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

• Largely no - No visible editorial policy, a requirement of WP:NEWSORG. Zero citations (or discussion) by mainstream reliable sources or scholars. Not seeing any journalism awards. Etc. TrangaBellam (talk)
• Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  AshLin, target? By !voting that they are indeed reliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's patently obvious that that random US site that you challenged and then defended was thrown in for precisely this purpose when your targeted attempt to purge media sources targeting Indian women was predictable questioned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Drover's Wife, SheThePeople isn't a US site and I don't think TrangaBellam is attempting to purge media targetted at Indian women, at least not intentionally. They seem misguided and unfamiliar with women's media, which is unfortunately a systemic issue on here. For example, FII is much more established and higher quality than SheThePeople (both are reliable), but the latter has an article on Wikipedia and the former doesn't which is what I suspect is the root of their assessment. Anyways, I'd vouch for them conduct wise, having seen them around and request for people to instead focus on discussing the sources, which might be a good thing in the long run for sourcing purposes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you reiterate unsubstantiated accusations without knowing a damn about Indian media (random US site), you will be at WP:ANI for breach of WP:NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. This organisation conducts serious research which indicates expertise in the situation of women in India. It will likely often require attribution as it clearly engages in advocacy, and therefore opinion, but its reliability looks good. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• How do you gauge the reliability? Is my claim of Zero citations (or discussion) by mainstream reliable sources or scholars false?
• What about the specific case? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Very sorry, but you might have too many sites here. In my way of thinking, to have more than one is to strain other volunteering editor available time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, it certainly has an editorial policy, is cited by reliable sources (e.g, , , , , , etc) and employs subject matter experts. Reception from reliable secondary sources is also positive, Livemint describes their articles as "high quality" and Vogue describes them as an "award winning" organisation, among others. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Livemint is conflicted and for a seven year old media organization to accumulate four mentions in media don't inspire much confidence. Now I am not based in India and might be missing vernacular response.

  Tbh, I can't see a single case where their views would ever pass WP:DUE. Imho, The Wire, The Scroll, India Spend etc. do a far better job of feminist journalism without clutching at straws. The site is entirely filled with shallow ~< 500 word articles by post-grads. (1, 2 etc. for some of the strange ahistorical stuff they publish.)

  Anyways, how would you answer the specific question raised - do interviews in FII lend to notability?

  P.S. : Thanks for the first substantial argument. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  How is that Livemint article conflicted? I can also see dozens of secondary sources mentioning FII in 2021 alone. I can't say anything for that charecterisation other than that it's wrong, of course not all of their articles are useful on Wikipedia, some are opinion pieces like personal essays and advocacy calls which should be handled per WP:RSOPINION, i.e not used when written by post grads since as you say it would be undue. Otherwise their news articles are reliable, they have journalists (e.g; , ) and scholars (e.g; , , , , ) among their authors and quality pieces from guest authors (e.g; , ).

  For history, news sources in general are not reliable and you can easily find low quality pop history pieces from any mainstream media. Some of the new digital media may be better on history but they are an exception and not the rule.

  I don't think interviews specific to FII need a separate assessment, if there is some secondary coverage (usually present as an introductory paragraph) of a person in an interview than it can contribute towards non trivial coverage. So with regards to the linked article in specific, very borderline for notability. They are reliable for opinions and views of the person being interviewed but isn't independent. Non-independent coverage can be used as primary sources for content. On its own, it wouldn't be enough to demonstrate notability but can add towards meeting WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Tayi Arajakate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Note- Few months ago, verified twitter account from feminism in India tweeted that they have opened multiple accounts in Wikipedia to edit Wikipedia articles related to females. But they did not mention which accounts. But thos COI accounts still exist in Wikipedia. Feminism in India is like some social organization and not some reliable source. While they can have notability to exist as an article in Wikipedia, but their own website articles can't be used to as an RS to write other articles. --2402:3A80:1C42:5063:F889:E64C:C252:4C57 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Tayi Arajakate, and per the FII About section, "Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation has engaged FII Media Private Limited for the purpose of reporting and publishing stories of public interest. IPSMF does not take any legal or moral responsibility whatsoever for the content published by FII Media Private Limited on their website on any of its other platforms." Via the Media in India article and per The Indian Express this means it is funded by "the first concerted endeavour to fund online media ventures in a country where burgeoning mainstream print media and television firms are backed by corporate houses which is seen as a conflict of interest and antithetical to free and fair reporting", that also funds outlets including The Wire and The Caravan. As to the specific example, there is WP:SECONDARY commentary available in addition to the interview, so it supports WP:BASIC notability. As a side note, there is a pending Sulagna Chatterjee AfD nominated by TrangaBellam. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Beccaynr, IPSMF has also funded Swarajya, which has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. IPSMF funding proves or disproves nothing. User:Tayi Arajakate can add more details, probably. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, TrangaBellam, per WP:RSP and the IPSMF website - your statement in the AfD 15, FII is a glorified community-blog suggests their funding source could be a relevant consideration in this discussion. Also, FII was recognized for their work by the Digital Empowerment Foundation, received a Manthan Award, and an award from the WSA. Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it can tell us that the organsiations it has funded are journalistic endeavours with an editorial structure but not much more than that. Reliability for them in the end depends on what they do and a plethora of other possible factors, Swarajya for example is deprecated due to disinformation and malpractices such as doxxing, but sure it has journalists running it and it has an editorial hierarchy. Now FII hasn't been reported to have suffered from any similar issues (i.e misinformation) which would be detrimental to its reliability.

On a sidenote, IPSMF isn't really free of the influence of corporations. It's a non profit investment fund and has an independent board with journalists and academics on them but its backers are ultimately corporate actors. It's not unfeasible that they may be able to influence who the foundation funds even if they can't directly interfere in the editorial operations of the organisations themselves (or at least they haven't tried to do so yet, there are a number of lets say firewalls between them). Taking Swarajya again as an example, it has a fairly obvious (Kovai Media) connection to Infosys, one of the corps behind IPSMF though if there was intent behind this is speculative. Also note that some of the organisations it has funded have since disengaged from being their dependant, The Wire for example. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ambiguous No - Their homepage read:

  MAKERS is a media brand that exists to accelerate the women’s movement through stories of real life experiences that ignite passion and action. MAKERS India acts as a catalyst for positive change for the women’s movement in India. We aim to create compelling change through inspirational, positive storytelling of real-life experiences.

