Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330
331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340
341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350
351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360
361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370
371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376

RFC: Bitter WinterEdit

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bitter Winter?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: CESNUR is listed as unreliable on WP:RS/P, but there's nothing explicitly noted for the affiliated magazine Bitter Winter, which mainly focuses on oppression in China, and whose reliability may be different from CESNUR itself. From the section for Bitter Winter on CESNUR, I can see it being used by other WP:RS such as Le Monde, The Manila Times, Radio Free Asia, World, and the Department of State. This may call for a different evaluation of reliability than for CESNUR.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    The US Department of State is an arm of the US government, and would not be a reliable source for anything but the most mundane, uncontroversial facts. Here, we're discussing a publication focused on China. Any statements by the State Department about China have to be viewed as political, and are not necessarily accurate. Radio Free Asia is also an arm of the US government, and per previous discussions at WP:RSN, caution is advised for subjects that the US government could have a political interest in. During the pandemic, for example, RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China, pushing figures that are a factor of 10 (here, 40k or more) to 50 (here, 150k) times higher than scientific estimates (approximately 5k). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Thucydides411: I'm not seeing where it says that RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China. Is there a missing link? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know what "it" you're referring to, but we've had this discussion a number of times already. You know the articles I'm talking about (and I linked them above). RFA's recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China is absolutely clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thucydides411 is quite obviously comparing scientific studies to RFA reports to indicate that we should conclude that the latter are unreliable. It seems to me you're asking that question rhetorically because you feel that it's necessary to have a source that explicitly accuses RFA of pushing misinformation. But that's not the case. Thucydides411's argument is, in principle, in an acceptable format: WP:OR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. However, I personally disagree with Thucydides411 on this: it could be a case of good-faith disagreement between sources or a case of early speculation on the part of RFA. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I don't see any evidence that Bitter Winter is necessarily free from the concerns that plague CESNUR as a source of information. This doesn't mean that they aren't working in China and aren't the subject of unethical reprisals by the Chinese government. I don't see their work cited by those sources, I see that those sources are reporting on the basic facts about the source. There's something of a use-mention distinction here; the source is being mentioned and described, but not being used as a source of information by reliable sources. --Jayron32 15:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    Upon closer inspection, it seems like you're correct that many of the sources in the article aren't relying on Bitter Winter for information but rather are reporting on Bitter Winter itself. However, it does seem to be the case that some WP:RS do cite Bitter Winter as a source for information, including Radio Free Asia 1 2 and Voice of America 3. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    Both of which are U.S. Government funded sources, they are generally reliable, but with a caveat, from WP:RSP "Many editors consider that VOA is biased towards the interests of the American government and that its interference is enough to cast doubt on its reliability in some topics, particulary in news related to American foreign policies." for example. For non-politically-charged topics, I'd consider VOA and RFA fine. For one like this, no. --Jayron32 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The source is used by other WP:RS such as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. There are no known examples of the source spreading misinformation and not correcting it. The only controversy I can see related to the source is a brief spat with ChinaSource that was seemingly resolved somewhat amicably with no conclusive evidence of falsehood being spread by Bitter Winter. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC No indication where it's being used on Wikipedia that's causing a dispute. Even if there was, it could go on the relevant talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Looking at Bitter Winter it's clear that as well as being published by CESNUR its editorial staff is drawn from the same group of individuals. A look at some of their content suggests the same distorting advocacy that renders CESNUR unreliable. Cambial foliar❧ 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
    • From what I can see regarding CESNUR, most of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I can only assume you’ve misread or misunderstood the objections. The comments above and below, including my own, refer to the problem of the group’s advocacy mission distorting its reporting of the facts. Its desire to achieve its ends frequently takes precedence over accurate and complete reporting, and leads to serious omission, distortion or alteration of the facts. These render it useless as an RS. Cambial foliar❧ 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Insufficient information available to pass judgement. What is the context? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Not enough indication of any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which means we can only go by the reputation of the parent organization... which is terrible. It could perhaps sometimes be used for opinion but even that should be done cautiously for WP:DUE reasons. I don't think being cited by Radio Free Asia and VOA are sufficient in this context for the reasons outlined above - they're WP:BIASED sources with a bias that would specifically push them to rely on weaker sources, so they're not sufficient to overcome the problems with the publisher or the lack of usage outside of that bubble. --Aquillion (talk)
  • Option 3. Bitter Winter is the house organ of CESNUR, an activist group working to hold China accountable for human rights violations. Their goal may be worthy, but the publication exists to achieve the larger goal rather than to print the truth. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The consensus for outlets with a similar set of goals (e.g. VoA, RFA) is that they are generally reliable and able to be used, even for coverage on China. I don't see how this is any different. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
      • For RFA, the consensus is that it should be treated with caution for any subject that the US government has a political interest in. That makes use of RFA for any China-related subjects highly questionable. Just to illustrate the risks of using RFA for China-related subjects: during the COVID-19 pandemic, RFA has promoted disinformation about the death toll in China (inflating it by a factor of 10 to 50, relative to scientific estimates) which I discussed in a comment above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 with the note that their research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS so there will still be a lot of legitimate uses here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    If the research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS, WP:USEBYOTHERS applies, and it is most likely a reliable source. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Except when it isn't as in this case, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a gate not a trump card. Zero chance in hell Bitter Winter is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. It is not as if the Chinese Communist party is a white dove that benevolently oversees the country; Bitter Winter merely chronicles the government's abuses.XavierItzm (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3: No justification or context has been provided why Bitter Winter would be any better than CESNUR. I would put no weight on the usages by VOA & RFA due to the rationale provided by Aquillion. If RS do use them in more than a "According to X, Y happened" I would cite the RS directly. Jumpytoo Talk 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Explicit justification has been provided in favour of the position that it would be better than CESNUR. [M]ost of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 if not option 4: One look at the site's coverage of Falun Gong, for example, tells me that this is by no means a reliable source and under no circumstance should it directly be used as a reference on English Wikipedia. It is an obvious WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    Are there any particular articles that are factually inaccurate? If not, this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT applied to sourcing. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Well, there's the whole uncritically parroting every imaginable talking point from the notorious Falun Gong, for starters ("Falun Gong was successful and popular because, although this was later denied by critics, people found that it did deliver the health benefits it promised"—those pesky critics! "The CCP vehemently denied the practice, and successfully recruited international academics and journalists who insisted that either it never took place or was discontinued after an initial phase, although governments and international organizations did mention organ harvesting in their criticism of China’s abysmal human rights record." — those pesky international academics and journalists!). This entry reads like it was written by the group itself, complet with no mention of the New York compound, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, extreme right-wing politics, Trump administration intermingling, hope that Trump would bring on the apocalypse, etc., just a bunch of doubt tossed on "critics", "scholars", and "journalists". Get outta here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


Should Okdiario (headed by Eduardo Inda) be deprecated as a source? It has not only been accused of being a manipulator and spreader of hoaxes, but it has also been sentenced several times by the Spanish justice. --KajenCAT (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Some examples:

--KajenCAT (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


I am somewhat confused on a quick look. I randomly checked two of the sources shown. The Greenpeace link seems to be about WhatsApp. Are the two related? One Facua source is titled, "11,000 euros: After FACUA's complaint, they initiate a sanctioning process against Okdiario for a serious infraction". The infraction: "Eduardo Inda's newspaper violates consumer protection legislation by offering subscriptions with prices that do not include taxes." In my apparent ignorance to some point, I can not see a connection between these and the site being a "manipulator and spreader of hoaxes". I did see one but all news source have likely been guilty of printing things not exactly true, or even totally false.
The link states the source is a Spanish digital newspaper aligned with neoliberalism and Spanish nationalism. It is my opinion, at first glance, that editors should not be limited to sources that are aligned to a particular way or idea. The entire concept of balance, due weight, and neutrality depends on being able to view different points of view. It is reported that "Its editorial line is part of the political spectrum of the liberal ideology and the unity of Spain", which is in line with the article. It is expedient to take note of this. If a source is used to push a particular article in a direction not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines we can act to protect this encyclopedia.

RFC concerning New Eastern OutlookEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of New Eastern Outlook ?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources?

HouseOfChange (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment none of the above, as the reliability of a source depends on context. The claims attributed to the DOS and the USDT don't belong in the lead section of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    This looks like a whole thing. Is there an article or talk page or some such that people should refer to for context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    would like some more context but generally NEO is Option 4, its an information operations platform which masquerades as an academic journal (much like say Mankind Quarterly but run by a state rather than a private group). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: this is my third effort, and if I screwed up the process here also, I apologize! Here are four relevant bullet points:
    • 2019 discussion on deprecating "Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation".
    • Article New Eastern Outlook cites multiple RS identifying it as a "state-sponsored fake news / disinformation" website.
    • As of the 2019 discussion, the status of NEO as state-sponsored fake news was less clear than it is in 2022. (I just created article on NEO from a re-direct a few days ago.)
    • Lots more context in Archive 375
    I hope this is helpful and not too much of a wall of text. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    A quick look at those sources raises some questions such as: What makes the DOS and the USDT more RS (or less biased) than the Strategic Culture Foundation and SouthFront? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    @M.Bitton: It isn't one isolated, unconfirmed, recent claim from these sources. There's a 2020 report from Trump's DOS, confirmed in 2021 and 2022 by Biden's DOS and DOT, with two green check-marked RS (Wall Street Journal and Politifact) independently confirming the "disinformation" label. Searching EU vs Disinfo turns up 49 results for journal-neo[.]org including "13.05.2020 US might be developing weaponised insects" and "07.02.2020 Scientific evidence is mounting that the coronavirus is man made and targeting the Chinese race." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    @HouseOfChange: Incidentally, these are all related to Russia's declared enemies. Is the pursuit of academic excellence the raison d'etre of Trump's and Biden's DOS and DOTA? A search for "US might be developing weaponised insects" turns up some some interesting results. That's why I said that the reliability of the source depends on context. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4. I wouldn't deprecate a source based solely on the opinion of one government... but fortunately we don't have to. [1] describes it as a source of Russian COVID-19 disinformation; [2] describes it as a "junk news" source. [3] includes a note that in 2019, Facebook removed 12 social media accounts and 10 pages linked to the New Eastern Outlook and The New Atlas. These accounts and pages were removed for using fake accounts, creating fictitious personas, and driving users to “off-platform blogs posing as news outlets”. These, to me, say that this source publishes intentional disinformation while trying to appear reliable and respectable; that is exactly the sort of source that deprecation exists for. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    It's also used by thousands of RS (see Google Scholar and books) for the various subjects that it covers. What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    @M.Bitton: can you dial back the nastiness a little bit? You're lashing out because you're losing an argument and that just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: There s no nastiness in my comments, therefore, I will urge you to refrain from casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    How would you describe "What Facebook does, including allowing praise of the neo-Nazi regiment Azov when it suits its political agenda, is neither here nor there" then? Snark? Humor? Off topic comment? I just don't see how bringing up is constructive and not meant to be a dig at Aquillion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    Let me make it really simple for you: you either stop casting aspersions and misrepresenting what I said or you'll take a trip to ANI. Facebook was brought up, so it's only fair to remind the readers what it does when it suits its political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    Why is that only fair? This is a discussion of New Eastern Outlook not facebook, whether or not facebook allows Azov to be praised or not has exactly zero bearing on the topic at hand. If you are being misrepresented then please clarify what you intended to communicate. Threatening ANI is uncalled for, such battleground behavior really isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    I suggest you take your time to read what I wrote again. 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    I can't make heads or tail of it, you seem to pinball from threats to irrelevancies without actually engaging with the topic at hand which is the reliability of New Eastern Outlook. Perhaps you would care to explain what Facebook's tolerance of pro-Azov posts has to do with their removal of New Eastern Outlook linked info-ops accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: Facebook, whose profit model makes it reluctant to remove false content of any kind, blocked NEO in 2019 for "coordinated inauthentic behavior," a kind of deception that isn't the same as posting deceptive content. On February 24, 2022 Facebook made a minor change to policy re Azov. I also don't see a connection beyond whataboutism. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    I was hoping for an explanation besides whataboutism or trolling but it doesn't appear that one is going to be forthcoming. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm done here as I can't pretend to have a decent discussion with those who personalize the comments. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    Again I fail to see the connection, you weren't pretending to have a decent discussion before I engaged with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4. We have reliable sources that tell us exactly what kind of outlet this is. Even if we didn't, looking for just a moment at what they are writing about what they are calling the 'The Russian special operation in Ukraine' makes it pretty clear what is going on there. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 This is an easy one. Even if you don't want to believe the federal government, there is pretty much consensus in RS that New Eastern Outlook is a Russian propaganda site. Per Alexander Reid-Ross: Additional fascinating examples of Russian state systems percolating into the alternative media ecosystem are Redfish, the New Eastern Outlook...The publication of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, New Eastern Outlook produces conspiracy theories about Rothschilds and George Soros and Islamophobic material, and hosts articles by Duginist Catherine Shakhdam and conspiracy theorist Vanessa Beeley, among others. [13]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 as per Aquillon and Dr Swag. Definitely a disinfo site made more dangerous by its thin veneer of academic respectably. 17:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC) (Above comment by Bobfrombrockley whose sig got messed up by something weird with the tildes. This sig-related comment in parens is by HouseOfChange. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC))
    Thanks HouseOfChange - trying to edit on mobile and failed badly! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Bobfrombrockley: The publisher IOS, despite its connection to Russian Academy of Sciences, has been run by Russian government since 2013 (coincidentally, year when NEO came online.) The IOS video page mixes scholarly stuff with titles like "Why does Russia help Syria" and "The failure of the American strategy in Ukraine." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Legitimate, reliable sources consistently describe this as a disinformation site. Its use should be deprecated. --Jayron32 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 yup, it's bad. Added to WP:UPSD as a deprecated source, but I'll update the script if it ends up as something else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Optopn 4 Russian disinfo, straight-up. Zaathras (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ Hoyle, Aiden; Powell, Thomas; Cadet, Beatrice; van de Kuijt, Judith (2021). "Influence Pathways: Mapping the Narratives and Psychological Effects of Russian COVID-19 Disinformation". 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR). pp. 384–389. doi:10.1109/CSR51186.2021.9527953. ISBN 978-1-6654-0285-9. S2CID 237445804.
  2. ^ Gallacher, John D.; Barash, Vlad; Howard, Philip N.; Kelly, John (10 February 2018). "Junk News on Military Affairs and National Security: Social Media Disinformation Campaigns Against US Military Personnel and Veterans". arXiv:1802.03572 [cs.SI].
  3. ^ Talamayan, Fernan (15 December 2020). "Policing Cyberspace: Understanding Online Repression in Thailand and the Philippines". SSRN 3771058.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia)Edit

