Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

(Sections older than 5 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.)

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489
490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499
500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509
510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519
520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525

Additional notes:

• RfCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

---

AZERTAC

Reporters Without Borders caught AZERTAC deliberately misquoting a journalist to the opposite of what he stated.

Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) documented AZERTAC's amplification of a fabricated story from a site impersonating France 24. A separate DFRLab investigation found that an AZERTAC report was the common link in the majority disseminated copypasta messages used in a coordinated campaign against the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). DFRLab also identified AZERTAC as among other Azeri-state funded newsites (apa.az, trend.az) publishing "fabricated claims" against USAID. According to Reporters Without Borders and OC Media, Azeri state media is considered generally unreliable on Azerbaijani state interests, and this view is shared by exiled Azerbaijani media outlets that are forced to operate abroad.

Further evidence of AZERTAC manipulating, falsely attributing, or officially rejected reporting is provided by International Research & Exchanges Board, CivilNet’s investigation and follow-up, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. This is very relevant because AZERTAC is already used on more than 1,000 articles.

According to Vafa Naghiyeva of OC Media, "In the absence of independent journalism, Azerbaijan’s state-aligned media does not report what is happening — it decides what can be seen. The endless repetition of identical headlines gives the impression of knowledge, yet it hides more than it reveals."

In 2024, the DFRLab documented how official AZERTAC reports were utilized as the anchor material for coordinated social media smear campaigns against PACE using networks of fake accounts. Vanezi (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The report mentioned by Reporters Without Borders is still up and uncorrected after over three years, and the one mentioned by DFRLab is still up and uncorrected after over a year. The RSF press freedom index for 2026 ranks Azerbaijan as 171st out of 180 countries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It's quite concerning that it's used more than 400 times, including for articles like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Even if it's just to report the Azerbaijani government's position, this can cause due weight issues. It's no better than the state-run media of its northern and southern neighbours and should be treated similarly. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

What is the reliability of AZERTAC?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Vanezi (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Survey (AZERTAC)

• Option 4 as the nominator. Vanezi (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is this necessary? So far noone is of the opinion that the source is reliable so what is being settled by this WP:RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought it was necessary for an official depreciation. --Vanezi (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You don't need a separate survey section. A simple discussion is fine. You have given zero reason for deprecating a source that is pretty obviously generally unreliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Compared with the WP:DEPSOURCES listed for state-sponsored disinformation, it seemed this source should be included. --Vanezi (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Those sources were deprecated due to issues beyond being state owned and unreliable. Deprecation is meant to only be used as a last resort, not a first instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair point about deprecation being a last resort. At the same time, if everyone agrees AZERTAC is generally unreliable I'm not sure that would keep editors from using it. Is there a middle ground? Or do you think generally unreliable is enough and we should just handle existing uses at the article level? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing stops editors from using a source, not even deprecation. That only adds a warning if you try to use it, but it doesn't stop you. Only blacklisting completely stops the use of a source, and that reserved for spam. Ultimately it's up to editors to ensure that sources reliably verify content, and that goes beyond the source just being coloured green or red. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The Request for Comments is a process that affords greater legitimacy and is particularly apt for issues that affect Wikipedia itself, as in, for instance, the quality of a source. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option 4 as AZERTAC been well-documented in running disinformation campaigns. - Amigao (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Anything but Option 4:Once again we have an RfC that contains EXACTLY ZERO REASONS TO DEPRECATE in any of the responses, but is instead full of excellent reasons to classify the source as being generally unreliable. I doubt that anyone !voting for option four could write a paragraph explaining the difference and when each should be applied. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC) Withdrawn after reading Aquillion's comment below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RFC There's been no reply to why this is necessary, I suggest this section is closed and editors go back to normal discussion. Also this isn't a WP:RFC as it has not been setup correctly, so it can't be used for deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  As this seems like it will continue I've actually made this a RFC, please read at least WP:RFC before starting one.
  Option 3 It's quite clear that AZERTAC should not be considered a generally reliable source. Posting an incorrect quote is forgivable if it is corrected when it's noticed, keeping that misquote years after it's shown to be false is not. That these issues seem not to be errors but rather propaganda for the government of the country, is damning. However it could still have use for the views of the government and for uncontroversial local news. It's currently used widely in articles but there's nothing to show that those uses aren't in good faith (there's no evidence that it's being deliberately used to mislead). So deprecation doesn't seem warranted unless the use of the source becomes more problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not starting the RFC properly. There could be uncontroversial uses of the source, but given it's blatant fabrications, it has surpassed a lot of sources already depreciated in general unreliability. Thank you for your input. --Vanezi (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option 4. A quick search suggests we are currently citing this source over a thousand times, despite being clearly documented spreading plainly intentional disinformation on multiple occasions; these are the textbook requirements for deprecation and the sort of thing it was specifically created for. For avoidance of doubt as to the purpose of deprecation, the main difference between it and general unreliability is the edit filter, which is important when two things are true: First, problems severe and systematic enough to render the source unreliable in virtually all cases; and second, evidence that editors continue to use it despite this self-evident unreliability, to the point where the more clear warning of the filter is needed to alert them to its problems. Both apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4. I had to delete my detailed reasoning as it'd simply duplicate the points made above. Well done. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4. Fabricated stories and all that. Originally I wanted to !vote for Option 3 but u:Aquillion's arguments convinced me that a deprecation is necessary. Alaexis_¿question? 08:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 – It's the state news agency of an authoritarian regime, so it's going to have to be between WP:GUNREL and deprecation here, and I lean towards deprecation considering how many citations we have to this source. It seems prudent to deprecate it to ensure that editors trying to cite it are aware of its issues, and deprecation is not blacklisting, so if there happens to be a legitimate use editors can just override the edit filter. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 There are compelling arguments here against AZERTAC, and the problems documented above are pretty serious. I'm comfortable with deprecation. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 and WP:SNOW close. We have spent enough time on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Since it's snowing, i've added AZERTAC to WP:PREDSCRIPT as depracated. If this closes differently, please ping me and I will update accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4. I agree with the WP:SNOW close. I won't say more to save space. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 This looks like a pretty clear example of what a source should not look like. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Public Storage

A quick summary of the issue:

Page: Public Storage

Talk Link: Talk:Public_Storage#Recent_Edits_2

Disclosure: I have a disclosed conflict of interest (I work for Public Storage)

Issue (from my view): Repeated content-blanking of well-cited content and adding of uncited content. Previously posted at NPOV but got no response.

Request: @Czarking0: has already started some conversation. Would love for more editor(s) to get involved to form a clear consensus. Geoffreyvee (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

What are the issues with RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This is more of a WP:DUE issue Czarking0 (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I responded to Slatersteven with more specific examples of adding uncited content or removing cited content on the article Talk page. Geoffreyvee (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Newly-published Sinjar Academy textbook — مدخل إلى الإيزيديولوجيا (Introduction to Yazidiology)

Authors are Majid Hassan Ali, Hadi Ta'lu Pir, Rezan Shivan Aysef, and Shukr Khader Murad Al-Aldakhi, published in Baghdad by Dar Al-Mada, 2026 and produced under Sinjar Academy, an US-Based educational nonprofit. Dar Al-Mada is a general Iraq-based publisher of Arabic literature, politics, and general nonfiction. The title page credits multiple scholars under "Consultation and Verification": Dr. Khalil Jindy Rashow, who has taught Kurdish at the University of Göttingen since 1996 and co-authored an academic monograph on Yezidism with Philip Kreyenbroek (per the acknowledgments, he reviewed and revised the manuscript's content), Haji Qasim Khder, a lecturer at the University of Zakho, who revised individual chapters and researcher Hoshang Broka. Separately Dr. Alda Benjamen, an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Dayton specializing in Iraq's minority communities, is also acknowledged for her educational expertise. Three of the four contributing authors hold PhDs in relevant fields.