  Does not inspire confidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm not even sure what the argument that it isn't is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the retired banner from your user-page and then, re-read my quote. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Could you maybe stop being so unpleasant to people? It is unlikely to be productive.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• No case has been made that it might not be. Could this possibly be clarified?Boynamedsue (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TodayIFoundOut.com is an "interesting facts" aggregation website. It is extensively used as a source on Wikipedia. How should we consider its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

––FormalDude talk 08:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (TIFO)

• Option 3. Use with caution. Some of the entries cite Wikipedia as a source (example, click on "Expand for References" at the bottom of any article), and some don't. For those that cite Wikipedia, we shouldn't consider those reliable. For those that don't cite Wikipedia, we need to make sure that the author of the piece isn't synthesizing different sources to reach a conclusion. One doesn't see any in-line citations like we use on Wikipedia, so it's hard to tell which statements came from which cited source. If a fact found in TodayIFoundOut needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it would be better to find the fact in one of the sources cited, instead of citing TodayIFoundOut. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: well, let's start off by stating the obvious—something like this isn't a WP:MEDRS. Not all articles seem to have references—these are unusable. The ones which have references could be a good research starting point, but cite those references instead (after checking that they do verify the content you're writing, and that they're reliable). Based on this, most writers aren't going to be academics/experts in the topics they're writing about, which are very involved and complicated. Additionally, any kind of "random fun fact" website has a tendency to exaggerate, bend the truth and sensationalise in its presentation of material. Seeing that the exceptionally often wrong "Today I Learned" subreddit was an inspiration makes me concerned too. I can't see a case where I'd be happy to see this as a source. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 I don't foresee a situation where a fact is covered by TIFO and not covered by a better, more reliable source. They are a tertiary source that often times uses Wikipedia as a reference. It is full of BuzzFeed headlines and loaded language. ––FormalDude talk 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the comments above. Sea Ane (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (TIFO)

• Additional information about the source can be found here on their website. ––FormalDude talk 08:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nimer Sultany is an Israeli Palestinian native of Tira. He has two works specifically on Israeli Palestinian relations (2003)(2005) commissioned by the Haifa based Mada al-Carmel Arab Center for Applied Social Research. He later earned a Doctorate in Juridical Science (SJD) from Harvard Law School, reputedly the most advanced degree of its kind, and is now Reader in Public Law at SOAS. He is a regular contributor to the Guardian, and author of an award-winning book Law and revolution: legitimacy and constitutionalism after the Arab Spring (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Driveby editors mainly, almost none engaging on the talk page, are consistently reverting out an article by him in The Guardian where he correlated the crime problems in his native city to the effects of vast land confiscations. He is dismissed variously as 'an activist' (no evidence), 'not an expert on Israeli land issues', or on the grounds that it is POV-pushing to cite him. Several reliable sources on that page cite independently the fact that Tira lost two thirds of its land to Israeli expropriations, so all Sultany does is correlate social problems in his town with the effects of those historic confiscations. I believe his place of origin, his proven published work on Israel's Palestinian minority, and his acknowledged status as a legal scholar of the highest order justify citing him on this one point . The talk page discussions are here and 16. Neutral third party input on his RS-ness would be appreciatedNishidani (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He is of course reliable for his own claims as everyone that writes something in the internet but he is not expert about crime in Arab Israeli population and in Land confiscations we have no way to verify his claims as he bring no sources to his claims.If his claims were correct there were no problem to find in it in peer reviewed publications in this situation we can not use publication that was printed in op-ed.

I want to note the source about alleged land confiscation is sourced to another activist Sabri Jiryis that not academic and cannot be considered reliable either. Shrike (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment Sabri Jiryis is demonstrably an academic. His page links to a bibliography of 10 papers published in a peer-reviewed journal, so, at best, Nimer Sultany citing Jiryis is an academic citing an academic. Being an activist and being an academic are not mutually exclusive, and the fact that an individual is an activist does not automatically impune their reliability. What is the evidence that Sabri Jiryis is unrealiable? Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course Jiryis is an academic. He headed the Palestine Research Center in Beirut before its contents were confiscated, and the building destroyed by an Israeli car-bombing.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oped in Guardian's commentisfree. Not an article, an opinion only.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Even assuming that Nimer Sultany is stating pure opinion in his Guardian comments, the guidance at WP:RSOPINION is quite clear that statements of opinion ARE acceptable as long as it is clearly stated who the author is and that it is opinion. Nimer Sultany is still a notable academic, so referencing his opinion, while clearly stating it as such (as the page in question does), is totally acceptable. It is not self-published work, but is vetted by an editorial team at an independent news outlet considered reliable under WP:RS/PS. Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Expert opinion I have not been involved in that article but afaics "activist" appears derivative of WP:IDONTLIKEIT plus the usual shoot the messenger approach.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Opinion- from an OpED. Might be suitable for the article body, fully attributed and presented as an opinion, but not for unattributed statement of fact. Other than being an academic, what exactly makes him notable? Inf-in MD (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It was removed when the statement had attribution. Secondly these tamperings with the lead violate WP:MOS WP:LEAD summary style. We have a whole subsection on crime, and editors are removing its summary from the lead, simply because, among other sources, Sultany is used. I.e. pretext. Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

