Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475#Is EasternKicks a reliable source?

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

Since practically the inception of Wikipedia, there have been persistent efforts to remove any information about the reported romantic relationship between Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. I've gathered a dozen references published over a period spanning 73 years:

• Pardee, Alice (December 23, 1951). "Behind the Scenes". The Ogden Standard-Examiner.
• Staff (August 24, 1952). "Zsa Zsa . . . . The Mink and Pearls Girl". Truth.
• Jones, Lon (April 18, 1953). "The Exotic Miss Gabor". Star Weekly.
• Gabor, Zsa Zsa (August 25, 1954). "Life With A Turk". The Sun.
• Kent, Parker (October 8, 1960). "Not Just A Peek, Today You Can Gaze". Herald Magazine.
• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.
• Hall Meares, Hadley (December 23, 2024). "High Camp: Zsa Zsa Gabor, the Fabulous Fabulist". Vanity Fair.

A final decision needs to be made about this so editors like Beshogur will no longer be allowed to remove an extensively sourced, widely accepted piece of information that is relevant to the subjects' biographies. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Has there been an rfc and if so, can you link it/them? Of course, WP is bad at "final". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems like something that should be settled by a WP:RFC on the articles talk page. This noticeboard is meant to be for advice about the reliability of sources, not the content of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

These sources look ok to me. It is from numerous RS. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Having source doesn't mean we have to include it. I haven't read any of those but I'm pretty sure they're based on authobiography of that woman. There is 0 evidence that Gabor had anything with Atatürk. It is a claim made by Gabor. Shouldn't be included in the page of Atatürk, but should be mentioned in her own page as a claim. It is funny how it is stated as a fact Gabor dated German composer Willy Schmidt-Gentner, Turkish president Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Source spamming doesn't mean you're right, that's what PromQueenCarrie (talk · contribs) is doing here. Beshogur (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this might be better for an article talk page. I'm seeing a good number of sources that might each have quite different analyses regarding their corresponding reliability for these sorts of facts. If there are specific sources objected to, it would be appropriate for this board; I just don't think this is the right place unless we have a concrete sourcing dispute. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Last appearance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_Kemal_Ataturk. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I have some guidance please about this short paragraph from the article The Tempest and its sourcing?

• Although comparisons have been made between The Tempest and the 2015 science fiction film Ex Machina, namely that Prospero was reinterpreted as Nathan, the genius tech developper; Miranda as Ava, the artificially-intelligent android and Ferdinand as Caleb, the manipulated visitor, writer-director Alex Garland denies the connection.
  • "Ex Machina at 10: The Story Behind the Thought-Provoking Piece of Speculative Fiction". FlickeringMyth. 21 January 2025.
  • GQ (2025-04-15). Alex Garland Breaks Down His Most Iconic Films. Retrieved 2025-04-16 – via YouTube.

In the first one the relevant part is under the subheading "The story was a loose adaptation of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest". And in the second one the relevant interview is at 9:22-13:55 and the comment in question is made about 13:45.AndyJones (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't find anything about Flickering Myth, they have no about us page and I can't find any meaningful WP:USEBYOTHERS. Outside of that the Flickering Myth article appear to be an opinion piece, so it's the opinion of Flickering Myth that Ex Machina is an adaptation of The Tempest. I would doubt their opinion is worth inclusion in The Tempest.
The GQ are generally reliable and interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources, so it's reliable for what Garland said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The Ex Machina (film) article uses a Collider article[1] for the same content, which is a slightly better source.
Also you can add the relevant time stamp to the interview by adding |time=13:45 to the cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history the question appears to be more about the GQ interview, so to clarify it's definitely a reliable source to support that Garland says it's not an adaptation of The Tempest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Alex Garland denies the connection ← is a bit odd. The "connection" is there if sources mention it. Garland may deny it was his (conscious) intent to make that connection, but he cannot dictate how a work is received. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks all. Agree with @Bon courage:'s comment in light of which I think the comment can stay (without that thought, "FILM ISN'T BASED ON TEMPEST" doesn't seem like a fact worthy of inclusion in an article about the Tempest). Thank you especially @ActivelyDisinterested: for a supporting reference and the idea for the timestamp, both of which I have included. AndyJones (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems really implausible to me that this connection or non-connection satisfies WP:DUE in an article about The Tempest. It belongs (if anywhere) in the article about the movie, instead. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently the article Bæddel and bædling was featured on the main page. Upon looking it over, I've noticed it has many problems that should have been sorted out during its GA and FA article reviews.