as you can see in April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks's alleged attacks part sources, there are a lot of TASS sources and a couple Interfax and RIA Novosti sources, due to these sources being Russian state-controlled, id like to know if we can put them as Unreliable for Russian-Ukraine war related content.

-in addition to fake news, ria Novosti has also published "What Russia should do with Ukraine".

-TASS is probably one of the only sources (the rest being also Russian state-controlled media) to report on some of the alleged cases of "Ukrainian attacks on Russia", which is quite interesting, considering that i have seen no RS report on a lot of these alleged attacks (although not all of them, as Reuters and others have reported on some cases, but, still, a lot of cases reported by TASS havent been reported by any RS)

-Interfax has also spread news about Ukraine supposedly making a nuclear Dirty Bomb (Per this part) (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that some editors use this whole "it's ok to include if it's attributed" or "it's reliable for statements by the Russian government even if generally it's a garbage source" to do a run around our WP:RS policies. This is junk that would normally never be included but hey, as long as you put "according to Russian government sources" in front you can put in any ridiculous claim you want. Basically it's being used to platform various Russian gov disinformation or conspiracy theories and increase their exposure. I remember back in 2014 the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 became full of disgusting and false conspiracy theories ("the bodies were moved there from a nearby morgue", "it was false flag" etc) all justified on the basis of "bUt IT's aTTribUted!". Same thing is being done here. Basic rule should be "don't include unless it's ALSO discussed in multiple other reliable sources". Volunteer Marek 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

finally someone that agrees that the people using these TASS bs sources (and using bs excuses) are being quite annoying. (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Cuts both ways. Plenty of editors feel that because reliable sources print verbatim text of Ukraine officials without any fact-checking or due dilligence that the corresponding Wikipedia article must be updated immediately and can point to the running bbc or cnn blog of the day to justify inclusion with attribution, only for it to be walked back a day or two laterSlywriter (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure. But if Ukrainian sources are discussed in other RS sources then that makes for the difference. Also, let's be clear here - Ukrainian sources ARE more reliable than Russian ones. We also have the same problem on the Attack on Snake Island article because some users insist on including Russian fantasies (hundreds killed! Helicopters destroyed! Ukrainian jets (that supposedly were destroyed two months ago) downed!) just because ... "it's attributed". It's straight up WP:GAME behavior. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure the sources are generally more reliable, but it doesn't mean that Ukranian government officials are always an accurate source of military maneuvers while in the midst of a existential crisis. Just as not everything a Russian source prints is a lie, not everything Ukrainian or Western sources publish is true.Slywriter (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
My general frustration is with Wikipedians increasingly rushing to cover Breaking news. It's impossible to do, articles will be wrong at times and the consequences are zero for doing so because "reliable sources" aka mass media cover everything these days and it's easy to find unverified information presented as fact especially in the immediate hours after an incident.Slywriter (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Also discussed here: Talk:April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks#Sources. I'd like to stress that no conspiracy theories or disputable sequences of events are involved. The discussion is only about brief statements by Russian officials, coming from their official Telegram channels. Most of these statements are covered by both Russian and non-Russian agencies, and there is no substantial difference in coverage. The difference is that the Russian agencies publish these governors' statements a bit earlier (sometimes, a day before a non-Russian one does the same thing), and some of the statements (probably, considered of lower importance) aren't covered by non-Russian agencies. No independent party has questioned the fact that these governors actually make their statements, or suggested they were false. It's just that more noticeable events get coverage abroad, while some less noticeable receive only local coverage VanHelsing.16 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    If these events are covered by independent reliable sources then what's the problem? Just use the independent reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    Direct cites have greater fidelity and traceability. The third party coverage is what establishes notability, but may be processed or partial portrayals. Citing them would wind up convoluted indirect attributions such as ‘BBC noted Russian reports of 200,000 refugees crossing into Russia’ or ‘The London Times disputed Russian accounts of military progress’ — you’re getting what BBC said in talking about the item(s), not a link to what the Russian source said. Difference is of having RS be reliable as a source, something sure to be there and looked at by many instead of thinking it has to be a source of truth, Truth, or TRUTH. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    My opinion is that we should not use any Russia-based sources on this war. For example, they routinely attribute Russian attacks to Ukrainians. Just the last paragraph of this report[14] is wrong in multiple ways. Ukraine was not shelling LNR and DNR at this time, precisely because they knew Russia would use it as a pretext. The use of the verb "liberate" is just grotesque. Putin was "recognizing the sovereignty" of LNR and DNR within regions they have never controlled. The article also talks about the "conflict's escalation", rather than the "Russian invasion" of Ukraine. In fact, I'll start an RfC on TASS right now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to adopt the Russian Wikipedia solutionEdit

Should points 10 and 11 of rules for mediation in Ukraine-related topics on Russian Wikipedia, as modified here, be implemented for the purposes of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?

  • Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia, Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities), and there is consensus to introduce it. In particular, avoid using sources liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor.
  • The official statements of the sides shall be described according to independent, secondary, reliable sources [further mentioned as ISRS], limiting the scope of mentioning of the official position by the extent to which these positions are expounded on in these sources. Military advances should not be stated as fact unless confirmed by both sides of the conflict, either as separate statements as quoted in ISRSs, or by summary of the statements in ISRSs. All mentions of these positions shall be added with appropriate attribution, in a neutral form, without excessive citations and preserving due weight to them. The addition of the positions of the officials from one side that are not mentioned in ISRSs in order to balance the mentions of the positions of officials mentioned in ISRSs is forbidden, nor should independent assessments of ISRSs be balanced by the statements of officials denying said assessments. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


Note. The fragments in italics are modifications of the currently standing version in the Russian Wikipedia. Basically, since enwiki (unlike ruwiki) does not have mediators, we are either left with admins or with starting RfCs purely for whitelisting purposes. Outlets catering to the audiences of RUBYUA but outside the countries (e.g. Meduza) will be exempt and should be assessed on their merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment. This is a sensible proposal which would limit the amount of breaking-news-style coverage on Wikipedia. The only issue I can see with it is that "independent, secondary, reliable sources" have almost no access to the areas occupied by Russia, DNR and LNR and therefore the coverage may end up unbalanced. Alaexis¿question? 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is why the exception is there. Basically, if wants to write some section using Ukrainian sources from the occupied territories (for example by using articles like this one or this one, that's basically OK but because the quality of such reports may vary, this should be vetted via consensus. As for official statements, they are covered in independent secondary sources fairly well, so I don't see an issue with this one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, this certainly makes sense. One more thing, why do we need the last sentence? It seems superfluous considering that we already say that Russian sources should not be used unless there the criteria for the exception are satisfied. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It's for emphasis. In general, don't use RUBYUA sources, but particularly not Russian sources because of the "fake news" law (and which Belarus already started enforcing back in 2018). Ukraine doesn't as of now have criminal liability for making misleading/false statements and the censorship is far from being as bad, but it exists, and three TV channels were ordered closed without meaningful explanation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest the following wording then "Do not use the mass media materials of outlets based physically or online in Russia (liable to censorship by Roskomnadzor), Belarus or Ukraine [RUBYUA] that appeared after the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to describe the invasion itself and related events. Some usages may be allowed if a specific edit request is made, only if independent secondary reliable coverage from outside these countries on the topic requested is unavailable, is published in what would otherwise be a generally reliable source at least two days after the event's occurrence (with the exception of official statements of government entities)." This way it doesn't feel like the Roskomnadzor part is an exception to the exception. Alaexis¿question? 11:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

support, but I'm not clear on what is being proposed. Would this be MOS, Guideline or policy? It seems commonsensical under NPOV to assume that there will be biased reporting from both sides, but as long as we are stating in the text who is making the claim, it seems fairly workable without special new rules. "Ukraine sources says X" "Russian sources say Y" is a fine way to trust the readers' ability to discern. This should've been how things are done all along. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

On ruwiki, mediatorship rules serve partly as MOS and partly as guidelines, depending on the specific text of the points. For example, point 1 of the mediatorship FAQ reads like a typical MOS rule (itself a sort of guideline), while points 10-11 are more like guidelines. I envisage this to be a temporary guideline/MOS-like rule (let's say, for half a year), and, if it proves successful, can be made a template for next military conflicts and may possibly be promoted to part of policy on NPOV. It might be a rule imposed by ArbCom as part of discretionary sanctions, but there would first have to be some sort of articulable problem, and I try to avoid the war articles unless the quality was really bad.
The reason this is introduced is to limit additions of mutual finger-pointing of breaking news that only muddle the article with what might be irrelevant details. E.g. saying "Russians say Ukrainians attacked Belgorod <Russian ref>, while Ukrainians say Russians are bullshitting and are making false flag attacks<Ukrainian ref>" is a suboptimal way to refer to the actual events in the war. For example in WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBAA2, IDF's, Palestinian, Armenian or Azeri claims are not taken for granted, and I don't see much difference in this one other than that we can afford Ukrainian sources some benefit of doubt, but not to the extent that would justify the treatment of UA resources on par with foreign media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This all seems a bit complicated to me. Can't this just be summarised as: "Russian state news sources are considered generally unreliable for content related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine", which fits well within our established reliability processes. The second point I don't agree with introducing, because a) the section above doesn't show an issue relating to that (outside of the issue with Russian state sources in general); b) few military advances are agreed on by both parties. You can't even get a realistic death toll out of Russia; c) most of the RS reporting follows claims of either side or claims of allies of either side. The provision either means gutting our articles, or doing exactly what we're doing right now, it's not clear but either way the provision doesn't seem necessary. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This proposal may be well intention but it creates more problems than it solves. Ukrainian sources are generally more reliable (of course not all of them) than Russian ones so why should they be treated equivalently? There might also be a couple Russian sources that are still reliable. Additionally, sources from outside the geographic area very often are, to put it bluntly, clueless about basic factual info. Confuse cities, people, developments, etc. The main problem overall is the WP:UNDUE space that is given to Russian claims, often absurd and ridiculous, as filtered through reliable sources. What we need rather is a higher bar for inclusion of Russian claims - only if they're WIDELY discussed and analyzed by RSs, not just restated here or there, should they be included. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal that will at least make it certain that we should neither rely on the official statements of Ukraine, nor Russia unless they have been confirmed by both sides. A  strict balance is certainly necessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    'strict balance' of an agressor and a victim. No, no, no. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose in strongest possible terms. I could see some potential argument for rejecting sources from Russia (because they have strict press controls), but the argument for omitting sources from Ukraine entirely lacks any basis in policy. Would you accept a similar proposal to, for example, ban sources from within Israel or Palestine from the entire ARBPIA topic area? Should we reject sources based in the US that cover the Iraq or Vietnam Wars? It is possible that a Ukrainian source could be considered WP:BIASED (although even that, I think, should be on a case-by-case basis), and depending on context some would be WP:PRIMARY; but the solution to that is to make it clear that the source is Ukrainian in the text, not to bar it entirely, and I would strenuously oppose even making that much a formal requirement. Yes, sources close to a conflict have potential bias, but they can also be some of the best sources available; and it is insulting to imply that an entire nation is incapable of objective journalism with no basis beyond "well it concerns them." You need at least some argument for why there is a structural problem to sanction all sources based in an entire region; we might be able to make that argument for Russia or similar regions with strict press censorship, but for Ukraine, no. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. confirmed by both sides of the conflict — as in "the war, according to Ukrainian sources, or the special military operation, according to Russian sources"? Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, why does 2022 Western Russia attacks (and other articles like it) even exist? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Space4Time3Continuum2x An unimportant person (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on TASSEdit