when I removed it, it was stated as fact in the lead: 17. It is now attributed in the article body, which is fine, but the fringe opinion does not belong in the lead. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you call his opinion 'fringe'? To call an opinion fringe, which suggests that it is somehow marginal and readily dismissed, you need to have a body of evidence indicating that the truth is somehow otherwise, i.e.: here, that the crime, poverty etc. are not linked to decades of land confiscation. NB: crime is extremely strongly correlated with poverty, so if decades of land confiscation caused poverty, all of this would be sort of obvious in the first place. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Being a Reader, which denotes an appointment for a senior academic with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship, in law (the subject in question) at SOAS, a world-respected academic authority on the Middle East, makes him notable. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of thousands of Readers or equivalent full professors in the academic word. The US alone has almost 200,000. Being one does not automatically make you notable.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is trying to write an article about him. I don't need to prove his general notability. He is a professor who is qualified to voice opinions, particularly in the area of law and criminality, and have those opinions heard. And, as a legal professor at a respected institution of learning, he can be reasonably expected to speak reliably. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is qualified to voice opinions, but when considering which opinions to include in article, we need to judge how notable they are. So again, what make him notable? He doesn't seem to satisfy any of the criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He would appear to satisfy WP:GNG if you’re considering creating an article... Why jump to a secondary standard when the primary is met? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you think he passes the general notability guideline? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for a lecture on neuroscience? I’m not really qualified to tell you how I think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he passes the notability guideline, and you have not explained why he does. have at it. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean why and not how then? If you had asked for that I would have explained why to you: I googled him, there appeared to be more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I googled him as well -he has less than 30,000 results, and most of these do not appear to be independent of him - his bio at SOAS, his twitter feed, articles that he's written for different outlets. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you have examples of that? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Expert opinion, this is an opinion and should not be used to support an unattributed statement of fact but as an opinion its usable. Sultany is certainly a subject matter expert, not really sure what the challenge to that is and his opinion is certainly notable or else The Guardian would not keep publishing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Expert opinion - included as an attributed for an academic expert. Notability has nothing to do with reliability, and per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Sultany is such an expert. nableezy - 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  No he's not. He's not an expert on the subject of Crime in Tira, nor has his work on this topic been published by independent reliable sources. Inf-in MD (talk)

None of the sources you introduced to write up a section on Crime in Tira (newspapers) are written by 'expert(s) on the subject of Crime in Tira'. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually the field is criminology and crime among Palestinians in Israel. And here is a paper published by Israel Studies Review that is focused on that topic. nableezy - 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and I didn't present them as such - they are mainstream newspapers and media outlets like the BBC, that are considered reliable for facts, unlike editorials. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sultany wasn't editorializing. The page shows (and will show with several more sources) that land confiscation was massive. Sultany meentioned a known fact, and as a legal scholar native to that city correlated the crime wave to the strangled ghetto imposed on its inhabitants who once were 3000 on 30,000 dunams of agricultural land, and now are 25,000 hemmed into 8,000 dunams. There is nothing odd about that inference,- scholars do that- especially coming from a scholar who, unlike journalists, knows the city's history intimately. The most recent police report by Israel is that it is connected to diffuse unemployment and lack of prospects. That is an inference, and we reported that, attributed, as we did with Sultany. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please. His article is clearly labeled "Opinion", on the Opinion pages of a newspaper. The one Nableezy found now is a different matter - that might actually be usable. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please yourself. But I only took this here pro forma, since the answer is obvious. You are challenging the use of Sultany in The Guardian, where he states precisely what he states, in more theoretical detail in the article cited by Nableezy, i.e.,Nimer Sultany,The Making of an Underclass:The Palestinian Citizens in Israel Israel Studies Review, Volume 27, Issue 2, Winter 2012: 190ff. Now you say we might use the latter, but not the former. Huh? The only difference is, The Guardian mentions Tira. Everything else in the academic piece underlines what he states there, and three editors found intolerable to assert with regard to Israel, as opposed to everywhere else in the world, that poverty, land loss, correlates with crime. Since there is no difference, other than the use of Tira as a concrete article, it stands to reason that the Guardian article is usable precisely because it mentions the town our article deals with, as opposed to the theoretical article you prefer. Of course in this chess match, were one to accept your advice, and use Sultany 2012 and suppress the Guardian, an editor will then challenge the former, as you know well, on policy grounds, as WP:OR since it doesn't mention Tira. The games people play. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

and if you had produced this academic publication to begin with, instead of pretendign that an OpEd is not Opionion, or that any PHD or professor is automatcially an expert on any topic, we could have avoided this entire exchange. I think that publictaion is perfectly usable. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Accept the verdict of your peers. On four pages you have, virtually unsupported, exhaustively repeated your views, against a majority that can see no substance in them. This is tedious. Like replying to you that you expect me to scour everything Sultany has written 'to begin with' (I will add several sources presently to the page, which I have read and that took a half a day, while I have seen you quote nothing but googled newspaper clips 'Tira'+'crime'. This place is an encyclopedia, not a social forum or a screening medium to filter from view things one dislikes reading about.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So you were making things up when you said that he is not an expert in this field? Huh. nableezy - 01:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Highly qualified subject expert, which is all that needs to be said on the matter. Zero^talk 04:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite, I'm now thinking that there should indeed be a dedicated page for Sultany expanding on his subject matter expertise and listing his full bibliography. Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I've sketched one, but with all of these extenuating challenges to the obvious ('stasis by attrition') I've had little time to work it in to shape. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this used as ref at Shirley Brown (Florida politician). Per "The Political Graveyard is created and maintained by Lawrence Kestenbaum, who is solely responsible for its structure and content." it seems to be WP:SPS. Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Political_Graveyard, but it's used in quite a few WP-articles, though not necessarily in a BLP context.

Should it be considered RS for anything, and if not, should we do something about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think its really of any use to us, I don’t think we should treat it any differently from similar pet project grave finding or logging sites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The last RS post on Dexerto was from two years ago so I thought it'd be worth for their reliability to be reassessed now.