One of those issues is the article's lead says:

"The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, supports bæddel as the etymological root of the English adjective "bad" ...".

However, if you actually check the OED's entry on bad (which is mentioned repeatedly in the article but in fact never cited), you will find it doesn't "support" any etymology: it just says the etymology is uncertain ("Summary: Of uncertain origin.", "Origin uncertain."). It mentions a (widely suspected) connection to contemporary English bad but certainly doesn't take the position that English bad developed from bæddel. It just says it may be related:

"Perhaps related to Old English bæddel hermaphrodite, homosexual man, man who does not conform to traditional notions of masculinity ..."

It also discusses some other potentials, including toponyms (for some reason also not mentioned in Bæddel and bædling, although it is a common point of discussion regarding the etymology bad—just another matter that should have come up during the reviews).

For context on why the OED is noncommittal, while (notoriously) no clear precursor to English bad is attested in Old English, notable philologists have discussed how an unattested Old English precursor to bad (*bæd, etc.) may have have existed that separately produced words like bæddel (like Liberman 2015 and Sayers 2019, presented as Sayers 2020 in the article) and the OED editors are aware of these potentials. (Example, although for some reason only briefly and vaguely touched on at the end of the article, Liberman 2015 concludes that "..bad is not a back formation on bæddel; on the contrary, bæddel “a bad man” was formed from it.")

Now, for more context, all of this would be a simple (and typically welcome) correction or removal, but changes to the article have been met with extreme hostility by the editors who passed it to FA. Any notable change to the article triggers mass reverts, attempts at communication are met with hostile confusion or silence. The big problem seems to be that none of the editors involved seem to be knowledgeable about historical linguistics (a bit of a problem for an article with a big focus on historical linguistics).

Most recently, an editor who passed it on to FA status, @Borsoka:, has repeatedly argued that somehow the OED's stance is in fact that it "supports" bæddel developed into bad, and has reverted to keep this claim in the article.

So, in short, is it somehow OK to render the OED's position (that the etymology for bad is "uncertain" but "perhaps related to bæddel") as "support" for the idea that English bad developed from Old English bæddel? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Although I do not understand why this board was involved, I think the whole story significantly differs from the above summary. Our whole discussion can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka, it seems like the main thing you wanted out of that discussion was a proposal for an alternative version of the OED content. How about something like "The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, considers bæddel to be a possible etymological root of the English adjective "bad" ..."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be more accurate but the OED just says it may be related, not that it may have developed from bæddel. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging active editors who regularly edit Germanic philology topics: @Austronesier:, @Alcaios:, @Blockhaj:, @Yngvadottir:, @Ingwina:, @Carlstak: :bloodofox: (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think a proposal is needed, and it should be discussed on the article's Talk page not here. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a centralized place for discussing appropriate application and use of WP:RS. It benefits the article to seek opinions beyond those of the editors who approved the article to FA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