I'd like input on whether this meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP for use at List of genocides for the inclusion of Genocide of Yazidis by the Soran Emirate (1832-1834) to the list, as the page's criteria requires classification as genocide by scholarship vetted by the scholarly community, in the author's own voice. I'm unsure whether this clears that bar, as the publisher isn't an academic press on one hand, but on the other hand has had multiple academically credible persons involved in its authorship and review.

Chapter 3 (pp. 69–80) is titled "تاريخ حملات الإبادة الجماعية (الفرمانات) ضد الإيزيدية" ("History of the Genocide Campaigns (Fermanat) Against the Yazidis"). On p. 69 the authors write, in their own voice, that these campaigns constitute "عمليات الإبادة الجماعية (الجينوسايد) حسب المفاهيم الحديثة" ("genocide operations, per modern concepts"). The 1832–34 campaign of Muhammad Pasha of Rawandiz against the Yazidis is included as part of the list of these genocidal operations (on pp. 76–77). Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This is probably reliable, but may not be WP:DUE. That something can be reliable sourced doesn't necessarily mean it must be included (WP:VNOT). Instead it's WP:NPOV that handles what should or should not be included in an article. Particularly that means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If this is a novel description not found in prior works then it might be best to attribute the details (WP:INTEXT). Articles are meant to show what the currently accepted consensus is on a subject, rather than up be up to the minute with new publications.
So this looks to be reliable, but the real question is what do other sources say about the same matter and has this work been widely accepted by other scholars in the field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, ActivelyDisinterested. This is one of numerous sources for the entry, and will be the third to meet that list's criteria so it wouldn't rest on this book alone.

Also to confirm, does that mean you consider the book to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this list's criteria? Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether it meets the lists criteria for inclusion is a matter for that articles talk page, but I would say it's reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry if my wording made this unclear. I should have explained at the start: on the list's talk page @Cdjp1 asked me to consult here at RSN because publisher of the book, Dar Al Mada, isn't an academic press, while it had multiple people of academic background involved in its authorship and review, so we weren't sure whether the book still counts as vetted scholarship under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you have a view on that specific point, I'd appreciate it, but I understand if you'd rather leave it there. Either way, thank you for your time. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Being an academic press is one signal of reliability, but it's not the only one. Given the credentials of the people involved I think you should be good, unless someone has specific issues they haven't yet raised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Possible laundering of a deprecated source in Wikivoice?

In the article Stop Asian Hate, there appears to be a case of the use of WP:GRAYZONE in WP:WIKIVOICE and it would be helpful to get other eyes on this. Page 280 of the following open-source book is cited for a controversial claim:

• Sautman, Barry (2026). Telling Tall Tales: "Uyghur Genocide" as a Political Strategem (PDF). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishing. p. 280. ISBN 9789004756106.

Page 280 cites https://mronline.org/2021/04/05/wipe-out-china-u-s-funded-uyghur-activists-train-as-gun-toting-foot-soldiers-for-empire/ as Barry Sautman's source for the controversial claim. That is a direct re-publication of the WP:GRAYZONE, a deprecated source. Is it permissible for a claim originating from a deprecated source to be used in Wikivoice here? - Amigao (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It depends. I think the editors of a Brill book and the author Barry Sautman can critically evaluate the source of information. If you follow this logic to its end point (and I have, at times) it becomes inherently impossible to say anything about anything that is itself unreliable or which involves unreliable actors. Anything about Grayzone is at least partially based on material from Grayzone, so then would it inherently be impossible to have any reliable source on Grayzone, because by your logic we would be laundering material from the deprecated Grayzone? Grayzone is like it or not rather influential (or, was) and if they break something that turns out to be true of course they will be referred to. Of course, if the piece, specific allegations or book in question is known to be wrong I'd consider that different, but a whole outlet... eh. It's a factor to be sure but the idea of "laundering" can be taken in strange directions very fast. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I’ve attributed his source. He’s an increasingly fringe voice and his book cites several Grayzone pieces as if they’re reliable sources so it’s questionable how reliable it is. My main doubt is whether it’s due - it’s a passing mention in his book, which is on a different topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In addition to WP:GRAYZONE, Sautman cites other unreliable sources like WP:BREITBART, WP:GLOBALTIMES, and WP:CGTN for factual claims. The book has also been called out for sloppiness that indicates a lack of basic fact-checking (e.g., referring to Tren de Aragua as "Tren de Arena" on page 1). - Amigao (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The only Breitbart citations are referring to exclusive quotes from exclusive interviews they were given, which seems, to me, to be totally unobjectionable.

As far as I can tell, Global Times is cited alongside ceicdata a singular time, to support "in 2013 it was Y13,700, but grew at an average of 7% annually, to reach Y30,899 in 2024 or 75% of China’s national figure." There are a bunch of Global Times links in the extended bibliography which is not a citation.

On CGTN, which is cited quite a bit, CGTN is cited extremely frequently by academic works, and given the media freedom in China if you're working with media primary sources that is basically unavoidable.

I don't think its case is great, seems he should be attributed for controversial things at minimum, though I think concerns about "laundering" unreliable sources leads to nonsense very fast. Speaking more broadly, whether the book is or is not reliable, no publisher is infallible. 2 or so years ago Oxford University Press published a book that argued in favor of Tariq Nasheed's conspiracy theories about slave owners and homosexuality. Book-specific reception is usually best for determining reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

On page 161, Sautman cites an op-ed piece in yet another unreliable source, WP:ALMAYADEEN, for a sweeping factual claim. On the same page, Sautman cites this article from Aeon magazine for a quote ("The WUC is probably the only Muslim-dominated organization in the world to stand with Israel in the Gaza conflict") that does not appear at all in the article. The quote actually comes from elsewhere. - Amigao (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It's important to remember that whether we consider a source reliable, unreliable, or deprecated is all in the context of it's use on Wikipedia. So a author using something we would consider unreliable is fine, as long as the author is considered reliable. Instead it's the content of the authors work that should be in question. Other academics calling out the work, or obvious factual inaccuracies in the work, are far more important then whether the author cites Grayzone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this source can be considered unreliable *because* it cites Grayzone, but it seems to espouse a rather fringe view and hence should not be given undue weight. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Given the above comment about contextual reliability, is it the case that protestors shouting 'Wipe Out China' is a fringe view? I understand the dubiousness of the book in general, but my intuitions differ for this particular context. Katiedevi (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's just the Grayzone and Sautman citing it, probably it's not due for this article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The Stop Asian Hate sentence, as edited by JArthur1984 and Amigao and BobfromBrockley, says According to Barry Sautman, citing The Grayzone blog, counter-protesters from the Uyghur American Association called for a world war to "Wipe Out China!"[37][dubious – discuss] Page 280 of the Sautman book says The drive-by hecklers called for a world war to “Wipe Out China!”, which means killing a large part of China’s population. ... ... [126] At the bottom of page 280 is cite 126: Ajit Singh, “‘Wipe Out China!’ U.S.-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Gun-Toting Foot Soldiers for Empire,” Greyzone, Apr. 5, 2021, https://mronline.org/2021/04/05/wipe-out-china-u-s-funded-uyghur-activists-train-as-gun-toting-foot-soldiers-for-empire/. Mr Sautman spelled Grayzone wrong and the URL is of MRonline which indeed directly republishes The Grayzone, which does not contain the words "world war" or "blog", but says On March 21, US-government-funded Uyghur activists were caught on video disrupting a gathering against anti-Asian racism in Washington DC, barking insults at demonstrators including, “Wipe out China!” and “Fuck China!” So the Wikipedia article is citing a book which cites an article which republishes an article which doesn't support what's in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It is strange to see this topic arise. I am the original proponent of this material, which was discussed on the relevant Talk Page on 29 September. Why would I not be tagged here until six days later? But @Peter Gulutzan I appreciate your tagging me.