Which of the following best describes the reliability of TASS ?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 This report[15] is wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, we have the use of the phrase "conflict escalation", as if the conflict escalated somehow by itself. How about the word "invasion". Near the end, we have the sentence Putin, in response to a request from the leaders of the Donbass republics for help launched a special military operation. Are they really that daft? Surely they realize that the initial impetus came from Putin, not from the LNR or DNR. Furthermore, we have the following paragraph: Since the beginning of the escalation, "a total of 2,738 fire attacks have been recorded, including 2,477 carried out with heavy weapons." During the reviewed period the Ukrainian military fired 27,006 pieces of ammunition of various calibers, including 27 Tochka-U missiles. Multiple rocket launchers Grad, Uragan and Smerch were also used.. Multiple issues here. Who can possibly arrive at such a precise count? How many of those were in fact Russian misfires or Russian false flag attacks? Note that Tass specifically says that the attacks were fired by the Ukrainian military. Lastly, we have the following passage: Tensions on the engagement line in Donbass escalated on February 17. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months. Numerous reports in the media mention Russian attempts to provoke Ukraine and/or false flag attacks during that time.[16][17][18] I am unable to find any reliable reports of actual Ukrainian attacks from Feb. 17-23. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:RSP already lists it under Option 2 ("Unclear or additional considerations apply"), with a comment: In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. I can't see any reason to change the attitude. Of course, it's a Russian state agency and it uses propagandistic cliches promoted by the state — and we should avoid any of these on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. However, when it comes to statements such as "a Russian official said the following", TASS reporting is very accurate (i.e. the words of the officials are not falsified). Moreover, your argument about the inaccurate count of attacks is not entirely valid, because even TASS does not present it as the ultimate truth — in fact, the report says: "the office of the DPR’s representative in the Joint Center for Ceasefire Control and Coordination (JCCC) said on Friday." I.e. the data is provided by a side of the conflict, and TASS clearly states so, i.e. even this piece could be used to compare various estimates of the intensity of the attacks (for example, Ukraine said that XXX attacks were conducted[Ukrainian Source], while the DPR insisted that there were YYY attacks[TASS]; independent observers give the number NNN[another source]) VanHelsing.16 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    For example, see [19]

    Russian-backed separatists have stepped up their shelling of Ukrainian forces, but Kyiv has told its troops not to return fire to avoid giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an excuse to launch an invasion.

    Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [20] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. 2600:1700:37E0:4B60:E513:DC93:F00A:B99C (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia), but I think that User:Adoring nanny has not proved that that article by TASS contains fake news. The invasion of Ukraine can be described as an escalation of pre-existing armed conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas) and the civilian casualty figure given by TASS/by the DPR’s representative - 113 killed and 517 injured - is quite accurate. Cf. HRMMU, Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 May 2022: 117 killed and 481 injured on territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    OSCE report, Fortune. "As documented by the humanitarian NGO Proliska, which is monitoring the conflict zone, one of the [separatists'] shells struck a kindergarten, leaving two employees with shell shock—but not injuring any of the children who were there. Proliska and journalists have also reported shelling by pro-Russian forces against the inhabitants of the Ukrainian town of Mariinka." Guardian. "The attack was part of an apparent coordinated bombardment by pro-Russian separatists in multiple locations across the 250-kilometre long frontline." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding the OSCE report dated February 18. See the situation reports for Feb 17 on page 4–7. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Assuming this is true and this is all they do, how is it it related to their reliability, which is what this discussion should be about?
    Regarding the OSCE report, the table says the same thing as the map: there were plenty of explosions and other events in non-government-controlled areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tass said is true, but it certainly does not contradict it. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    This is an example of TASS reporting what the Russian transport minister said, as reported by the New York Times, i.e. noteworthyness established by a reliable secondary source. The RS also added context (imposition of punishments) and analysis (rare acknowledgment). (It might still be WP:NOTNEWS for WP purposes.) The difference between Ukrainian and Russian sources at the moment is that there are independent sources on the ground in Ukraine, so there usually is some checking on official reports. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3, deprecation would remove a potentially useful source of quotes from Russian officials. It should not be used for statement of facts.Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3/Status quo statement of facts are now dubious, given it is now illegal to report facts the Kremlin considers inconvenient. There is a time component involved in this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • 3 at best, probably 4. This is basically a propaganda agency, and essentially nothing they report about the war in Ukraine is accurate. The only thing that gives me pause is that we sometimes need to make reference to false claims in TASS, so as a primary source for it's own and Putin's b.s. ("denazification", etc.), we need to cite it. It can't be deprecated the point we block posting of citations of it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 /leave as is this issue was extensively discussed in 2019 and I see no reason to change, as per VanHelsing.16 comments above Ilenart626 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4, they've gone downhill in the last three years. Previously their bias was expressed through omission which isn't a problem for us, however disinformation (the traditional realm of RT and Sputnik) is a problem for us. Two or three years ago TASS started publishing RT and Sputnik style disinformation which has been immensely disappointing but leaves us no other option than to deprecate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    Do you have any proof for that? Alaexis¿question? 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - reliable only for the position du jour of the Kremlin. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 basically only WP:ABOUTSELF for official Russian government positions, or to cite examples of Russian state propaganda, never for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Dropping from 2 to 3 seems appropriate given the current circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I agree with VanHelsing. This was discussed extensively in 2019. It remains a valid source for official Russian viewpoint, in which it is reliable for. Gorebath (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Definitely unreliable and occasionally out right fake. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 3 It is a state-owned media that is still great for offering details about the Russian government. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4. If we need to report on anything that comes from it, we can do so through a reliable secondary source that provides appropriate context. There is no reason to link directly to this propaganda organ. It can be trusted for absolutely nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Use it to source a fact-free statement issued by the Kremlin, sure. Unusable in any other situation. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 with a caveat (status quo). I understand the concerns regarding the effect of the new censorship law however I see only one example in all Option 3/4 votes. It was provided by u:Adoring Nanny and while the statement in question is likely to be false we can't be sure about it. I will change my !vote to Option 3 if such examples are provided. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Reuters. "The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted "a representative of a competent body" in Russia on Sunday as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant that was shut down in 2000."
    • NY Times. "After Russia attacked an area near the nuclear complex in Zaporizhzhia, leading to a fire, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called it “nuclear terrorism.” But according to a Kremlin statement reported in Tass, the military seized the facility to prevent Ukrainians and neo-Nazis from “organizing provocations fraught with catastrophic consequences.”
    1. NY Times. Two false claims in TASS, original and translation ("Kremlin press office stated
    Thanks for providing examples. In all cases it's clearly attributed ("The Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence reported...", "Putin told Macron", "a representative of a competent body"). The last one is a bit dodgy but reporting news with attribution to anonymous knowledgeable sources is hardly unique to Tass. Alaexis¿question? 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Both Reuters [21] and Getty Images [22] have cut ties with Tass, we should as well. Tass has recently begun publishing obviously false information/propaganda, like that Zelenskyy has fled Ukraine (Video evidence suggests otherwise) or that the Ukrainians are massacring civilians in Donbas. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    Not saying that there are contradicting reports is not good journalistic practice but it's different from reporting falsehoods. I totally agree that their reporting is selective but I think that the criteria for deprecation is publishing lies deliberately. Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 In other words, against classification attempts like this which are always overgeneralizations, even for the worst sources such as this. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, I don't see any reason yet for changing this from the previous RfC, where the reliability of Tass varies based on the content. It was the same thing with its articles about Ukraine etc from 2014 onwards with strong pro-government bias and parroting claims by Russian government/proxies. So still, for such topics it is best avoided, but is useful for reporting what officials say. I would go for option 3 if it is clearer that in general it is more problematic. Mellk (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 Not usable for statements of fact relating to Russian government, and barely usable for statements of opinion where not covered also by WP:SECONDARY sources. Allow use for non-controversial topics relating to Russian culture and society. CutePeach (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Nothing seems to have really changed since the last discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 That article by TASS is questionable but it's not fake news. "TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but ... deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues" seems a sensible assessment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Cherry picking statements in news media is original research. Major American media supported false claims about Iraq in order to support an invasion in 2001-3, but they are still rs. TASS' claim that the Donbass republics asked for a Russian invasion is not necessarily false, considering that according to International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, they "declared independence from Ukraine" and the "central government of Ukraine regards the republics as being under terrorist control." Can Adoring nanny explain why they think these republics would not ask the Russians to invade? The issue seems to be which facts TASS chooses to emphasize, rather than whether they are true. WEIGHT is sufficient to prevent an over-emphasis of non-Western perspectives, we don't have to add another ban, particularly when there is no evidence for it. TFD (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    You mean the de-facto republics that have been formally recognized by Russia and the other de-facto states South Ossetia and Abkhazia? That article ought to be called "International non-recognition", judging by the long list of states and international organizations opposing recognition. As long as we're citing an unreliable source, i.e., Wikipedia, the 2014 Donbas status referendums says that a number of nations declared the referendums to be unconstitutional and lacking legitimacy. Even Belarus hasn't recognized them; they appear to be in the "supporting" column for "respectfully understand[ing] the decision of the Russian side to recognize". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't name the article. If you want to re-name it, you need to go to the discussion on its talk page. Whether or not these defacto republics are legitimate is irrelevant to whether or not they asked Russia to invade. TFD (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 as first choice, no on options 1 and 2. The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) suspended TASS on February 27, stating that because of "the new media regulation enforced by the Russian government (Roskomnadzor), which is heavily restricting media freedom", TASS is not "able to provide unbiased news." On May 13, their general assembly voted to make the suspension indefinite. According to Reuters, TASS is "not aligned with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles" of acting with "integrity, independence and freedom from bias." This sentence on the reliable sources list currently reads like black humor: Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government. We do not need TASS for accurate reports on what the Russian government stated, and they are no more reliable than RT or Sputnik now. The last RfC was three years ago, before laws restricting freedom of expression were amended and incorporated into the Penal Code, making them punishable by up to 15 years in prison. RIA Novosti also needs to be looked at; the last discussion was in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 nothing has changed since the last RfC. Being biased doesn't make it any less reliable than the usual RS whose coverage of the Ukraine war has exposed their bias. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2: If we discount any media coming out of Russia that is potentially subject to state propaganda then as of March (but more accurately, since long before) we've discounted all media coming out of Russia. And by that standard, all outlets in authoritarian regimes. It doesn't take an editorial genius to reasonably infer when state-run media might be factually unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    @SamuelRiv: it has been repeatedly noted that our WP:RS policy does in fact de-facto preclude the use of most outlets in authoritarian regimes in most contexts. This is generally viewed as a feature not a bug. Personally I don't think its either but I do think its more or less inevitable given the inherent contradictions between wikipedia's core values and those of said authoritarian states. Authoritarian states are habitual liars, there isn't really any other model... To stop lying would undermine the legitimacy of the very party or entity which instituted the authoritarian system to ensure their legitimacy in the first place. This same problem occurs in non-authoritarian governments the difference being that non-authoritarian governments can not force independent media outlets to conform to their lies, in fact much the opposite happens... Nothing the independent media likes more than a nice big juicy lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - The "additional consideration" being that it is unreliable for any controversial events involving Russia. TASS is used elsewhere as well, where its reporting is accurate. No need to deprecate the source entirely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - The long-standing precautions about it as state-run media still seems valid and obvious, with recent events being an instance of where additional considerations apply. I don’t see anything changed about any areas where past cites were made, or anything to indicate where it was accurate is no longer true, or much for a generalisation past the topic of the Ukraine war. And as I said in recent discussion above, even on the Ukraine war I think a direct cite may still be best in some cases - just as usual WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


Context: This has been discussed before. And it was added to WP:RSP.

