veracity. It appears to be a site for tracking movies and shows, but I personally don't think it's a good source. What is the consensus? MannysMyName ( talk) 17:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(Used 111 times as a reference) It uses Wikipedia and IMDB as sources, and worse, so it shouldn't be used. It appears they have user-submitted information, but I'm unclear how/where it is used. -- Hipal ( talk) 23:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just for reference, there appear to be roughly 100 or so uses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears that two discussions over Distractify were already had, but I'm hoping to establish some sort of consensus here for future reference.

This website has been used as a source on multiple BLP articles ( Special:Search/distractify.com brings up a few examples) and a previous discussion mentions The New York Times, a reliable source, refer to it as "a viral content site that fills Facebook news feeds with feel-good posts built largely on repackaging content from other websites". Correct me if I'm wrong, but their articles come across as gossip to me, which I feel is definitely not reliable. Jurta talk 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions are here and here; I can't find anyone defending the site as reliable in either. They do have an about page which broadly says the right things, and gives a dedicated contact point for corrections, but the content just looks like run of the mill celebrity gossip – I can't imagine a situation where there was no better source for a claim and yet we would still consider it encyclopedic to include. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 10:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, couldn't have said it better myself. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Distractify. I would only use it in conditions where the Daily Mail is allowed, or for attributed opinions when supplemented with a much more reliable source. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Did some digging on what websites they source from. They seem to pull some of their information from unreliable sources, including but not limited to Urban Dictionary, ( [60] [61] [62]) The Sun, ( [63] [64] [65]) and the Daily Mail. ( [66] [67] [68]) While they do also source their information from more reputable websites, those websites could just be used instead. Jurta talk 12:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

La Izquierda Diario ("'The left' newspaper) is an online newspaper from Argentina. It is owned by the Socialist Workers' Party, and as such it is a biased source. We may still use it with attribution, but to what end? This is a really minor and almost irrelevant party. It is part of the Workers' Left Front coalition ("Frente de Izquierda y de trabajadores"), which only got 2.65% of the vote on the last elections (see here). Their opinions are hardly relevant for any article, except those about themselves. Note that the article says "La Izquierda Diario has been credited for gaining a non-Trotskyite reader base among the left.", but the reference is not really a good one: it is a magazine detailing the profile of one of their own columnists, who happens to work at that other newspaper as well. If we check independent sources, here is a report of the most consumed media in Argentina, including online media. It lists the top 16 ones, and La Izquierda Diario is not even mentioned. It does not have any noticeable reader base, Trotskyite or otherwise.

In short, this newspaper belongs to a political party, which makes it a biased source by default (and you can always read any random article to confirm their left-wing bias), and that party is of borderline significance. I request to consider it "Generally unreliable" in articles about politics of Argentina. Cambalachero ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad RfC. No mention of where its citing is disputed, so I wonder whether WP:RFCBEFORE -- "Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC." -- is being followed. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My first question is: is this source currently being used anywhere?

My second observation: of course it's a biased source. That doesn't say much about its usability. I think Wikipedia's treatment of politics will improve to the degree that we recognize that every source is biased to some degree, due to its stated politics, its staff's political opinions, its business model, its advertisers, its ownership, its funding, and so on.

Furthermore, if we determine a source's reliability by its readership or popularity, then Wikipedia articles will fall victim to an argument by popularity, wherein the most popular viewpoints of the day are deemed worthy of mention, and less popular opinions will be tossed down the memory hole. That is not a good sourcing model.

So, the source may be reliable, or it may not be, but I'm not seeing anything here that speaks to that question. Again, to echo @ Peter Gulutzan, we'd have to see a specific use of this source to which you object. Otherwise, the conversation is far too vague and generalized. @ Cambalachero, is there a specific article that uses this source in a way you find objectionable? Pecopteris ( talk) 00:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this source has never been discussed on RSN previously; jumping straight from "never discussed" to "deprecated" seems premature. Simply being a newspaper of a political party is not sufficient on its own to deprecate a source; we list China Daily as marginally reliable! Yes, this is probably a source that should be used with caution, but deprecation is a fairly extreme step and we should not jump straight to it without even demonstrating that La Izquierdia Diario even is used problematically on wikipedia! Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 09:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A reading of WP:BIASED and in text attribution should do for now. If the source is being used in problematic way then some examples would be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Cambalachero: I've removed the {{ rfc}} tag because the RfC statement is not "neutrally worded and short", as is required in WP:RFCBRIEF. Please keep this requirement in mind. —  Newslinger  talk 19:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Is GFR a reliable source? Their "exclusive" reports are usually correct AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan ( talk) 02:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Source for what? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

