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.

Is the Healthline website a reliable source? I couldn’t find it on the RSP. Thanks Wolfquack (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly not for anything of medical significance, no. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). As for anything else, you'll have to be more specific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump No I was only wondering if Healthline in general is considered reliable by WP standards. Though I will admit I was vague about it. Wolfquack (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, Healthline is almost entirely medical content and he said that it can't be used for "anything of medical significance". — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 22:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that not finding it "on the RSP" means nothing. Reliability is always and only assessed by WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and other WP:PAGs, and it is expected that every person editing Wikipedia is competent enough to assess reliability, and permission is never needed to do the right thing. RSP is not a list of all sources in the world, only those that have been controversial enough for us to have discussed them frequently. Don't look to it for any permission or denial. Just assess the quality of the source based on what you know to be the standards, and if it meets those standards, you can use it. If it doesn't meet those standards, don't use it. --Jayron32 11:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 Ok, thank you for explaining (: Wolfquack (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Healthline is definitely not WP:RS and could never be used to support any health, nutrition or medical content on Wikipedia. Their model of writing articles is to present one person - who may be a dietitian, nutritionist or blogger with a MS degree - as the author of articles that have been "medically reviewed", as if such people were medically qualified (they are not).

Among numerous examples is this article on blueberries, proclaiming such nonsense that blueberries are a "superfood" or are "mighty", are "loaded with nutrients" (they have meager nutrient content, as shown here), have diverse and extensive anti-disease effects, and on and on with abundant misinformation, as shown in that deplorable article. Zefr (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr Haha LOL, not surprising that a media company like Healthline would say that! Thanks for the response. Wolfquack (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Head Topics is a tabloid-esque celebrity media site that, for some reason, is used rather extensively throughout Wikipedia. Ground News lists their factual record as "mixed" and compares them to Fox News or the NYP, both are Deprecated sources. They don't have an about us section on their website, and I searched around and can't find anything about their staff or editorial process. Could anyone give me more insight into them and if they are a reliable/major source? Scu ba (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would rate Head Topics as completely worthless as a source. Although the site has an "About Us" link at the bottom of its front page, the link just redirects to the front page with no content about the site. The front page also has an illiterate description of the site: "Head Topics, publish breaking news of all around the world. Local headlines and stories are HeadTopics.com immediately." As far as I can tell, all of the Head Topics' content is copied directly from other sources, which if they are reliable should be cited directly (rather than to the copy appearing on Head Topics), and if they are unreliable should not be cited at all. Furthermore, Head Topics prominently features on its front page both content that is intended to be true and also satirical content from The Onion. For all I know, Head Topics' editorial "staff" could be an algorithm rather than a human editor. Any citations to Head Topics on Wikipedia may need to be replaced with better sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? Specifically, it is used on Battle of Wadi Saluki, I haven't come across this site before, and it seems as if it is just Israeli soldiers view of the matter?

Specifically, it is used to source this sentence in the info-box:

• Result: Israeli Victory , Israeli troops succeeded to cross the river.

That seems to me a bit simplistic to me, seeing that the Israelis lost 33 soldiers. And this article in Haaretz presents a different view. Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't have thought so. It's an AI research company and the research is likely being pulled together by AI and data analysts, not written by actual historians or military analysts. Now the book they reference, Battle of Wadi Saluki : August 11-13, 2006 : 2nd Lebanon War Written by Efim Sandler, may be and that's a different issue. If it is then that should be the reference, not this pulled together piece. However a cursory search suggests Efim Sandler is ex-IDF and therefore not entirely neutral in this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 22:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how they'd be reliable for anything outside of claims about themselves. Per CT above, as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources,” with red flag examples of “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources,” and “Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.”

Claims of alternative authorship by Paul Gilley of songs traditionally attributed to others have been inserted in multiple pages, Cold, Cold Heart, I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry, Crazy Arms, I Overlooked an Orchid, and They'll Never Take Her Love from Me.

These claims have not been covered in mainstream sources, and what coverage they have garnered are scant in both number and details. The two main sources for the claims are a book by Chet Flippo, Your Cheatin’ Heart (1981), a fictionalized biography of Hank Williams, and a self-published book by an athletic-coach-turned-local-historian, W. Lynn Nickell, Paul Gilley: The Ghost Writer in the Sky (2012) (good luck finding a copy). All other coverage, including a 2013 piece by a Kentucky public television station, derive from those two sources. The few critics who have weighed in express skepticism about the claims. 1 2 3

My question is this: are these sources sufficient to warrant a mention in the above mainstream articles? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Following the relevant discussion on Hank William's talk page by Tom Reedy and Binksternet, I see the issue in the same vein as the claims regarding Williams' ancestry (also previously discussed). While I think in both cases Tom Reedy has a good point, I see also why a mention of the mere existence of the claims may relevant to the readers. Looking forward to reach a consensus.--GDuwenHoller! 17:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty weak and anecdotal. Wikipedia should follow the sources, not lead them. If the mainstream articles do not give the matter any coverage, why would Wikipedia, based solely on a single, obscure source? The distinction between "fringe" and "minor but still important" is always how believers in the fringe theory cast issues. Fringe theory promoters want to have their theories included in Wikipedia, as it's seen as validating and legitimizing the claim. That calls for taking a conservative approach rather than including even poorly sourced and speculative claims. For that reason I'd recommend omitting this claim unless there are additional high-quality sources. Bomagosh (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Your header misrepresents the situation by promoting your definition of the issue as "fringe". The situation at Wikipedia is that you call it fringe, and I call it a minor but still important issue which has been discussed in multiple sources, including Hank Williams historian Bill Koon who was open rather than dismissive. Koon offered praise to Chet Flippo for discovering this aspect in his research. The Paul Gilley songwriter controversy has been in the literature since 1981, and it has been revisited by media observers several times since, with a big boost in 2012 with the Kentucky historian Nickell writing a book about Paul Gilley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)

What are the good sources for this claim? Nickell is self-published; we can't use that except for Nickell's opinion, unless it can be established that Nickell is an expert in this field. The linked Kirkus review of Flippo is scorching and makes me disinclined to trust it. @Binksternet: what work(s) has Bill Koon written, what did he say about Flippo, and what did he say about this specific issue? Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Bill Koon first wrote about this issue in 1981, part of a collective book review of three new Hank Williams biographies, including Chet Flippo's work. The 1981 review appeared in The Journal of Country Music, volume 9, page 96. Koon said "Flippo's book is the most interesting of the three" and he praised Flippo's research: "He has ransacked the usual sources, additionally, he has researched Toby Marshall, 'the quack doctor whose prescriptions led to Hank's death,' and Paul Gilley, 'who sold Hanks some of his best-loved songs.' He studied Hank's medical record and autopsy report and gained access to a private collection of papers of Audrey Williams." Note that Flippo's Toby Marshall discovery is currently in the Wikipedia biography, showing that Flippo is not considered an unreliable source in terms of his hard research about Hank Williams. Koon even praised Flippo's decision to fictionalize the prose, giving the narrative "immediacy and fire", contrary to other reviewers of Flippo.

Koon wrote again about Hank Williams in 1983 in a Greenwood Press book titled Hank Williams: A Bio-Bibiliography that surveyed all of the prominent Hank Williams literature. In this work, Koon reworked his earlier Flippo review, writing "Flippo uncovered a wealth of previously unused sources, some of which contained startling information", specifically calling out Flippo's discovery of "Oklahoma state legislature files that detailed the criminal activities of Toby Marshall, the quack doctor whose prescriptions led to Hank's death, and Paul Gilley, who sold Hank some of his best-loved songs". This material was published in a newly reworked form by University Press of Mississippi in 2001 under the title Hank Williams, So Lonesome. Koon sets the scene on page 131:

"Another issue that Flippo takes up is the amount of collaborations involved in Hank's songwriting. We may like the image of Hank as spontaneous composer, as one whose sensitivity overflowed into fine songs. Evidently, Hank had as much of that gift as anyone; but at the same time, many writers, among them Ed Linn and Roger Williams, have discussed the help he got from Fred Rose and Vic McAlpin. Without giving us too much evidence, Flippo dwells on this issue, implying that Hank may have received more help than we thought and arguing that Paul Gilley, a Morehead State College basketball player, wrote versions of 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' and 'Cold, Cold Heart'. This view shows the easy commerce between young songwriters and established stars. But I wish that Flippo provided more hard facts and less the air of exposé."