We Got This Covered is a movie website which publishes rumors about movies coming out. About a year ago (from my memory) there were about 23 articles citing this source. Now, checking back in May 2022, there are about 600 articles citing this. (No idea why, my best guess would be 2022 has a lot of movies coming out, and the site constantly pops out in search results).

Just making the point, we don't need to cite this source, especially since the sequel rumors are unverifiable. This source is not reliable and it was obvious back in 2020 (before it was at RSP) so it should be obvious now. RanDom 404 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that in that case it is clear they are citing a rumor to what appears to be a random blogger, that's an article that even if CNN published we'd not want to use. So a question to ask is if the stories that aren't claimed to be rumors are false. Entertainment sources love to work on rumors, up and down the reliability scale, and this may be a case of just being fully aware of the situation around an article that we should not use. --Masem (t) 01:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
They publish lots more, most of which doesn’t even give credit to a random blogger, they just have zero evidence to even base their claims. How can people consider this reliable? RanDom 404 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should just blacklist the site then, if we can never find it reliable I don't see a reason we'd ever link to it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The only thing which may hint at reliability is that it has a Managing Editor and Deputy Managing Editor, and other editors. That's about it though, apart from policies on a fact-checking, corrections, and ethics. But, I have no idea whether those policies are followed, though. Historyday01 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I would also add that if something is mentioned on, then it is undoubtedly mentioned on a more reliable source. So I'd say that a much better source can be cited instead. In a post by @User:Jack Sebastian in 2019, @User:Newslinger said that "neither site [Showbiz Cheat Sheet and We Got This Covered] appears to be a great source" and @User:Hipal said that "both look poor: churnalism and gossip." Then in 2020, there was agreement by @User:Scrooge200, Newslinger, and @User:Oknazevad that it was "generally unreliable." Mentioning specific users here to garner their insight as they previously commented on the reliability of this site. Historyday01 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose blacklisting as their film reeviews and interviews are useable in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the proposed blacklisting would work exactly. I agree with User:Atlantic306 and I would be disappointed if we were not allowed to use WeGotThisCovered on account of their reviews and original inteviews. But they put out a lot of low quality articles, rumors, and content recycled from other sources, so I would support the strongest measures and most annoying warnings possible short of preventing it being used entirely. My 2 cents. -- (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support blacklisting. Nothing on this website is even remotely worth using. It's all clickbait BS. WGTC is one of a series of clickbait-headlined rumor websites all run by the same company that use each other as supposed sources to publish patently untrue material that make money it off the ad revenue. They thrive on being shared around social media, attracting attention from less-discerning people just reacting to the headline. They claim to have a fact checking and corrections policy, but you will never find an article on their site that actually has a correction appended, because their claimed policy is just as useless, worthless, and made up as their articles. Cosmic Book News is another such site, and in fact is owned by the same company as far as anyone can tell. That's the other aspect: who actually owns these sites is intentionally obscured to hide their commonality. They're not reliable sources. They're a scam. oknazevad (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Vice and other Sources at JP SearsEdit

Over at our article for anti-vaxxer/MAGA/conspirituality comedian JP Sears, there's been a repeated and long-term effort to remove any and all coverage of the article's subject that a few embedded editors have deemed 'critical' or 'political'. These editors only appear and respond when such coverage pops up. This is their only function on the page—a typical issue with FRINGE-related articles.

The latest round of this is over a 2021 Vice article reporting on the Sears gathering with some of the best-known anti-vaxxers in modern US pop culture along with Trump's ex wife (Marla Maples) to pray for Trump on the last US presidential election day (it's been on the article for a while now). You're welcome to join the discussion here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I don't think anybody is disputing the credibility of sources in that discussion but discussing whether it is due or undue. You may want to move this discussion to WP:FTN. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, although this more about DUEness of material (seems the content is UNDUE), I definitely would say that Vice should be avoided as a source for contentious material about a living persons. Moreover, I will echo my 2018 comments from a different discussion that Anna Merlan, the author of the article does not have a stellar record of fact-checking and corrections. But it should be added that in 2019 Merlan claimed, regarding Al Franken allegations, that The New Yorker's Jane Mayer mischaracterised some of the allegations that were reported in Jezebel. I don't know who is wrong but they can't both be right.
With regards to FTN, Bloodofox started a discussion at FTN before posting here. They have started at least five discussions related to Sears: #2, #3, #4, and #5. Some notifications – e.g. the newest post – are blatantly canvassing, some not so much. And to all dear wikilawyers out there, no – posting a neutral notification (something like "Please see the discussion here [link]") to FTN is not canvassing. Posting biased notifications is "campaigning" and considered harmful. Politrukki (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
First, I'll thank you not to modify my post headers to your preference. Second, I regularly post about about fringe topics and draw attention to fringe-related articles and discussions, including here and particularly over at the fringe theories noticeboard. It's a common problem for these obscure articles to get too few eyes, and to become flooded by supporters, and my statements here are demonstrably correct. You're welcome. Finally, if you're new to the wonderful world of fringe topic articles, you've got a lot of bad actors awaiting you, and I invite you to experience that rather than pearl-clutching and moaning about those of us who bother to get involved. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as the JP Sears article goes, the only editor who might be trying to "remove any and all coverage [that is] 'critical' or 'political'" is Jtbobwaysf. The rest of the editors have been brought by various noticeboard postings or other normal processes. Just because an editor disagrees with you does not make them a bad actor, and just because you disagree with what editors say when they come to the page does not mean the article has been flooded by supporters. More editors would be likely to get involved in the topic area if vitriol wasn't hurled at anyone who dares to have a different opinion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
A trite assessment, as you're well aware that there are at least a few editors there, including the one that you mention, whose sole activity on the article is to attempt to remove any and all 'critical' or 'political' material associated with the article. That is all they've done there, all they continue to do there, and chances are all they'll ever do there. Typical of articles of this type, the article is also regularly hit by IPs who alter the article in favor of the subject, sometimes in explicit ways and sometimes in more nuanced ways. Meanwhile, your efforts to date have largely been to provide support for WP:RS removal attempts rather than to put your foot down when it's clear that the article is seeing repeated scrubbing attempts (and I mean scrubbing: straight up attempts at deleting any and all coverage of the subject's 'political' activities). What's that about? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't look like provid[ing] support for WP:RS removal attempts. This is exactly what I was talking about in the section above. I was brought to the discussion from a noticeboard that I frequent, and have provided an uninvolved opinion. You've responded at every turn as if I, and anyone who disagrees with you, is some sort of fringe apologist. I've edited plenty of fringe and controversial topics, and even if you have issues with certain editors you can engage constructively, rather than with blatant hostility. Honey and vinegar and all that.
Every topic on Wikipedia is hit by IPs who alter the article in favor of, or against, the subject. This is not unique for fringe or conspiracy topics. The former president of Somalia, and the current president of Somalia who was a former president, were the target of COI editing. You think the fringe topic area is bad? Look at anything at all related to castes or politics in India. Advocacy editing by a small number of editors is not an excuse to throw civility and good faith out the window. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's go ahead and recognize that Wikipedia's fringe articles frequently do indeed swarm with supporters, embedded or otherwise, who aim to alter them to present their subjects in flattering ways, often by snipping out less-than-flattering media coverage. Scholars who have written about this phenomenon are well aware of it, including about our very own Falun Gong article and its many tentacles. There's no reason for us to pretend it's not the case. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@ArvindPalaskar: Just thought I'd ping you on this, as in the days since your comment, two votes based primarily on WP:RS have come through. So there is a contingent that is making the reliability argument where some outside perspective would be helpful. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I actually think VICE is pretty good but sometimes they can be overly gossipy. The reason I opposed the inclusion of this VICE article for this claim in the JP Sears article is because of how it and other are sources are being used to paint him with the same brush as we do antivaxers, like Kennedy and Malone, mentioned there. I don't follow Sears but I've watched a few of his videos and he doesn't strike me as an extreme conservative though I am disappointed he takes a pseudo libertarian position on public health policy - and shared a stage with those people. I'm glad that the "conservative conspiracy theorist" is properly attributed to the liberally WP:BIASED New York Times, as I don't think his erroneous statements about Vitimin D and what not amount to conspiracism, though there is a source that puts it as that. CutePeach (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail and BeergateEdit