In response to ping: "source" or "etymological root" is definitely not the same thing as "related". The OED source is being misused if it's cited to claim bæddel is a possible source of bad. I suggest: "The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, considers bæddel to be possibly related to the English adjective "bad", whose etymology is unknown." Using one of Bloodofox's citations above—the OUP blog—one might continue, "Philologists Richard Coates and Anatoly Liberman have suggested that bæddel and "bad" have a common origin in an unrecorded Old English word *bæd, an alternate to the word yfel." I am concerned that this misstatement didn't come up in review, but it's easily remedied with a better paraphrase and citing more sources; as Bloodofox notes, there are equally reliable sources available. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out the discussions over at Talk:Bæddel and bædling: this is just the tip of the Iceberg with this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Notifying the other users involved in this discussion: @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan:, @Tim riley:, @UndercoverClassicist:, @SchroCat:, @AirshipJungleman29:, @Riposte97:, @Sawyer777: Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima:, you authored the lead line about the OED "supporting" a derivation of bad from bæddel. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion from the RS (the OED entry) rather than, for example, something like "according to the OED, the etymology of bad is unclear but a connection to bæddel is possible"? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is what it says from the 1989 OED: Prof Zupista, with great probability, sees in bad-de the ME repr. of OE bæddel, 'homo utriusque generis hermaphrodita' [...] This perfectly suits the ME form and sense, and accounts satisfactorily for the want of early written examples. [...] No other suggestion yet offered is of importance; the Celtic words sometimes compared are out of the question. If the OED Online disagrees strongly with this, I am unaware; I don't have access to it and simply asked a friend to check if the online version had changed its perspective, and she said that it still posits Zupista's connection as the main theory. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima:, your friend is wrong—as anyone who has access to it can see—and 1989 was many years ago now. In 2025, despite what the FA article now tells thousands of readers, the OED (which is now not OED Online but just the Oxford English Dictionary) does not support any etymology for the word.

It doesn't even mention Zupista—the only scholar it mentions by name is Richard Coates, who discusses potential toponyms (which are not mentioned at all in the article). In fact, regarding Coates, the 2025 OED entry discusses the opposite of what the article currently saddles the OED with:

"hence an argument that bad adj. is the reflex of an unattested Old English form *badda of which bæddel is probably a derivative, rather than vice versa".

In other words, Coates, as discussed by the OED, is much in line with Liberman 2015 (among others, like Sayers). And the article currently shies away from Liberman's conclusions as well, despite being an FA.

So, it's really important to ask, why is this claim still in an FA article telling thousands of readers that the OED "supports" a derivation of bad from bæddel rather than stating that the OED's stance is that the etymology is unclear and that it might be related to bæddel in some way? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, this does not seem to be as much of a "reliable sources" question as a test of poise in collaboration. I certainly have had no qualms at any point with rephrasing the section about the OED; I think the issue is that it was proposed in conjunction with a sweeping restructuring of the rest of the article and without a clear rewording proposed on the talk page. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a question of the interpretation of an RS and, along with it, how much the reliable sourves in the FA were reviewed before the GFA was put on the main page. It's all very much an RS matter. Regarding the interpretation of "supporting" a derivation of bad from bæddel, one of the article's FA reviewers, @Borsoka:, has said:

"The article does not say that OED asserts that "bad" derrived from "bæddel", but the fact itself that it mentions this possible etymology shows that it supports it."

Given what you now know about the contemporary OED entry and its disussion about, for example, Coates, do you agree with his defense of the current wording of the OED's entry? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I still suggest that the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page. As I have several times stated any verified and consensual wording is acceptable for me. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Borsoka:, you've argued your defense for the current wording that has current version's 'the OED supports bad developing from bæddel' on the article's talk page and we've only seen silence from the other reviewers on this matter. At this point I definitely think the article benefits from more discussion on this RS question beyond the FA reviewers who passed this article on to Wikipedia's landing page. (For my part, I first encountered the article on the landing page and immediately took issue with the article's representation of the OED's position, a matter undetected by FA reviewers, among various other problems that need to be resolved). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you stopped personalizing the discussion: comment on the content, not on other editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Dictionaries in general are descriptive, not prescriptive. Dictionaries do not decide what words mean, they are a record of what people have collectively (through use) decided it means. The OED in particular is a record of a word's usage throughout history from the first time it was used in writing, so it can be considered a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE with a dash of WP:UGC (The Surgeon of Crowthorne is a good book on it). Therefore I think secondary sources are needed to interpret the data in the OED, any conclusions (other than a word's definition) editors draw from it are WP:OR.

is it somehow OK to render the OED's position (that the etymology for bad is "uncertain" but "perhaps related to bæddel") as "support" for the idea that English bad developed from Old English bæddel?