They're somewhat notorious for reporting unconfirmed rumors that turn out to be false, so I'd avoid using anything like that, wait for a reliable entertainment source to confirm it and use that. They're probably fine for attributed opinions such as reviews. I guess, given their overall reputation, case by case for standard reporting, avoid for controversial claims especially in BLP. In many cases you can trace their reporting back to the source and evaluate that source. — siro χ o 03:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that discussions about this website doesn't seem to get much traction here, so hopefully this will get at least some responses. Is FanSided and its websites a reliable source? Spinixster (chat!) 04:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, Op can continue the discussion in their unblock request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My argument is that Bem and Tressoldi, et al. should be allowed to be included in Precognition. Claims have been made that Bem "is a hack" and not a reliable source, without supporting evidence other than a few failed replications. Meta-analyses not just by Bem but by Tressoldi as well as other researchers indicate Bem wasn't wrong and precognition is a real effect. If it were true that Bem just made up data then why would the analysis of over 90 experiments show an effect with a significant p value over all experiments, p = 1.2 × 10-10 and p = 1.2 × 10-5 for all independent replications, removing the experiments of Daryl Bem. This is highly significant. Accusations that Bem is a hack and his results are WP:PSCI are unfounded. My should be included despite the revision by @ Hob Gadling. Nhradek ( talk) 00:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC) F1000research isn't a reputable publisher. If something is published there you can safely assume that it was rejected everywhere else. This is not a reliable source, especially not for the extraordinary claims being made. MrOllie ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC) By whose authority is F1000 not a reputable journal? We don't agree that precognition is an extraordinary claim, it is very ordinary. Besides that Daryl Bem's original research passed peer review in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. P-values for all experiments were far below significance with p < 0.0001. My question then is why isn't it reputable? Nhradek ( talk) 01:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Assumptions can make or break us, especially "safe assumptions." Nhradek ( talk) 01:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC) By whose authority is F1000 not a reputable journal. Their own. To quote F1000's FAQ: F1000Research is a publishing platform and not a journal – we have no academic editors making acceptance/rejection decisions. MrOllie ( talk) 02:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC) The article in question had reviewers Ina Vitalevna Vasileva and Paul Grigoriev. It's not a typical psychological journal but real research there does get published like it does on other similar publications like arxiv.org? Should any paper on arxiv not be used as a source? That's like half of deep learning papers. Nhradek ( talk) 02:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC) "Should any paper on arxiv not be used as a source?". No, it shouldn't. See the entry for arXiv on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC) They're all self published. Arxiv (and the other preprint servers) are not journals either. It's just the same as a post on somebody's blog. MrOllie ( talk) 02:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Not if they have reviewers. It's a bit different than just a blog. What blog has peer review? Nhradek ( talk) 02:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) I know that in the near future f1000 will be revealed as not reliable. I can feel it. Malibu Sapphire ( talk) 02:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Sarcasm doesn't make right and true. Nhradek ( talk) 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Frankly, if you want to use a single paper on F1000 for a claim in Wikipedia's voce that "precognition is a real effect" [69], you are likely to meet with more than just sarcasm. Extraordinary claims, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, don't just require extraordinary evidence, they require evidence that the scientific community accepts them. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Frankly Precognition isn't an extraordinary claim. I don't accept Carl Sagan's nonsense maxim. Also Daryl Bem's paper was published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, F1000 was just the meta-analysis pushing back against claims that Bem was defrauding or had flawed research methods. Nhradek ( talk) 02:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Your personal opinion of Carl Sagan's claim is irrelevant, since Wikipedia policy on sourcing is built around essentially the same premise. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) You're citing it as a source. My point being if we exclude F1000 do we exclude all arxiv papers too? I do think if it's been reviewed it's a reasonable source. Nhradek ( talk) 02:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC) How about actually reading other peoples' responses before replying. You have already been told that arXiv isn't an acceptable source. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) I have and I don't agree. Why don't you read my response? Aside from that Wikipedia allows major news networks as sources. F1000 is different from Arxiv anyways since it has reviewers. Nhradek ( talk) 02:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Atlas Obscura articles is considered a reliable source as well. Is this any less legitimate than a publication like F1000? Nhradek ( talk) 02:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC) They do editorial review, F1000 does not. F1000 doesn't have the basic quality controls required of a reliable source. MrOllie ( talk) 02:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) It has peer review with reviewers. Other sources have been considered reliable for this reason without editors. Despite the claimed unreliability of Arxiv a lot of deep learning papers get published there and I'm not sure it should be relegated to unreliable. Aside from that Rotten Tomatoes is considered reliable and has no editorial control. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#RFC: Use of Rotten Tomatoes for biographical information Nhradek ( talk) 02:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC) It has peer review with reviewers. Not really. Because F1000 doesn't have editors, the authors of the papers select their own peer reviewers (again, this is all in their FAQ). That is obviously not any kind of workable standard for ensuring quality. MrOllie ( talk) 02:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Then is Bem's original research in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology considered adequate? Many sources on Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources don't have editors but may have some source of peer review. we can exclude the meta-analysis in F1000 but that doesn't exclude the actual experiments and research. Nhradek ( talk) 02:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC) According to Daryl_Bem#"Feeling_the_Future"_controversy is has been refuted many, many times. So no. MrOllie ( talk) 03:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Bem's analysis shows otherwise. The "skeptic" bias on Wikipedia is rampant and annoys me. They don't value reputable sources and research but just pushing an idealogical agenda. It's a valid source since it underwent peer review. It's as valid as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Space.com for christ's sake. Nhradek ( talk) 03:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC) No it hasn't been refuted. Bem defended himself in the meta-analysis I posted. Nhradek ( talk) 03:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Which he couldn't get published anywhere reputable, which speaks volumes. MrOllie ( talk) 03:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Are you sure? Maybe he just wanted to publish quickly. You're reading into his publishing platform too much. Nhradek ( talk) 03:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Yes, I'm sure. Also, to your prior comment: User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. MrOllie ( talk) 03:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC) He did get his work published in multiple peer reviewed journals. It fits Wales' criteria. F1000 is still peer reviewed, it's not a traditional journal but is certainly more reputable than space.com which is used as a source. Nhradek ( talk) 03:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) There's many other papers I can cite like this one but the meta-analysis covers many precognition experiments. Nhradek ( talk) 02:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Let's cut to the chase here. Wikipedia policy on sourcing for scientific content has been more than adequately explained. There is absolutely no way that the Bem and Tressoldi, et al paper will be seen as an even remotely adequate source for the claim that "precognition is a real effect". This simply isn't going to happen, regardless of Nhradek's personal opinions regarding Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia reflects existing scientific consensus, per policy. This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Everything is open to negotiation. You haven't responded to my critique at all. Nhradek ( talk) 02:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC) No. Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC) No but the inclusion of F1000 is. Like all sources. Nhradek ( talk) 02:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Wrong. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) There is already Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nhradek. The arbitrator has been generous, but WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion here is still disruptive. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Look the arbitrator sent me here. You can sanction me if you want but I won't be silenced. Nhradek ( talk) 03:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC) If you continue in the manner you have been, then eventually you will. Wikipedia has a long-standing consensus on such matters, and the community is under no obligation to sustain discussion indefinitely when a single individual (particularly one clearly unfamiliar with how the place works, and unwilling to listen to advice) feels obliged to argue the same point again and again against unanimous disagreement. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Consensus doesn't equal truth. I will stand down on the F1000 inclusion and won't argue for it's inclusion as a reputable source but Bem's other research was published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and there have been other replications of precognition. They should be included in Precognition without reservation because it fits Wikipedia policy. I rest my case. Nhradek ( talk) 03:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Feel free to take your case, along with your soapbox, somewhere else. They are of no relevance to Wikipedia policy regarding the need for a claim that "precognition is a real effect" to have better sourcing (much better sourcing) than anything provided here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC) We don't ask you to change your personal opinions about the real world. Let's say that X is a racist. We have no mandate to tell X to not be a racist. But X, as long as they edit here, has to agree that mainstream WP:RS agree that racism is bad. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