The article in question is PewDiePie and his pescetarian diet. PewDiePie has repeatedly mentioned his pescetarianism in videos before, but linking his videos mentioning it wasn't deemed reliable, so I got the only article explicitly mentioning his pescetarian diet from Dexerto: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/pew-die-pie-marzia-have-first-post-marriage-fight-minecraft-934791/. Even though the last consensus concluded that Dexerto was unreliable, I think that for a small trivial piece of information of something that has been confirmed by the person in question themselves, the Dexerto article is a reliable source, at least in the context of PewDiePie's diet.

edit: I'm not sure if this helps, but Yahoo Finance also mentioned them in an article earlier this year as an 'industry leading site (in) award-winning esports, gaming and influencer coverage, including news, interviews, reviews, opinions, guides and tournament coverage' here: ¹— Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeFan10025 (talk • contribs)

• Note – There is currently a discussion on this topic at WT:VGRS#Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo). — Pbrks (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Previously considered unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Dexerto. That their new partner fawns over them in a press release doesn't really change much. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the following a reliable source on the topic of Armenian terrorist organizations in 1970s-1980s?

Gunn, Christopher. Secret Armies and Revolutionary Federations: The Rise and Fall of Armenian Political Violence, 1973-1993.

I would appreciate third party opinions. We've had a discussion with fellow editors here: 18 Outsider opinions would be really helpful. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How does it meet our criteria? Google Scholar gives 2 hits, one a dissertation and the other seems to be a collection of conference papers but I can't read the language and have no idea in what context it's mentioned. Where is it mentioned in scholarly books? What makes Gunn an expert? I think WP:UNDUE covers this, it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, it really has to be a notably exceptional thesis to be used and I’m not finding anyone talking about it or referencing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used." I note the author is now an associate professor at Coastal Carolina University. But as with any source, the situation matters. TFD (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not where the period falls in that particular sentence, pretty sure its "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.” Which isn’t exactly saying the same thing now is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• His research, from what I could see, exhibits pro-Turkish bias (this sentence says it all: It is significant that the first attack of a terrorist group allegedly dedicated to extracting an admission of guilt from the Turkish government for alleged crimes against the Armenian people would be directed towards the World Council of Churches in January 1975 - see paper), and, as he admits in his paper (p. 103-115), the interpretation he proposes on that specific phenomenon is not mainstream, as he tries to pinpoint (p. 110) what he sees as flaws in the dominant narrative about ASALA and the Justice Commandos (A re-evaluation of the accepted origins of these Armenian groups exposes inconsistencies in the standard narrative and invites an investigation into the “deeper roots” of Armenian terrorism suggested by earlier scholars.). His endorsement, sort of, by the Turkish MFA to discuss 1915 also makes me wary of him. Mention with attribution, conserving appropriate WP:WEIGHT (that is, the pro-Turkish standpoint). Please also find other sources mentioning the murder, which Gunn does not mention but whose interpretation is more prevalent. If you can't do that, better not cite it at all because of NPOV concerns. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Christopher Gunn is an Assistant Professor of History who focuses on Middle Eastern Studies and political violence. And @Szmenderowiecki:: having an alleged bias does not necessarily make someone unreliable if they are an expert, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It would be better to use formally published articles that stem from the dissertation work (individual chapters are often published as separate journal articles), such as perhaps this, this or this. Otherwise the dissertation could be probably used sparingly, so long as it is not used to verify outlandish claims, nor lend undue weight to any subject or opinion. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  WP:BIASEDSOURCES does not cover the cases when said sources, explicitly or implicitly, engage in denialism. That's going more into WP:FRINGE territory, which is not covered by BIASEDSOURCES. Btw, since we strive to get the best sources available, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements"; I cannot vouch for this source's impartiality. The article, however, does not strictly discuss the events of the genocide, but rather one of the episodes inspired by the Turkish denial thereof, so yes, the paper is OK, but no, I can't allow it alone, because this view is, by author's admission, minoritarian.

  Strictly on the question of reliability of Gunn, I'd say: with reservations due to strong bias, therefore, attribution seems best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I do not intend to use Gunn on the topic of Armenian genocide. But he does use the term "Armenian genocide" as well, for example in the sentence: "The literature in English on the organizations this research will analyze, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the armed wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), alternatively named the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) and the Armenian Revolutionary Army (ARA), and their violent campaign against Turkey to achieve the recognition of the Armenian genocide..." But I'm looking for more sources to discuss individual terrorist acts, and in particular Assassination of Galip Ozmen. We know now that the assassination was perpetrated by Monte Melkonian. But his version, presented by his brother, is obviously aimed to present himself in a better light, i.e. he claims that he shot children by accident. This version is presented in the article. Gunn provides also a different view. Basically, there are 2 versions. Quote from Gunn: Melkonian claimed that he was unable to see who was in the car because of its tinted windows. The State Department report, based on eyewitness accounts, stated that assassin waited in front of Özmen’s home, watched the family get into the car, and then attacked. I cannot verify State Department report, entitled “Turkish Diplomat Assassinated in Athens; Armenian Secret Army Claims Responsibility,” ATHENS 08453, Aug. 1, 1980. If someone could, it would be really helpful. Alternatively, I wanted to attribute the claim to Gunn, but some editors objected. Which is why I decided to ask the community for their opinion. Grandmaster 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  This report is neither available to me, but if you want to cite the State Dept report via Gunn, I see no problems with doing that (but you might probably look for some AP reports, for example, as they might include some of the information). It is just I'm afraid that this source might be easily misused, as I outlined earlier.