Koon is cited many times in Wikipedia's biography of Hank Williams. In the cited source, Koon says he got several facts straight from Flippo, such as Hank checking into sanitariums to try and kick his alcoholism. In essence, we are citing the parts of Flippo that Koon has endorsed. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, so Koons is primarily a bibliographer. How about biographers? Do biographers accept the claims? Koons is not exactly endorsing Flippo. Also, I would say Note that Flippo's Toby Marshall discovery is currently in the Wikipedia biography, showing that Flippo is not considered an unreliable source in terms of his hard research about Hank Williams. is a non-sequitur; articles often incorporate unreliable sources until someone thinks to challenge them. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't accept your implication that a bibliographer is somehow less reliable than a biographer. Certainly it's true that we cite Koon in the article as a reliable source. In any case, Koon's 2001 book was reworked so much that it presented as a biography, not a bibliography. Through the book Koon offers his own view of Hank's life, supported by many references to other authors and their viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

He's certainly reliable as a biographer, and as a bibliographer also. Which is why it's telling that Koon doesn't endorse Flippo's claim in his own biography of Hank (the first section of both editions). Tom Reedy (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia's content guideline about fringe theories: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. How exactly does the Paul Gilley claims differ from that? Reading the Paul Gilley page itself, which is written in a factual manner and mostly based on press releases published in obscure newspapers and a piece from a regional human interest show, makes one wonder how it's not categorized as a fringe theory.

The Hank Williams page is a biographical page based on reliable sources; it's not a bulletin board to post every comment that's ever been made about him. No biographers besides Flippo mentions the Gilley claims, and even he treats it shallowly and neglects to furnish any evidence. Had he offered any kind of evidence, the news would have reverberated throughout the country/western industry. He didn't and it didn't, and all of the "multiple sources" claimed to discuss the topic merely comment on the original claim, they all provide the information about Gilley's putative authorship only in passing ... that is not related to the principal topics of the publication, so citing them as independent sources is merely circular reporting. Since there's absolutely zero evidence for the claims, they have not met with any kind of acceptance and have been largely ignored, and I daresay the only thing keeping them alive is the earnest manner it's treated on the Paul Gilley Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's stated purpose is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Including it in the Hank Williams biography page would give it undue weight.

But we're getting away from my original question: are these sources sufficient to warrant a mention in the above mainstream articles? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think it is important to see the context from which the quotations from Koon have been taken. You can read the original 1983 review here. The two subsequent Koon essays mentioned above are virtually identical. As you can see, Koon is far from complimentary, and in fact he writes "...Flippo's kind of writing does not admit a means of separating fact from interpretation" (94), and goes on to say "It cannot be counted as traditional biography" (95). It is also interesting to note that in Koon's own biographical treatment of Williams's life, the chapter "The Singer: A Biography," pp. 1-90 of his Hank Williams, So Lonesome (2001) (first published as Hank Williams : A Bio - Bibliography, Greenwood, 1993, so once more we're not looking at three separate commentaries by Koon, but one reprinted three times), Koon doesn't mention Gilley. The discussion of Flippo and Gilley comes up in the bibliography section, the last third of the book. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no. Koon greatly reworked his 1983 material for the 2001 book, which is given a completely new title. His views stay consistent but in 2001 he forms his own story about Hank Williams. Tellingly, he said in 2001 that there is a Grand Ole Opry mythology about Hank Williams which many try to protect against well-supported contradictory reports. On page 128 of So Lonesome, Koon says that "the Opry inner circle of the day did not know just what to say because Hank's behavior usually clashed with the wholesome image they had workd hard to cultivate. Unravelling it all has become the work of those of us eager to establish the real biography, and we are many." Koon is saying that biographies of Hank have emphasized too much of the myth of Hank as a "plain country boy" with unquestioned authenticity. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The copyright page of Hank Williams: So Lonesome clearly states "Hank Williams: A Bio-Bibliography by George W. Koon, was originally published in hard cover by Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1983. Copyright © 1983 by George W. Koon. This edition by arrangement with Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2001 by University Press of Mississippi." The Smithsonian also lists it as a second edition, as indeed WorldCat does.

The biographical section (which I have no objection using as an RS) and the song criticism section are virtually identical in the two editions. The interviews section from the 1983 edition is deleted (which is a loss IMO), and the bibliographical section contains some added sources. But the most important fact for this discussion is that Koon's treatment of Flippo is virtually identical in both editions; he does not expand on the Gilley claim at all. Nowhere does he say that he accepts or endorses the claim, he merely (mockingly) reports that Flippo makes it "without giving us too much evidence." And as I pointed out, he does not include the claim in his biography of Williams at the first part of the book. You want to know what Koon thought about the claim? "I wish that Flippo provided more hard facts and less the air of exposé." Koon does not discuss Gilley's claim, he discusses Flippo's claim, so Koon's bibliographical commentary cannot be used as support for biographical facts. Unless you can come up with a credible, reliable source for the claim, it has no business in the articles I linked to in my initial post, nor should it be added to the Hank Williams page, and the Paul Gilley page should be rewritten to reflect its real-world status. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You are setting the bar too high, as if we must prove that Paul Gilley wrote songs and sold them to Hank. All we have to do is tell the reader about the claim, which is treated in multiple reliable sources talking about Hank Williams. The claim by itself is notable; it meets WP:GNG, the basic Wikipedia requirement for notability. Despite this notability, you want to erase it from existence. Your blockade attempt cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm asking for the "multiple reliable sources talking about Hank Williams" in which you say the claim is treated. So far you have one, Koon, who reports that Flippo wrote it. Koon doesn't discuss it other that to wish for some evidence, and he obviously doesn't think it significant or credible enough to include it in his own biographical treatment. No other biographer of Williams even mentions it, and with good reason. You haven't answered any of the questions anyone else has asked you, and you fail to iterate exactly how WP:GNG lends notability to the claim. Newspaper articles giving publicity by quoting press releases are not independent sources; using them is like using a newspaper notice about a Pearl Harbor Day memorial to source the date of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. So far your only argument is assertion. I suggest you read WP:GNG to learn what "significant coverage" entails. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You are making up reasons to relegate the claim to obscurity, despite it being treated by enough sources to bring it up to minor mention status.

The bar is lower than you think for mere mentions of minor issues surrounding the life and career of Hank Williams. At this point, the biography doesn't even name every one of the sanatoriums that Hank checked into, skipping for instance his stay in Prattville, Alabama, in 1945, his time at Madison Sanatorium in late 1949 just north of Nashville, and a period at St. Margaret's Hospital in Montgomery, Alabama in late 1951. There's quite a bit of room for details. The article sits at about 6400 words of readable prose right now, which is not so large as to prevent expansion. Why you are opposed to a small mention of this issue is unexplained; perhaps you are among those who Bill Koon described as the keepers of the myth (Grand Ole Opry types) rather than the searchers for the truth. Me, I'm on the truth spectrum. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"That's not how this works. You are making up reasons" I have been quoting policy; it is you who seem to be making things up. And you don't seem to be able to marshal up any reasons based on policy, just your personal opinion and my motivations as detected by your mind-reading abilities, apparently. The biography page is not being discussed here; it is a work in progress and it will follow published, reliable biographies and not include original research.