At Beergate#Responses_to_Starmer's_and_Rayner's_statements, there is a paragraph about what the Daily Mail have said about as aspect of the story. This has been justified via a citation to a Guardian article that was criticising the Mail’s coverage. Elsewhere in the article, there have been attempts to cover what The Sun has said. This seems to me to be inappropriate, but what do you think, o learned noticeboard? Do you have advice for these situations? See discussion at Talk:Beergate#Daily_Mail_coverage and Talk:Beergate#The_Sun,_May_2021 plus edit comments. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really an RS issue, if an RS says a non RS said something we can source it to the RS. This seems more of a wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
To be honest the whole article is WP:UNDUE. It should be a paragraph in the Starmer article. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Cool. Maybe we should also shrink Partygate to a one-sentence footnote in the Boris Johnson article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Aye, but Partygate isn't just about Johnson, much as many would like it to be. Also Partygate wasn't 75% invented by the Daily Mail because their proprietor doesn't like Starmer's intention to cancel non-dom status. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
That's true. But I'd say 80%. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is a bit vague about exactly which of many edits are the controversial ones, but I look at the current Beergate page and see what I regard as problems. For its 15 January front page, the Daily Mail used pictures from the video under its headline "Starmer the Covid party hypocrite".[16] has a cite to The Guardian but WP:RS/QUOTE says cites for quotes should be the original i.e. Daily Mail. ... Labour had said that Rayner was not present, but on 30 April 2022 the Daily Mail said Labour acknowledged she had been there, and their initial statement had been a mistake. is an attributed statement but not about opinion so would only belong if the story was about Daily Mail rather than Rayner. She also retweeted a Daily Mail story ... John Nicolson, an SNP MP, characterised the photo in the Daily Mail as "disinformation", because Frank Dobson, who died in 2019, was at the event. is false, the cited source doesn't say the photo is disinformation, but says her tweet's usage of it is. These are little problems that will probably be cleared up when the recentism fades, but the talk page argument from Bondegezou against dave souza -- "You are using the Guardian citation to get around the rule that we can’t use the Daily Mail." -- is unfortunate because there is no hint where this "rule" is. Maybe it's undue, maybe there was something impolite about it, certainly it should be properly attributed, but suggesting that a quote of the newspaper cannot even be cited looks like a misinterpretation of WP:DAILYMAIL1 not a PAG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Peter, the version of the Dorries / Nicolson bit you've quoted was from this revision by DeFacto, I've revised that to follow the sources. While I was content with the brief mention, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for tackling disinformation retweeting a link to a Daily Mail attack piece with a misleadingly cropped photo, and claiming it's ok as a generic stock photo, looks significant. In fairness, she's got a point about "the pictures of the PM with a birthday cake outside a school - not in cake free Downing St.", but I think the captions made that clear, and they didn't photoshop it into No. 10 to represent the famous cake ambush. . dave souza, talk 16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
At least for me, if we have an RS explicitly pointing to a nonRS piece, all this being considered DUE to include, then including the cite to the nonRS piece immediately next to the RS cite is fair and reasonable. If there is concern this implicitly shows support of the RS, then perhaps bundle these ala "(nonRS cite) via (RS cite)". --Masem (t) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, The Daily Mail essentially launched the recent investigation through its "investigative journalism" (or political attack angle), so I cannot see that we cannot mention the paper at all in this article. It seems to me, per WP:DAILYMAIL, this is an exceptional case - it says "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion", not a perfect match to the current situation but should guide us there is not an entire blanket ban on the paper. I think using The Guardian as the source to describe Daily Mail involvement, not using a Daily Mail cite, is the correct approach. Rwendland (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion so far. I take the point this is partly a WP:DUE argument. I don't see that the edit of concern is WP:DUE, and by edit of concern I mean this. The article is about Beergate, what Starmer did or didn't do. We can cover that topic using reliable sources: there's no need to use the Mail (or Sun). There is nothing in the Mail's reporting that isn't either reliably attributed elsewhere (in which case, we use those reliable sources) or isn't reliably attributed elsewhere (in which case, it's not reliably sourced and we shouldn't be saying it). Where the Mail first broke a story, we can say that, as we do in the fifth paragraph of the "Reports after police reopened investigation" section (where we cover The Mail on Sunday breaking the story of the leaked Labour schedule). However, the edit in question wasn't about the Mail breaking a story. It was just airing the Mail's headline/editorial line. The Mail's headlines/editorial line in response to political events provides no reliable information about reality: that is, it is not a reliable source. Using the Guardian article as an excuse to air the Mail's line, without actually describing what the Guardian article is saying, seems to me like a backdoor attempt to use the Mail despite our consensus that it is not reliable -- just like the earlier attempts to include The Sun in this edit. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for these helpful pointers, the topic is a story that at the outset was reported by The Sun on Sunday, then when Partygate reached the point where other party leaders were calling on Johnson to resign, the Daily Mail (or the government using it as a mouthpiece) brought up "Beergate" as a counter-attack. Thus, both papers are a significant part of the story, and as primary sources are useful to clarify our understanding of points about their coverage shown in reliable secondary sources. Online versions of both papers could get altered, so reporting or listing by other websites can show what they said at or near the time, for example Wayback Machine archives. I think these are instances where primary sources, together with secondary source reporting on wording, help to explain the "controversy". If needed, can go through each point when time permits. . dave souza, talk 17:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Mail headline is from the print edition not, but I can see a copy of the front page with So the cite could be title = STARMER THE COVID PARTY HYPOCRITE, publication = Daily Mail, date = 15 January 2022, page = 1, authors = Daniel Martin and Andrew Jehring. If I'm understanding MOS:SIC, the quote capitalization should be as in the original. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction here to be made which may be significant enough to overcome the deprecation of DM as a source. "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." is relevant here; One of those rare cases could be thus: that the DM wrote something may be necessary to tell the full story of a situation, especially when other sources are noting the importance of what DM wrote. In that limited sense, citing the original DM piece should be fine alongside of the source which notes its role in the controversy. In this case, it's a use-mention distinction kind of thing; we aren't using DM as a source of information, we mention the the DM article as playing a role in the events at hand, and including the specific article at the center of the controversy, not because it is a good source, but because we discuss it in the text and it should be accessible for the reader for further inspection, seems valid. --Jayron32 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
But where (how?) do you draw the line? In any article on UK politics, you could say, “The Daily Mail said this,” using that justification. This would just end up giving the unwanted impression that Wikipedia sees the Mail as a reliable source. How do we decide when the Mail played a large enough role in events that this is appropriate, versus when this is just being used as an excuse to include the Mail’s (unreliable) version of (others’) events? With the edit under discussion, what the Mail said then isn’t significant for the article topic. Or do you disagree? Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The DM through an archive can be a reliable source for its exact wording when the article in question is shown to be significant by a reliable secondary source which may summarise or quote from it, but will usually leave out a lot of the context. . dave souza, talk 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Jayron32, thanks, that's what I tried to say in my edit summary when reinstating the Sun paragraph. Reliable sources show the significance of the Sun on Sunday article, from the Wayback Machine the reader can inspect it, and the points I quoted from it about the Labour response at the time being "The Tories’ clearly haven’t read their own rules", a workplace meeting, "They paused for dinner as the meeting was during the evening", ties in with the reliable secondary source saying "Labour’s line is, and always has been, that after a day campaigning, and an evening working in the office on campaign matters, Starmer had a drink while sharing a takeaway meal with party colleagues and that, although England was in lockdown, indoor gatherings were allowed for “work purposes” and that eating and drinking like this was allowed if “reasonably necessary for work”. I think that quoting that bit from the original primary source is reasonable, but even without quoting it, the primary source confirms that the secondary statement was true of that first publication. Comments? . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
That what the DM wrote influenced this story is supported by several RSes, so has due weight to be added and sourced to just those reliable sources. However, as the DM is deprecated, I don't think we should use any additional information which could only be sourced from it, as that would be giving undue weight to stuff that is only mentioned in the unreliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Now Bondegezou has pointed to the "edit of concern". It was not about the printed-edition Daily Mail headline which is still indirectly cited in the Beergate article. Instead it's an edit which among other things bases a Daily Mail quote on an article in The Guardian saying The Daily Mail, which had called for the police to reopen investigations, said that the decision to do so "placed detectives in the difficult position" of knowing their decision would have major political ramifications. ... etc. But Daily Mail actually wrote But his opponents said this had placed detectives in the difficult position ... In other words The Guardian distorted the quote to make it appear that's Daily Mail's statement of fact, and the edit of concern would put that in Wikipedia. I see this as a justification of the WP:RS/QUOTE guideline's words: To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. The original source being quoted is Daily Mail, and in this case The Guardian should not be used per WP:RSCONTEXT, the context being what Daily Mail actually said. Apparently the quote in that edit was removed later, and I don't see how it could be saved. However, for the printed-edition Daily Mail headline STARMER THE COVID PARTY HYPOCRITE: The original source is Daily Mail print edition, I supplied the material necessary for the cite, and since it is opinion it is possible to use it (RS/QUOTE only makes an exception if it is not possible). Citing just The Guardian would not meet the guideline's requirement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Slatersteven. The ban on the Daily Mail only refers to using them as a source, it does not prohibit us from mentioning them if they are reported in a rs. In fact "Beergate" was broken by The Sun which is also a banned source. Avoiding mention of these sources in the article distorts the story. TFD (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Peter Gulutzan, thanks for that information, I'd missed the ambiguity in the Guardian's account. Most of the quote was still in the article, but it had been changed into a paragraph on the source's comment on the Mail story. I've rephrased it to restore the focus while still pointing out the source's comment, and noted the headline wording; "The Daily Mail on 10 May said "Starmer accused of piling pressure on police"." Think it's brest to avoid the headline capitalisation if possible. . . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The issue really is not using the Mail, per se, but the fact that the article still doesn't really articulate the issue that Beergate is something largely orchestrated by the Mail through a slew of highly dubious headlines (some of which tell you exactly why it's deprecated). Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: I'm not against discussing the Mail's role in reporting on the story. The article talks about the Mail's (and the Sun's role) in various places. But this edit isn't describing the Mail breaking a story. It's just picking out some Mail headlines to repeat them. Those headlines don't add anything to the article's factual reporting, because they're not reliable, so what are they there for? We could litter every UK politics article with "And the Daily Mail said this...", and we'd end up giving the impression that Wikipedia believes what the Mail says. There has to be some WP:DUE reason to be talking about the Mail.
So, yes, if we're talking about the Mail, we can apply WP:RS/QUOTE, but do we have some guidance over when we should be talking about the Mail? The edit in question wasn't adding in what the Mail said to discuss it. It was, it seems to me, just adding in what the Mail said to give visibility to it. Have I explained my concern here? Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, Peter Gulutzan, The Four Deuces, and Black Kite: – as amended in this diff, it's clear that we're using a reliable secondary source that discusses the shifting story promoted by the DM, part of showing both that the DM is promoting an unreliable [party] line, and that it's a significant player in the [fake] controversy. Takes longer if people delete properly sourced material rather than trying to improve the wording. . dave souza, talk 12:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess that particular edit is arguably not a clear violation of WP:RS/QUOTE. But it doesn't fix the problems with the headline quote.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan:, in light of the formatting issue with the headline quote and the lack of a usable primary source, I've paraphrased it. Hope that fixes the problems with that paragraph. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • We can cite non-RSes via RSes that quote or cite them; that is to a certain extent the point of an RS. If we couldn't do that, we couldn't cite anything to anyone, because everything would ultimately come down to someone doing original research on primary data. The question in this case is whether it is WP:DUE, whether it should be quoted or paraphrased, and so on, not whether the Guardian is a RS for what the Daily Mail published. It is, however, important to pay attention to the context of the proximate source. If the Guardian source is like "here's a quote where the Daily Mail says something terrible and stupid and obviously factually wrong", it's a misuse of the source to pull the Daily Mail quote out and use it without that context. Part of the reason it's acceptable to cite a secondary RS quoting an otherwise unreliable source is because we trust the proximate source to verify what's said in that manner; if you omit the context from the proximate source then that is lost. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Aquillion: In this paragraph we now paraphrase or repeat DM quotes from the Guardian article, and show the context of the Guardian's opinion that the DM that day was inconsistent in saying Starmer was doing something wrong but superficially it was the right thing and he had no choice, and the DM had previously been pushing the police to put him in that position. . . dave souza, talk 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The article still contains direct quotes of Daily Mail, including editorial and headline material. For that, Daily Mail is a reliable source, and an acceptable source (WP:NEWSORG), and the source that is necessary to "ensure accuracy" while not being "partisan secondary" (WP:RS/QUOTE), and a better source than The Guardian which has been shown to distort (WP:RSCONTEXT). The guideline should be followed or the quotes should be scrubbed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2: See if there is a local consensus to mention the topic or not, and if so then I suggest watch the context and just use a cite to Daily Mail. A WP:DEPRECATED deprecated source is not WP:BLACKLIST blacklisted, and the difference is that exceptions are allowed by local consensus. To quote sections of the DEPRECATED text: “ Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. “ and “Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.“ VERIFIABILITY should overrule lesser considerations, and a third or fourth-hand partial of the Daily Mail words just seems less desirable than a direct cite to the whole piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan and Markbassett: Thanks, have added the primary source archived from the online version of the date in question. Could also add its editorial, don't think that's so controversial. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for listening. I hope that the rest will also be properly cited eventually but Wikipedia has no deadlines. The important thing is that citing Daily Mail is accepted practice in some circumstances. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


1. Source:

2. Article: Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

3. Discussions on the talk page: Here

4. Content:

In 2019, Azerbaijan's destruction of Armenian cultural heritage was described as "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" in Hyperallergic, exceeding the destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL.