The framing of this topic by OP - "laundering" a deprecated source - is bizarre. This is a text by a professor published by a major academic press. It cites a source which in turn republished a source we deprecate. I know of no grounds that allow us to frame this as a "reliable source" question via a three-deep look through. On the talk page, I invited OP to orient me to any policy. OP provided none.

To the contrary, and as I observed on the talk page discussion (which it appears OP has not linked) the standards are:

The verifiability burden "is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that direct supports the contribution." I'm citing an RS. The text by a professor published by a major academic press.

RS is defined by the characteristics of the source being cited. Not by delving two sources within the source being cited. But by looking at the characteristics of the source being cited:

• "The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publication that contains the work (the journal, newspaper)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)"

Some of the other premises are flat wrong. it's not true that the challenged proposition is in Wikivoice, as OP claims. I proffered it in Wikivoice, and but it was subsequently revised with multiple layers of attribution (which I view as unnecessary, but is an issue where I am perfectly fine compromising, attribution resolves any legitimate concern).

There is a lot of mixing and matching of complaints about the source in this thread which do not tie to a RS question or even the challenged proposition. Instead, much virtual ink is spilled questioning other citations in the text for other propositions.

Questions about due weight or attribution do not belong on the RS notice board, and frankly we seem to have handled it with the single attributed sentence. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I reply only to your side question "Why would I not be tagged here until six days later?" -- WP:VOTESTACK discourages such pinging since you have a "a predetermined point of view". I ignored the guideline but Amigao didn't have to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the more apt sentence in that guideline is "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances." And in any case, I thank you for informing me of the discussion, otherwise I would have been totally unaware. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree that dueness in a particular article is not RSN’s business. But dueness rests on attention in reliable sources so not always easy to firewall. I think the general question - of dealing with a source that has all the trappings of reliability (a scholarly author and legit publisher) but heavily leans on sources we consider unreliable - is a question for RSN. The consensus emerging seems to be that second hand unreliability isn’t something we can work with practically but it might lead us to question a source’s value in determining due weight.

In this case, I’m now convinced the book is too fringe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I am troubled by this free-floating assertion that the academic text is "fringe." The specific proposition - which has now been attributed -- is that UAA counter-protestors shouted anti-China slogans at a Stop Asian Hate rally. Hardly a "fringe" observation or exceptional proposition. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is a fringe observation if the only sources that report it are fringe sources. He uses this incident to support the following statement: “Only the small Uyghur diaspora in the US has influence and is also the most racist.” That’s an evidently exceptional claim, and the only reason he’s talking about this incident is to make that claim. The more I look at this the more convinced I am we shouldn’t go near this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Here’s one quite strong scholarly assessment of the publication: https://u.osu.edu/mclc/2026/09/01/brill-publishes-genocide-denialist-tome/ Might be good to look and see what reviews it got in the journals BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

That’s just a blog post. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe “open letter” is more apt than “blog post?” But that kind of beefing between academics is not a scholarly assessment, no. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, by a subject matter expert, and on a university website BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m not saying we should use this as a source in an article. I’m saying it’s a data point in considering the reliability of the source under discussion BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve had a look now in Google scholar and a couple of databases, and as far as I can see, two years after open access application, it has not had academic citation or a single review in an academic journal. (The only review I could find is a positive one from a LaRouche movement publication…) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Primetimer

As the first GA reviewer of Jeff Sneider, (see review page), we've discussed the inclusion of the source Primetimer, which has a promising editorial policy but is also owned under Sportskeeda, which is generally unreliable. At the section in Jeff Sneider, it's used to cite Sneider scrutinizing some commenters who defended CAA and calling the agency "notoriously one of the biggest bullies in the world" for its association with Harvey Weinstein. This is contentious information, but it's also a summary of Sneider's own statement he posted. Does this source have a case for inclusion? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm the GA nominator of Jeff Sneider, and a fellow editor who graciously has been helping out the process of the GA review was the one to add that source aforementioned; I know that Sportskeeda is considered unreliable for the "little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written", while Primetimer is indeed owned by the same company, Nazara Technologies. If the editorial policy of Primetimer is true, they've got editorial process unlike Sportskeeda; It's not unheard of for one media company to own one source that is unreliable because it is run a bad way, and all at once own yet another that is considered reliable because it is run well. BarntToust 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Schazjmd: Pinging you guys so you could check this. I think we need editors experienced in RSN before determining whether it's suitable, especially for a potential GA-class article. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Lambert Academic Publishing, lap-publishing, lap-publishing.com, via morebooks.shop

I see publications like "Heideggerian meaning of prostate cancer" (https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/product/978-3-659-23633-4] and "Buttoncity:The New Frontier of Buttonology:Research, Theory, and the Science of Pressing Questions" (by I. M. Shittinyu) (https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/book-launch-offer/35cb48935fabdf80b6bae293b385ac44b1e9aba4 ) makes me suspect the publisher has no academic merit. Per OmniScriptum article:Lambert Academic Publishing has also been described as the "most dominating" among "predatory publishers that seek out authors of new theses", a vanity press which does "not apply the basic standards of academic publishing such as peer-review, editorial or proof-reading processes". -Bogger (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC) Bogger (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What I am not seeing is whether Wikipedia uses this source as a reference, and if so for what and on what page. This is an important part of any RSN report. Could you add that information, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Where are they cited? Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So, I included those links as evidence that LAP prints dubious content. LAPS publications are used in articles such as Dadakuada, Monostroma, Bulu Imam, J. P. Yadav. (Given that I can't use Daily Mail as a source for anything, even if I know a particular story is accurate.), shouldn't LAP be considered as a non-reliable source, given it will clearly print anything that looks academic..? -Bogger (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

References

Nomos-TV

Hello, I was recently informed that the French-Canadian online website Nomos-TV (linked here ->Nomos TV) may be unreliable due to most of it's articles being self published opinion pieces by it's co-founder, Alexandre Cormier-Denis. I want to bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia noticeboard so that the reliability of Nomos-TV can be properly judged by community consenus Lazarbeem (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be considered reliable? Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable for certain topics. I'm saying this here because I couldn't find a Wikipedia:Unreliable sources/Noticeboard Lazarbeem (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If another editor thinks it isn't reliable, and you don't have any reason to think it's reliable, don't use it. There's no need for discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok good to know. Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The first and most important judgement on a source's reliability is an editors own good judgement. If you don't believe it's reliable then that's good enough, it's only if other editors disagree that a source needs to be discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Can I make my own list on my user page so I don't forget? Lazarbeem (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, it is your user page, do as you please Ar1201u1 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, your user page you business. I have a couple of links on my user page for searches of a couple of unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Is "India’s New Capitalists" a reliable source?

Can anyone help me identify if this is a reliable source for Indian caste history-related articles that fall under contentious topics (WP:CT/CASTE)?

Source link: GoMSTL (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The author, Harish Damodaran, seems well verses in the subject, and the publisher Hatchette / Palgrave Macmillan are reputable, but ultimately it will depend on what content you you want to support with this work. Context is always important and doubly so in contentious topics. The extract is from page 67, this link shows the full page.
Is there some more context to this, has someone questioned it's reliability? If so what was the issue the raised? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is a book review I found:

The box at the top of this page cays:

"The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports."

GoMSTL, you are required to add the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

In particular, I want to verify that the claim is not WP:PROFRINGE. See

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: For context, see that the source is used here but without page numbers or quotes. I think there are some unverified/ or Fringe claims have been made using this source, such as...They have also co-founded companies like Snapdeal, Hotmail, YesBank, IndiaToday, AajTak, IndiGo Airlines, Sun Microsystems, Max Group etc. GoMSTL (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that the book is a reliable source (which I am not qualified to judge), I see a problem with the above: the lack of page numbers. How do I know the source says that? That claim was added in this 2021 edit by Lamperdamper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You could ask about the page numbers on their talk page, but it has been 4.5 years since they edited so they are unlikely to answer. I also notice that the user made a bunch of edits about castes and also received warnings on their talk page for "Adding material that isn't supported by the supplied source" and "Misrepresentation of sources".

Then there is the question of WP:WEIGHT. I am completely lost in this topic area. I know a lot about things like Ayurdeva and Ministry of Ayush, but that's it as far as India goes. I don't understand why we even have an article in the Khatri caste that talks about companies they have cofounded. Why don't we treat the topic the way we treat Akhdam?

I would like to see someone with some expertise in this area go through Lamperdamper's edits and remove anything that cannot be verified in a reliable source. Other than that, I really don't know enough to help and would prefer to not be asked about this source any further. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If anyone else is willing to help, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I will tag the source with {{Verification needed}} and ({{Page needed}}. Guy Macon Thanks for the help. GoMSTL (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Booking engines - reliable for regularly scheduled airline routes?

This has gone round the houses multiple times over the last while, and for whatever reason I cannot locate the last discussion that was had on the topic - so best to re-discuss and get a final consensus on the matter.

There is a desire from some editors to use booking engines to verify regularly scheduled airline routes, such as what is listed on airport/airline articles - such as using the search engine on an airline's website (eg. ryanair.com) to locate a flight, or third party booking engines such as flightsfrom.com. There are a number of issues with this:

• You can't directly link to the search results, due to the dynamic nature of the URLs - forcing editors to link to the airline homepage instead... you may as well be telling a reader to "use Google.com to look it up and verify it yourself"
• You can only look up a single date at a time, or sometimes a week either side of the search. This means you can't verify the ongoing nature of the flight, the official start date, or whether the route is seasonal or year-round. Conducting multiple searches to identify this information is, to me, flying too close to WP:SYNTH - we're interpreting data presented to us to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated anywhere in the source.
• Forcing readers to conduct their own searches on these booking engines, to me, fails WP:OR, for similar reasons to the point above.

What do editors think on using these sources for airline routes?

I acknowledge that many editors (including myself) feel that the level of detail currently included in these lists fails WP:NOTTRAVEL or WP:NOTDIRECTORY... however as it stands, there is currently no consensus to remove such lists, so we have to work with the status quo while ensuring the lists are properly sourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

We always define sources as published information, I think information that can be retrieved from a company website's search tools really stretches that definition. Although primary sources can be used, this isn't information that has been placed on the record, it's dynamic data for the sole purpose of selling a product, just like a price list or catalogue. I feel these sources aren't good enough for WP:V. Orange sticker (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a good point. If the information on such websites is dynamic, it can not be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Non-verifiable search results (which change dynamically) aren't citations of a published document in any meaningful sense. They only exist for the duration of the search, and even archiving one (which would be an abuse of an archive) would potentially be invalid from the next search - it's far from unknown for businesses to use frequency of searches as a means to adjust prices etc, and even to amend offered products. Merely searching may change the data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS says that the difficulty in retrieving a source doesn't effect it's reliability, but a source must exist. That's to say if the source is ephemeral it's not reliable, as the point of sourcing is for the purposes of verification and that can't happen if the source isn't available. Search results in general would be in this category, as search results change with time and the person doing the search.
In this case, even if the search results can be archived, I don't see how it verifies anything beyond the flights listed in the search results and not that regular scheduling exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User:ActivelyDisinterested so does this mean that because uptodate.com is ephemeral, in that their are no archived versions, it is not reliable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is ephemeral I don't see how it can be, the point of references is verification. That's mean the source must exist at the point of verification. An editor saw it once does not count as verification. You may have to travel to another country and pay to get access to a source, but it must exist. Is it not possible to archive the site at the wayback machine? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

With respect to Uptodate.com, no it is not possible to archive as it is behind paywalls. There were CD versions at one time. Could booking engine searches be archived? Possible, and if they can be would folks be happy with their use? I would not be surprised if internet archives could do so on our request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem I can see with archived search results is the specific use-case - how can a single search result verify that an airline is flying a route on a regular basis, it isn’t seasonal etc.? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

They would be reliable for what they show, context would be important. If the result only should that a flight went from A to B on a particular date, then that would only support that. It is should regularly available flights of a period then it would be reliable that regular flights occured during that time frame. I don't think booking websites are the best of sources for this, but as I said sources only have to be of a quality to the content the are supporting. Flight schedules may need proper sourcing but it's not criminal accusations, or matter of someone's person live that would require high quality sourcing.
I was thinking of my previous reply, and I wanted to clarify. As long as a site like Uptodate.com shows the information it would pass verification, that's the point of reliability to allow verification, the problem comes when it doesn't. If the source is no longer available to anyone, anywhere, then it fails verification. If the site can't be archived or safed in some way that becomes a problem when it is no longer available . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Uptodate regularly changes their website (similar to other websites). So the version you ref is not the version currently available. Similar problem with search engines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• This website https://www.flightconnections.com/ has archive links that list all the destinations from all airports. Yes websites change over time, so sites with archival links are better. But it does not mean that websites without are not.
• AirCanada lists all their destinations on this page https://vacations.aircanada.com/en/plan-your-trip/travel-info/where-we-fly What do we do for airlines without similar pages? Agree booking engines are not the best, but disagree with banning them entirely.
• Knowingly creating incomplete lists is not appropriate per WP:NPOV just because the source supporting the information is not one a person "likes". There are errors of commission (when we include wrong stuff) and errors of omission (when we exclude correct stuff). Both are less than ideal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV first sentence is that NPOV is including all significant views found in reliable sources. If it's not in a reliable sources it's inclusion is against NPOV, editors don't decide sources do. Absolutely whether a source is suitable should be discussed, and we shouldn't be overly stringent (the quality of a source only needs to match what it's supports), but a source isn't reliable because we need it to be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  FlightConnections seems to be a random website. The minimal amount of info about it on the Contact page just lists an incorporated company in the Netherlands with the exact name as the website. Why would this at all be considered a reliable source for anything in the first place? Silverseren^C 18:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

These are not sources for the subject in the first place. None of them actually state that there is a regularly scheduled flight from one location to another. Unless you have a primary or secondary source (secondary always preferred, primary highly discouraged) that states that an actual route between said two locations exists, then you don't have anything. A booking website for a flight is not a route and are not reliable sources anyways for basically anything. Any such source usage should be actively removed from all such lists. Silverseren^C 18:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. There is no requirement that sources be easy to access or that sources must be static pages. The airlines are reliable sources about where the airlines fly, as are websites that incorporate their data. There is no benefit to artificially restricting sources that verify content and making things harder for ourselves. There is no concern regarding bias or unreliability to these sources. Databases that do not have a URL specific to each item are still usable as reliable sources. Clicking a route pair is absolutely not original research. Let's not pretend this is particularly contentious or complicated information that needs a higher bar for sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

as are websites that incorporate their data This is just a blatant inaccuracy in regards to WP:RS. A website is not a reliable source just because it is copying data from another source that would be considered reliable. Not only is there copyright issues involved, but also problems of accuracy, reliability of a random website owner, due weight for the information itself, and a number of other factors. You can't just spin up your own website, copy data from an encyclopedia, and then state your website is a reliable source. Silverseren^C 19:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

An airline saying that they operate certain flights is not copyrighted, this is not a creative work. That may be an issue on other things, but it's not here. I've seen no evidence that websites that use the airlines' APIs have widespread accuracy issues, that is a purely hypothetical concern. — Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

So you are claiming then that if I made a website right now, copied said flight data onto it, that my website would be a reliable source for said information? Silverseren^C 21:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Is Lives of Flemish, German, and Dutch painters a reliable source?

In Jean-Baptiste Descamps's Lives of Flemish, German, and Dutch painters (published in the 18th century), the birth years of painters are included. For example, Hendrick van Balen the Elder's is written as 1567 and Jan van Eyck's as 1366. It's unclear if there are fully reliable source for something 500+ years ago, but because this source is from a notable historian and published much closer to that century, could it make sense to amend these birth years? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we're going to have more recent scholarly sources, even 19th century ones that have higher quality historiographical standards. Jahaza (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If the historian are reliable we should be trusting them, but at the same time WP:AGEMATTERS so it would good to find newer sources than the 18th century. Going backwards to even older sources is a bad idea. Basically in general newer academic sources should be used instead of older ones or primary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I would not call it “unreliable”… but more modern sources would be more reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not unusable but new sources are better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Website coverage of the Ventoy incident

This concerns the references present at Ventoy#Binary blob controversy, which is a dedicated controversy section. There is a discussion open at Talk:Ventoy#Controversies section, but I'm asking here to get opinions more quickly. The references in the section include:

• https://www.ventoy.net/en/index.html
• https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy
• en.iguru.gr
• NixSanctuary.com
• https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/3224

The first two are obviously primary sources, the next two don't look like anything more than self-published websites run by hobbyist, and the last one is another primary source. I would leave this as is if it were just fact statement, but this concerns a controversy section, which I believe needs secondary, much more high quality sources than what's here. I asked the editor restoring these content why these references are reliable, but I got repeatedly told I'm the one who should be proving why these are unreliable. So I came here to check whether these are indeed suitable for the content they're covering. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

They would be reliable for their claims, not for those claims being true. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Are these authors reliable, though? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If I'm saying "I am the great sage of Heaven," I am responsible for me saying saidm it, not for it being true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where there is a huge amount of coverage in social media as the usual suspects go nuts in the usual ways, plus Ventoy clarifying that the "binary blobs" are not some unknown code that might contain malware but are from other open source projects where you can build the binaries from source and verify that you get the same binaries Ventoy uses. I see zero reliable secondary sources covering this non-issue. The section should be nuked until a reliable secondary source notices the usual suspects going nuts in the usual ways and covers it. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it is more of an wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

So I should delete them for now? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. And anyone who tries to restore them without a reliable secondary source should be reverted (but take care to avoid WP:EW) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

what exactly makes these sources unreliable? i'm currently tracking responses to claims about the sites' reliability on the article's talk page and can't see any reason why these wouldn't be reliable for the claims made here (the main claim being "concerns have been raised regarding the fact that the source code tree contains a large number of pre-compiled blobs of unknown origin"), nor can i see a reason to remove the section instead of trying to fix it. .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

See wp:sps. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

i've looked at wp:sps; what in that policy makes these self published? both sites appear to have a main publisher or publishers and in both cases the involved content does not appear to be written by them.

Talk:Ventoy#c-.qwertydotplus-20261006163700-.qwertydotplus-20261005152900 .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

One of them seems to be ventoy, talking about ventoy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

???

which one seems to be ventoy?

if you're referring to the two github links, they're used exclusively for the project being hosted in a github repository and the creator responding, which are both valid uses, and ventoy.net is obviously authoritative for claims made by the project .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Ventoy#c-.qwertydotplus-20261005152900-.qwertydotplus-20261005150600 .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

No the one called www.ventoy.net. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

yeah, i already mentioned that one as well.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Website coverage of the Ventoy incident:~:text=ventoy.net is obviously authoritative for claims made by the project .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

it's used exclusively in the text "Ventoy claims[9] to be an open source software" .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ventoy&oldid=1378017235#cite_ref-9 .qwertydotplus (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Nialler9

Could Niall Byrne of Nialler9 be considered a subject matter expert and can his magazine/blog be cited on wikipedia? I recently saw that the draft Draft:The Bernard Shaw cites the blog, and I thought I should bring it here to see if it could be used. Nialler has won multiple awards, so I dont think it is just a rando's self published blog

about page Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard decision could be relevant here Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:UBO: Byrne is frequently cited as a journalist and subject matter expert on Irish music and culture by reliable sources. The Irish Examiner , BBC, RTÉ.ie, Irish Independent, RTÉ Radio 1,The Journal , Newstalk, Dubin Live. The claims being supported by the source are event listings and the existence of an online petition, i.e. entirely uncontentious and having little incentive for misrepresentation or fabrication. Yes, Nialler9 is without doubt a reliable source in this domain. ~2026-53031-63 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Byrne is an expert in that field, so I'd say that this can be usable in context, particularly for uncontroversial claims within his area of expertise. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Weixin.qq - social media or reliable source?

I’ve watched weixin.qq get used all over aviation articles for many months, and thought nothing more of it (just a random example - this verifying a route from Tokyo to Xiamen). However today I realised, when another editor added the same URL with an odd title, that Weixin appears to be the same as WeChat…? Is it, and if so should it not be classed as social media? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Isn't Weixin just the Chinese version of WeChat. As to that link specifically who is Mozambique Business Information and how do they relate to flights on the Xiamen-Tokyo route. WeChat is just a service, so reliability depends on who is posting. Any random post on WeChat is no different from any random post on Facebook. If a company is posting official information on Facebook then it might be reliable, but otherwise finding something on there is no different than any random selfpublished website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

That was what I’ve been trying to decipher - a lot of these pages I can’t translate, so I’ve no idea what they actually are… obviously we can’t mark them all as unreliable, but if it’s social media we need to be aware of it and probably place it in the perennial sources list alongside the existing entry for WeChat Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Do we have an existing entry for WeChat? In any case, something like WP:RSPTIKTOK where we say TikTok (Douyin) might be appropriate.

As a side note, the Internet landscape in China means that more RSs might choose to publish on a Weixin/WeChat account and nowhere else, since print newspaper and traditional webpages are much less common there. Nevertheless, I second that we should judge them on their individual merit based on who the posting-account is.

LkL-70547 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh I absolutely agree that the vast majority of these links are likely to be perfectly acceptable - I just think we should treat it like any other social media site, giving it more scrutiny than your average source purely because it has the potential to be user generated as opposed to reliable. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:38, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

In general social media is covered by WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. If the source is reliable outside of WeChat then what it posts on WeChat would be reliable, as reliability is about the publisher not the medium. Or if an individual or company posts on WeChat then that's reliable for uncontroversial statements about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

It literally is WeChat. If you click the author link name in the article, it redirects you to WeChat itself. So, yeah, it's the literal same thing. So all the same caveats as all social media websites and enhanced scrutiny for reliability of the poster. I definitely have higher suspicions for this specific author being Mozambique Business Information, which I can't find elsewhere and may only come up under the Chinese character name (which the article won't let me copy/paste, darn it), but if it only exists as a Chinese group, then the name is confusing and suspicious. Silverseren^C 19:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify that the publisher does not seem to be in anyway claiming that they are related to the nation of Mozambique. I have never heard of "莫桑" being used as a shorthand for Mozambique in Chinese (莫桑比克); if I have to guess the name is probably a portmanteau of the editor's names and is otherwise meaningless.

The above was an error on my part, the account's headline (written in cursive and ignored by me) does indeed say "Mozambique Business News", with their extended description including "analyzing Mozambique and various African countries".

LkL-70547 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it just a random person then and not actually a business/news source? Since, if so, then that specific article and author at least is not a reliable source. Silverseren^C 19:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

My bad, I reached the conclusion with just a quick browse of the webpage. I have striked my previous comment and updated it. LkL-70547 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources or secondary sources?

Is there any Policy/guideline stating that we can only use secondary sources or only primary sources when writing genetic-related content? Most genetics papers/reports are primary sources, as they are based on DNA samples collected from specific communities. Several South Asia-related articles also use both primary and secondary sources for genetics-related content, for example Pashtuns#Genetics, Baloch people#Genetics, Shina people#Genetics, Kho people#Genetics, Kalash people#Genetic research, and Genetic studies on Gujarati people.

My understanding is that both primary and secondary sources can be used for genetics-related content, as long as they are reliable and published by reputable publishers. I would appreciate input from editors with expertise in genetics papers/reports related to South Asia. I am seeking clarification on whether we are restricted to only primary sources, only secondary sources, or if both are acceptable. GoMSTL (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Your help in this regard would be appreciated, if possible. GoMSTL (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Start by setting aside some time and carefully reading WP:PRIMARY and WP:PSTS. Then, carefully read WP:WEIGHT.

Now step back and take a look at Pashtuns#Genetics. Ask yourself if we crammed too much information into that part of the article. The Ryukyuans, Navajo, Naga people and Frisians pages manage to get by just fine without any mention of subclades or haplogroups at all. Where are the reliable secondary sources that discuss the genetics of Pashtuns? How does this satisfy the requirements of due weight? Could it be that you are too close to the subject and have become like someone who wants a huge highly detailed article on every individual Pokemon?

Compare our article on the Romani people. There, genetics have due weight because multiple reliable secondary sources discuss the origins and genetics of the Romani. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon For clarity, Gotitbro is directly involved in this dispute, which has already been resolved at DRN, however, I sought further clarification regarding only sources from the uninvolved editors. GoMSTL (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think WP:MEDRS applies to genetics. It is meant for medical conditions. I have read it and it doesn't say anything about genetics/genetics papers. GoMSTL (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to actually read and understand pages like WP:MEDRS. They are there to help you. A classic sign that you are not reading and understanding a policy is you saying something false like "WP:MEDRS is meant for medical conditions", The very first line of that policy says "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources". Biomedical, not medical. It even has a handy link to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Free clue: we are not in a contest to use the lowest quality sources that we can get away with. If there is any doubt as to whether to apply WP:RS or WP:MEDRS, choose MEDRS. You will never go wrong using the best sources available. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

As per WP:YESBMI: Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health (medical conditions). Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works.It further discuss medical conditions/health related. What I said about MEDRS is that it is basically about medical conditions, as mainly discussed at WP:YESBMI. [MEDRS —> Biomedical information —> WP:YESBMI]. I think MEDRS is tricky to understand for most of the users. (I Might be wrong).GoMSTL (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon In Romani people#Origin sources #[230], #[235] and #[236] are not primary sources? GoMSTL (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, you need to read and understand our policies on primary sources. They don't say that you can't use primary sources. There are things you can use primary sources for. and the Romani people page follows those rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, you need to read and understand our policies on primary sources. They don't say that you can't use primary sources. There are things you can use primary sources for. and the Romani people page follows those rules. Please try to understand there is no doubt on my side about primary sources. I've read related policies. I didn't say or believe that primary sources cannot be used for genetics. Although I was strictly asked that you cannot use primary sources for genetics (you can also read my reply to ActivelyDisinterested). GoMSTL (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

As stated before at other forums/boards, please read WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia editors cannot (and should not) be handling WP:PRIMARY sources in a topic area as riddled with problems (racialism and what have you) and contentious as WP:CT/CASTE. This is also true regardless of the topic concerned.

Further despite the selective carousel of articles listed above (with their own problematic history of how they were added at all in the first place ), we do not, per long-running precedent and consensus, include genetics-related cruft for almost anything at Category:Castes as far as it relates to South Asia.

This is also gets into the weeds of the litany of primary sources you added such as here even met basic WP:MEDRS check. They didn't. Gotitbro (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Please listen to Gotitbro. They got it right. All of the articles on castes are full of cruft and badly need a trimming. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Please avoid following my recent edits and leaving same kind of explanation that you already gave at Talk: Gurjars in Kashmir. As you are directly involved in the content dispute. I didn't pinged you or for your clarification because this thread was posted to get clarification from uninvolved editors. Please don't mind. GoMSTL (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If two contributors are involved in a dispute, it is entirely proper that they both comment in a noticeboard thread discussing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Do you mean the same editors can directly discuss at DSN and repeat the same views that were already discussed at length on the talk page without resolving the issue? Also, why do you not think that input from uninvolved editors would be better? GoMSTL (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do. What on earth makes you think that only hearing your version of things would be appropriate? Anyway, as an 'uninvolved editor' I'd echo what has already been stated above: the use of primary-source material on genetics in caste-related articles is deeply questionable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and with few exceptions, subtopics of articles should only be created where there is significant secondary sourcing. If the sources don't exist, we don't substitute our own analysis for them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. GoMSTL (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

BTW, I don't care who wrote what on other pages or what their positions are. I might end up telling Gotitbro "listen to GoMSTL. They got it right" tomorrow. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It's normal when an article page dispute hits noticeboards that disputants on both sides of that dispute present their case to the noticeboard and, in this case, Gotitbro's case is compelling. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe MEDRS is misrepresented here, and I have read it. The only reason I started this discussion was to get an overview from uninvolved editors with expertise in the subject. I did not restart this discussion at the article talk page, where it has already been explained at length by myself and other involved editors and, where we disagreed about which sources can or cannot be used. [What Gotitbro explained here was already explained before at the article talk page.] I also avoided pinging involved editors to prevent this Noticeboard from becoming another venue for the disputes or disagreements over how a policy/guideline like MEDRS is interpreted. As I understand it, this noticeboard is only for discussing the reliability of sources and what we can or cannot use for specific content. GoMSTL (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. My focus remains on understanding, from other editors at this Noticeboard, what sources can and cannot be used for genetics. Regarding MEDRS, I have already explained my views and have heard views of Gotitbro. I have listened to Gotitbro's explanations here and on related talk pages, but I found his views to be inconsistent with WP:MEDRS. (& found nothing there related genetics). GoMSTL (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Understanding MEDRS can be tricky, other editors than Gotitbro have called your understanding into question, that's not a mark against you I answer a lot of questions on this page and still ask for help when it comes to MEDRS. I would suggest listening to what other editors have said.
As it is your question is to broad for the noticeboard, if you have a specific source and specific content you want to support with it this is the place, but the current question of "can primary sources be used for genetics" is way to vague. The only possible answer is "maybe, maybe not", as it will depend on what exactly you want to use it for.
As an example something like "A study by [group] in 2020 found that 78% of participants in a group of 200 were" could possibly be reliably sourced to a primary study, but it might not be due unless there's good reason to include it. While "All [ethnic group] are" is unlikely to be reliably sourced to a primary study. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You are right that MEDRS can be tricky, as it does not directly talk about genetics but about Biomedical information in general. I posted here only to get help from other editors on whether primary sources can be used for genetics. In a content dispute I was told strictly not to use primary sources for genetics. I disagreed as I did not find any Policy or essay supporting that claim. After coming from DRN, I was suggested to seek help at RSN on whether primary or secondary or both sources can be used for genetics, so that is what I am doing here. For the record, in my earlier replies, I stated that, in my understanding, both primary and secondary sources can be used for genetics. GoMSTL (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Your understanding is flawed as far as it relates to basic policies such as PRIMARY, MEDRS etc. Entire articles simply should not be created using mostly PRIMARY sources for any topic (this is without addressing the fact whether the topic is notable at all) and not anywhere for caste-specific articles (including paras, tables etc). You are reading policy text without understanding what it means or why it was instituted in the first place. Certainly not to allow for cases where editors parse through large genetics tables of various peoples and castes from multiple primary sources and then synthesize them at enwiki as it relates to one particular caste.

The only secondary sources you've presented here are Down to Earth (magazine) (a climate change mag) and The Telegraph (India) (a daily). One should be sceptical of these as well in any case (we know well how non-specialist journalists are susceptible to bad reporting on genetics and science, look no further than Nicholas Wade).

This is why MEDRS (a subset of SECONDARY) applies. such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works is pretty straightforward and not hard to understand. Gotitbro (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is not flawed. I have read Primary, Secondary, MEDRS, Biomedical information, and WP:YESBMI. (See ActivelyDisintrested's comment: Understanding MEDRS can be tricky,...I answer a lot of questions on this page and still ask for help when it comes to MEDRS... @Gotitbro. I expect that you will not repeat casting aspersions, as you have been warned for doing so by two different Admins. FYI, this thread is only about whether primary sources can be used for genetics or not. It was posted after a suggestion by Robert McClenon following the close of the case at DRN, who further suggested seeking clarification on MEDRS at WP:VPPOL (to see whether MEDRS directly applies to genetics/genetics papers or not). I did not bring up MEDRS here; you did. If you want to discuss, you should do so at VPPOL, as that is the appropriate noticeboard for discussing Wikipedia policies/essays. Also I did not say that we can write a Genetics article using only primary sources, nor did I say that I will use only these sources. You have not read all the comments. As per others' input, we can also use primary sources for genetics if the sources are reliable, so this thread was only for clarification on that particular matter.

I provided some primary sources to inquire about their reliability; there is nothing wrong with that. ...Entire articles simply should not be created using mostly PRIMARY sources for any topic... I did not say that, so you should not make assumptions on your own. The only secondary sources you've presented here are Down to Earth... Again, I did not say that I provided secondary sources or that I provided only secondary sources. Please read my previous comment.GoMSTL:... If primary sources may or may not be usable for genetics, can the specific sources be used? I believe most of them are reliable (sources are reliable), but I would like to hear if they are considered reliable enough. GoMSTL (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Sources

ActivelyDisinterested and Guy Macon: For the context I want to use these sources for Genetics of Gurjars. Reason to use these sources is to provide a short overview of haplogroups. If primary sources may or may not be usable for genetics, can the specific sources be used? I believe most of them are reliable (sources are reliable), but I would like to hear if they are considered reliable enough.

References

GoMSTL (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Any views on reliability of these primary sources for genetics related content? GoMSTL (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Film Threat

I would be interested in getting some broader input on how Film Threat should be treated under WP:RS, especially when it is used for film reviews and critical reception.

This has come up in deletion discussions and elsewhere, where Film Threat has sometimes been dismissed as essentially a "pay for articles" outlet. Since the same question can affect a number of film articles, it probably makes more sense to discuss the source itself here rather than argue about it separately in individual AfDs. Film Threat does not appear to have an entry at WP:RSP, and I could not find a substantial previous discussion at WP:RSN.

The main use I have in mind is straightforward attribution of reviews and critical opinion, and the related question of whether Film Threat reviews count as independent coverage when discussing a film.

• Film Threat is a long-running film publication dating back to the 1980s. It accepts free review submissions, but also sells paid "Fast Pass" and promotional packages. The Fast Pass guarantees a review within a set time frame, while some of the higher-priced options add faster turnaround and promotion. Film Threat states that payment guarantees that a project will be seen and honestly reviewed, not that the review will be positive. That seems closer to a pay-to-get-reviewed or expedited-review model than to simply buying favourable coverage.
• Wired discussed Film Threat's model in February 2024 and described it as a "long-running, well-respected site", while identifying it as a prominent and transparent example of the pay-to-get-reviewed model.
• Rotten Tomatoes continues to include Film Threat reviews in the Tomatometer. For example, its page for Film Threat editor Alan Ng lists Film Threat as his publication and states that his reviews count when published at Tomatometer-approved publications.

So the question is not really whether Film Threat should be trusted for every kind of factual claim. I am mainly wondering how editors think its reviews and critical coverage should be treated.

Would Film Threat generally be considered usable for attributed film reviews and critical opinion? And does the paid expedited-review option make those reviews non-independent for Wikipedia purposes, even when the payment does not buy a positive review?

I would also be interested in whether editors would draw a distinction between its reviews, news coverage, interviews, and other material. Normospheric (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

"The current incarnation of Film Threat accepts money from filmmakers who are looking for a way to promote their films.", so no as it is paid content. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I would be cautious about treating Film Threat as categorically unusable simply because it offers a paid expedited review option. There is an obvious independence concern where a filmmaker has paid to have a film reviewed, and I would not automatically treat such coverage as strong independent evidence for notability. But that is not the same question as whether Film Threat can ever be cited as a source.

The publication has a long editorial history, identifiable critics and editors, and it publishes actual reviews that express independent critical judgments rather than guaranteed promotional copy. Payment buys access/expedited consideration, not a favourable verdict. That distinction matters.

For Wikipedia purposes, I think the more proportionate approach is:

• Film Threat reviews can be used for **attributed critical opinion**, subject to normal questions of weight.
• They should be treated more cautiously when being used as evidence of **independent coverage for notability**, especially where it is unclear whether the review resulted from a paid submission.
• Interviews should be treated as interviews/primary-source material.
• News or feature pieces should be assessed on their own merits.

The fact that Film Threat does not clearly label individual Fast Pass reviews is a weakness, but to me that argues for caution about independence and notability, not for declaring the entire publication equivalent to advertorial or paid promotional content.

Would others agree that a blanket "paid content, therefore unusable" conclusion goes too far here? My inclination would be that a more nuanced, context-dependent treatment of Film Threat is closer to how Wikipedia normally evaluates sources. Normospheric (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Slatersteven that it is generally unreliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking at past discussions editors were saying that 2017 reviews shouldn't be considered independent. If we can't tell advertorials from real content, then it should all be treated as not being independent of the subject of the review. The awards are also reliant on making payment. Context is important, but the context here is that the reviews are pay to play. They could still be reliable for details about the film, but not for critical reception or notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. The point about not being able to distinguish paid from unpaid reviews is persuasive, particularly for independence and notability. Given that uncertainty, I'm happy to err on the side of caution and treat post-2017 Film Threat reviews as non-independent coverage. Thanks all for the input. Normospheric (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Film Threat was good for notability pre-2011 (when it started the pay-to-review program). After that, no. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a broader structural issue here that is worth separating from the narrower question of whether a paid Film Threat review can establish notability. If a filmmaker has paid to have a film reviewed, I agree that this should not count as independent coverage for GNG purposes. And if paid and unpaid reviews cannot be distinguished, caution is reasonable.

What I am less convinced by is the jump from “not independent for notability” to “generally unreliable.”

Specialist publications are often precisely the outlets willing to cover microbudget, underground, genre and independent films that mainstream media have little economic incentive to review. The WIRED article cited above notes that Film Threat’s pay-to-get-reviewed model provides a significant part of its revenue and helps pay writers.

That does not make a paid review independent. But there is a broader problem if adopting such a model makes an entire publication categorically unusable: Wikipedia may end up discounting exactly the specialist journalism that documents areas of film culture largely ignored by mainstream outlets.

So I would distinguish between whether a review is independent for notability, whether Film Threat is generally reliable, and whether an attributed critical opinion can still be cited. Those questions do not necessarily need to have the same answer... Normospheric (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot distinguish their paid content from their non-paid content. If Film Threat offered paid reviews but made clear if any piece was paid for or not, we could simply not use the paid ones, and there would be no problems. This is how it is for a lot of book outlets, which offer paid programs to review books they otherwise wouldn't, but make very clear which content is and is not paid (e.g. Kirkus Reviews and their Kirkus Indie program). But since they don't distinguish the whole thing becomes an issue. I don't think this is totally the same as reliability and so I would not consider it "generally unreliable" because that's not what the issue is, we're not accusing them of having inaccurate coverage (as far as I can tell on that stance they remain pretty good). E.g. they're probably fine for production details from a factual standpoint, but since we cannot tell if the coverage was paid we cannot discern the independence of the coverage and so it should not be used to prove notability/reception. It's a different but no less prominent issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

How are we meant to trust their critical opinion if they're being paid for it by the subject. I can't see how we can use that, attributed or not. They should be reliable for details about the films, but their critical opinions are paid commentary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I read Film Threat long ago, and I remember it as a legitimate - if somewhat snarky and idiosyncratic - film magazine. Apparently, this is no longer the case ? What we should determine is from what date it stopped being reliable. .Psychloppos (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

2011. That is when the paid program started. Everything before that is pretty good. And as I said above it's less about reliability than non-independence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

https://boxofficestar2.eklablog.com/

Hello,

I'm trying to determine whether this French blog is acceptable as a source here. It is used to source box office returns in the French-language Wikipedia, and it might be useful for the results of European films - especially French ones, and older ones in particular. The blog is not anonymous, and while its author is not a professional critic, his work seems to be reliable. Thanks ! Psychloppos (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Does the author have any other published works on cinematography or films, or is the blog used by academic sources as a reference? Generally it's a good idea if you look at how other reliable sources treat a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not aware of other works by the author. I could find one scholarly article that uses that blog as a source. Psychloppos (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that this is a selfpublished blogpost, there needs to be something to show why it's not just another random website. I don't think that's enough to say it should be considered generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing and attribution for refugee camp conditions on the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus page

I'd like input on sourcing and attribution of living conditions in refugee camps on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. Following discussion on the article's the talk page, I wanted to propose this question. The current version of the page cites what is written below regarding the conditions of the refugee camps where Kashmiri Pandits reside. I feel that the attribution of "according to one source" may lead readers to believe that the view lacks scholarly consensus or is not widespread.

Many Kashmiri Pandits initially moved to the Jammu Division, the southern half of Jammu and Kashmir, where they lived in refugee camps, whose conditions, according to one study, had lacked "sanitation, hygiene, private space and the regular supply of basic facilities such as water."[57]

I wanted to alter this text to the quote below, as that is sourced from scholars on the topic of Jammu and Kashmir: Alexander Evans, Sumantra Bose, and Mridu Rai. I think this would better reflect scholarly consensus on the topic. I was told that "scholars have described as grim, squalid, ramshackle, and miserable" might lean towards wikivoice, so I'm also proposing alternative phrasings if necessary.

Many Kashmiri Pandits initially moved to the Jammu Division, the southern half of Jammu and Kashmir, where they lived in refugee camps that scholars have described as grim, squalid, ramshackle, and miserable: conditions characterised in one study by a lack of "sanitation, hygiene, private space and the regular supply of basic facilities such as water."

Alternative proposals:

Characterized in academic literature by extreme hardship and lack of basic infrastructure: noted in one study....

Scholars have described as substandard and poorly equipped: characterized in one study....

described by scholars as severely inadequate living conditions: characterized in one study...

supporting sources and quotes: Alexander Evans (2002, page 20):

Most of the original 1990 migrants left for Jammu, where they lived in squalid refugee camps to begin with but, by 1997, most had moved on, either to proper homes in Jammu or to cities elsewhere in India. Conditions in the refugee camps were, and still are, grim.

Sumantra Bose (2021, page 93):

In 1995 i visited such Pandits living in refugee camps in Purkho and Misriwala, just outside the city of Jammu off the road to the town of Akhnoor. They were living in tents and shacks in squalid conditions, they complained bitterly about the indifference of officialdom to their plight, and also the blazing-hot summer weather of the Jammu plains, to which they were not accustomed, being from the Valley (in 2020 when i revisited the area, the ramshackle camps i remembered had become townships with concrete houses).

Mridu Rai (Kashmir and the Future of South Asia, 2021, Page 93):

Countless writers have described the miserable conditions of the Pandits living in camps, especially those still languishing in those established in and around Jammu. Unwelcomed by their host communities, entirely deprived of privacy and basic amenities, many succumbed to depression, ageing-related diseases, and a sense of desperate helplessness.

NooreRaaz (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Why not say it in wikivoice? Is anyone disputing this? Alaexis_¿question? 14:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to change it, but another editor disagreed and pointed me towards this noticeboard, so i thought I'd ask here. NooreRaaz (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Uncited content on History of Painting

History of painting came to my attention because it was flagged as too long. However, most of the length is made up of completely uncited content. I went through to remove all the uncited content but was reverted multiple times. Talk:History of painting has established that I do not have consensus to remove this content. I believe WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to re-add content rather than on me to remove it. However, I believe that local editors will continue to WP:EW to prevent me from removing uncited content. Others have raised the point that more time is needed to add sources. I am not sympathetic to that argument in the first place because I view it as WP:BACKWARDS; however, nearly all the claims are from prior to 2018 so I do not think that argument stands even on its own merits.

Czarking0 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not the right forum. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is since there is no WP:VNB Czarking0 (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

No this is about deciding if sources are reliable; what you want is wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I still think this is the right forum unless someone has a better one Czarking0 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:NORN. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is original research, but uncited material that is from sources.

I'd suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, however, really this seems like a preempting of the ongoing talk page discussion. Jahaza (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It might as well be if its uncited, its a better fit then here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 Come on, you removed all the narrative material in the article initially. No wonder people are concerned. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Notifying @Anupam and @Randy Kryn. Jahaza (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether to include or exclude content is a NPOV matter. All included content must be verifiable to a reliable source, unless it's truly WP:BLUESKY. So the question is what is being challenged here, inclusion or verification.
If the content is unverifiable you can challenge it by removal, and it's shouldn't be put back unless it's referenced (WP:BURDEN). If the question is whether the content should be included, outside of the question of verification, then this isn't the right noticeboard.
As it is you haven't asked a question about reliability, but described interactions with other editors. Editor interaction and edit warring aren't handled here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in this gives an exception to WP:EDITWAR, whatever the side. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)