"Why you are opposed to a small mention of this issue is unexplained" Are you not reading my comments here? I suggest you scroll up and read my original question that kicked off this board discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me that we lack the number of reliable sources to promote this kind of claim in multiple articles. Anyone can "claim" anything, but it seems like the amount of coverage to warrant including these kinds of claims throughout an encyclopedia needs to be higher than this. Regardless of the language, just reporting the claim serves to legitimize it somewhat, which is why the bar needs to be high. I could write a book, get it published, and claim that my dad wrote several Hank Williams songs, too, but that wouldn't make it so. And it also wouldn't warrant coverage. Rray (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• 1997: Chet Flippo (1997). Your Cheatin' Heart: A Biography of Hank Williams (revised ed.). Plexo. pp. 7, 130, 150. ISBN 9780859652322.
• Nickell, W. Lynn (2012). Paul Gilley: The Ghost Writer in the Sky. Independent. ISBN 9781467574198.
• 2012: "New biography on Morgan Co. songwriter Paul Gilley". Appalachian Attitude. WMMT 88.7 Mountain Community Radio. July 2, 2012.
• 2013: "Songwriter Paul Gilley". Kentucky Educational Television. July 29, 2013.
  • KET PBS... "Kentucky Life" season 18 episode 10. "Renfro Valley Radio; Breweries; Country Girl Farm. A profile of Morgan County native Paul Gilley"
• 2012: John Flavell; George Wolfford (June 11, 2012). "'Watching from above'". The Daily Independent. Ashland, Kentucky.
• 2022: McAlester News-Capital from Oklahoma... "RAMBLIN: Hank Williams: Time to leave ole Hank and his songs alone"
• 2022: Far Out magazine... "Understanding the authorship debate surrounding Hank Williams song 'I'm So Lonely I Could Cry'"
• 2022: American Songwriter magazine... "Behind The Song Lyrics: 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry,' Hank Williams"
• 2022: Page 148 of Black Ephemera: The Crisis and Challenge of the Musical Archive, by Mark Anthony Neal, published by NYU Press. "Williams's 'I'm So Lonely I Could Cry' (1949), a song credited to both Williams and Paul Gilley, has become a standard..."
• 2012: The Mountain Eagle from Kentucky.... "E.Ky. writer penned two of Hank Sr.’s biggest hits"
• 2001: Page 131 of Hank Williams, So Lonesome, by George William "Bill" Koon, published by the University Press of Mississippi
• 1983: Page 103 of Hank Williams: A Bio-bibliography, written by George William "Bill" Koon about the available literature on Hank Williams. Koon gives Flippo more credit than others, despite the fictionalization style, praising his research into Hank's medical records, Hank's other silent songwriters Ed Linn and Roger Williams, and "the relationship between Hank and Paul Gilley." Koon relays to the reader Flippo's portrayal of the Gilley authorship claim to "Cold, Cold Heart" and "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry".
• 1981: Bill Koon reviews the Flippo book in volume 9 of The Journal of Country Music. Koon praises Flippo's research before noting that Flippo goes into a fictionalized direction with his material. Koon calls out the Gilley songwriting claim.
• 2020: Countrymusikkens historie, page 84 (in Danish.) "Der var dog en anden (helt ukendt) person, som spillende en afgørende rolle for Williams' karriere, nemlig den unge student Paul Gilley. Han skrev en rekke glimrende sangtekster, som han solgte for en slik til Hank Williams, der satte musik til og udgav dem for sine egne." Machine translation: "However, there was another (completely unknown) person who played a decisive role in Williams' career, namely the young student Paul Gilley. He wrote a number of excellent lyrics which he sold for a pittance to Hank Williams, who set them to music and published them as his own."

These sources are certainly enough to show that the issue has been treated by the media. Some of these take the Gilley authorship at face value, most do not. But the songwriting controversy is part of the literature about Hank Williams. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The third one on your list has been dead for quite a while. Here's an archived version of the page, but the interview is lost to the ether. It and the Flavell link are press releases promoting the Nickel book, which has already been ruled unacceptable. The two TV links are actually the same show based on Nickel's book, and as I said earlier, the three Koon sources are identical. Your Black Empemera and Countrymusikkens "sources" are prime examples of WP:OR violations, specifically the sentence "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments." If and when a Hank Williams biography or a real music critic significantly covers it, that's when it should be included on main pages. As it is, right now the Paul Gilley page needs to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

But the songwriting controversy is part of the literature about Hank Williams. But that's not the test for inclusion in an encyclopedia, or Wikipedia. These aren't based on independent sources. They all reduce to quoting Flippo, many of them explicitly reviews of Flippo's book. Find someone who has independent evidence supporting the claim. Bomagosh (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the sources from 2012 and afterward are responding to the Kentucky historian Nickell. Nickell's book provides a lot more evidence that Flippo lacked. Nickell talked to locals and dug through records. The media reporting about Nickell's book is what gave this issue its notability on Wikipedia. Before Nickell there was no possibility of a biography about Paul Gilley. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nickel's self-published book (all of his books were self-published, and he was not a trained historian, nor was he any kind of music expert) doesn't provide any evidence at all, and it is full of errors of fact. He basically interviewed a bunch of people who said that Gilley said he wrote some hit songs (and strangely enough, Gilley never repeated his claims after he left college). On page 177 he writes, "With all the evidence I have presented in this book, I never could find the one thing I was looking for, the evidence, in black and white, no grey area, that Paul Gilley wrote the many hit songs sung by Hank Williams and others." He admits it comes down to belief.

And I think everyone has heard enough from you and me. Let's give it a rest and wait for the result. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am reviewing Draft:Echuya Central Forest Reserve and I am not sure if bambooecotours.com is a reliable source. It seems to be a travel guide by a tourism company. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 02:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps Definitely not an RS, it's a sales site in any case. I'd also stay away from travel guides in general. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This is about 1. IMHO, Liberty University is an institution of religious indoctrination rather than an institution of education and research. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly reliable. This is an article published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and not really anything to do with Liberty. It should be in the article as a relevant scholarly opinion and I notice that the addition was neutrally phrased, presenting it as an opinion, so it's fine. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The author of the study is employed by Liberty University... The question is, is this really due to include to begin with? Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It's under the subheading "Religious defenses," so it seems appropriately placed to me, though it probably should be part of the first paragraph. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Croy, N. C. (2022). "Luke's Explanation: The Census under Quirinius". In Escaping Shame: Mary’s Dilemma and the Birthplace of Jesus. Novum Testamentum Supplements. Vol. 187. wplibrary "the grammatical solution" on point here? If so the text and fn 100 lead me to believe there are a number of sources to choose here for the content, and should pick the from the best. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And Brindle is one of the scholars cited. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing this source for this particular purpose, which is to explain "religious defenses", that is, how some Christians defend the accuracy of the Gospel of Luke with regard to the timing of the census described therein. The article is being cited to represent and describe an opinion, not as proof of the statements therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society supports Biblical inerrancy, according to our article, which is an ahistorical approach. The journal therefore is not a reliable source for matters of historical fact. It might be cited as an opinion, but that should be with textual attribution that clarifies that the source supports Biblical inerrancy. John M Baker (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Presently our RSP entry for WSJ says it is generally reliable for news and to refer to WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. I've read the WSJ for many years (long-time subscriber) and have found its news reporting consistently excellent. Its opinion pages? Not so much. Contrasted with, say, the NYT, which rigorously factchecks their opinion pages, the WSJ editorial board has an apparent free speech absolutism ethos that opinions don't need to be factual. They're just opinions, after all. Notably, many WSJ journalists share my concern.234. Like its sister publication, The New York Post, WSJ editorials (in particular) and op-eds have a long history of publishing outright falsehoods. Shameless lies, in fact. I commonly LOL reading them.

Consequently, to preclude editors from using WSJ editorials and op-eds as sources, I propose the RSP entry for WSJ should explicitly prohibit their use. soibangla (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Think Newscorp, Fox News, New York Post, and all owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not a single letter in any of them exists in the same universe as a true RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces should not be used to source facts at all, regardless of the outlet. If we're talking about sourcing a fact to an opinion piece, then something has already gone wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Outside of relatively rare situations we already preclude editors from using WSJ editorials and op-eds as sources. IMO thats the point of pointing to WP:RSOPINION. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't defend the essay-class WP:RSP page, but it is a fact that opinions are WP:NOTCENSORED. Occasionally I see arguments about whether some WP:NEWSORG's editorial or regular column or op-ed is WP:DUE, but that's not a WP:RSN concern, and can be argued on the talk page of the article where the item is cited. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken, WP:RSP is information class not essay class. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The page which you link to is WP:ESSAYPAGES, I didn't say essay page, I said "essay-class". See WP:INFOPAGES: "... information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status ..." The top of the WP:RSP page was changed in January without discussion that I noticed, but I don't care since it doesn't change status. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WSJ opinion articles should have weight equal to those of NYT or WashPo etc. They should be allowed in the same instances when opinion articles from those other sources would be allowed. As that is very rarely what problem are we trying to solve here? Is there an example article where this issue has come up? Else this doesn't need to be litigated. Springee (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources can only be used for ABOUTSELF, especially if BLP is involved. They have zero due weight. Like all content in unreliable sources, if a RS mentions it, we can then use the RS to document the WSJ opinion.