minorityrights.org is cited in a quite a few articles, generally about minority groups or their treatment within countries. They self-identify as an advocacy group ( [70]), so I'm not sure if pages like this on particular minority groups are reliable enough to be used in articles. Thoughts? Elli ( talk | contribs) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What would you like to use this for? I've looked at the profile of the Ossetians and it looks okay, but no sources are given and there is no byline. There are plenty of other more reliable sources about the Ossetians, so I wouldn't use it. Alaexis _¿question? 08:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be open to using the source carefully. Can you offer us a specific example of how you'd like to use the source? Such as an example of a sentence you'd like to add to the article that cites this source? Pecopteris ( talk) 22:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s broadly reliable, but with the usual caveats for advocacy organisations (similar to eg Human Rights Watch for example). It employs researchers and produces detailed reports. It is cited by academic articles. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I personally would not consider it broadly reliable. NGOs in general have a poor track record for accuracy as information and data are often skewed to support whatever cause they are advocating for, and the materials they publish are generally not peer reviewed or subject to independent editorial oversight and are generally published in house. We have an article Criticism of Human Rights Watch for example. It’s preferable to use sources that are written by neutral parties and which use a reliable independent publisher. NGOs typically don’t produce neutral publications and they typically don’t submit there work to publishers with reputations for independent fact checking. I would consider anything published by any NGO as a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and as a “use with caution” type of resource. 4meter4 ( talk) 07:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm fairly confident in bringing this to the RSN but I wanted to confirm that Geolysis.com is not a reliable source for geographic articles such as this, this, and this because the information is user-generated (some of which is mirrored). The language stated on Geolysis is as follows: We are building a virtual community of real places: the village you were born, the neighbourhood you live in, the place you work, native places of you and your parents, the places you have visited or any place that you are acquinted with. You have can now keep updated, share information and generally keep in touch with your roots. Join now to become part of real and dynamic communities spread across the globe.

I haven't seen this documented except for one mention on a noticeboard in 2014 for India-related topics. If this is considered unreliable, it might be helpful to add to deprecated sources as there are many geographic stubs that use this, which I believe is to the project's detriment. I'm interested in other editors' opinions because it has been used somewhat often and this would potentially effect a lot of articles. If there are reasons that it should be considered reliable that I have overlooked, please let me know. Thanks, Kazamzam ( talk) 19:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing there at all to indicate it's anything but a database of user-contributed information. Remove on sight. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Hipal, undeniably WP:UGC and so completely unusable. Should be removed anywhere it's found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I have started a request for comments on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. It includes a discussion of how they are referenced. If you would like to participate in the RfC, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sunnya343 ( talk) 16:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230930003554/https://deadorkicking.com/jenna-rose-swerdlow-dead-or-alive/ or https://web.archive.org/web/20230929191650/https://www.resso.com/artist/Jenna-Rose-6578489496432547848 ? Thatsoddd ( talk) 01:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Resso is an app by bytedance and is not edited by anyone. Dead or kicking however looks kinda sketchy. Either way I think Resso would be better as none of that content is user generated. Can you explain more. Thatsoddd ( talk) 07:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Thatsoddd You are editing a page on a living person, so the biographies of living persons policy applies, I would recommend giving it a read as there are extra things you need to take into consideration when editing these pages. You must support any edits with citations to top quality reliable sources, questionable sources should not be used in the article at all. Dead or Kicking is clearly not reliable, and I can't see any information on where resso gets it's information from - is it a verified profile that has been written by the artist or has it just been written by an intern based on whatever they could find online? In addition dates of birth must have been widely published by reliable sources or have been published and shared by the subject of the article in order to be included, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful reply. I was waiting for one. What makes dead or kicking unreliable?They claim to be a team of professionals. I’ve not used that citation on any articles because to me the website looks dodgy. Thanks for the help. Thatsoddd ( talk) 13:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Thatsoddd A few things that immediately stand out to me:

• They claim to be written by professionals, but they don't say who they are or allow them to contribute under their own names.
• They claim to be based on reliable sources, but they don't say what they are or where they've got their information from.
• Completely unprofessional and sometimes poorly written language, e.g. telling people Please ignore rumors and hoaxes.. Their "about" page is full of mistakes and awkward language, e.g. All the information here are continuously being fact checked by our experts to be sure of reflecting nothing but truth.
• Every page has an "edit" link, and a request to let them know if the page needs updating, suggesting it is at least partially user generated.
• Their information pages are self contradictory, e.g. they claim that they update someone's death status based on reliable sources, then it goes on to say Dead or Kicking does not update any status unless it’s officially approved. then it goes on to ask readers for corrections?

overall the impression I get is that it's a amateurish clickbait site, rather than a professional organisation. I wouldn't use it in a BLP at all. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

[it would be useful if the op added some discussion on why this is being asked, not just a blank section].
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