  There must be more resources expanding on that murder - citing Melkonian's brother is OK but it would be better to supplement it with third-party scholars who analyse Melkonian's actions; and by that I don't mean Gunn only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that Armenian terrorism is a very little researched topic. There are books like Francis P. Hyland. "Armenian Terrorism: The Past, The Present, The Prospects", 1991, or “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, by Michael M. Gunter, 1986, but Gunn's is the most recent research, which takes into account new information that emerged since 1990s, such as declassified CIA and FBI files, memoirs, etc. I cited AP and UPI reports, but they don't go into much detail. I think best would be to cite State Department with attribution to Gunn. Grandmaster 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  That wouldn't appear to be the case as Gunn talks about "the standard narrative", "earlier scholars" etc., which would imply that the topic is well-researched but that the author thinks the guys were wrong in the cause for the terrorist attacks. In any case, there's some more info on the murder: 19, 20, 21, 22

  The topic is researched quite extensively in Turkish, but I don't speak it, and Turkish sources IMHO should be dealt with extra care due to the official position of Turkey of genocide denial, which tangentially influences how they speak of i.a. the activities of Armenian terrorist groups (i.e. terrorist attacks due to the will to revenge for Armenian genocide vs. terrorist attacks for claimed repressions and mass murders against Armenians in 1910s that never were, the latter of which seems to be Gunn's position). But for simple factual assertions, including for quoting the State Department documents, I see no reasons not to cite him. It's just any conclusions about the intent, or causes, that we should be careful about. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'm familiar with those sources too. They do not add anything new, because de Waal and Kiesling simply quote Melkonian's book, and Hyland is from 1991, and Feigl from 1986, and since then a lot of new information became available. As I said above, there were only 2 dedicated scholarly researches on the topic, and Gunn's work is the latest one. Others, like de Waal, only touch upon the terrorism in the context of general Armenian-Turkish relations. But I agree with you Gunn could be used to state facts about particular terrorist acts, and terrorists organizations. To me, the work appears to be very well researched, and peer reviewed too. Grandmaster 08:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As an involved editor in the discussion started here, I don't see a clear consensus that Gunn is even reliable or not to begin with, and OP is "thinking" that we should cite State Department with attribution to him? Gunn claims he quotes from the state department, if Grandmaster can cite those State department papers, go ahead and add please. Other than that, my opinion is that Gunn isn't a reliable source attributed or not, especially on contentious topics related to Armenia and Turkey: per this discussion, and per fellow editors in here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• 'Comment The alleged bias in the source seems to be that it categorizes the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian Revolutionary Army as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. These groups killed scores of Turkish diplomats and their family members as well as bystanders. They are universally referred to as terrorist groups in mainstream literature.

They had three demands: recognition by Turkey of the genocide, compensation and Armenian independence. The fact that these were laudable goals or extensive support from the Armenian diaspora does not mean that one cannot question their methods or write about their activities. This is no different from writing about the IRA, PLO or Kurdish groups that engaged in terrorist acts.

The thesis is a reliable source, per policy, not because of who wrote it but because it was vetted by experts. That makes it more reliable than say an article by a reporter with a journalism degree.

When the author referred to alleged crimes, he was referring to a 1975 article in the New York Times that presumably used the term or similar wording. At that time the genocide had far less recognition than today. But he uses the term crimes without qualification in the Historiography section on p. 10.

TFD (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see your argument here. At least from my standpoint, they were terrorists for all intents and purposes. But the source he quotes in the paragraph in the research paper on the very similar topic, which I quoted and added emphasis to, says "Ibid., 12. See also Department of State Telegram, GENEVA 6267, USMISSION GENEVA to SECSTATE WASHDC 5186, and August 11, 1975" (ibid. refers to "Popular Movement for the ASALA, ASALA Interviews (Great Britain, April 1982)"). NYT does appear in the following paragraph but only to cite the number of Armenians emigrating from USSR, not to echo the tone of coverage at the time. Nor does the usage of word "crime" in the sentence was the successful transfer of responsibility for the crimes of 1915 to the entire, collective population of modern Turkey imply he recognises it, as the sentence sums up the few pages where he describes the efforts of Armenian diaspora to shift the genocide blame from the Ottoman govt to Turkey and the Turks (or that's what he writes). He does not say "yeah, the genocide happened, but the guys were evil and terrorists and so on".

I also don't agree with the argument below as it does not really answer the question about reliability for events in 1970s-80s, not 1915. Nevertheless, some quite evident bias is seen throughout his scholarship and not the one that could be justified by reasonable differences of interpretation of sources. He frequently cites Michael Gunter, who also holds non-orthodox views on the Armenian question (essentially, bothsideism), even as he is the go-to scholar for the Kurdish question. I don't believe Gunn's dissertation to be totally out of whack, however, at least not to the degree that would warrant its dismissal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even for the research paper's topic, Gunn shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Gunn's writing is very sensationalist and more closely resembles yellow journalism than a research paper. Examples: "these death sentences came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (65), "it is now clear that Armenian activists cared very little about whether or not their targets were men, women or children, let alone whether or not possessed the capacity to defend themselves" (83), "the diaspora would now support the assassination of any Turk and that carrying out these death sentences made one an instant hero, whether or not the victim was a diplomat, spouse or even a child" (108), "Melkonian proved that the hate instilled by Armenian propaganda campaign was enough to justify the murder of Turkish children" (122), "including the targeting of children" (277), "death sentences for Turks came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (321).

For how much he tries to champion them, Gunn seems to have no problem residing in and accepting money from a country founded on the murders of millions of civilians, women and children included. But I digress. Unlike Turkey, ASALA never ordered the deaths of spouses or children, and Gunn provides no citations for any of these. He should also be aware of this if he's reading the sources he cites.

Gunn also blames the invasion of Cyprus entirely on Greeks and makes no mention of Turkish imperial ambitions. Ironically, Gunn even mocks someone for mentioning Turkish troops shooting women and children: "One Greek-American constituent of Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY) lamented the “’heroic’ exploits of the Turkish paratroopers, who upon landing in Cyprus opened their automatic weapons upon helpless women and children”" (123).

For someone like Stanford J. Shaw, who is universally discredited as a historian and openly known to have had connections to many Turkish institutions, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative". Yet Gunn calls George E. Danielson a "staunch, faithful and solid ally of Armenian nationalists" (122). When does a biased source cross the line to an unreliable one?