The WSJ opinions, like all things touched by Murdoch, should be downgraded or deprecated to ensure their use is limited to ABOUTSELF situations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• No need - Opinion and editorials are already severely limited by WP:RSOPINION. It does not matter which outlet they appear in. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Not totally true. It still allows attributed use of opinions for non-BLP matters. All Murdoch-related sources are so unreliable, especially for politics, science, and medicine, that they should be limited to only ABOUTSELF situations. Treat all of them like we treat the National Enquirer. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Depends on the author, as with all opinion pieces. If it is by an expert we accept it if it is on their blog, why would we not because it's in the opinion section of the WSJ? If it is an editorial by the board then potentially attributable to the WSJ board, if it is by an individual contributor without academic expertise then it is out anyway. Do we trust the WSJ to honestly and faithfully reproduce the words of a contributor? Yes. In that case it is the contributor's qualifications that matter. So, in sum, this is a waste of time and no change is needed. nableezy - 02:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Like WP:RSOPINION already basically says, it's reliable only for quotes and paraphrases attributed to the writer themselves and WP:DUE is taken on a case-by-case basis, to be discussed on article talk pages in matters under dispute. Plain facts in Wikipedia's voice should basically never be based on newspaper's opinion sections. regardless of which newspaper. Beyond that, however, you're going to need to be specific. Show us what Wikipedia text is being cited to which opinion piece so we can see if it is being used appropriately. --Jayron32 18:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. For starters, the underlying petition from the "many WSJ journalists" that you link as evidence is about an opinion piece called "The Myth of Systemic Police Racism". 5 In it, the author said that the police were not systemically racist, citing a piece of peer-reviewed research6 that was not retracted until after the opinion piece was released, and was only retracted because the authors were unhappy that their work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general.. In order for the WSJ to have caught this supposed error, they would have needed a better review process than the actual academic journal. You just claim that "WSJ editorials (in particular) and op-eds have a long history of publishing outright falsehoods" and provide no examples of this claim. Your only evidence is that "I commonly LOL reading them" as well as a single petition, as well as other editors that say any publication owned by Rupert Murdoch should be deprecated. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

ProPublica published a piece a few weeks ago on how some companies offer peer-reviewed services to aid in getting into college. The piece raises a question: are they reliable? Journal of Student Research had been discussed 9 years ago, but there are a few more that ProPublica found. I found two articles that cite to jsr.org, Demographics of Shanghai and TikTok food trends. These journals' sole purpose to exchange money for a published article makes me think they're not reliable. SWinxy (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Rock in Rio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an article content dispute which comes down to a dispute about what has been reliably reported to be the attendance on 26 January 1991 for the performance of A-ha. I have my own opinions as to which sources are the most reliable, but I am asking for the views of editors who are experienced in reviewing questions of reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg (the mention is on the second paragraph of the top article)

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (the mention is at the very bottom of the page)

• "O trio Pop norueguês teve o maior público não apenas do evento como também de toda a história na época, levando 198 mil pessoas ao Maracanã durante seu show e quebrando recorde do Guinness Book. Ainda assim, os nórdicos acabaram ignorados pela mídia brasileira e mundial mesmo com o sucesso estrondoso de “Take on Me”, que impulsionou toda essa fama."

https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/

• "Eles alcançaram sucesso planetário nas décadas de 1980 e 1990. No Brasil, chegaram a tocar para quase 200 mil pessoas. Mas nesta quarta-feira, em São Paulo, se exibem para uma plateia menor. Antes de matar a saudade do público brasileiro, os noruegueses da banda A-Ha conversaram com a repórter Marina Araújo."

https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

• From BBC Brazil and Globo: A-ha played for 198.000: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-62764029 / https://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/musica/rock-in-rio/2022/noticia/2022/09/02/se-a-vida-comecasse-agora-22-curiosidades-sobre-o-rock-in-rio.ghtml

• " In 1991 it set a world record for the largest paying audience for a single band when 198,000 people came to see pop group A-ha."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

• MTV 1991 A-ha show in Maracana the only one to be sold out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtYwtiejtw

• A-Ha was the big star on January 26, 1991. The fifth artist to perform, in a day with 7 attractions, appeared with some frequency in the country's hit charts and that led many people to Maracanã. The audience record of 198,000 people put the band in the Guinness Book of Records. The Norwegian trio played a show full of hits like “Hunting High and Low” and “You are the One”.

https://rockinrio.com/rio/novidade/retrospectiva-rock-in-rio-26-de-janeiro-de-1991/ Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

BBC Brazil is probably your best bet here. The rest are superfluous. --Jayron32 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've just machine-translated the BBC Brazil link, and the Globo link. They appear to be the same, as in one of them has copied the other. What is more significant is that I don't see where either of them mentions what the audience was for A-ha in 1991. Am I missing something? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The specific mention is under an image in the 9th section (Decoradores), O show do A-ha em 1991 foi visto por 198 mil pessoas no Maracanã. Google translate makes that A-ha's concert in 1991 was seen by 198,000 people at Maracanã. Globo is just reposting the BBC article, and can be ingored..-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't ask the right question, or maybe this is an issue of policy as well as of article content.

My opinion is that, in this case, the relative reliability of journalistic sources may be somewhat different from the relative reliability of historical sources. In Wikipedia, in historical articles, we prefer more recent scholarly assessments over less recent ones. In this case, are the reports immediately after the event more reliable? Maybe User:JimboB and User:Mortyman should explain their points of view here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

i only saw this now. I wasn't aware that I was allowed to post here. I imagined that, for being one of the parties, I should keep out of this space. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

The first two sources that Robert shared here are the ones I champion. They come from reputed Brazilian newspapers with their own pages on Wikipedia. Here they are, for reference. They are in Portuguese, but I could provide translation in case someone asks me to.

https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg (from O Globo; the mention is on the second paragraph of the top article).

https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=O_Globo

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (from Jornal do Brasil; (the mention is at the very bottom of the page)

https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Jornal_do_Brasil

These were published two days after the performance, in January 28, 1991, by writers who were in the actual event and collected audience numbers directly from organizers and/or city officials. I argue that no one is more entitled to say how many people were at an event than someone who was actually there and collected their numbers first hand.

The links that the other editor, Mortyman, provides are all recent and echo a bombastic version that A-ha fans have been promoting for years: that the band attracted a record audience of 198.000 to Maracanã, purportedly the biggest audience of all time for a single act (a claim which is, in itself, inexact for it was a music festival and no less than seven acts performed on that night).

The exact origin of Mortyman's numbers is lost in time. They started doing the rounds in the 1990's, when the original sources I bring were simply unavailable unless someone could pay a visit to o Globo or Jornal do Brasil's headquarters and search their archives personally. Meanwhile, fan clubs were pushing their own story in their own channels. In the 2000's, when Rock in Rio emerged from a long hiatus, that version had acquired a semblance of truth and even reputed sources started echoing it since it was more widely available. Hence the confusion.

I believe my links, who come straight from the mouth of the historical fact, so to speak, reestablish the truth.

I'm available in case anyone wishes to discuss this. Thank you. JimboB (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry. I was not aware of this post in this discussin bord, so I am a bit late. I am of the belief that I have provided a multitude of various sources both on A-ha's 198.000 audience number and also the fact that Maracana back then, before uppgrades in recent years, could accomidate such audience number, wich is something that JimboB has also argued that is not correct. I have now provided sources from BBC, Globo, Britannica, Guinnes Book of Records and two sources from the official Rock in Rio website. Why would Rock in Rio mention A-ha of all bands and not some bigger international act or local band for such a big audience number if it was not true ? Mortyman (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A quick addendum, with a very simple compromise I can accept: that the article simply doesn't mention which was the biggest audience for that particular edition of Rock in Rio, since this isn't mentioned at all for most of the other editions. If the information is contentious and not central to the article, leave it out. That I can accept. JimboB (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Earlier this month, I created an article for the Trinidadian and Tobagonian musician Raymond Ramnarine. (It is currently a draft, at Draft:Raymond Ramnarine). He has plenty of mentions in Guardian Trinidad & Tobago (guardian.co.tt), which is used as a source in many other articles about Trinidad and Tobago, such as List of prime ministers of Trinidad and Tobago. From its widespread use in Trinidad and Tobago - related articles and the fact that, per WP:RSPSS, The Guardian is a reliable source, I am pretty sure other countries' Guardian magazines are also reliable sources, but I just wanted to make sure.