• In short, as the question gives no details, no. As per the site info page this is just someone's hobby site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested there are currently 48 uses of the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, let me rephrase the question, is Vexilla Mundi a reliable source for flags to put on wikipedia? Sci Show With Moh ( talk) 22:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Still no, it's a hobbiest site. The only way it could be considered a reliable site would be if the author was a recognised expert who had previously been published in other reliable sources, see WP:SPS, and I can't find any evidence for that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 08:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

please explain why this is reliable or not reliable. No blunt answers. https://bookingagentinfo.com. User:Thatsoddd|Thatsoddd]] ( talk) 03:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you intend to use it for? The site is for celebrity contact information, which would seem to be a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 08:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The birthdate of the specific person. Also what you’ve confirmed to me is the site is legit. Will using it just for the birthdate still end up being a privacy issue? Thatsoddd ( talk) 11:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was "legit", although if it's not someone's gone to a lot of effort. Regardless of if it's reliable, there's also WP:DOB. Dates of birth should only be added if they have been widely published by reliable sources. If this is the only source for the date then that's not "widely published". If the celebrity has stated their birthday a WP:ABOUTSELF reference would do, e.g. one from a social media account that is know to be the actual celebrity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 15:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks. Thatsoddd ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is https://www.thedailymeal.com/policies/ a reliable source for general knowledge of a food? Thanks, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk)! 20:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Presumably, everything that applies to Mashable applies here. See WP:MASHABLE for what that entails 47.188.17.45 ( talk) 03:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Much obliged. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk)! 03:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

topcargo200 is a cite that I have stumbled across which is rather frequently cited in articles relating to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, from what I can tell, it is little more than a blog and shouldn't be cited due to them being a self published source. On their about page they proclaim themselves to be an OSINT using nothing but publicly available information on social media but that all information is "thoroughly vetted" before being published. However, who does this vetting is never disclosed.

I just wanted to get a general feel for the site in case I am terribly wrong about them before I go about removing every instance of a citation of them. Scu ba ( talk) 12:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Article I'm going to use these sources in is here. Past discussion at the Teahouse is here.

I want to expand a section about the video game's association with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and its additional adaptation. However, I'm concerned that these sources may not seem reliable as they haven't been covered by the RSN. If you could take a look at these, thank you! If you have extra time, you can suggest ideas on how to improve this article. Thanks!

1. [71] | "In a win for Truth Labs, the creators of different quirky non-fungible token collections, the art for its NFT set Goblintown is featured prominently in a new, popular Steam game called Only Up."
2. [72] (this is a blog, which I'm very sure it's unreliable and an SPS) | "While the number of active players on Steam had been steadily increasing, the trading volume for GoblinTown stayed behind. It only was on 19 June that the hype surrounding Only Up really impacted the trading volume."
3. [73] (this doesn't contain info about NFTs and their involvement in this game, but it lists an additional adaptation) | "DayZ now has its own Only Up server where the goal is to climb, run and trick your way through an obstacle course of several hundred meters of elevation in just one lifetime."
4. [74] (Fortnite adaptation) | "Army’s “Only up Fortnite!” island is the most played Only Up! island right now, not only due to it’s well-built component but also due to its theme that is Fortnite Chapter 1."
5. [75] | "Earlier in the week, ‘Only Up’ began trending on the Twitch platform, amassing an incredible 109k simultaneous viewers. However, it was the background imagery that really got tongues wagging, with the anarchic Goblintown NFT project making multiple appearances throughout the game."
Tarantula^TM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 05:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

First source: It is a crypto website that seems to place news as a complementary service. The writing journalist does not have experience working in mainstream news organizations. Also, crypto journalism is filled with CoI issues. See WP:NCRYPTO. Probably not reliable.

Second: Yep, it is a blog.

Third: Isn't cited by any other news websites. No credentials for the authors/editors. Seems more like a group blog to me.

Fourth: You can submit any article with unclear editorial control. Website looks very spammy

Fifth: Seems to be most reliable out of all here, but still wouldn't use it for anything deeper than dates. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking of bringing Banana slug to FAC. I'm wondering if the book Banana Slug: A Close Look at a Giant Forest Slug of Western North America is good enough as a source for an FA. Its been cited by some journal articles but I don't much about the education background of the author. This is her profile. LittleJerry ( talk) 23:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think amateur scientists (which this article describes her as) and their work can be considered reliable. Her book is being taught in Portland colleges and was reviewed positively in the academic, peer-reviewed journal The Veliger. I've seen a few archived newspaper mentions in the Seattle and New York Times. Respected citizen science work and looks pretty good to me. Kazamzam ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Are any of his books allowed to be cited? Specifcally the somewhat floridly-titled After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, which has some discussin that might be pertinent to an article, although only briefly. Cheers all, Serial 19:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• What passage in the book, for what purpose/statement, in what article? Banks Irk ( talk) 19:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Banks Irk. I didn't realise when I posted that we had an article on it; both the Spectator and Washington Times are political organs as far as positive reviews go. But then, who ain't, I suppose. Regarding your questions, GBooks only allows me a snippet, so I wanted to determine whether it was worth a request at RX / trip to the library first. There's a passage on p.196 where he discusses the limits of English nationalism and namechecks Flanders and Swann, which might justify a sentence in a related (as yet unpublished) article. Serial 19:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what use could be made of that other than for Steyn's own opinion (which may or may not be WP:DUE), but once you've actually read the passage, maybe you can formulate a question on it that will make sense here at RSN. Banks Irk ( talk) 20:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can make a studied guess that that will be sometime sooner than you have something productive to say. I asked a simple question, you don't seem to understand what it was, and if not you could have asked. As it is you are pretty much achieving zippo in either assisting colleagues or benefiting readers. I've certainly got no time for dealing with the likes of you with that kind of attitude. Serial 20:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that what you ask is not a simple question. He does not appear to be an acknowledged expert on anything, and the publisher, Regnery Publishing, is not the sort that we see as granting a presumed factual accuracy, so if you're looking to cite it for facts that aren't non-boastful facts about Steyn himself, then no, that's not likely to be a good source. If you're looking to cite Steyn's opinion, then it may be used if you have some other source showing that such an opinion is due. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, NatGertler, what I understand seems to be the subject of some confusion, as you have pretty succinctly answered my question, reasonably civilly and in <100 words; that suggests a pretty simple question. Thanks. My original reason for posting was, partially, to clarify my own thoughts with help from this board's expertise. What you say makes sense. I expected as much, as he's clearly very much not my cup of tea politically. But then, many RS are not, and one should not assume, so a second, hopefully informed, opinion is welcome. Many thanks. Serial 20:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this UN Press release a reliable source for the following statement?:

In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan, which was reaffirmed in the 2008 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/243.