Gunn writes that Gourgen Yanikian was "deranged" (321) and makes no mention of him being a genocide denier who lost 26 family members. Gunn implies his motive was "adulation and glory" (321). This goes far beyond bias, it is outright falsification. His dissertation contains too much lies, bias, and distortions to be considered of any value even for 1973-1993. --Steverci (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your opinion, which you expressed on talk. But none of the quotes above show any bias. It is quite obvious that ASALA resorted to indiscriminate violence, and would kill anyone who stood in their way. There cannot be any argument about that, it is enough to see terrorist acts like 1983 Orly Airport attack or Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack, the sole purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible, including children (who actually died in Orly). If someone plants a bomb at the airport or fires at passengers with machine guns, it is quite obvious that the perpetrators do not care who they kill, the only purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Yanikian being deranged is supported by official sources that Gunn quoted, which also show that his story is very dubious. I see no evidence that Gunn took money from the Turkish government. And you have no problem with citing Gunn selectively, like here: 23 You say you have no access to this source, but because Gunn quotes it is Ok to use. But when Gunn quotes the US State Department, he is unacceptable to you. How is that possible? The source is either reliable, or it is not, it cannot be used selectively to support only one narrative. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as intentionally targeting children the same way as politicians were, as Gunn dramatically claims multiple times without evidence. I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously if you're going to claim the "sole purpose" of the bombs was to "as many civilians as possible" for the fun of it, never mind any Turkish crimes against humanity. Even Gunn doesn't make lies that outrageous. The example you linked is not comparable because we have an Armenian source (Melkonian) and Turkish source (Gunn) confirming he was a spy. This is why biased unreliable sources can still be useful in certain context. Just look at Gunn's Linkedin page to see who is paying Gunn. There is not a single reliable source making the "deranged" claim, which is exclusive to Gunn and possibly other Turkish sources, and there are more reliable sources saying otherwise. Officially, the court ruled that though he would permit evidence of "impairment of his mentality ... going to show a diminished capacity," he would not permit "any evidence of straight insanity". Further proving Gunn intentionally censored information that would hurt his Turkish jingoist narrative, further proving his unreliability. --Steverci (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how any crimes against humanity could justify planting bombs in airports and indiscriminately killing civilians, including children. And yes, that was intentional targeting of children by ASALA, because terrorists knew very well that there were children among passengers. I see nothing on Gunn's Linkedin that would indicate that he is being paid by Turkish government. And Yanikian being deranged is information taken from FBI files. He was clearly a sick individual, who killed innocent people. Grandmaster 07:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Provide a source that ASALA hoped the bombs would killed children, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Gunn admits he spent years in Ankara and Antyla and was supported by Turkish "academics" and politicians. All claims of insanity are obviously just Turkish slander in an attempt to 'delegitimize' genocide victims. The only sick individuals are the ones Yanikian shot. Quote the FBI files or it's just more of Gunn's propaganda. --Steverci (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not include in any article that ASALA hoped to kill children, it is just a fact that they killed many children. For example, in Orly they killed 2 French children, Melkonian shot Turkish diplomat's daughter, etc. Facts speak for themselves. When indiscriminate bombing and shooting is used, it is quite obvious that they deliberately endangered lives of children. There is no point in arguing about that. Studying Turkey requires traveling to Turkey, it is logical, and it does not mean that the researcher is not independent. And you can do your own research and check the files that Gunn quotes. You have no problem using him as a source when it supports your narrative. Grandmaster 08:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The subject wasn't those killed in bombings though, it was assassinations of diplomats and other politicians who were specifically targeted. Gunn uses sensationalist language to imply children were targeted too, when they weren't. If Gunn wants to use undue sources, then he should be treated as an undue source. Simple as that. Narrative has nothing to do with it. As Animalparty suggested, Gunn's only possible use could be for non-outlandish claims, if that. --Steverci (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable I wanted to point out that Gunn using the term "genocide" does not make him any less of a genocide denier and a negationist in the slightest. Gunn cites various well-known genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, and Stanford J. Shaw. On Shaw, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative" which should leave no doubt Gunn is, like these predecessors of his, just another Turkish-funded propagandist pretending to be a scholar. Turkish historiography has become more sneaky in recent years, often trying to sneak in genocide denial more subtly, and feigning an innocent guise of "neutrality" when called out. From the words of a historian:

Again, after decades of being exposed for their lies, Turkish institutions made the decision to be more deceitful instead of being more truthful. Turkish sources that show the slightest hint of historical negationism should be immediately disqualified as reliable. --Steverci (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the source is not about genocide, it is about Armenian terrorism, and it is intended for use only in the articles dedicated to this particular topic. I haven't seen any real argument that could question the reliability of this source in connection with terrorism. Grandmaster 07:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please summarize/close this discussion? Do I get it right that the general consensus among uninvolved editors was Mention with attribution? Grandmaster 21:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that Gunn is a very biased source promoting almost entirely undue claims, and that the only way he could be cited is for things he wrote that aren't universally disputed, for which in most cases there are better sources that should be used instead anyway. --Steverci (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It would good if someone uninvolved closed this. Grandmaster 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the reliability status of The Illuminerdi? Their content includes interviews, reviews, and "exclusive" content (which is generally casting information from their "sources"). I have noticed that a lot of their content has been correct. For example, they revealed the casting of Jameela Jamil in She-Hulk hours before it was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter. I wanted to know if it was reliable before citing it because its name seems a bit iffy. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MCURS states the site is not reliable. Not sure if there was a formal discussion somewhere, but that's probably the best place to look further. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned about newsblaze.com, a website that is being used in an article. It seemed harmless at first, but when I went to its home page, today's headline stopped me cold: "Biden Administration Kills 10 Afghan Civilians Including 6 Children." Describing itself, the website writes "NewsBlaze is the alternative business and world news newspaper..." Regardless of one's politics (I have no political party affiliation), I find the content on this website truly biased. In a story on global warming, the website states "Sadly, Global Warming proponents have control over (America's) education system..." The website comments on religious issues, as well, saying American Jews are not like pre-Holocaust European Jews whom the website described as "defenseless and a prey to inculpable hate." It continues, "The Shield of David is the protector of the House of David. It is also fundamental to Judeo-Christian culture, embraced by the Founding Fathers, a part of Americanism." And, "Today, the Jewish kids are influenced by social media. They face BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) activists and anti-Semitic professors while others say nothing. To the people who founded Shield of David 'Never Again means Taking Action Now!' They are out to instil <sic> Jewish values of pride ... To share Judeo-Christian values. To come together under one big tent, one that the Biblical Jewish Patriarch Abraham personified and would be proud of." The website also had an article touting the voter fraud disinformation perpetuated in the U.S. presidential election. All of the quotes were taken from news stories, not opinions. Not every story is obviously biased, but it permeates through the site. I hope this is enough information to get you started on determining whether this source should be green-lighted, yellow-lighted or red-lighted. It does not bill itself as a right-wing or left-wing site, but claims to be a balanced news source, and that is only one of the reasons it causes me concern. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• We shouldn’t be using NewsBlaze.com for anything besides about self etc, they would be a solid red light on that scale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• 360 uses in article space, that's a terrible site we shouldn't be using for anything. I find I can't read it in a web browser, it keeps auto-reloading the page - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• This paper classifies it as misinformational. It shouldn't be used as a source at all and ought to be depreciated if there's serious dispute over that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC below - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