I am far less sure about Guyana Times International. I have used an article from that newspaper site as a source for the information in my article about Raymond's performance in a January 2013 singing contest. Is Guyana Times International a reliable source? Thanks. Seckends (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear The Guardian and the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian are completely unrelated, and other countries with similarly named sources are also unrelated for reliability purposes. Saying that the TT Guardian has been in print since 1917, and is a reliable source in itself. Guyana Times International (.com not .co) gives me pause, it appears to be defunct and it's postings on chloroquine don't inspire confidence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently came across an article from http://what-when-how.com/ used as a reference. It looks like an unreliable source to me, since many of the articles are copied from elsewhere and others are of very poor quality, and I get a feeling they might be compiled by an AI. Some examples:

• http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/weapons-ammunitions-and-penetration/ spells Sturmgewehr as Sturmgewebr twice, a mistake no expert on weapons would make. In the section Modern firearms they describe the short recoil, blowback and gas-piston mechanisms but leave out the common mechanism long recoil.

• http://what-when-how.com/Tutorial/topic-593qd4/Sweden-697.html says that Sweden let "German troops march through to occupy Norway" which is incorrect, the Germans invaded Norway by sea.

• In https://what-when-how.com/military-weapons/mortars-military-weapons/ the section about the M224 60-mm mortar is complete nonsense with information that is not compatible with a 60 mm mortar.

• http://what-when-how.com/conspiracy-theories-in-american-history/making-sense-of-conspiracy-theories/ is copied from https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/Docs/Knight1.pdf without attribution.

• http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/determination-of-racial-affinity/ has missing spaces between words in the section "Morphological assessment". That is a common result of copying from a pdf file without proofreading. The text is copied from the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences.

• http://what-when-how.com/literature/andrzejewski-jerzy-literature/ is copied from https://silo.pub/reference-guide-to-world-literature-authors-j-2070304.html.

• http://what-when-how.com/Tutorial/topic-593qd4/Sweden-299.html är en kopia av Lonely Planet Europe on a shoestring.

• http://what-when-how.com/Tutorial/topic-1114galv/Database-Design-and-Relational-Theory-19.html used as a source in Database normalization is a copy of Database Design and Relational Theory.

All in all, it looks like a very poor source to me, but it is used in several articles on en.wikipedia. However, I am unsure how to go on from here. Sjö (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

They say the site was started by ADARP NGO, the only mention of which online is this site. They have obviously already had copyright issue as the copyright page goes says that the DMCA notices they have received are all "fake". Neither page shows they understand how commas and spaces work together. I doubt we should like to the site at all, let alone use it's for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find this old discussion until now and thought it might be relevant: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Is what-when-how.com ever a reliable source?. There are 100 references to the site in the article name space so it is something of a problem. Can it be blacklisted? Or should I tag all references with "unreliable source", or would it be against the rules to simply remove them? Sjö (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD you can remove references you believe are unreliable and replace them with {{citation needed}} tags. If editors disagree with the removal further discussion here would be warranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia allow this website 7 to be displayed in urls of books that the website has free access to? I would say no. Why, well let's first get into the most pressing matters - they are genocide deniers, of the Armenian genocide specifically. I have already taken screenshots in case they try to hide it, but here are a few examples (look at the hashtags too);

8 9

This is the type of stuff that the website hosts, which also includes tons of books published in Azerbaijan, which is well-known for its Armenian genocide denial and historical negationism. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like more of a question for Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard; do you have an example usage in an article? Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, so I guess I should make a thread there? And do you mean an example where the link of the site is used? HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. To expand, if the question is about the reliability of the source then yes, we should discuss that here. If the question is about linking to various sources on this site, regardless of the reliability of the sources themselves, then I'm not sure that discussion belongs here (and yes, I agree that seems like a bad idea). Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#External links: concerns over copyrights and genocide denial. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. It's not that they're a genocide denialist site -- they claim to hose 250,000 books, and their Twitter feed just seems to be a listings of the books they add. Finding two books in their collection that may have content of concern is not proof of anything; your local library has some crap things if you look closely enough. They're not the real publishers of the books in question, so it's not a question of whether they are a "Reliable source" beyond whether they present unaltered versions of the books in question. No, the real problem is that they appear to be a pirate site, which would make linking to them very much against WP:ELNO. (It is a concern though that you are trying to rule out possible reliability based on the language used. Great and horrible things are written in all languages.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as they are faithful reproductions of the works then it's not an RS issue. However if they are faithful reproductions of unlicenced copyrighted works that's an entirely different issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, NatGertler. Though that wasn't precisely what I was trying to imply. I hastily wrote this comment as I had to go to work, my bad. Anyhow, I guess whatever I now say say here is all irrelevant now, considering I posted it in the wrong thread and an ANI discussions is now up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere although the source might be reliable doesn't mean it's not a copyvio that should never be linked to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That too! I briefly completely forgot about that one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be essentially dragging up a dead horse here, but once again, there's a serious disregard for reliable sourcing on russo-ukrainian war topics. For example, as of today, we have this: 10, where while the sources themselves seem reasonably reliable, the unclear content they report is repeated uncritically, without any editorial discretion on not including unconfirmed or rapidly changing facts. Frankly, phrases like If reports are true should never be found on an encyclopedia. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@BrxBrx The phrase in question seems a paraphrase from Ref 2: The alleged incursion would be the largest attack of its kind since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. On the surface, I don't see an issue with it. Could you explain why you think we shouldn't write something like that? Is there a policy or guideline against this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw:, yes I believe the relevant policy is WP:NOTNEWS, in particular, part 1: paraphrasing or repeating first-hand reports would make wikivoice into a primary source. I personally subscribe to the WP:NOTNP interpretation as well - we are not here to be journalists; we are not here to ingest firsthand reports and re-syndicate that: that's the job of news agencies. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems reasonable. I agree we should not use such phrases. It might also skirt WP:CRYSTALBALL in the sense of predicting something to be confirmed eventually. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Life.ru, a pro-Kremlin online newspaper is used to cite the life stories, political affiliations, and military claims of various Russian groups in Ukraine, namely the Russian Volunteer Corps and the Freedom of Russia Legion. According to their own Wikipedia page they have a close relation with the Russian security services, have straight up made up reports, and have been banned off YouTube for being pro-Kremlin propaganda. Should I remove any citations from these guys? or are they actually a reliable source of information. Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Just no. Volunteer Marek 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not reliable. Per WP:CANVASS, we can't tell you what to do or not to do. Is the number of citations large enough that a deprecation discussion is needed? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: you linked the wrong thing, canvassing is about soliciting participation in a discussion not offering suggestions on edits to articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I had always thought of WP:CANVASS to include asking someone to do something. But you're right, it doesn't say that. Is it really OK to ask someone to do something such as remove a particular source? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as there isn't something wrong with the edit in another way (say you were using it to harass a third party, are in an edit war over the issue already, or you knew it wasn't verifiable) its by my understanding ok. Anyways I take Scu ba's comment as more asking for permission than instruction per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Scu ba hasn't asked anyone to do anything, they asked if they should remove the references as they suspected the source was unreliable. That's not canvassing, it's the purpose of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable, this is a tabloid like Daily Mail. Alaexis_¿question? 16:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Owned by Aram Gabrelyanov, who is a propagandist per his own words "We tell the truth -- of course -- but we tell it the way that will lead the audience to the conclusions we need. That is what our country, our ideology, needs." Should be removed on sight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm If you always start with "the conclusions you need", there is no way to guarantee you have arrived at, or will ever arrive at, "the truth". This is confirmation bias 101. Completely unreliable by definition. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is a professional disinformation problematic website. It should be depreciated or blacklisted. or at least judged generally unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like we may have some work to do. Was there a point in time in which this was reliable, or should references to this site be removed indiscriminately? – bradv 14:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  On principle references should never be removed indiscriminately, each one should be briefly evaluated to see whether it is appropriate in context. Emphasis on brief though, the main question being answered is "is this covered by WP:ABOUTSELF?" which can be evaluated in a few brief seconds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. This needs to be cross-verified against other sources, judged on case to case basis, etc. After quick checking, I found only a couple of pages where using this source for specific claims was clearly problematic and fixed them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If the remaining refs are not contentious bthey can probably be sourced to something better than this. It does appear that the entire journalistic staff was fired and replaced someone point after Aram took over, so older refs might be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You provided zero examples. So I will. Article Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War, section Other reports by Russian media, begins On 4 August 2008, Life.ru reported that after the end of the "Kavkaz 2008" exercises, the paratroopers from Pskov remained to occupy the key positions on the Roki and Mamison passes on the border. (Added on 22 September 2014 by UA Victory.) That's attribution along with explanation of the source's nature. Never questioned on the talk page. I oppose this context-free ban-without-question suggestion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly an example of usage, but how does it disprove that that Life.ru is a tabloid and is not generally reliable? The fact that no one has challenged it isn't enough. For the record, I don't support a blanket ban either, Unreliable would be sufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 18:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I won't try to disprove what I regard as irrelevant. In a section titled "Other reports by Russian media", asking to remove cites of Russian media makes as much sense as asking re The Communist Manifesto article: "Should I remove any citations from these guys?" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