This is related to a dispute at 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh (there is also a related dispute at Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians)

My impression is that it is not. The source makes no statement in support of claim that the UNSC adopted four resolutions supporting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and while it does make two statements in support of the claim that the UNSC adopted four resolutions demanded the withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan (Four Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces from Azerbaijan and He recalled that, in response to the occupation of the Azerbaijani territories and alarmed by the severe humanitarian catastrophe, the Security Council had adopted four resolutions in 1993 demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces.), these are both statements by the Azerbaijani representative to the United Nations - a primary source.

Meanwhile, we have multiple reliable secondary sources disputing this; Post-Soviet Conflicts: The Thirty Years’ Crisis disputes the claim that the resolutions demands a complete withdrawal from Azerbaijan, instead saying that they demanded a withdrawal from the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, while Undeclared War: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered and Turkey and the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh: a delicate balance dispute the claim that the resolutions demanded Armenian forces withdraw, saying that the United Nations Security Council avoided accusing Armenia of involvement in the war.

I think this is rather obvious; we have a challenged claim that is supported purely by primary sources, a situation that WP:REDFLAG warns against. However, I am having a difficult time convincing a couple editors at that article of this, and so I am opening a discussion here to get uninvolved input. (There is also a dispute about whether the inclusion of this information meets the requirements of WP:BALASP, but that is for a different noticeboard).

@ Brandmeister, Beshogur, Trilletrollet, and Chaotic Enby: Ping the other editors involved in this dispute; for context, Brandmeister and Beshogur are arguing that it is a reliable source for the statement. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That text does seem to go a bit beyond what the press release says. It would be better to use secondary sources here. Nick-D ( talk) 00:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

While the Azerbaijani representative's statements are closer to being primary sources, the fact of the topic being another UN resolution made 15 years prior and the added interpretation still make it more indirect than if he had been talking, for instance, about his own resolutions. However, while the representative mentions the withdrawal, no mention is made of the 1993 resolutions referring to the "territorial integrity of Azerbaijan".

In any case, secondary sources discussing the 1993 resolutions in more detail, and providing deeper analysis about its intent, should be preferred. I would however note that your sources seem to contradict according to your description, with Post-Soviet Conflicts saying the resolutions were condemning the Armenian invasion of Azerbaijani lands while the other sources said they avoided accusing Armenia. When citing these sources, this should probably be explained more clearly to dissipate this apparent contradiction. ChaotıċEnby( talk) 00:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(Adding that I am involved in the dispute, just describing my point of view on the situation) ChaotıċEnby( talk) 00:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

your sources seem to contradict according to your description They do; I feel this emphasizes why we need to rely on secondary sources to understand what these resolutions are saying - if the question is sufficiently complex for reliable sources to disagree then it is too complex for us to answer it with primary sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Blaylockjam10: Since you just restored this statement after Trilletrollet removed it, could you explain why you believe the source is suitable? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If the UN press release is still undesirable, I think these secondary sources should resolve this: Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 2933: "In several resolutions adopted in 1993 concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh..." This confirms their relation to NK. And Carol Migdalovitz, "CRS Issue Brief for Congress": "On November 12, Security Council Resolution 884 [...] called on Armenia to use its influence to achieve Karabakh compliance and to ensure that forces were not provided with means to extend their military campaign". As for "supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan", this is verbatim wording of the resolutions without their interpretation which is allowed per WP:PRIMARY and is readily verifiable online. Nick-D can check that here, for example. Brandmeister ^talk 07:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't clear to me what aspect of the statement those two sources are supposed to support. Can you clarify?

The quote supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan is not in the resolutions. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The complete quote from Customary International Humanitarian Law is In several resolutions adopted in 1993 concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the UN Security Council expressed grave concern at "the displacement of a large number of civilians".

Of course the conflict itself is over Nagorno-Karabakh, no one is saying the contrary. But that source doesn't say that the withdrawal mentioned in the resolutions was from Nagorno-Karabakh rather than the surrounding regions. (cf. my comment below for further explanations)

Concerning your other source, again, to ensure that forces were not provided with means to extend their military campaign doesn't mean any withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabah proper was called for. ChaotıċEnby( talk) 19:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@ BilledMammal: I thought it should be restored b/c it’s an important piece of info. I didn’t realize that there’s a talk page dispute. If secondary sources are desired, The Washington Post said:

For more than three decades, the self-declared Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh strove for independence and international recognition, in defiance of U.N. resolutions that affirmed Azerbaijan’s sovereign claim to the region…In some respects, the outcome reinforced the international order by restoring Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity…But the U.N. resolutions that recognized Azerbaijan’s borders had long denounced the displacement of civilians and demanded a durable cease-fire and peaceful negotiations to resolve the territorial dispute.

Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 11:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that source. Unfortunately, it doesn't support the claim that the Security Council demanded Armenia withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh; it only supports the claim that UN Resolutions (it is unclear whether it is referring to Security Council resolutions or General Assembly resolutions) affirmed Azerbaijan’s sovereign claim to the region. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal ( talk · contribs) has very conflicting statements on this issue:

• WP:DUE: this isn't a minority viewpoint, but a fact
• WP:OR: and primary source, while WP:PRIMARY states: primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access That's the case here
• WP:BALASP: this resolution isn't a minor thing, but a key fact that led to these events.