5. Question: Can we consider as a reliable source for Armenia-Azerbaijan area articles? Hyperallergic can not be considered reliable for the Armenia-Azerbaijan area articles, because hyperallergic does not have reputation for fact checking. In fact here I in details described that Hyperallergic published propoganda article, which based on the hearsay. It also might be partisan and biased source if used for the AA area articles. From the about page it is clear that hyperallergic WP:NEWSBLOG founded by active diaspora Armenians, and moreover, they publish articles written by the Simon Maghakyan, who is propagandist and working as ANCA-WR’s Community Development Coordinator Abrvagl (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Being founded by people with Armenian names does not mean it's not reliable. Having said that, there are bound to be many sources covering the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in Azerbaijan. If only Hyperallergic called it "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" then this might not be notable for Wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 15:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Let me re-express myself. I am not telling that it is not reliable because it was founded by Armenians, it is not about nationality. Hyperallergic is not reliable for Azerbaijan-Armenia area articles, because they, for example, publish articles from propaganda warriors such as Simon Maghakyan. Even reading through the article it is obvious that information is biased, not encyclopedic and neither academic. For example article states Hyperallergic article claims that such was said by Russian journalist Shura Burtin without providing any prove of that: "not even ISIS could commit such an epic crime against humanity.".
Articles should be based on reputable, independent, published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, according to WP:RS. Hypersensitivity is neither of these. Hyperallergic identifies itself as a "online publication founded by the husband-and-husband team, Veken Gueyikian and Hrag Vartanian, in 2009 as a forum for playful, serious, and radical perspectives on art in society." It is neither a scholarly publication nor a mainstream news organization known for fact-checking. It's more of a blog-style website. I raised RSN because it is not about the single article. Hyperalergic is news-blog which neither reliable nor neutral, and can not be used as a source for AA area articles. Abrvagl (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there evidence that Shura Burtin did not say that? Generally, we don't require sources to provide citations for the quotes they include in their articles.
Hyperallergic currently has a large team of editors, writers, and contributors, and is described by reliable sources as an Art Journal. It appears to be reliable; do you have examples of articles they published that include inaccuracies? BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I am not talking about art. Hyperallergic might be OK for art articles, but definitely not reliable for Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. This article does not provide their research or opinion, it just attribute to the opinion piece of other person. As per WP:BLP such information shall be verifiable.
More, it is not general case, this is NEWSBLOG which makes WP:REDFLAG statements like not even ISIS could commit such an epic crime against humanity, and attribute such exceptional statements to mostly unknown people's opinion piece. This opinion pieces can not be fact checked, and does not make any weight. I can not imagine how anyone can consider political propaganda and biased article, written by the Simon Maghakyan (His twitter), the ANCA-WR’s Community Development Coordinator, and posted on the partisan newsblog, owned by Armenian diaspora, which specializes on the Art, reliable and neutral for the Azerbaijan-Armenia area articles. Abrvagl (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that it is not reliable for Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles. Since you opened this discussion about the article "A Regime Conceals Its Erasure of Indigenous Armenian Culture" are there any inaccuracies in that article? BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hyperallergic is a self-published newsblog which does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it publishes opinion piece of contributors. Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles in the Hyperallercic are not in line with WP:NPOV. How propaganda article, written by the propagandist Simon Maghakyan in the partisan menner and posted on the NEWSBLOG can be accepted reliable for the Azerbaijan-Armenia area? It is like asking the fox to guard the chickens.
The problem is in propaganda nature of the articles, in the way how information selected and presented. Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles in the Hyperallergic, are written by propagandists like Simon Maghakyan, who is ANCA Coordinator, and who is well known for his anti Azerbaijan/Turkey position. Such articles are giving due weight to the information which does not have academic/encyclopedic value and do not carry any significance other than propaganda.
For example, one of the obvious inaccuracies - Article completely disregards and denies destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage all over the Armenia and previously occupied Karabakh region of the Azerbaijan. Simon writes: Azerbaijan’s president protests that “all of our mosques in occupied Azerbaijani lands have been destroyed.” A visitor to Armenia-backed Nagorno-Karabakh (also called Artsakh in Armenian) would observe otherwise: there are mosques, albeit nonoperational, including one in the devastated “buffer zone” ghost town Agdam. What Simon does not say that all the mosques were actually destroyed, except for 2, one in Shusha and 1 in Agdam, and the one in Agdam was vandalized and used for keeping cattle[23] [24].
Also, there is REDFLAG statements in the article, which based on "someone told us", which are not verifiable at all:
1. Recounting his 2013 visit to Agulis, Burtin recently told Hyperallergic that he didn’t see “a trace of the area’s glorious past.” Burtin did not mince words to describe what he saw (or rather, didn’t see): “not even ISIS could commit such an epic crime against humanity..
2. “Oil-rich Azerbaijan’s annihilation of Nakhichevan’s Armenian past make it worse than ISIS, yet UNESCO and most Westerners have looked away.” ISIS-demolished sites like Palmyra can be renovated, Ayvazyan argues Abrvagl (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
It's neither self-published nor a newsblog, and while we need to comply with WP:NPOV, we can use sources that don't - although I am not seeing any evidence that this source is biased, and other reliable sources such as the Guardian consider the report credible.
Looking at your example, to demonstrate that this article is inaccurate, we would need reliable sources supporting the claim that all mosques in the region were destroyed, but neither of your sources say this - they don't even say that all mosques except two were destroyed.
As for the statements, sources aren't required to provide a citation supporting quotes they make. Do you have any evidence that those quotes - or other quotes - were manufactured by Hyperallergic? BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something obvious, the cited hyperallergic source does not seem to support the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century statement. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Well noted. Miss copied. Hyperalergic linked article states not even ISIS could commit such an epic crime against humanity.. The “ worst cultural genocide of the 21st century” is headlines from the other article. Abrvagl (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hyperallergic is a pretty decent source for art and art-adjacent topics. This is an art-adjacent topic. Calling something "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" isn't a statement of fact, but an opinion, so obviously it needs to be attributed. One of the things we can look for to evaluate WP:WEIGHT of such an opinion is whether it's mentioned anywhere else. In fact, the guardian and the la times have both picked it up. A google search for "worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" yields several other results which seem to be based on the Hyperallergic article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hyperallergic might be decent source for arts related topics, but with all respect, it is NEWSBLOG which biased and not reliable for politics-adjacent articles, and mentioned articles are political related. Abrvagl (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • “the greatest cultural genocide of the 21st century” comes from a Guardian article, reporting the Hyperallergic article and actually attributing these queries to Hyperallergic’s writers. The fact it’s being reported by a big third party proves the reliability of the Hyperallergic article. OP hasn't demonstrated any valid and relevant policy-based reasons to think otherwise. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think Hyperallergic should be treated in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. When it covers the WP:ARBAA2 articles, its opinionated statements should be avoided there. Especially since Hyperallergic describes itself as "a forum for serious, playful, and radical thinking about art in the world today" (emphasis mine). The claim of "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" is a clear example of this and should be dropped even if attributed. Brandmeistertalk 18:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    • The claim of "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" is a clear example of this and should be dropped even if attributed
    Why exactly? No, not even clear to me, far from it. Please elaborate and give a policy based valid reason why Hyperallergic isn't reliable / shouldn't be used when all the indications show otherwise? “the greatest cultural genocide of the 21st century” comes from a Guardian article reporting the Hyperallergic article, again, the fact it’s being reported by Guardian proves the reliability of the Hyperallergic article. Honestly, I've yet to see a valid policy based reason as to why this article can't be used when big third parties quote its writers [25], [26]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    I tend to agree. Some other sources call it cultural genocide too [27] and it was called as such at the floor of the European Parliament [28] so I think it can be mentioned. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hyperallergic never posted even a single article to the favor of Azerbaijan, or at least considering Azerbaijan side[29]. Some clear examples of Hyperallegic being bias and not neutral when it comes to Azerbaijan related articles: Shushi’s Occupied Museums, A War Over Patterns, Symbols, and the Cultural Heritage of Karabakh’s Carpets.
    Let me put it this way. Correct me if I am wrong, we are saying that articles posted on the NEWSBLOG[30], owned by the active Armenian diaspora members, who hold anti-Azerbaijan position(Hrag Vartanian[31],[32],[33];Veken Gueyikian [34],[35]) which written by the propaganda warrior Simon Maghakyan, who hold anti-Azerbaijan position[36][37][38], and who works for ANCA, which holds anti-Azerbaijan position[39], are neutral and reliable for the WP:ARBAA2 articles. Are we? Abrvagl (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    How many times you have to be told that Hyperallergic isn't a "NewsBlog"? I feel like I told you this 10 times already in Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage, and you received the same answer here as well. This constant repetition leans to WP:CIR already for all I know.
    Correct me if I am wrong...
    Do you think you know better than The Guardian [40], La Times [41], Foreign Policy [42], European Parliament [43] who discussed / wrote articles about this topic or quoted Hyperallergic writers in their articles? Do you think that linking random twitter posts without even quoting them, with your own commentary, is going to change this reality? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Is My Jewish Learning a reliable source for Beta IsraelEdit

This article [44] is used over 70 times as a source. Its article is a journalist.[45]. The article seems to be a magnet for pov editors, but that's another issue. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have concerns regarding the accuracy of the information sourced to this article? In general, scholarly sources are considered more reliable. Alaexis¿question? 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alaexis yes I do, because it's not a scholarly source nor written by a specialist. But the issue is moot now, as this was some sort of reference vandalism. An editor's only edit added 3 sources to the article multiple times[46] despite the fact that they don't discuss the text they reference. Damn, a big cleanup. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The London Economic interview with Gary Delaney for his articleEdit

Is this following 2015 interview with standup comedian Gary Delaney at The London Economic (www DOT thelondoneconomic DOT COM /entertainment/tle-meets-gary-delaney-10627/) reliable for biographical information added to Delaney's Wikiepdia article (specifically: where he went to school, his odd jobs before becoming a comedian, and his residence as of 2015)? That info has already been in his Wikipedia article for some time, but the url is dead, and while there is both a live url and an archived version at the Internet Archive, I can't change it because it's on the blacklist, and I'd like to add it as an exception, if possible, to the whitelist. I couldn't even include the url in this post for the same reason, so I had to write out portions of the url in order to convey it here. Nightscream (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of the Oxford scientist about a medieval scholarEdit

Hi, i would like to know if this article constitutes a reliable source when it comes to Avicenna's contributions. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  • No. That is a short essay written by a high-schooler published in a (university) student-run magazine. That's hardly the type of source we should rely on for history or medicine. The numerous grammatical errors, the redflag claims, and lack of citations in the essay, do not engender trust either. Abecedare (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Right - he probably got it all from Wikipedia... Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Many thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

List as generally unreliable?Edit is a self-proclaimed 'setlist-wiki' where users submit data for live shows and their setlists. It is a violation of WP:USERG, and is used in numerous articles (see here). It would be helpful for to be listed at WP:RSP like discogs is, to reduce future use.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists the site as unreliable, with a very short discussion here. The site's about page states the following, "Anyone who likes to share their knowledge about setlists is welcome to add and edit setlists". Here are a few random examples of the source being used in articles: ref 5, ref 20, ref 2, ref 11. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsure if this has to be an RfC to be added to the list, if it does, please let me know  PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it has to be an RfC, so I'll go ahead and do so. If this is incorrect, feel free to revert. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC) RfCEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for live show and setlist statistics
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for live show and setlist statistics
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources?

PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Its a wiki so Option 3. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Option 3 per Slatersteven. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • No need for an RFC, this is clearly WP:UGC (aka option 3). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 obviously but yeah, there's no need for an RfC here. If you're adding information about what an artist played live, that has to come from a source such as a reliable review of the show. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Headbomb and Black Kite: Should I withdraw the RfC? I thought it needed one since Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and had one, and they're all the same clear-cut WP:UGC.
    Also, the top of this page states "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using an RfC". I'm requesting for the site to be listed as generally unreliable, and it is pretty widely used. I'm unsure what else I should have done so the site could be added to WP:RSPPerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    @PerfectSoundWhatever: is de facto deprecated (per our WP:RS policy). Is anyone questioning its unreliability? M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'll withdraw the RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raping and killing a 1-year-old in Ukraine as alleged by Ukr. politician and reported by Daily Beast and Yahoo NewsEdit