God hell why a Putin-Kremlin sources is reliable? -Lemonaka‎ 00:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

link I could not find anything about this source so I would like additional input. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a particular article you're interested in, and what details do you want to add? BLPs have more stringent sourcing requirements, and a blanket response isn't possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am reviewing this draft: Draft:Iman Uqdah Hameen. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 03:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes it looks reliable, it has a editorial team and belongs to professional associations. Also the details seem non-contentious. If the details were of a more contentious issue then I would suggest a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would think that websites about saints in general are unreliable, because they are often written from a devotional (promotional) perspective about the person who has been canonised as a saint. Typically they don't seem to be scholarly in any way, citing publications or anything, but full of praise about what a great person they were (WP:POV). I'm only asking because I haven't seen "saints.ru" discussed in the archives, and http://www.saints.ru/ya/5-Yaropolk-Izyaslavovich.htmlhas been in use in Yaropolk Iziaslavich, ever since that article received "Good article" status on 31 March 2008. But I'm getting the impression that "Good article" status is not/no longer warranted for various reasons, and this website (which is used in other bios as well) is one of them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are many good sources about Russian historical figures and we absolutely don't need to use such a source. The only legitimate use I can see is to confirm his canonisation and maybe briefly describe why he was made a saint. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. If saints websites are only invoked for supporting such basics, we don't have to remove / replace them. But I suppose such basic details can probably also be found in a more reliable source, which should be preferred at all times if available. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think such a site is usable even for such information as that. Scholarly works or official institutional websites would be. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the numerous amateur religious sites are a perennial thorn in our side, saints.ru doesn't appear to be a reliable source it looks like an amateur religious site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Seconding HEB above, except that the website seems to be maintained by Holy Trinity Novo-Golutvin Monastery. So to what degree it is amateur, I am not sure. But it is certainly not academic. We should avoid this for anything remotely controversial/non-neutral, at minimum. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In general, the term used for the writing about the saints of any religious denomination by the faithful of that denomination is hagiographic, and writing in Wikipedia about saints, or anyone else, should be neutral. So yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a local Church website 11 and as such is a poor source. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's there "about" page12, not encouraging. The second source only says "Several Black Americans, like Way, whose ancestors were enslaved, said in public comments to the OMB that they would like to be identified in a category such as American Freedmen, Foundational Black Americans or American Descendants of Slavery to distinguish themselves from Black immigrants, or even white individuals born in Africa, as well as reflecting their ancestors’ history in the U.S." The third source says "Some of the possible terms that have been discussed for Black individuals who are descendants of slavery are “American Descendants of Slavery,” “American Freedmen” and “Foundational Black Americans.” Looks to me as though we only have two reliable sources which mention them once and do not suggest it's at all widely used. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The "About Us" page is, indeed, not encouraging for establishing how important they find producing and providing reliable information through editorial review. Their main concern seems to be how many people they reach with their "brand", listing all their affiliated brands. In other words: making money. Perfectly legitimate business, but not what we need in an WP:RS. Otherwise I don't see any NPOV issues with the About page (e.g. "diverse opinions").

I agree that it seems like we don't have WP:SIGCOV for the topic Foundational Black Americans yet. This is not a well-established concept yet, just one of several competing terms that are being suggested in certain circles to identify a certain group of people. (If this were a CfD, this would probably fall under WP:NONDEFINING/WP:COP-HERITAGE: The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. But articles follow different rules). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The term American Descendants of Slavery is mentioned each time Foundational Black Americans is used, this is probably better handled as a section of that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Merge to American Descendants of Slavery.

About newsone.com's reliability.... I'll just drop this here: https://newsone.com/742485/the-11-most-compelling-911-conspiracy-theories/ with a nice little See also section: For more NewsOne coverage of conspiracy theories, click here. SEE ALSO: Five Celebrities Allegedly Tied To The Illuminati. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the original reporting on actual news stories, where bylines exist beyond "NewsOne Staff" seems to be to legitimate journalists. However, a lot of the content is fluffy listicles like shown above. I think stories from the site with a credited ByLine to a legitimate journalist with a CV that we can verify is likely OK, but that's only a small amount of content. I would put it in the same category as stuff like Cheddar (TV channel) or Buzzfeed (back when it had news) or the like; individual actual-news-articles from the source are probably fine, but the bulk of the content is just clickbait that has little use at Wikipedia. Individual news articles should carry the reliability of the journalist in the byline, but for content on historical matters, find an actual historian, for articles on scientific matter, find a scientist, etc. --Jayron32 18:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That may be an apt assessment. Something with "on a case-by-case basis"? I think I've used Cheddar once as a source (it was a video that provided its sources that were very easy to verify), and BuzzFeed... preferably not if a more reliable source says the same thing. On closer inspection, the other items within the "conspiracy theories" category of newsone.com weren't that click-baity, and usually about why a certain conspiracy theory was not true, or harmful towards Black Americans (newsone.com's target audience). I've also seen some Google Books use newsone.com in their footnotes. Still, the quality control does not seem to be very high. A serious journalistic news site would not throw around lists of 11 conspiracy theories that might actually be true, and just embed a bunch of low-quality videos to lead people to believe in these CTs, with a bunch of links below to share it everywhere on social media. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a notable topic from what I could find, probably should be a redirect to Tariq Nasheed who is the primary proponent and creator of this term. I changed the article to be singular and the title italicized since it is about a term rather than a literal topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Attributed uses of a Netflix documentary in Roger Stone were removed by @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco: saying that 'Netflix documentary is a very tenuous source for a controversial BLP'. I think we'd be cutting ourselves off if we don't allow ducumentaries in the biographies of controversial people, and that in general they should be treated like books. Is there a guideline on this or what do people think about it? NadVolum (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's similar to WP:YouTube: it depends. Both are video platforms, one of which has an open end (YouTube) and the other doesn't (Netflix), but reliable and unreliable sources can be found in both. Notoriously unreliable documentaries can also be found on Netflix (e.g. Ancient Apocalypse has been panned as pseudoarchaeological by experts such as Peter Hadfield (journalist) (Part 1, Part 2), so just because Netflix has a closed end doesn't mean it's suddenly always reliable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