No, that kind of conclusion/claim/statement should come from a reliable secondary source. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm seeking clarification on the reliability and coverage of sources used in the ongoing AfD for Nadeeka Guruge.

Several editors have dismissed sources as unreliable or lacking significant coverage, including long-established Sri Lankan newspapers such as the Sunday Observer and Daily News. These appear to be independent and editorially controlled.

Can experienced editors kindly review and provide input on whether these meet the standards of WP:RS?

Thank you. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The best advice I can give having read the discussion is that you don't need lots of sources you need a few good source. Try presenting what you think are the 3-5 best sources that discuss the subject in detail (see WP:SIGCOV). You want sources that are entirely independent of the subject, so avoid interviews and anything that sounds like promo or a press release (see WP:INDEPENDENT). That's generally the best way to convince others editors the subject is notable. If anyone disagrees with the reliability of those particular sources you can always come back here for more advice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am struggling to figure out if this website is reliable, i have read that it mostly is, but is that good enough? X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The website appears to be self-published by Alastair Ian McIntyre, there a biography on the website[2]. He appears to have led a quite fascinating live, but I don't see anything to suggest he's an expert is history. The policy for self-published sources is that they should come from established subject matter experts who have been previously published by other independent reliable sources, see WP:SPS. I wouldn't consider the site reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but it does point to other sources you can investigate. It's also appears to house many other sources, for instance full texts of out of copyright books, the reliability of those would have to be judged separately on a case by case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Anatoly Liberman is a very widely-cited and published linguist ([3]). In fact, he is probably one of the best known and most influential in the entire contemporary field of historical linguistics. For years now, he has produced scholarly entries for a highly regarded (in the field) column called "the Oxford etymologist" at the Oxford University Press blog. These entries typically consist of in-depth reviews of earlier philology scholarship alongside his own observations. In many cases, these entries are the most thorough reviews and most extensive discussions about obscure words that exist, full stop. Is this considered by Wikipedia to be a WP:RS we can use in articles? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll copy in what I wrote on the talk page of the article in question. The relevant part of the relevant policy (WP:SELFPUB) is:

...Self-published material such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

It's not out of the question that Liberman is enough of an expert to allow under WP:SELFPUB, but in general, it's unlikely that a self-published source could to be used to contradict peer-reviewed academic sources, particularly if the material in question is only found in self-published sources. How it's used is probably going to be more important than whether it's used. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it's the Oxford University Press that is the blog publisher here and Liberman's column is administered by the Oxford University Press. Anyway, for context and to keeo it short, @UndercoverClassicist:, would like Liberman's column as a source to be voided whenever it "contradicts" typically non-philological sources, especially at the ever-troubled Bæddel and bædling article, claiming Liberman may not be enough of an expert somehow and/or that the column is just another WP:SPS to be dismissed when liked. Anyway, for additional context, the source was in the article already when UndercoverClassicist contributed to its FA review (and I was definitely not involved with the FA review on that one). :bloodofox: (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging editors typically involved in historical linguistics discussions: @Yngvadottir:, @Austronesier:, and @Alcaios: and who will be especially familiar with Liberman's work. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe this falls under "personal or group blogs", and thus doesn't fall under SELFLPUB. From what I can see, the blog is published by Oxford University Press and even has two editors. WP:NEWSBLOG is probably more relevant, although given OUP's high standing in academic publishing and the scholarly credentials of the author, I'd be inclined to give it even more leeway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with AirshipJungleman29. It's not even clear to me that it should be considered a blog. (Yes, this section of the OUP website says "OUPblog," but elsewhere these columns are identified as "weekly etymology articles," and the overall category is "Series & Columns.") Either way, it's very clearly not self-published. It strikes me as GREL, given OUP's scholarly focus, the author's expertise, and the editorial review. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Anatoly Liberman is a very widely-cited and published linguist ([86]). ... Is this considered by Wikipedia to be a WP:RS we can use in articles?