Hello, I'd like to know if this article and this article constitute reliable sources for the purposes of inclusion of these contents. Please refer to this discussion on the talk page. The points under discussions are the following ones: 1) Did "Daily Beast" and "Yahoo News" exercise some kind of independent journalist oversight over the allegations of war crimes made by Ukrainian ombudswoman Lyudmyla Denisova? Are they reliable secondary sources, or are they just the bullhorn for the primary source? 2) Allegations of war crimes made by ombudswoman Denisova are per se sufficiently notable in the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? 3) War crimes alleged by ombudswoman Denisova, if not independently documented, are sufficiently verifiable? Based on the answers to these questions, the editorial issue is Option 1: publish or Option 2: not to publish that According to the ombudswomen a 1 year old boy died after being raped by Russian soldiers in a village near Kharkiv. A dozen other reported victims includes "two 10-year-old boys, triplets aged 9, a 2-year-old girl raped by two Russian soldiers, and a 9-month-old baby" who was raped in front of his mother. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the Daily Beast and Yahoo News are sufficient as sources for the fact that she said it. The way you speculate about them being just the bullhorn for the primary source sets off alarm bells in my head - that logic could be used to instantly disqualify any source reporting any statement by anyone and isn't grounded in policy at all; part of the purpose of an WP:RS is to decide which quotes and claims are noteworthy. That is to say, if an RS is acting as her "bullhorn", that is an appropriate editorial judgment for them to make and is enough to satisfy the bare minimum for inclusion. It does not necessarily require inclusion - whether they are WP:DUE is another question which has to be decided by comparing the weight of this quote to the weight of what's already in the page; I do tend to agree that it's worth being skeptical about including genuine but incendiary or exceptional claims and quotes reported in reliable sources - but "they're just reporting what she says" isn't a meaningful WP:RS objection. And this isn't the appropriate place to ask about due weight issues - try WP:NPOVN. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Even at their most depraved, no one rapes a 1 year old. This is very WP:UNDUE, and very likely a fabrication/exaggeration. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Without commenting on the actual issue here, I'd just like to say that I wish I shared your optimism about humanity. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. The thing about Yahoo News is that they seem to rewrite news from other sources, which tend to be reliable. In this case the source seems to be the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and the Ukrainian ombudsman, which, rightly or wrongly, are being accepted as reliable on war crimes in Ukraine in 2022. There have been quite a few allegations of rape, although I hadn't seen these in particular, and they are particularly spectacular. I would at least verify the sourcing of the articles, just because; ie did they really say it. I'd be happier if the caliber of the sources was better. These are acceptable sources, but not extraordinary as these extraordinary claims would seem to require. Yahoo is rather mediocre and Daily Beast rather sensational, if usually accurate for a certain definition of accurate. As to Headbomb's comment, I would suggest that rape in this case most likely involved penetration with an object, at least for the smaller children, and at the risk of sanctimony point out that rape is about violence, not sexual attraction. TL:DR: reluctant yes, sort of. And my sympathies are with the Ukrainians, mind you. I think the elaborate gory detail may be rather undue, and have some BLP concerns if these kids live in small villages. Sure the identifying detail may already be out there, but should we ourselves memorialize it? Triplets is pretty specific. Personally I think I would say something about the ombudsman reporting multiple rapes of children, some very young. Elinruby (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
(a bit later) on re-reading I see that the Yahoo story at least has been filtered through the Twitter feed of Iryna Matviyishyn, a reporter for the Kyiv Post and a respected journalist, which improves my opinion of the Yahoo article's reliability. I still have UNDUE and BLP concerns however. Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aquillion My "bullhorn for the primary source" was actually a verbatim quotation from a discussion we're currently having about TASS (here at RSN above), my point being that just like TASS merely echoes statements by politicians without scrutiny because TASS is politically oriented (they're government agents), so popular newspapers may report shocking statements because they are oriented by marketing purposes.
I'm not claiming popular newspapers are lying, but they could be reporting the ombudswoman's statements without scrutiny because they lack motivation; and the ombudswoman herself could be reporting army officers' allegations without scrutiny because of lack of motivation, and the army officers could be reporting someone's allegations without scrutiny for the same reason. The question is: should we report them as well without scrutiny? Even without official propaganda inputs, all wars create incredible tales that are nothing but the consequence of the real trauma - no mean intentions are needed. But the standard of Wikipedia should be higher than that: New York Times, BBC, CCN, Times, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeiner, Corriere della Sera, they don't publish news about 1-year-old raped by the Russians. Should we?
With regard to sexual violence against children, I suggested we publish "On 13 May UK representative to the UN said that there were credible allegations of sexual violence against children by Russian troops [CBS]. The issue of sexual violence against children had already been raised by human rights activists and Ukrainian authorities at the beginnings of April [CNN]" I'm also perfectly fine with Elinruby's suggestion ("On 19 May Ukrainian ombudswoman Denisova reported multiple rapes of children, some very young"). By the way, her post on Facebook (the primary source of all this) was removed by Facebook, as she explains here and can still be read on her Telegam channel here.
Final note: on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine this is a recurring problem. For weeks we've had an intercepted phone call, released by the Ukr. army, where a Russian soldier tells his mother that he likes torturing captured Ukrainians, recalls the heroic behavior of Ukrainians who, even under the most horrific tortures, do not submit to the invaders, and mummy reacts positively claiming that "Ukrainians are not people" and that she herself would be "high" in such a situation. Source: "Ukranskaja Pravda" and the "Mirror". So we editors there need some clear guidelines from this noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian Pravda is reliable, or so I was told here when I asked. Presumably *their* source was the Ukrainian military, which doesn’t make the claim necessarily true, but Pravda is being treated as reliable enough to correctly quote the Ukrainian military. They should be attributed. Given the level of disinformation the Russian population is subjected to, I don’t find this one all that extraordinary. This particular claim has circulated quite a bit though and it would be good to find a better English-language source than the Mirror; surely one is out there. I can’t keep British tabloids straight but I remember not being impressed with that one.Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: wow. Thanks for that, which would seem dispositive, as a) this is a reliable source and b) specifically mentions a waiver of privacy, so... much as all this disturbs me, I withdraw my earlier BLP hestitation, @Gitz6666:, and on second thought, for a war crimes article, it probably is not UNDUE. A war crime this definitely is. Elinruby (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why this last source would be dispositive. Nobody actually doubts that Denisova said "a, b and c" in a Facebook post, later delated by Facebook and published on Telegram. Ukrinform says what the Daily Beast says: she made certain detailed and serious (but also extraordinary) allegations on social media. Neither Daily Beast nor Ukrinform verified or corroborated in any way a, b and c - they're just reporting that she said "a, b and c". So, should we publish?
If the answer is "yes", on what basis should we refrain from publishing the (equally detailed, serious and extraordinary) claims frequently made by Russian National Defense Management Center head Colonel General Mikhail Mizintsev about Ukrainian forces using hospitals, schools, residential buildings and churches for military purposes without first evacuating people? These claims are reported by TASS, and TASS is fairly reliable as far as declarations by Russian authorities are concerned; in terms of independently verifying the claims, TASS is as useless as Ukrinform and the Daily Beast. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Nobody cares what the deranged Facebook bots deleted. The difference, to AGF that you are asking in good faith, is that the Russian government has a huge history of actual fabrication, not to mention claiming they aren't doing what they clearly are doing. Do you have *any* RS repeating these claims? That's what I thought. Elinruby (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
So after all your criterion is "we trust the Ukrainians". There's no point in quoting all those UNDUE, BLP, NPOV of ours, we should say it openly and make the life of us editors much simpler: we trust the Ukrainian government, that's it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Scroll up and see the RfC about TASS on this page. Elinruby (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This is an NPOV issue. Normally, you'd expect such WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim to be covered by multiple mainstream sources. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Ukrinform and Kyiv Post are mainstream. It is *not* an NPOV issue. Two government agencies say this and it should be attributed, but the RS are more than sufficient. Elinruby (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian, the BBC, Al Jazeera and the likes are mainstream sources (Ukrinform and Kyiv Post are not). AFAIK, the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim is not covered by multiple mainstream sources, therefore, making this a NPOV issue. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I've explained to you a few times now that other languages exist and see no reason to punish my carpals to go through this with you again. Elinruby (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I won't sink to your level. Please, do me a favour and refrain from replying to my comments. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not replying to you. Just pointing out that you have a history of disparaging sources that are not in English. Mainstream != in english. I have heard this from you at least three times since the invasion began, and in my experience ignoring you doesn't work either. Elinruby (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) (comment reinstated after being removed by M.Bitton with a misleading edit summary)
The claim that a polyglot could possibly look down on non-English languages is ludicrous, but what else to expect from someone who has a history of making baseless assertions? M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
A *history* huh. I suggest you explain that to me slowly at my talk page, or I might take that as a personal attack. Meanwhile, I just struck the comment about the edit summary. I didn't go back far enough in the edit summary to see that you changed your comment before I replied, so it probably seemed true to you. The beta feature I am using to avoid edit conflicts let me choose not to overwrite you, but somehow it only knew about the earlier version. So I do apologize for that, but meanwhile I await with bated breath an explanation of this history you speak of. And I don't know why anyone would disparage non-english-language sources (note; sources, I said sources...) but you do seem to do so consistently. Or is it just Ukrainian? In any event, I am trying to apply reliable sources guidelines. I am sorry you don't like them. Note: *this* is a reply. Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Since you used the word first, you take it however you wish. The rest of your unwanted comment will be ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: as per WP:GLOBAL, I disagree that only WP:RS like the BBC are WP:MAINSTREAM enough to cover these claims in an WP:NPOV way. Just like little known Rappler is MAINSTREAM for the Philippines, Kyiv Post is MAINSTREAM for Ukraine, and even if they are determined to be WP:BIASED for/against their governments, it would only affect how we use them to cover such claims, perhaps requiring attribution. If the BBC and other western sources don't cover these claims at all, then there will likely be an issue identified with them, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, and whatever the issue/s are - if//when identified - they may/will be covered too. Considering that HRW and Amnesty have reported that war crimes like these are taking place, I strongly oppose your evocation of WP:EXTRAORDINARY in relation to the Ukrainian Ombudsman's claims. Saying that Elinruby has a history of making baseless assertions is absolutely a WP:PA and completely inappropriate. Please strike your remarks otherwise I will have to ping administrators here. CutePeach (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@CutePeach: The sources "with an apparent conflict of interest" are mentioned in WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Since you think that their comments are appropriate, you're more than welcome to ping whoever you like, or better still still, take your concerns to the appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
"An apparent conflict of interest" does not extend to simply being of the same nationality as the two government agencies making the allegation, especially with in-text attribution. Especially when one of them is the agency that would prepare the court case. We have RS that she said this, she is an official who is an expert in what she is saying. To question this is to question the validity of the democratically elected Ukrainian government. Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the use of any WP:RS, Western or Ukrainian, covering the Ukrainian Ombudsman's claims of war crimes, be them true or false. WP:INTEXT attribution may be required till the ICC makes a ruling on these cases. CutePeach (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed as per CutePeach Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Beast and yahoo news are reliable sources that the claim has been made, but cannot be used as sources that the event actually happened. The fact that the story has not received wide attention means it lacks significance for inclusion. The UN special representative for sexual violence in the area says the report has not been confirmed. That's probably why major mainstream media have not reported it. TFD (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
nod. nobody is questioning the need for attribution. I originally had BLP concerns because we are talking about child rape and small villages, and triplets is pretty specific. However, the UKrinform source provided by My very best wishes specifically mentions a waiver of privacy for the cases it mentions so this to be means that for at least the cases that it covers, so I changed my mind about whether the detail might be undue Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Are NTD and vision times legit source?Edit

I really want to know if news media such as NTD (New Tang Dynasty) and Vision Times are legit source or not? I heard they are run by falun gong practitioners and often known for their baised anti-China news. Though NTD claim itself a quality source in its website and abt Vision times there are not much info available on google. Can they be trusted as far as entertainment is concerned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arorapriyansh333 (talkcontribs) 04:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe NTD news excluding politics are generally reliable. As for politics, they are biased. An unimportant person (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Biased does not equal unreliable. Are they fabricating stories?Slywriter (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Should be treated the same as sister publication WP:EPOCHTIMES (which is deprecated). - MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. As part of a consortium with the Epoch Times, I would treat is as unreliable without some very convincing evidence to the contrary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Now that I can support.Slywriter (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep, that is correct: Highly unreliable. It's yet another Falun Gong media entity, just like The Epoch Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok i'm now confirmed. Thank you very much.. Arorapriyansh333 (talkcontribs)


Has anyone run into this source before or have an opinion about it? The context is Timeline of the war in Donbas (2014), where it sources a claim that police did not respond to pro-Ukraine protesters being beaten. Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't find much information about them. Their chief editor Olga Khudetska has been quoted a few times by other media outlets, including once by the Ukrainian edition of BBC [48]. It's clear that it's biased towards one side of the conflict but probably it can be used with attribution. The claim in question is hardly extraordinary. Alaexis¿question? 11:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Not extraordinary, no, but perhaps contentious. Maybe not at this point, but certainly more likely to be so than Girkin's origins, which are in the same paragraph (cited to something else) but are pretty much established fact. I guess if I don't hear otherwise I will leave it as long as it meets verifiability. Than you for looking. I didn't find much either. Elinruby (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Rosalie Slaughter Morton's date of birthEdit

I'm trying to figure out which of a handful of sources to use to cite the date of birth of Rosalie Slaughter Morton, and in particular whether we can find a source which is both reliable and gives the (likely correct) date of 1872.

Recently published secondary sources largely state Morton's date of birth as 28 October 1876, e.g. Dictionary of Women Worldwide and The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science, so that's what we wrote in the article.

A short while ago I came across this historical marker, placed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, which listed her date of birth as 1872, so I was curious and contacted them to understand which sources they used. The reply I received today stated that Morton "listed 28 October 1872 as the date of her birth when she applied for a passport in 1898", was "listed as an eight-year-old in the 1880 census", and "the social security death index on Ancestry gave her birthday as 16 Oct. 1872" (note the different date in the last source). They say that following her marriage, Morton began to use the year 1876 in official documents (including the marriage register and her passport and immigration materials), and that people changing their ages isn't uncommon in their experience.