AFK Gaming, the website that provides eSports news, seems pretty reliable to me. Please provide clarification.

I propose it to be added as a reliable source for Video games, i.e to the:

WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports
or maybe
WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming

Website URL: https://afkgaming.com/

VG/S is a WikiProject construction, so best to post on the WT project talk to update that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the Latin American left progressive news site Resumen Latinamericano, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Resumen Latinamericano (English), at https://resumen-english.org , is an online Latin American news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (RL)

• Option 2 or 3. This seems to be a news aggregator, mostly. Most of the articles have a source listed at the bottom, indicating that the article is republished from somewhere else. In that regard, it would be best to go to the original source, and there is no need to cite Resumen Latinamericano (for example, this is sourced to Black Agenda Report so it would be best to use that source, not Resumen Latinamericano). An exception might be citing Resumen Latinamericano for the English translation of a good article published in a different language elsewhere (possible example). There are some articles that originate with Resumen Latinamericano (example) and those are decent sources that Wikipedia could cite when they consist of reporting and not opinion. There are examples of articles published elsewhere without disclosing the original place (for example, this on Resumen Latinamericano is identical to this on Dissident Voice as if the same author belongs to both publications), and these would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Most of the articles are from other blogs and do not cite any sources, Not reliable at all. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a news site, quoting sources, as would be expected in an academic article, would not usually be a requirement. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 The original magazine is in Spanish here, the English page is much newer and seems to be simply a small scale extension of the Spanish original. The original Spanish magazine is quite widely cited academically. The English site seems to have less content, but should be assumed to be similarly reliable until proven otherwise. Of course, both sources are opinionated sources, as is every news organisation which talks about politics, so we should always be aware of potential biases. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. As pointed out by Boynamedsue, the Spanish version of this publication is almost three decades old. and appears to fall under the category of reliable, as so many similar international publications are treated on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Pyrrho the Skeptic: But it isn't really a "publication", it's a re-publisher of other publications, mostly. They have some original content but that's a small proportion of it, as far as I can tell. Are you making a blanket judgment about all articles they republish regardless of the source, or are you referring to their own content? Their own original content does seem OK, from what I have seen. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The site seems to be a small subsidiary of a Spanish website/magazine which is clearly RS. Even if it does republish articles from elsewhere, their selection should be assumed to have undergone the same checks that were necessary to publish in the Spanish site.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  That isn't a safe assumption. I am not seeing evidence that what they republish is being curated for reliability, particularly since they republish articles from outlets that are mouthpieces of authoritarian governments, which are generally regarded as unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2/3: Almost all its articles are aggregated or translated from elsewhere. If the originals are reliable, cite them; if not, don't cite. For instance, the most recent pieces are from alainet.org (Agencia Latinoamericana de Información es), DeWereldMorgen, People's Dispatch, REDH-Cuba, Cubadebate.cu and Granma. None of those are fake news sites, but they are all highly partisan and strongly affiliated with Communist parties and governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. At very least, clearly attribute to the original source, and acknowledge partisan positions and state links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: Articles are translated, edited or written by RL staff. Most of them are translations from other sources, and are marked as such (see byline, and especially source at the end of the article). If an article is a translation, prefer a citation of the original article, assuming it's a reliable source. In short: in most cases you should be citing the original sources, but pieces directly written and edited by RL may be usable. MarioGom (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RL)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Columbia University tunnels is fraught with non-RS, but the one I'm concerned with at the moment is untapped new york. Should UNY be considered a RS? We have a bunch of articles that cite it on various topics, so I'm interested in the general case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• It has the reliability of a city guide/travel operator. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what that means. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It means that while it could be adequate for non-contentious claims about landmarks, anything it says about their history or the history of the city should be treated as hearsay until proven otherwise (using RS). M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

      OK, thanks. I'm going to take this as not RS. Digging deeper into the untapped article, it seems to be largely based on a Columbia University wiki, which in turn cites Wikipedia as its source. So citogenesis for sure. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain 24? tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It is WP:RECENTISM because, the govenrnment had to backed down their decision as it back fired on them. Now chemical fertilizers can be used again. There is political opposition to that decision, therefore it might change when the goverment changes. Furthermore, theprint.in don't seems like a reliable source or a maintream media. The Hindu only briefly mentions the chemical fertilizer ban, nothing on biological agriculture policy. And Why a subsection needed for such small topic?--Chanaka L (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chanakal: "Sri Lanka walks back fertiliser ban over political fallout fears". France 24. 5 August 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021. says the walk back is only partial: urea remains banned as fertilizer.

ThePrint is an online newspaper, that does not mean it is dodgy journalism. I do not know RSN precedents for it, I will search for them later. The Hindu is in green at WP:RSP.

About ThePrint I found this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248:

*Established and edited by reputed journalists, passes WP:RS per WP:NEWSORG.