The answer is yes, per WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. But, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, he is a RS on linguistics, not on other topics. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a self-published source. It's published by Oxford University Press. Why are you referring to WP:SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

My point is that the person is an RS in linguistics, he could post something on his personal wordpress blog and it'd still be considered RS. OUP blog falls under WP:NEWSORG. WP:NEWSORG: Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. Therefore we look at who wrote the press release, in this case an expert in linguistics. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Echoing others. Very much a reliable source, as I mentioned in a related discussion above. This is not a self-published blog, it's a publication of Oxford University Press and in a close relationship to the Oxford English Dictionary. Liberman is a well known expert in the field (presumably why he is the writer of this OUP online publication.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the OUP blog has a peer-review process, they rely on the experts they publish to have done their due dilligence and trust them not to post falsehoods. That's why we can't say that everything posted on the OUP blog is RS, but the authors have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So whether we consider the OUP blog SPS or NEWSORG is ultimately irrelevant. Remember WP:NOTBURO, we don't need to classify, judge and label everything under the sun just for the sake of it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not required to have a peer-review process. It's not an academic journal. Plenty of sources are RS without being peer-reviewed. Re: "whether we consider the OUP blog SPS or NEWSORG is ultimately irrelevant," why continue to bring it up when it's irrelevant? Especially since it's very clearly not self-published (it's published by OUP), and it's very clearly not a NEWSORG, despite your mistaken claim earlier that the "OUP blog falls under WP:NEWSORG." As for "they rely on the experts they publish to have done their due dilligence and trust them not to post falsehoods," these articles are also edited, so it's not as though OUP is solely relying on the authors' due diligence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is how they describe themselves: Since 2005, the talented authors, staff, and friends of Oxford University Press provide daily commentary on nearly every subject under the sun, from philosophy to literature to economics. OUPblog is a source like no other on the blogosphere for learning, understanding and reflection, providing academic insights for the thinking world. (emphasis mine)

They call themselves a blog, we should trust them.

"these articles are also edited"
Just because a website has an editor, that doesn't mean the articles they publish are edited. Editing can be done on content or grammar/copyediting. Furthermore, they post "on nearly every subject under the sun", it is unreasonable to expect that the editors of OUPblog are experts on nearly every subject under the sun and therefore are able to vouch for the reliability of all the content posted. Their acting editor is also their social media manager and the deputy editor is a social media marketing assistant, I do not think their editorial team has the credentials to edit academic articles for content.

OUPblog should be considered WP:NEWSOPED treated like it is NEWSORG and we should evaluate the authors/articles on a case-by-case basis. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone should treat it like a news organization when it isn't one. Just like learned societies and professional organizations are not news organizations, even if they have blogs on their sites (e.g., 1). The only question is whether these columns are reliable sources for the content that is sourced to them, and we assess that in the same way as we assess the reliability of lots of other sources. There is no reason to push this into some category that it doesn't fit into. Sources do not need to be in a category for us to assess their reliability. In this case, it's written by someone with significant expertise and published by a publisher that has a strong reputation, so these columns should be GREL for the content that would normally be sourced to them. Might there be a case where an editor wants to use it as a source for something that it's not an RS for? Sure, since reliability is always context-dependent, and GREL sources sometimes get things wrong. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone should treat it like a news organization when it isn't one.

You're right. It is not a NEWSORG, I was wrong in my assessment.

published by a publisher that has a strong reputation,

It's the OUPblog. The current acting and deputy editor don't seem to have any academic credentials beyond liking books. One of the articles they published is called An Oxford Companion to surviving a zombie apocalypse (albeit in 2013), so it publishes opinions as well as facts.

so these columns should be GREL for the content that would normally be sourced to them.