Also he says I am also concerned that you are interpreting occupying forces as meaning Armenian forces, when my interpretation of the source would suggest that it is referring to Artsakh forces - which I feel neatly demonstrates the issue with relying on our interpretation of controversial primary sources which he comes with a suggestion to use "Artsakh forces" instead of Armenian forces, what the source literally states.

UN press literally says: GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AZERBAIJAN, DEMANDING WITHDRAWAL OF ALL ARMENIAN FORCES, which is pretty much clear. and follows with: The draft resolution on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan (document A/62/L.42) was adopted by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against, with 100 abstentions, as follows:

I don't get what's the dispute here? I expect the same things on the page's reaction's sections that use UN website or other MFA websites that are primary sources. This format is used in lot of conflicts around the world. I'm not even arguing whether the UN website is reliable or not, this is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT in fancy words. And I expect from Trilletrollet ( talk · contribs) more cautious by just using the same argument as BilledMammal, and not contributing anything at all. Beshogur ( talk) 10:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the way the text of the resolutions is used counts as straightforward/verbatim, given they each refer to recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic, which doesn't explicitly include Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Indeed, in the article about the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, these same resolutions are cited as referring to these territories specifically.

But we can actually check what the resolutions meant by that!

Resolution 884, the last of the four 1993 resolutions, is more explicit, referring to a specific timetable (S/26522) to impement this retreat. It can be found here, and you can verify that the districts referred to in the withdrawal are Kubatli (24 October), Agdam (26 October), Fizuli (29th October), Djebrail (4 November), Kelbajar (7 November), Martakert (13 November). With the exception of Martakert, they are all part of the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, rather than of Nagorno-Karabakh itself. ChaotıċEnby( talk) 14:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't totally understand this dispute. So, the Azerbaijani representative characterized the UN resolutions in a certain way, and other 3rd party commentators characterized them as saying something different? Why do I not see a conversation here (other than one comment) that analyzes what the actual UN resolutions say? That should settle this. The secondary sources are only reliable if they accurately represent the resolutions. What am I missing? Pecopteris ( talk) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There were discussions of that here and here. Unfortunately, the resolutions require interpretation to comprehend and as such we need to rely on secondary sources. BilledMammal ( talk) 19:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't normally ask for people to do research for me, but could someone kindly link the four UN resolutions in question in this discussion? Pecopteris ( talk) 20:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Here BilledMammal ( talk) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah editors analysing UN resolutions and deciding a representative or commentators are right or wrong is precisely what editors should not be doing per WP:OR. It's definitely not going to settle anything, it will just make the situation worse if editors start to do that. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of the original point, really - if editors have to perform analysis to understand whether or not the statement can be attributed to the source, then it is certainly not verbatim and doesn't fit acceptable uses of WP:PRIMARY. ChaotıċEnby( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course not and note that there appears to be a V issue here too. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Are news articles from TV stations, newspapers generally unreliable about medicines? I used this article (organic) of KXAN to update the facts but was reverted. Please guide me, thanks. Lurweig ( talk) 06:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Any medical claim will need backing from a source reliable specifically for medicine, see WP:MEDRS. For this case, the section WP:MEDRS § Popular press probably applies. — siro χ o 08:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, @ Lurweig, news articles are perfectly fine if you want to write something like "Mr. Moneybags invested a zillion dollars in Big Business, which is researching Alzheimer's", and they are not good if you want to write something like "The study found this drug improved cognition in 46% of patients." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

There are some results saying it's generally reliable in the search bar, but most of them are from a long time ago, so I would like to ask what kinds of articles from the magazine would be considered reliable? I notice that not all Fast Company references seem to be reliable, so I want to know what to avoid while searching for information on the magazine website. Spinixster (chat!) 12:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Spinixster, whether a source is reliable depends on what sentence you want to support. No source is reliable for every statement; (almost) all sources are reliable for some statements (even if that statement is as simple as "Something was posted on his social media account on 25 September 2023").

Please come back when you've written a specific sentence for a Wikipedia article and you've identified a specific article in Fast Company that you want to support. (But: only come back here if you're genuinely unsure. If it seems uncontroversial to you, then Wikipedia:Be bold and update the article.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. This source [76] is coming up a lot in discussions about the Holodomor. It says that it's "Reprinted from The Ukrainian Canadian". Honestly, I'd have no issues if it came from that academic source, but all we're getting is a reprint from this other site. I really did try to find this article in other places, but it's not turning up. I don't really have any opinions about Infoukes except that it looks to be relatively unknown and it *feels* like a blog. It was discussed previously in the noticeboard here [77], but the discussion doesn't seem to be conclusive.

I'll tag @ Mzajac as you were part of the discussion. Thanks all. Stix1776 ( talk) 07:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be the wrong question. It's if the Ukrainian Canadian is an RS than it's an RS. You can use it where it's relevant and not WP:UNDUE etc as a source and you should be citing the Ukrainian Canadian. Infoukes doesn't come in to it. The only question is where you can find a faithful copy of the relevant article. If it's feared that infoukes doesn't host faithful copies than the solution would be to find some other way to get one perhaps via WP:REX. A separate issue is that frankly it's very unclear to me that infoukes can be trusted to respect other's copyright, especially with tha page which looks like it could have been there for a very long time perhaps even 1998 i.e. the days when lots of people on the internet still thought copyright was something for suckers. (Well many still do, but there's at least greater recognition now that you can't just republish anything you wish.) In that case, even if it is a faithful copy, we shouldn't be linking to it in articles or frankly anywhere on Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. If editors are going to use it by themselves to check out the article and cite it, we can't stop them, provided it's a faithful copy. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Why do you call it "that academic source"? While that article was written by an academic, the Ukrainian Canadian seems to be some sort of special interest magazine [78] [79] it doesn't seem to be an academic source. The writer may be a subject-matter expert but I think we do need to limit to clear RS since this seems to be an area where we would have ample RS.