THat's exactly what happens with books too, but we seem to allow books about people. NadVolum (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue with Netflix is that we can't consider it a reliable publisher; it regularly publishes nonsense that it claims as fact. Instead, we need to assess each documentary individually; I don't know anything about the Roger Stone documentary and so can't comment on it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What BilledMammal said: assess on a case-by-case basis. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on that comment: The documentary is Get Me Roger Stone and thankfully there are links to two reviews, and there probably are more reviews. So I guess it comes down to what the reviews say and whether the writers/directors Dylan Bank, Daniel DiMauro and Morgan Pehme have a reputation for fact-checking or not. Sjö (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I could have been more clear in my commentary, thank you to all who joined the discussion. My reasoning is that this movie is closer to a self-published book than a book published by a reliable publisher. The problem isn't that it's distributed via Netflix; per @BilledMammal, @ActivelyDisinterested and @Nederlandse Leeuw there are both reliable and unreliable sources on Netflix. But this one doesn't appear to have been produced by a known studio that would give some indication of fact-checking and reliability. The reviews mentioned in Get Me Roger Stone seem to indicate that the producers have a POV (e.g., the executive producer said viewing footage of Trump's election "was making me physically ill"13, Stone called it "a liberal hit piece"14, etc). Other reviews don't give a plus or minus to reliability/POV (e.g., no comment in The Atlantic 15 or the LA Times16 about reliability/accuracy). This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, but it seemed like the claim in the Stone article could have been better sourced than an independent documentary. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Generally Netflix documentaries should be handled with skepticism, they've published some absolutely nonsense. The documentaries range in quality from docu-tainment to fringe/conspiracy bull#π&%. Get Me Roger Stone appears to be at the better end of the scale, but maybe be careful with selfserving statements by the subject. If possible just find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think one should always treat what a person says about themselves as something to be attributed to them rather than taken as fact! NadVolum (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My point was that what a person says about themselves isn't always due, not that they should be treated as fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say usable for what Stone says about himself in the piece, but I'm not sure I'd use it for much beyond that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• The original text removed, with things clearly attributed to Stone or the reporter, seemed fine. Netflix is not a publisher as such, more a distributor, and case to case is the way to go. Of course Stone himself is about the least reliable source imaginable, but the article seems well aware of that. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A side point that while Netflix is primarily a distributor they do also publish some original content. See List of Netflix original programming for more. Thats not really relevant to this particular case though as it does not appear that Get Me Roger Stone was produced by Netflix. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

For the page Damodar Gulati - Modern scholarship has delineated Gulati as Punjabi Hindu courtier. A Dawn article authored by Mushtaq Soofi contends that he may have been either a Hindu or a Sikh 17- Mushtaq Soofi is a columnist and a professor of Punjabi at the Institute for Art and Culture in Pakistan 18. I wasn't able to find reliable sources that speak to IAC's stature as an academic institution, including Pakistan's HEC 19, although IAC is a recognized institution. I want to ascertain whether Soofi is a reliable source here before adding or deleting any content sourced through him on the Gulati article. Thanks Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

In the light of NASA now also looking into UAPs (https://www.youtube.com/live/bQo08JRY0iM) ...

I find the Ukrainian UAP study very interesting. But before I add sightings from the study to the List of reported UFO sightings first I would like to ask the experts here if the it qualifies as (WP) "reliable source"?

Link Part 1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215

Quoting: 》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with colour video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. We observed a broad range of UAPs everywhere. We state a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected, moving at speeds from 3 to 15 degrees per second. Some bright objects exhibit regular brightness variability in the range of 10 -20 Hz. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronised cameras allowed the detection of a variable object, at an altitude of 1170 km. It flashes for one hundredth of a second at an average of 20 Hz. Phantom shows the colur characteristics inherent in an object with zero albedos. We see an object because it shields radiation due to Rayleigh scattering. An object contrast made it possible to estimate the distance using colorimetric methods. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.《

Link Part 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.17085

》Conclusions

The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. Observations were performed with color video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics. There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent. Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronized cameras allowed the detection of two variable objects, at an altitude of 620 and 1130 km, moving at a speed of 256 and 78 km/s. Light curves of objects show a variability of about 10 Hz. Colorimetric analysis showed that the objects are dark: B -V = 1.35, V -R = 0.23. We demonstrate the properties of several phantoms that were observed in Kyiv and the Kyiv region in 2018-2022. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 -14 km. We estimate their size from 20 to about of 100 meters and speeds up to 30 km/s. Color properties of bright flying objects indicate that objects are perceived as very dark. Albedo less than 0.01 would seem to make them practically black bodies, not reflecting electromagnetic radiation. We can assume that a bright flying object, once in the troposphere, will be visible as a phantom. All we can say about phantoms is to repeat the famous quote: "Coming from the part of space, that lies outside Earth and its atmosphere. Means belonging or relating to the Universe".《

wikt:ELI5:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ZSlLH0TzE

Foerdi (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Its a bit of a nitpick, but do they say UAPs are UFOs? Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

They don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

According to WP itself an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon is an UFO (redirects there). Are we seriously discussing the fact that UAP is synonymous to UFO now? Foerdi (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the study would validate adding anything to List of reported UFO sightings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I am really interested in your train of thought. Can you please elaborate / give examples as what you would see as "validates adding"? Foerdi (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Any source which talks about a reported UFO sighting. This one does not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See my reply above. UAP = UFO Foerdi (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And is there any independent reliable source which talks about a reported UFO sighting or is it just the primary source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not know the concept of reliable source is based on web of trust, where you must be invited to the club by existing reliable sources? Is there some documentation regarding this rule somewhere in WP? I can accept if this is one of the mandatory criteria, but honestly it is hard for me to understand the sense of it (thinking of the scenario where one malicious existing so called "reliable" source could introduce many fake reliable sources if it is really that easy) Foerdi (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A source which did that wouldn't be reliable. The message you should be getting is this: even if the source is reliable you shouldn't be adding anything to List of reported UFO sightings based on a single source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

perhaps we could say their multi-site and multi-sensors approach (more than one meteor observations stations located in different cities, with each using multiple cameras) qualifies as "secondary source(s) (LightTM)"? Probably not in your eyes... Foerdi (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats just not what the terms mean, a secondary source would be another article which talked about the findings in this article or an article in the popular press about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick Google Search results:

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3nb/ukraines-astronomers-say-there-are-tons-of-ufos-over-kyiv
• https://www.jpost.com/science/article-717346
• https://www.livescience.com/ukraine-ufo-uap-report

... and so on Foerdi (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then what are we doing here? Use those instead of the pre-print. Its more a WP:DUEWEIGHT than reliability question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I had the naive mindset that also the upstream source (the study / PDFs) to all the media articles must itself qualify as reliable in the eyes of WP. Not only the media which talk about the study. But I get it, the media is reliable, they vetted their upstream sources in the eyes of WP. OK, great, then I can go ahead ... Foerdi (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you still aren't understanding what WP:RS means and how it differs from WP:DUEWEIGHT. Perhaps I am not the on who will be able to make this educational breakthrough with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As it's a pre-print I would suggest it shouldn't be used for anything contentious unless other reliable sources treat it as reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Please note wp:rsp, Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A previous banned user, user:PlanespotterA320 has imported a lot of photos, descriptions and other information from this site. However, after checking a little bit, this is a user-generated content site.
Related discussion on WP:ANI is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:PlanespotterA320 and aftermath. -Lemonaka‎ 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

For more information, please read about this site. -Lemonaka‎ 01:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think it's user-generated? I didn't find a way to edit or add information there, and they have a team of editors 20. This is not to say it's necessarily reliable, the best indication of that would be other RS using their data. Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs of about pages (although translated by machine) indicating that they are based on one hand sources. -Lemonaka‎ 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah they do ask people to send them information but my understanding is that they exercise the editorial control over what they publish. They also list the sources for any given page (e.g., 21). Alaexis_¿question? 06:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen from the team page the people running this site are hobbyists, so it shouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, its an amateur military history group blog of the kind we've addressed many times. This is however I believe the first such foreign language source we've dealt with at RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember I had a discussion with user:PlanespotterA320 about this source on the talk page of Alexander Prokhorenko. Difool (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This source is a typical secondary source: they took information from other sources, study, summarize and contribute it to the site.

It is even better for wiki.