I'm not sure what that means exactly, Thinking more about it, OUPblog is the closest to WP:NEWSOPED. It is my mistake for not thinking of it sooner as that's what I've been describing this whole time. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 21:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This RSN query is not about the OUPblog as a whole. It's only about the Oxford Etymologist columns by Anatoly Liberman. The Zombie article is not an Oxford Etymologist columns by Anatoly Liberman, so it's irrelevant to bloodfox's query. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The Etymologist columns are RS because they are written by an expert in the field, not because they are published by OUPblog. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 22:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

They aren't published by OUPblog; they're published by OUP. (OUPblog is not a publisher; it's a publication.) And the reliability is supported by both the author and the publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes he would be reliable per the wording of WP:SPS, but remember that WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements require exceptional sources. A self-published sources may not be reliable if it goes against directly against more traditionally published sources. It may be worth discussing both in the article and the disagreement between them, with the more tradition view being stated and then the experts opposition being used with intext attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that Liberman's view is in the mainstream, while the article has presented a novel view front and centre and left out much of the mainstream scholarship. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah! That's much more problematic than if a self published source is reliable. If the situation is the inverse of what I thought, then the opposite of my comment applies. Either way the mainstream academic view should be stated, and opposition from other experts used with intext attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not a self-published source. It's a weekly column published by Oxford University Press. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I would not consider it a self-published source given there appears to be editorial control from Oxford University. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly a reliable and pertinent source. I don't think this is a self-published source, but even if it was it would be a good example of where WP:EXPERTSPS would be appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is about [4]. MrThunderbolt1000T claims that three of the five sources WP:CITED therein are unreliable. He further claims that the paragraph fails WP:V. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I ran into the page on anti-white racism recently, and I noticed that has some dead links. Like this ^[1], this ^[2]

I put a good faith effort into finding the sources, includuing archive.org and I've put in a request with the talk page for any working source. The thing is, much/most of this page was copied from other articles. See the French language version of this article, Murder of Ross Parker, and 1804 Haitian massacre. The page started on 2 November. They're not old dead links from a page made in 2005. The editor just brought them over in a slipshod manner, with likely no effort to find them.

The sources do uphold rather controversial facts in the page. My question is how much responsibility I should I have to look for them? Shall I leave them up? Should I tag them. Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The other editors may be able to source this, so I withdraw my question so as to not waste anyone's time. Thank you.

Hello editors,

I’m raising concerns regarding the Wikipedia article on Bernt Wahl, which appears to contain multiple unverified, potentially promotional claims lacking reliable sourcing. Despite being a biography of a living person, the article has no inline citations, and relies heavily on vague or self-referential sources.

Here are a few key issues:

- "Wahl was an early pioneer in the fields of chaos and fractal geometry" — No reliable third-party sources are cited. This seems like a promotional assertion per WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR.

- "Led the management buyout attempt of Infoseek" — This is a substantial historical tech claim that should be documented in the business or tech press, but is currently unsourced.

- "Worked for the United Nations on ecotourism" and "helped the U.S. National Park Service build its first website" — These are significant institutional claims with no verifiable sources.

- Mentions of co-founding companies (Factle, Datahunt, Dynamic Software) and collaborating with Jhane Barnes lack evidence of notability or third-party documentation, and may violate WP:NORG and WP:RESUME.

I've posted a notice on the article's Talk page [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernt_Wahl#Concerns_About_Unverified_and_Promotional_Claims), but would appreciate broader input on how best to address these sourcing concerns, and whether cleanup or content removal is warranted.