I'm not saying the Ukrainian Canadian is not an RS, it may be. But I wouldn't say it definitely is and it does matter if it is IMO, no matter the credentials of the writer. If the only reason we're accepting a source is because it was written by a subject-matter expert and the source itself is suspect, that would be a strong indication it's either WP:UNDUE or there are much better sources we should be using instead IMO.

Note that at a minimum, according to that first link, the Ukrainian Canadian did have an apparent bias. Although that article seems to be a response to that bias and perhaps indicative that at least by that time period they were publishing at least some articles against and critical of their bias.

Thinking about it more, I do wonder if age might also count against it. While it's not that old, it did come from a time when the Soviet Union still existed as clear from the article itself, I wonder if it would be better to rely on newer sources which had had the chance to consider whatever records that were still available and became available as well as consider the testimony and commentary from those still alive etc who were formerly censored or forced into self-censorship or otherwise unwilling or unable to speak freely.

Nil Einne ( talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's really interesting, thank you. I didn't know about WP:COPYLINK. I'll look for it through WP:REX when I have a free minute.

I do 100% agree with you that the Ukrainian Canadian isn't an academic source, that it has a strong bias, and that its age speaks against its reliability. I personally don't have the energy to battle those edge cases in pages with massive talk page wars, so I just roll back when there's an obvious case against Wikipedia policy. Again, thank you. I definitely came to the right place to get my question answered. Stix1776 ( talk) 12:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Stix1776 Neglected to mention the relevant discussions, where every and any tactic has been used to water down the lead of the article:

• Talk:Holodomor denial#More of SYNTH.
• Talk:Holodomor denial#Opening Paragraph Not NPOV
• Talk:Holodomor denial#OR in the lead
• (And see the talk archives.)

This source is being challenged and is valuable because it is one of the few available that states a clear definition of Holodomor denial (an aspect of genocide denial, under genocide studies). This is a topic that was publicly discussed at a crucial time in the late 1980s when the Soviet government implemented glasnost (openness policies) and shifted from claiming a famine never occurred, to claiming it was purely natural in the face of proof it occurred, to Moscow admitting it was a crime while Kyiv stated it was a genocide.

The topic is obscure and here are few accessible sources. Over years, several editors have persistently sought to prevent sources that define it from appearing in the article, attempting to delete the article, and restricting the definition we give to a ridiculously anachronistic and inadequate one, denying common sense and contradicting the basic facts.

Holodomor denial has persisted for 35 years during which no one can deny a famine happened because some Soviet archives proved it did. Yet some editors have insisted that the article must say that Holodomor denial is only denial of any famine occuring, and not its minimization, and not the baseless denial of genocide. They have already used bludgeoning and tag-teaming to remove other reliable sources that define the subject [80] [81] from the article.  — Michael  Z. 14:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

After writing the article on Armenian genocide denial I became concerned with the compatibility of pejorative terms like "denial" and Wikipedia policies like WP:IMPARTIAL. In order to ensure we are not violating the latter, I believe that "denial" in wiki-voice should only be used for perspectives that are outside the academic mainstream. For example, if there is not an overwhelming consensus that such and such event is a genocide I do not think it can be fairly considered "denial" to argue against that conclusion. ( t · c) buidhe 01:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems extreme and unprecedented. You’re referring to academic debate and hate speech, and saying we need to use only one and the same name for either. The article Holodomor denial is not about both. That seems clear from every source I’ve seen.  — Michael  Z. 01:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to assume there is a sharp, clear cut line between academic debate and what some would consider to be hate speech (itself a poorly defined concept that doesn't have a universally agreed definition). For example, certain authors who write works that reject the classification of the Armenian genocide are published by otherwise reliable academic publishers. Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to assume that all genocide denial is motivated by "hate"—even assuming genocide itself to be motivated by "hate" is a greatly oversimplified and incomplete explanation. ^[1] ( t · c) buidhe 02:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

[Citation needed.] 1) Some sources are sharply, clearly academic debate not part of the subject, and some others are sharply, clearly denialism, historical negationism, hate speech, conspiracy theory, disinformation (including Russian disinformation), or otherwise clearly part of the subject, and 2) do reliable sources about Holodomor denial say there is a significant grey area, at all? The LOC doesn’t seem to have a problem with discrete subject headings for these very different things.  — Michael  Z. 03:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You haven’t even looked at the sources. The Dobczansky paper literally says “little or no elaborate analysis is required to distinguish this literature from serious scholarship,” and goes on to list its characteristics, which sharply, clearly distinguish it, with a number of examples.  — Michael  Z. 13:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

https://ventsmagazine.com/ 89.243.126.140 ( talk) 21:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Vents is a simple paid placement platform. Prior discussions are here: here, here and here. Each evaluation was clearly that it is not reliable. This site is almost exclusively paid placement and spam, there are hundreds of ads on the usual sites for blackhat placement, and there is absolutely no indication of competent editorial control or disclosure of advertorials. It is not reliable in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Is Artfacts.net considered a reliable source? They claim to " meticulously check" all info, and from the research I did they do seem to be rigorous and accurate. I'm wondering if this source can be used for citing major exhibitions on a wikipedia article on a BLP artist.