Also anyone who is not lazy and can search through "Google books" can easily find sources verifying all claims made there. Kursant504 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

How is this even a question? The very URL and name of this website (unless it was sarcastically intended, which it clearly isn't) is a violation of WP:NPOV. The About Us page confirms the site's purpose as WP:PROMO ("popularisation") of certain people as "war heroes" of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation: ...we pay tribute to the memory of many of those who selflessly built and strengthened our country, and those who heroically defended it. Ye, nah mate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a ton of articles on Medal of Honor award recipients based mainly on US government promotion of those people as war heroes. The fact that this site is writing these articles because they feel patriotic isn't a reason to ignore them. If we are ignoring the sources, it would because it's a hobbyist website. That being said, Andrey Simonov is (according to an article written by PlanespotterA320) a published author in this field, works on the mentioned blog, and is also a Wikipedia editor. He links his account on the website, 22 and is an active editor over at the Russian Wikipedia as User:Андрей Симонов. Maybe the best solution to this issue would be to just ask him to contribute to User:Lemonaka/Factcheck? He is likely familiar with his own website and would have access to the original sources. If there are articles cited entirely to this website, it may be simpler to just ask the website for sourcing details than it would be for us to try to refactor every article on our own. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Medal of Honor award recipients based mainly on US government promotion of those people as war heroes. That is an official designation, so that is a different case. Indeed, the hobbyist nature of this website (a group of like-minded enthusiasts in order to popularise the history of the peoples of the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, using the example of the military exploits of the defenders of the Fatherland, as well as the glorious deeds of the working people.), where regular citizens start unofficially promoting certain people as "war heroes", is the problem. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We also have a ton of articles on the winners of Russia's highest award for bravery. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If these are official rewards, reported by a reliable source, that is fine. What is not okay is random sources randomly assigning random praises, heroisations and glorifications to random people according to their own random personal POV. This goes for any country or nationality, of course; such random websites exist across the planet. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: See also the section about #saints.ru below about saints websites, which usually engage in hagiography, the religious equivalent of military heroisation. Certain purported "saints" have been officially canonised as such by certain ecclesiastical authorities or religious organisations. Official ecclesiastical sources confirming such basic details as the date and stated reason(s) for their beatification/canonisation, feast days, and perhaps birth and death dates, birth and death places etc. may be relied upon. Otherwise, such devotional sources typically contain many WP:RS/WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE issues; they are to be avoided in favour of more reliable sources critically treating the subject's life, and any memory culture that may have been developed around their legacy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, with both the Soviet military heroes and the saints we face the problem that the primary contemporary historians (that would be Church and Party) are unreliable because they were regularly passing off fictional events as real for political and social reasons. Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen are a good example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, this doesn't just apply to Soviet or Russian history, but all human history. And what I was trying to say: even if the sentence On 21 July 1942, the Guardsmen were all posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. is only supported by some Soviet propaganda book from the 1960s, we do not necessarily have to doubt it (except the word posthumously, perhaps, which is part of the refuted claim, so we might add " " to "posthumously"). It is a factual claim about an official designation by a relevant governmental authority. Bestowing the title Hero of Foo on Bar doesn't necessarily make Bar a "hero" in a real sense (that's just something Wikipedia cannot say per WP:NPOV); it just means Bar has been granted the title Hero of Foo by the government of Foo.

Similarly, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to use saints.ru to support the basic claim Yaropolk Iziaslavich is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, with his feast day falling on the reported day of his death, November 22. But otherwise I wouldn't trust either source on Wikipedia for factual claims of these people's supposed "achievements" in order to assign them some heroic or saintly status. Wikipedia is not in that sort of business. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, Some bloke on the internet saying Ivan Scvainsky Scavar was a hero is not the same as the Soviet government awarding him a decoration for bravery. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Template:HSU lists I'd like to draw attention to the fact that the same now-permanently-globally-banned user:PlanespotterA320 seems to have creates all the "ethnicity"-based lists in this Template:HSU lists. Each of them cites the same general sources without inline citations, and I have different levels of concerns over WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in all of them. I've already nominated List of Heroes of the Soviet Union of repressed ethnicities for deletion and raised serious concerns about List of Jewish Heroes of the Soviet Union, but there may be more. It's unlikely that the sources provided, written in the 1980s so still Soviet times, would group people within the Soviet Union by "ethnicity"; that would very much be counter to Soviet ideology if I'm not mistaken. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw I've created a list for this, User:Lemonaka/Factcheck. These are articles created by this banned user. -Lemonaka‎ 01:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  The award documents for Heroes of the Soviet Union actually did list their ethnicities, and there have been post-Soviet academic publications on Heroes of the Soviet Union from specific ethnicities, such as this about Crimean Tatars.Kges1901 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Warheroes.ru is not user generated content because it has an editorial team. The biographical profiles on the site are of people who were awarded the Soviet state title Hero of the Soviet Union and the Russian state title Hero of Russia, the highest government award in these states. It is not a subjective database of people considered "heroes" but of people who received the highest state award. Warheroes is a valuable source because it compiles data from numerous out-of-print books published about Heroes of the Soviet Union that otherwise would be hard to obtain outside of Russia. Site author Andrey Simonov is a published author of books that include a biographical dictionary of pilots awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union that used newly available Soviet military documents to provide a less hagiographic account. Finally, Warheroes.ru is cited by numerous books, as can be seen from a google search, including several English language academic publications 23, 24, 25. Any comparison to websites about religious saints is spurious because warheroes is about real people who actually existed and have documented information about them, just like Medal of Honor recipients. Kges1901 (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Kges1901. I'm totally blank about Russian or Soviet topics. Now here's the problem, is this site documented all the official details or mixed with their researches? -Lemonaka‎ 00:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have cross-checked the profiles on the site with primary source documents and the cited sources when I could access them and can confirm that the profiles match the sources. Kges1901 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Kges1901 For good measure, do you think it's okay that List of twice Heroes of the Soviet Union only links to warheroes.ru, and no other source? Or should we at least try to verify these claims through other sources? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's perfectly okay because the information that these specific people received the award multiple times and the dates they received the awards, are the most uncontroversial aspect. The dates on warheroes.ru match with those in the biographical dictionary of Heroes of the Soviet Union and the original award documents. There's no need for an unnecessary make-work project here at all. Kges1901 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources in question are:

• Oryx (website) - the blog version (not the twitter account) here
• Various twitter accounts cited in this talk page section 26
• Zvezda (TV channel)

The article in question is:

• 2023 Belgorod Oblast attack

The information in question is:

• The tables in section on Losses cited at the moment to Oryx.

Past discussions regarding these sources (Oryx in particular):

• Archive 273
• Archive 322

While Oryx is a great and interesting twitter account/blog, the fact that it is WP:SPS means that it is potentially not reliable for this information. Of course, in cases where the blog is cited by OTHER outlets, like BBC or Reuters, that info would be RS. But that is not the case here.

While Oryx is being used in the article itself, on the talk page users are posting links to videos on twitter to justify the inclusion of the information. Additionally it appears that the photos in question (according to one user) originally originated with the Russian fake news/disinformation TV channel Zvezda, run by the Russian Ministry of Defense (originally posted to their Telegram channel). The argument on talk is that that somehow bolsters the reliability of the information but... personally I think it's actually the opposite. If nothing else, then the info should be attributed as coming from a Russian Ministry of Defense disinformation source.

I did add a "unreliable source" tag to the section but it was removed 27 by User:RadioactiveBoulevardier, with a revert incorrectly marked as "minor edit". RadioactiveBoulevardier has not responded on talk or explained their revert.

On top of all that, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Volunteer Marek 16:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• None of those twitter accounts appear to match the criteria at WP:RS. The twitter videos are at best WP:PRIMARY sources which are at best published by accounts managed by unreliable Russian state media. As primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources to interpret what they show. The "just watch the video" type assertions by the editor at the article talk page is not good enough. I have no way of knowing what I am watching or what it pertains to unless a reliable, secondary source tells me. And we have none of that. Zvezda is the among the worst of Russian state-owned sources, which is really saying something. None of it is reliable, and no content sourced to any of those twitter accounts, TV channels, etc. Oryx is probably good stuff, it appears to be endorsed by numerous other scrupulously reliable sources, so anything which comes from Oryx is probably good, but needs to stick to exactly what Oryx says, and not introduce information that can only be sourced to the twitter videos or to Russian state media. --Jayron32 16:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407
  Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

  ---