It seems that 1872 is most likely to be the correct date of birth, and the VDHR are quite certain, but I'm left wondering which source to use. Is the historical marker a reliable secondary source? Or is one of the primary sources acceptable? Thoughts welcome. Sam Walton (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Are European observations of Raj era about population distribution reliable ?Edit

Recently some of my edits related to Duars(now BTR) about population distribution of the region were removed by an editor because the author refers to works done by European officer-scholars. Reasons given by the editor is here Talk:Bodoland_Territorial_Region#problematic_text. In fact, Britishers were involved in the Duar war or Anglo-Bhutan war. So, in my opinion, The author referring to works done by officer-scholars then can't be problematic. What do you think? Thank you Northeast heritage (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F. The consensus is these sources are unreliable. Read the last two comments by Boing!_said_Zebedee and Itsmejudith. Pinging Sitush and Fylindfotberserk for visiblity. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Obviously these are unreliable, as well as newer sources that have copied those or are largely influenced by them per WP:FRUIT. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Fylindf... was already pinged by Chaipau in Talk:Bodoland_Territorial_Region#problematic_text and both of them have opposed my edits based on WP:RAJ . But WP:RAJ is all about castes/races and Our discussion is not about castes and races. Author writes about population distribution based on Political mission to Bootan (by Eshly Eden and others) and Francis Hamilton, An Account on Assam, p. 67; A Mackenzie, op. cit., pp. 9-10. This is purely historical, nothing to do with WP:RAJ. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree with the consensus as per archived-discussion highlighted by Chaipau. I was neither discussing castes nor using any old sources. And we can't impose our assumption on any sources. Francis Hamilton is a well-known primary source and Political missions to Bootan is a collection of multiple reports. I am not any scholar to prove or disprove that these sources belong to the racist, casteist and biased category. I've seen these sources being extensively used by well-known scholars and I've not come across a negative review about them. So, We can't assume and impose any claim on these sources. Northeast heritage (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, I am being understood. Thanks Northeast heritage (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Especially in the case of this part of the Indian subcontinent, such sources are not entirely reliable, but we may need to use them because they are literally all we have. Anything drawn from them should be given with the source, not stated as fact. The 19th-century population of what is now southern Bhutan became a very live issue some dcades ago, with the Bhutanese refugees crisis, & I went to a conference years ago where these sources were being argued over, in the absence of any other records from the period. I hadn't seen the 2014 discussion, but don't really agree with it. Frankly the same biases are if anything stronger (in different directions) in most modern sources, so where does that leave us? Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Johnbod: I think we should not be using these biased sources at all in Wikipedia. It is OK for scholars to use them critically, as some linguists working on Boro-Garo languages are doing (especially Francois Jaquesson). But if we let uncritical scholars keep transmitting these old sources, as Das has done here, we end up transmitting not just the old biases, but also wrong information. (WP:FRUIT). In many cases, we do have alternative sources. Chaipau (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There is another removal of cited text because the text use "Duar" term which was also the name for the same region in past. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
How can you say Das is an uncritical scholar. She had done a comprehensive study about the region. You've assumed to claim - her to be uncritical, you've assumed to claim - data on population is suspect. If Wikipedia agrees with your assumptions, Surely this long discussion will not be fruitful to me. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The sourcesEdit

To clarify,

  • the Political Mission to Bhutan is a collection of four narratives based on missions by colonial representatives in the years 1815, 1837-38 and 1863.[49] The mission that is relevant here is the one from 1863.
  • This was reported without critical remarks in a PhD thesis by Smriti Das (1998) [50] (p27).

The source is more than 150 years old, for one. But that is not the primary problem. The ethnic ·reporting used here is about a region that was under the control of the Bhutan government at that time, not the British. The failure of the political mission led to the Anglo-Bhutan war (1864-65). Thus both the intention of the author as well as the reliability of information conveyed—ethnic composition of a foreign land—are suspect.

Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC) (edited) 15:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Claiming the sources to be based on suspect is another suspect. So-called foreign land referred by Chaipau was part of Koch kingdom or at least the inhabitants (Kacharis and Meches supported by Historical chronicles) supported Koch kings and had good relation with Koch rulers. Bhutan was able to conquer up to Gohain Kamal Ali, Thus there was a conflict between Bhutan kingdom and Koch-Ahom kingdom. So, They were very much clear about population. Also, there was no fixed boundary and standing army, people were free to cross boundaries, of courses, European travelled up to the capital of Bhutan then, that's why they were able to discuss the issue with Bhutia kings. European had written about Bhutia also, leave alone tract between Bhutan and Gohain Kamal Ali, where there was no proper government at that time. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
A 150 year old source would not usually be reliable. However, a PhD thesis from 1998 is reliable, as it would be the critical reflection of a modern scholar. The implication of your argument here is that no document based on primary sources from the Raj era is reliable, and therefore no modern scholarship whatsoever is acceptable dealing with this period. This is clealry a flawed interpretation. As far is it goes, Das's thesis is almost certainly a reliable source, and the inclusion of claims she/he makes should be discussed at the article talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue: I have indicated the problem with Das's thesis. Many modern scholars today regurgitate old ideas. If we let these regurgitated facts in, we end up using the old unreliable information (WP:FRUIT) Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Old information doesn't mean unreliable and New information doesn't mean reliable. Information are verified by scholars and published again and again. Yes old sources are unreliable because we discover new things with time. It's quite funny, If we consider old information to be unreliable, there will not be any history. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a specific reason to consider Das's PhD thesis to be unreliable, related to it specifically rather than the concept of history in itself? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the specific reason—Das is just regurgitating what Eden said.

  • Eden writes (1864): The whole of this tract is inhabited by Meches and Kacharis, the only classes apparently able to live there in consequences of the atrocities of the Booteahs and the malaria generated in these vast jungle tracts...[51].
  • Das writes (1998): The tract was formerly inhabited by people, called Meches and Kacharis, the only classes apparently able to live in these malarial zone in consequence of the atrocities of the Bhutias. [52]

In other words, Das is just paraphrasing Eden. So you can't even use a construct such as "According to Smriti Das..." in Wikipedia and quote the thesis because that would not be true. The ghost of Eden is speaking through Das here.

But continuing with what Eden writes betrays the imperial intentions which makes this claim by Eden suspect. He continues: ...the malaria generated in these vast jungle tracts, which though perfectly healthy if cultivated, are year by year becoming depopulated through the short-sighted policy of the Bootanese Government... Obviously, the reason why Eden is setting up the situation in this way is because this tract of land could be settled by farmers and used for revenue generation. Nitasha Kaul writes (2021): I argue that the British annexation of Duars did not proceed from the Eden Mission, but rather the Eden Mission proceeded from the British desire to annex the Duars, a policy that existed for years before the 1860s[53] (p325).

Chaipau (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem with paraphrasing? Does this prove the old (original) information false/unreliable? Are you saying - she should have manipulated the old information? She considered it worth mentioning, thus she took it and she gave credit. Are you saying - she should have manipulated the old information? This can't be an issue. This information fits in historical context, thus she took it. If you infer anything from WP:RAJ, it's WP:FRUIT. Please, use WP:RS to argue. Show us something recent which refutes what Das mentioned. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This is how academia works. You read an older source, and if you believe it to be true, you state in your own voice that it is so, giving credit to the original author in a footnote. This is why she paraphrases. It is exactly what we do on wikipedia! Boynamedsue (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry I do not agree. I am intimately familiar with academia and nowhere in quality work have I seen a primary source just quoted without quotation marks (as if plagiarized). Even Wikipedia wants us to write a claim in our own words. It is impossible that the duars were inhabited only by the Koch and Mech peoples. There were Bhutanese from the mountains and other plains peoples. These were domains of the Goalpara zamindars. The Darrang Duars were shared between the interesting, because the Ahom kingdom controlled it for a few months in a year and Bhutan for the rest. This is given in Das (1998) itself, in the same chapter where Das parrots Eden. The simplistic picture painted by Eden is false. The information contained in the same chapter in Das is enough to contradict the sentence plucked from Eden. Chaipau (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
She doesn't use the exact words, she paraphrases and cites. That is not plagiarism. Below you state that you consider Das to be reliable, in which case this discussion should be moved to the talkpage of the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Q: Das's advisor J. N. Phukan does seem to a recognized specialist in Assamese history, but is there any indication that Das's thesis, Assam-Bhutan relations with special reference to duars from 1681 to 1949, has been republished by an academic press, independently reviewed, or cited positively by later scholars? Note that those are some of the factors outlined at WP:SCHOLARSHIP when considering whether a dissertation should be cited, which should always be with care. A search on JSTOR, Google scholar and Google books didn't bring up anything relevant. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This has been published, it seems, by Anshah Publishing House (2005).[54] This is a good work, in general, and I was the one who inserted it and used it in the article.[55].
Nevertheless, I am concerned that many of the scholars from that part of the world very often repeat Raj authors, myths, legends, etc., without any critical remarks. I was under the impression that WP:RAJ took care of that situation—that we assume Raj sources skeptically at first and accept them only if they are critically accepted in recent scholarship or are reasonable. This would allow us to use recent scholarship without the bad portions tainting the entire work. Das's work is one such example. Eden's writings are basically the groundwork for the coming Duars war and was in portions either partially true on totally false. There are also instances when these outdated and incorrect work get used for pushing political POVs. I wonder whether we need a wider discussion on this. We have had a number of such issues in the past.
Chaipau (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't agree because our discussion isn't about ONLY people (Koches, Meches, Kacharis in all duars and Meches and Kacharis in tract between Bhutan and Assam) who lived in the region and ONLY is not my addition and the context has been unnecessarily changed into politics. Eden et. al had written about what they had observed about people of duar region. Tribal regions of old times were very different from what we see today. Different tribal groups lived in different regions that's why in northeast places were/are known as Garo hills, Khasi hills, Naga hills, Kuki hills, tripura hills, Kachari duar, Cooch Behar etc. Also, When a region became part of some kingdom then that region mightn't necessarily be inhabited or occupied by the people of the conqueror kingdom. Regions were conquered to collect taxes, control trade etc. Imposition of today's politics won't change History. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Just like Raj-era scholars are known to have political motives in their interpretations, Similarly, so-called modern scholars of Assam or India aren't free from political motives. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not a scholar. I won't be able to counter so many assumptions (which, I think, We shouldn't discuss as per WP:OR or WP:FORUM). I am getting a headache. I won't be able to take part in this discussion anymore. Thank you all. Northeast heritage (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I would suggest this discussion should be closed. The question here is the Reliability of the cited work, Which is Das's thesis. Chaipau states they consider this thesis to be a reliable source, therefore the discussion of how it is used in the article would be a matter for the talkpage of the article in question. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree that the issue is about the reliability of Das's thesis alone because (1) the sentence in Das is almost identical to Eden's, and (2) other sections in Das's chapter seem to add other ethnicities. Though this might seem like a hair splitting, we would like some general consensus on how this type of situations should be handled, since they appear more often than not. I would like to seek abecedare's comment on whether there exists a need to handle the issue of questionable information passing through sloppy scholarship in otherwise reliable sources here. If there is, I shall tag some additional editors who have faced similar situations in this area. If not, we may continue this in the talk page. Chaipau (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
In that case, you should start a new discussion, unconnected to this particular instance. What you really want to know is "can any source which accepts or repeats claims made by British writers living and working in India during the raj be considered reliable for that information?" The answer is, of course, likely to be "yes, on many occasions it will be". Boynamedsue (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Not true. The Raj claims on ethnicities, by default, are not reliable.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F I have pointed this out a number of times here and in the talk page. Chaipau (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Anadolu Agency legit source?Edit

Hi, I would like to know if News agency such as Anadolu Agency is reliable source? Please refer to discussion on the talk page.Aye1399 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It is in WP:RSP, two entries, I'd start there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


Before I go and wipe out references across 200 articles, I figure I should confirm my suspicion that is not a usable source as it is user-generated.

example - [[56]]

Slywriter (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"A centralized Public Relations Management (PRM) platform to help your team build media relationships, collaborate from anywhere, and measure success." sounds eminently wipe-able. Per WP-philosophy you should make some effort to replace while wiping, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that their page for journalists ("Muck Rack provides free tools to help journalists like you automatically compile and showcase your portfolio...") is further evidence that Muck Rack should not be regarded as a suitable source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Official Website of an OrganizationEdit

Hi, I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so please forgive me if I am doing this wrong.

I am looking to start a page (an article? idk) about a non-profit organization that I am a part of, and I am just wondering if the website of that organization would be considered a reliable source for information. The organization is North Texas Performing Arts and the website is If I am allowed to, I would probably use this website as the main source of information for the article. Alligator023 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Alligator023

@Alligator023 Welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. We do not have pages for organizations, we have articles about notable topics. The fact that you are part of the organization means you have a conflict of interest and cannot be trusted to write neutrally about that topic. The organization's website is not an independant source, and independent sources are required to demonstrate notabilty. That said, self published sources are considered reliable for some uncontroversial facts about an article subject - but they should be used sparingly. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Alligator023 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


This article which appears to have been authored by multiple Bloomberg editors was turned down as being a source too closely associated with the company, i.e. a press release. Can someone tell me what is wrong with this source? M4DU7 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As there was an element of "crowd-sourcing" for this site (see, should it be regarded as unreliable? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It was crowd sourced to check OCRing and make some corrections, it wasn't crowd sourced to add net new information just perform error checking. While it's possible some errors could have slipped in, it was still coming from an reliable source. I'd say it's reliable unless evidence can be produced to indicate that the crowdsourced checking and correction of the OCR produced too high an error rate. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Dread CentralEdit

So the website Dread Central is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horror/Sources#Reliable_sources, but I don't see any editorial credits anywhere on the site. This to me is a big red flag. How do we know the site is reputable? Under what consensus was it approved as a reputable source? I've never seen any discussion anywhere in favor of or against it. There are no discussions on WP:HORROR's talk page, nor here on RSN. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've used this as a source on Ford Transit Custom, but does this count as WP:RS per your guidelines? They're basically a magazine on motorhomes, caravans, holiday homes etc. --Easteary861 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)