The article formerly had a laundry list of exhibitions with refs for each. It was moved to talk b/c it read like a resume and added to an already ref bombed article. It seems that the most prominent exhibitions should be included in paragraph form. Wondering if I can use artfacts to cite 4-5 top shows with one source... or if I should use artfacts plus museum publication or other additional non-museum publication mentioning the exhibition/Artist. What do you think is best? 174.198.6.29 ( talk) 21:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As per the "Features related to managing claimed profiles and uploading exhibitions" section on the pricing page, exhibition data is uploaded by the artist or whoever is managing them. So the source is the same as the artist self-promotion. So it is probably reliable for the details, but gives no indication if the inclusion of the event is WP:DUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

https://chiangraitimes.com/ 89.243.126.140 ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What article do you want to cite it in, and for what information? Blueboar ( talk) 22:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Read the Instructions Above. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article? Banks Irk ( talk) 23:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone can evaluate the reliability of Alzheimer Research Forum as a reference. I recently used it in an article about Simufilam, using this link to fill the gaps in information, but it was reverted by SandyGeorgia. Lurweig ( talk) 06:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

From the details in the link this looks like it would fall under the extra requirements set down for medical sources, see WP:MEDRS. I doubt that Alzheimer Research Forum would meet that standard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@ ActivelyDisinterested: I appreciate your response. It is a widely used source on English Wikipedia. Should we start RfC to get a consensus? If we can't use it on Simufilam then we should remove it other articles as well. Lurweig ( talk) 15:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your search link doesn't show that - their site is sometimes used as an external link, and sometimes it is used as a convenience link when they host a copy of a reliable journal article that has been published elsewhere. Neither of those situations apply to the edit you made. We do not need a WP:RFC to reaffirm that WP:MEDRS applies, and we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing every link on Wikipedia. MrOllie ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You're free to start an RFC if you want. Note though that it's likely reliable for non-MEDRS information, and a sources use as a reference is no guide to its reliability for instance Wikipedia is never a reliable source for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 15:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also to follow up from MrOllie's post, whether or not something is WP:MEDRS is not a discussion for RSN. You should have that discussion, if one is needed, on the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Lurweig, your statement that it is a "widely used source" is misleading. For example:

1. At Dementia with Lewy bodies (which I wrote), it is used as a host of a video in External links, and that video is by one of the two to three indisputable top researchers in the world on Lewy body dementias (Ian McKeith). It is not used to source text.
2. At Alzheimer's disease it is similarly used in External links for a non-MEDRS purpose (timeline).
3. At Early-onset Alzheimer's disease, the information cited to alzforum was just added, and probably shouldn't be there.
4. At Alois Alzheimer, it is used to cite historical (non-MEDRS) information. (I'd not use if even for that, but I don't think it can be removed on the basis of MEDRS.)

And so it goes; these are appropriate uses of the source. What you want to use it for is not. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like AZF was used to support the claim that "In February 2023, the company reported enrolling 953 patients in Phase 3 trials, approximately half the intended target", which is not exactly Wikipedia:Biomedical information I'm much more concerned about the two sources used to support claims about study results. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Citing a Cassava Sciences press release. Cassava has an interesting compensation scheme and churnalism combine with COE edits is a perennial issue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• ARF is an incredibly useful tool, but it is not a source. Its a good convenience link to enable editors or readers to access research, but it (by its own nature and purpose) doesnt do anything that would make it reliable in the context of our sourcing requirements. At best its a tertiary database. Disclaimer - I work for a dementia charity. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi RSN. I'm conflicted about whether weatherspark.com is a reliable source for information, especially for geographic stub articles such as this one (Guyuk). My concern is based on their stated data sources and their disclaimer about the veracity/reliability of the information: "the information on this site is provided as is, without any assurances as to its accuracy or suitability for any purpose". They state that, at least for this location, the weather-related data were taken entirely from NASA's MERRA-2 satellite-era reanalysis, and then follow that with the disclaimer as follows: "We draw particular cautious attention to our reliance on the MERRA-2 model-based reconstructions for a number of important data series. While having the tremendous advantages of temporal and spatial completeness, these reconstructions: (1) are based on computer models that may have model-based errors, (2) are coarsely sampled on a 50 km grid and are therefore unable to reconstruct the local variations of many microclimates, and (3) have particular difficulty with the weather in some coastal areas, especially small islands." If they don't have confidence in their data source, and specifically mention that this same source is the entire underpinning of the cited page, I think this is unreliable and should be moved. If this is something that happens often, I think it would be appropriate to deprecate weatherspark.com as a source, or at least flag it because it is quite often unreliable. Happy to discuss further if anyone thinks it is reliable! Best, Kazamzam ( talk) 16:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My take is "generally unreliable" for the reasons you note. However, I think it might be ok if attributed and if it was made clear that "data" from the site is just model-based reconstruction...e.g., "rainfall from the storm was estimated to be 45 mm, based on model data from Weatherspark". I think the usage in the stub you linked above is probably fine because the statement being made is vague. If Weatherspark were being used to cite specific numbers (e.g., the average high temperature in July is 26.9 degrees), that would be a problem. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a side note, it's odd that Fahrenheit is being used. Nigeria is an English speaking country that uses Celsius. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This type of disclaimer is extremely normal, and standard for websites that provide such information. For example, Wikipedia itself says in the terms-of-use link: your use of our services is at your sole risk. We provide these services on an "as is" and "as available" basis, and we expressly disclaim all express or implied warranties of all kinds, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. We make no warranty that our services will meet your requirements, be safe, secure, uninterrupted, timely, accurate, or error-free, or that your information will be secure. Almost all free software licenses similarly include such disclaimers of warranty. The idea here is not that Wikipedia is a lousy pile of crap, but rather that the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held legally responsible if they read an article about goldfish swallowing, try it out, and wind up in the hospital. Similarly, the disclaimer here is meant to ensure that you cannot schedule an outdoor concert based on their website and sue them for $3,000,000 of lost ticket sales when it rains. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to call it "generally unreliable" for featuring this disclaimer.

On the other hand, it is true that these sort of large-scale models do not give a completely accurate representation of microclimates; I think basic common sense dictates that we should therefore make that clear when using this website a source, and if we can't do that, we shouldn't use it. However, it is relatively straightforward: instead of Wetumpka reaches its highest average temperature of 92 degrees Fahrenheit in late July, we can say Based on MERRA-2 analysis, Wetumpka's average temperature peaks in late July at 92 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't think this warrants writing a nastygram about this website in WP:RSP or whatever — people just have to use their brains when editing. jp× g 05:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Is using multiple website from the same source reliable enough or must they be different is 1-3 enough from the same url source 89.243.126.140 ( talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You will have to give more context then that. What sources do you wish to use, where do you wish to use them, and what do you want to say with them? NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 14:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)