• Quite a lot of opinion pieces but objective reporting is equally abundant.
• I note a clear distinguishing between opinion-pieces and objective-reporting.
• Left-biased but as long as you avoid the opinion pieces, quite-well-enough to be used as a RS for meeting WP:V.If the opinion pieces are used, please abide by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.∯WBG^converse 11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Also reported at Jayasinghe, Amal (1 September 2021). "Sri Lanka organic revolution threatens tea disaster". Phys.org. Retrieved 6 September 2021. © 2021 AFP

Drawing the line: ThePrint, The Hindu, and AFP are 3 (three) mainstream news sources. Are we on the same page? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, this is primarily a content dispute about WP:due weight, and not about the reliability of the sources to support the information, as can be seen from User:Chanakal's edit summary and reply here. This should be discussed in the article's talk page first. –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ozroads

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Survey: OzRoads

• Oppose listing. It's unreliable as an WP:SPS, but we don't need to list every tiny SPS on RSP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: OzRoads

OzRoads appears to be a WP:SPS stating: Ozroads is purely a hobby site, created and maintained by myself. Is commonly used as a cite in articles in this category with its validity periodically questioned. Thought it prudent to have it assessed by uninvolved editors. Uaterlou (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't see that is qualifies as an RS. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 12-13 year old sports and Esports news website Sportskeeda, should be included as a reliable source to WP:VG/S. The website is immensely reliable. I propose it to be added to

WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming, or
WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports

Website URL: https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports

• I'm going to say this isn't a particularly reliable source. Given that they have an "FAQs for writers" page, I think much of their content comes from independent contributors with no clear credentials or authority, making it at best no better than something like Forbes contributors. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for swift reply. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No further arguments or discussions from my side. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Sportskeeda has been deemed generally unreliable in prior discussions. See 1. IceWelder ✉ 09:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I am currently editing Draft:List_of_Genshin_Impact_characters, but finding reliable sources has been a challenge. I resorted to using the "Wiki" section of IGN, as IGN is listed in the list of generally reliable sources for content relating to video games. However, I am not sure how much of IGN is considered reliable, and whether IGN's Wiki section is a reliable part of IGN or not. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

its a wiki, so no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's unfortunate. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't you use something like this? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! The website does look good and provides factually correct information, however I am not sure if "Androidcentral" is considered a generally reliable source here. --KingErikII (Talk page) 19:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe it is. It is listed as reliable here, and the publication has a full editorial oversight staff. Feel free to use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that! Thanks for your input. :) --KingErikII (Talk page) 09:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Would github be considered a reliable source? My guess would be no because github is mainly user-generated content, but I just wanna make sure as someone requested a source to be added and the source was for github. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Github itself isn't a source, it's just a place for people to create accounts and upload code and other stuff. All content is entirely user generated. If it's GitHub documentation itself about Github as an entity or service, maybe, but otherwise no. The only reason I can think of is X provides the source code for Y on GitHub. Maybe A code does B, but I think that would be better to have a third party reliable source make the statement about what the code does rather than the, possibly, original research of reading the code and making the claim. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does "someone" have a name and is it possible to say what the suggestion was? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

They don't have a name (as far as I know) because they're an IP. THe suggestion is on Talk:Genshin Impact Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that suggests there is some modifications being made by that code, makes a suggestion that there is a security concern but it's not evidence that one exists. Would need a reliable third party source, not someone's code on GitHub about a problem that may or may not be confirmed to exist. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright cool. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: pinging Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends on a given WP:RSCONTEXT. I would generally discourage its use unless you want to make very specific statements verifiable. I would also strongly recommend to read previous discussions concerning Github:25 AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It definitely depends on a given WP:CONTEXT and also the other criteria of RS, one can ignore the venue. I would suggest that some repos might have a good reputation within their technology niche or show the RS criteria of ‘editorial’ control and third party reputation - perhaps the MS Azure docs, or the Google flutter, or Redhat Ansible. Otherwise something might be a suitable RS dependent on the reputation of the author, or by third parties referring to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for stating that some software exists, or a specific version was released on some date, or a change happened. It's not a RS to confer notability on software, or a coder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I agree with my fellow @Walter Görlitz. The Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) should be shown by sources of more higher quality in order to avoid violating WP:OR. At best, they shouldn't be first-hand reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Think this is confusing the question of whether something deserves an article WP:GNG with the question here of if something on GitHub is usable as WP:RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• GitHub is user-generated content repository, and most of its contents are "primary sources". It is sometimes a good source to add a reference to the release date of the latest stable version, for example. MarioGom (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I read of some interesting non-software uses, such as data visualization, legal postings and other documents, e.g. Obama campaign documents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd treat it similarly to blogs and social network posts - reliability depends on the author, and assume WP:SPS. Useful for WP:ABOUTSELF and some other uses, but with care. François Robere (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a RfC on two sources as per discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valknut_(software)_(2nd_nomination) The first source is https://www.linuxexpres.cz/ , with Gtranslate it claims that it is a magazine, but I would like your input. I used it for this verifiability26.

The second source I support being a reliable source but would obviouly want your RfC, Ubunu Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com . It is only edited by people at Ubuntu and not open to general public. It is meant as an authorative guide for Ubuntu users and a guide for anything related. --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• 1) Ubunu Wiki is not RS since it's a wiki that is is open to all to edit. 2) So called "online magazines" line linuxexpres.cz are a dime a dozen and usually not RS. In this case, the article in question is a blog. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I didn't realize ubuntu wiki was openly editable, so I undid that edit. But could you guide me how you knew the other link was a blog(personal record) and not a news entry(it is not the directory name I assume). --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: The directory structure is what led me to their blog portal (please read the third paragraph of its lead section). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a blog (ISSN 1801-3996). "The blog on our portal is not intended for those interested in blogging ... It is the way in which editors and authors communicate with readers, or inform them about what is happening around the portal." That is, the blog is a house organ which isn't subject to editorial oversight as are the articles; para. 3 explains the differences. The mag is looking for new authors 27; it's a paid gig if you know a little Czech. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, that was hasty. Linux Expres isn't a blog but it does include a blog, and Greatder is linking a blog post, not an article. The clue is "Blog" in the breadcrumbs (I assume that's what was meant by "directory structure"). Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk