Euromaidan Press is used as an RS in a number of articles, including 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, and others

Euromaidan Press is used as an RS in a number of articles, including 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, and others. However, it actually is an extremist website, which published a number of editorials in support of the Right Sector and the Azov battalion (([1], [2]), [3]), as well as calls to "kill… close relatives of the members of Putin regime", "shell Belgorod" and "disperse uranium to Russia" (i. e. actually propagandizing terrorism). Given all of this, I'm asking to estimate the legitimacy of using it as an RS. –Buzz105 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)On the Adland article, user:Grayfell's removal of the following text from the Adland article's Reviews section:The reason given was "The bit is clickbait, not journalism. This is just a puff-piece, and is only presented as the blogger's personal opinion, not a representation of the entire site". I checked the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found nothing about one way or another. It does not seem to be clickbait to me, but I recognize that that is a matter of opinion. As for a "the blogger's personal opinion", again, this is a review, and as such is going to be personal opinion. If the objection is that writer is a blogger, and thus not a reliable source, WP:NEWSBLOG states that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."Grayfell's point is not without merit; I am not restoring this sentence, but instead, I'm submitting (and the specific reference) to see what the consensus here is. Is "clickbait"? Does the specific article cited above fall under those listed as reliable sources under WP:NEWSBLOG? Is known to exercise sufficient editorial control over their writers/bloggers such that stating " listed Adland as…" is appropriate?Thanks for your help with this. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)ReferencesUsed to support claims that specific notable persons were "ordained ministers of the Universal Life Church". (self-identified as a "free encyclopedia" by the way)Which of these meet the requirements of WP:RS please? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[4] was ungraciously restored by an editor who templates me as a near-vandal <g> for removing what is clearly self-published stuff from the church's own website.Is " to the official website for Universal Life Church" a reliable source to comprise entire swaths of the article thereon?The following was also restored:Only problem is that the church was legally ruled not to be tax-exempt and paid $1.5 million in back taxes in 2000.
And to add insult to injury – the editor then removed
Which appears to be absolutely RS-sourced in my opinion — which looks alas more like a ULC desired result than a Wikipedia NPOV RS result. Collect (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)ReferencesWe have an disagreement on the Gentile page that is not resolving between the editors, pertaining to RS. The most recent edit by user:When Other Legends Are Forgotten uses the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia as an RS, based on the Torah as an RS, to state in the Encyclopedia's voice that the Canaanites engaged in idolatry. The most recent edit is here [9]. This wording has gone back and forth over the last few days. My position (argued on the talk page) is that JE is an RS on the content of the Torah/Bible, but not on the history or practices of Gentiles, and that the wording should reflect that position (as was intended by the previous version). Hoping someone will step in on this issue. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)I had cited this article as a source regarding the closure of Bio (Australian TV channel) on the FYI (U.S. TV channel) article (specifically this section), that Bio channel in Australia had indeed closed.Another Wikipedia user questioned the validity of using the website [10] as a source because the website "describes itself as a blog", the site's about page describes itself as "the personal blog of Commentator, David Knox" and per WP:BLOGS the website isn't "attached to a news website, which there for indicates that per WP:BLOGS it is not to be used".My counter argument is that also per WP:BLOGS, the quote ends "..are largely not acceptable as sources", indicating there are exceptions. Additionally, it continues "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Accepting the website describes itself as a blog, I don't think it is an unreliable source. In the afforementioned about page of the website, it describes the author David Knox's career and qualifications, and both he and the website are quoted in mainstream media articles, for example: in News Corp and Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Knox also holds a regular radio position as a television commentator with the ABC and makes comment in media industry publications.While there are opinion pieces on the website, they are minimal and most content in news based from industry sources, press releases, etc. I don't think they are outlandish claims or self reporting that would make it an unreliable source for Wikipedia.I should also state that the source is still used in the FYI article, as the editor decided to allow it, but still takes issue with it in a talk page discussion. I would also note TV Tonight is widely quoted across Wikipedia as a source, including by myself on other articles, however note that isn't a reason to keep or exclude it alone.I posted previously asking for input about whether the McKinsey Global Institute is a reliable source, but the only response was from an editor that has been following me around after an editing dispute, so I was hoping to get more input. The McKinsey Global Institute publishes peer-reviewed reports on business and economics topics. Their reports are often cited/covered in publications like TIME and The Wall Street Journal. I would consider it similar to an industry analyst firm, where the main thrust of their reports are often covered in the media, but the reports themselves have extensive data about things like market-sizes, demographics within a profession, main imports/exports of a country, etc. that could be useful to an encyclopedia if the reports are considered reliable. McKinsey is not affiliated with the topics it covers (not primary) and the reports are not sponsored by any particular interest (advocacy); it's the research arm of McKinsey, a management consultancy.I was considering working with them in my usual COI role for self-citation COI, and am trying to get feedback on what is appropriate. In my opinion it is actually much more reliable than the mainstream sources we see more routinely, but I would need to be cautious to avoid weight and un-encyclopedic issue with some of the subject-matter. Open to hearing potentially different opinions from polite, thoughtful, neutral editors and appreciate your time in advance. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 07:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Also uses a link from the "Universal Life Church" as a source that a specific person is an "ordained minister" of that church. [11] shows the re-use of the ULC "facts" with the comment that claims by an organization are automatically "perfectly acceptable". (Again, a link to an organization's website to support claim about THE SAME ORGANIZATION is a perfectly acceptable primary source) Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Can Discogs be used for album credits, track length ect on an albums page as a RS?Teddy2Gloves(talk)(contribs) 22:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)I'm somewhat involved with the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama and the Enemies Within. So far there are only two sources on the article: one from the New American and one from Glenn Beck. The NA source isn't usable since there's a very clear consensus that the NA can only be used to back up information about the John Birch Society and not establish notability.The Beck one is a bit more unclear. Sourcing from Beck has occasionally been problematic because of some of the claims he's made via his shows and other media. This author and the book appears to have been featured on his book show, but I don't know if this would be the type of thing that we could use as a source to establish notability. I haven't watched the source yet, so I don't know how in-depth it goes or if the author was interviewed about his book or about other material, but I figured that there does need to be a discussion about whether or not material by Beck could be used as a RS, since I don't really see where this has truly been discussed before. (It could be after viewing the video that it was only mentioned briefly in relation to something else, which has happened in a related Loudon article, where the book was mentioned offhand in relation to a larger topic. My main concern here is whether or not Beck is a RS.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Original Diff/Edit [14] "The term refers to the fact that, 'Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.'"Most recent Diff/Edit [15] "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which '[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms'."My concern is that the ATF source [16] isn't specifically referencing, nor does it mention, GSL, and the "ATF top ten FAQ" feels a bit inappropriate in it's capacity as an RS in this context for the lead in this article. Darknipples (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)In addition, the original source (which was removed/excluded) [17] contains this reference, originally used in the GSL article lead. "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — “the gun-show loophole.” Darknipples (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)I want to write an article about a popular and original book namely Kitab Al Irshad. when i searched the secondary sources i found out that this site , there i could find good sources and information about shia scholars and their books. i want to know that this site and archive could be considered as valid in wikipedia?–m,sharaf (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)xplorer² is at AFD, and it looks like there are some sources in Google News. One of the better(-looking) ones is this. It's not in the article yet, but it looks like it would be used to support a statement like:xplorer2 contains dockable panes, dual bookmanks, and a shell context menu..Does anyone have more info? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)I'm sure everyone knows of the net_gross field in the infobox for BLP articles. Now one user I have been encountering, Special:Contributions/Tobydrew8, has been adding a source called, especially this url, to update the net worth of the Lady Gaga article. I have reverted it thrice now since I believe this is not even a remotely reliable source, and fails accountability or any credibility. I have invited the editor also, since it seems he/she kind of pays no attention to any warnings or any explanation and is refusing to refrain from adding this url. So need input from the community here on this website and its credibility. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)There is some disagreement over at Men Going Their Own Way (on talk page at 1 and 2) about the use of as a source. Below is the statement and reference in question. Is this source a reliable source for this statement? (Note: I don't have any stake in this, I'm just sick of the bickering about it)The German periodical Freie Welt compared MGTOW to the trend of Herbivore men in Japan and the overall decline of American men choosing to become married as described in Helen Smith's book, Men on Strike.[1]ReferencesEvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)There are a number of military history/biography articles that list sources either in Further reading or in References that are not used for citations. I'm seeking input on whether they should be kept or removed.Author: Gordon WilliamsonArticle: Herbert Otto GilleBook in question:Williamson is considered an "admirer" of Waffen-SS, who "sought to restore [its] tarnished reputation in the West and reiterate its superb fighting qualities by letting the veterans tell their stories. The results are predictably positive." [1]. Cited to: MacKenzie, S.P. (2014). Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415867771. Author: Karl Alman, aka Franz KurowskiArticles: Adelbert Schulz; Hans-Detloff von Cossel; Hermann Bix; Hermann HothBooks in question:Karl Alman is a pseudonym of Franz Kurowski; the translated title of the 1st book is Panzers: The dramatic history of German armored forces and their brave soldiers.In their work The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture, historians Smelser and Davies characterize Kurowski as a "guru" (gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army and, in particular, the Waffen-SS").They note: "Kurowski, like all true gurus, ignores the charges of serious misdeeds leveled against the German military and provides a heroic context for the men he describes in his many works." His first books released in English were Panzer Aces (1992) and Infantry Aces (1994). The cover art of these books evokes the "heroism, determination, and might of the German soldier".The two books cover "many of the demigods of the Eastern Front" including Kurt Meyer, Joachim Peiper, Paul Hausser, etc. "These noted worthies of the romancers" commanded the men featured in Kurowski's "tales of bravery on the Russian battlefield".Smelser and Davies write:[2]Kurowski gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior…. Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards. [Etc. etc.] In this context, the war did not seem to be about conquest and racial annihilation, but rather a force to unite the German soldier as comrades in life and in death.The conclude that Kurowski's accounts are "embellishments of the 'clean Wehrmacht' and its heroic soldiers"; they are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light."[3]Also see: Kurowski on De Wikipedia(Citations are from Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521833653. )Author: Günther FraschkaArticle: Herbert Otto GilleBook in question:I don't have a secondary source for Knights of the Reich but I believe some original research is permitted when evaluating sources for inclusion. Title speaks for itself (IMO), but here's an Amazon review:That Gunther Fraschka is a hero worshipper, not a biographer and certainly not a scholar, is painfully evident in this collection of sketches purporting to commemorate the deeds of Hitler's greatest heroes. Worse, his writing style is atrocious (or Johnston's translation is), consisting of prose more appropriate to a high-school essay than a serious study of the essence of heroism.Author: Florian BergerArticle: Hermann HothBook in question:I don't have access to the book, but here's a sample of his writing in Face of Courage, The: The 98 Men Who Received the Knight's Cross and the Close-Combat Clasp in Gold: link. The tone and the narrative does not sound like that of an objective, reputable historian.ReferencesI therefore question the inclusion of the works by these authors in the bibliography as biased and not written by reputable historians.More, they serve no purpose in the articles as they are not used for citations.Per WP:MILMOS:Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. (Emphasis mine)I earlier had two separate discussions on this topic on other (separate) articles, where the issue was resolved quickly. Here are the discussions in question:Disagreements arose as to whether keep the books I listed (and similar) in several other articles (above), so I'm seeking further input in this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)