Thanks in advance! Justiceforhumansintheworld (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears that GeorgiaHuman has copyedited the article, and it looks for properly sourced now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I came across an interview with film director Philip Yung on the film news website EasternKicks (easternkicks.com),[5] and wanted to cite it in the article Papa (2024 film). Normally, I believe it is okay as interviews are considered as primary sources and I am not citing it to support any exceptional claims, at worst, adding attributions should suffice. But since I aim to get the article to GA or FA status, I want to ensure the reliability of this website. From my research, the site has been referenced by several reputable media outlets, including Digital Spy,[6] NME,[7] and South China Morning Post,[8] all of which are reliable sources. (See WP:DIGITALSPY, WP:RSPNME, WP:SCMP.) The articles are bylined by regular writers and appear to be quite journalistic. According to the About EasternKicks page on the site, it was founded in 2002 and mentions collaborations with print magazines, such as publishing interview pieces in Japan's Cut Magazine [ja]. I believe it should be a reliable source? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 08:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The subject talking about themselves could be reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. Where there comments are posted doesn't change that. Whether it's their own blog, facebook or in an interview on any other questionable source doesn't matter.
If your not just making an ABOUTSELF statement then easternkicks.com appears to be something similar to a group blog. It certainly has WP:USEBYOTHERS, it's extensively used as a reference by academic works in relation to Asian cinema[9], but I would avoid using it to make claims about living people (unless it's an interview where it's the subjec making statements about themselves). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response, ActivelyDisinterested. I wanted to cite it to support the facts regarding when the film wrapped filming and completed its rough cut, as it is the only source I found that offers a timeframe for its post-production. I think it should fall under ABOUTSELF, as the claims were made by the interviewee and pertain to the interviewee's activities. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 11:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would think it reliable for that, as it's non-contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Are these considered primary or secondary sources? They were compiled by professional court historians (with generally minimal interference from the Korean govt) based on various primary source materials and interviews. These are directly cited a lot on the English Wikipedia, and a significant portion of modern Korean studies is based on these records. So either way, they form a huge backbone of Korea-related information on Wikipedia.

It seems to me like they're secondary sources, although due to their age we should probably rely on modern interpretations of them, rather than relying on them directly. seefooddiet (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought they were primary documents, in a similar way that newspaper reporting of events is considered primary - especially after considerable time has passed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY seems to apply more to it than WP:PRIMARY. I think there's two caveats though: 1. the Veritable Records weren't subject to modern-style peer review or journalistic standards 2. I'm not sure if/how much the court historians involved in the creation of them were also witnesses to the events.

I'm not sure if the time since publication changes a source from primary to secondary. That doesn't seem right to me. seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Time changing how sources are considered is common in the study of history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

My understanding of the relationship between time and primary/secondary is that it has more to do with the amount of time between the events chronicled and the date published, rather than the date published and the present moment. One such example documented in WP:PRIMARY says

For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

I don't believe that breaking news of today's run-of-the-mill car crash becomes a secondary source 10 years later. To be clear though, time isn't the only factor determining whether a source is primary or secondary. Left guide (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you that's helpful seefooddiet (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would consider these to be primary sources.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

If they were compiled by professional court historians (with generally minimal interference from the Korean govt), then why does the lead sentence of the article call them state-compiled and published records? If the latter statement in the article is true, it's likely a primary source. Left guide (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I misspoke; I meant "minimal interference from the Korean monarchs". seefooddiet (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. But I find that claim peculiar too, because after having read through the article more, I noticed the middle of the first paragraph at Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty#Compilation process says These historians accompanied the king at all times which in my opinion (in addition to addressing the #2 caveat of this comment) cements its status as a primary source per the beginning of WP:PRIMARY:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Left guide (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hm I see. I don't know to what extent the historians that compiled the Veritable Records were the same historians that recorded the primary sources.

However, because there's possible overlap that's significant I think I'm willing to accept that a label of "primary" seefooddiet (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

One last question if it's ok; if you hypothetically had to classify it per WP:RS/P#Legend, where would you place it? I don't think the site has been discussed enough to actually make it onto the list, but just curious. We have our own similar list at WP:KO/RS that I'd like to have the VRoTJD classified in. seefooddiet (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The 'Sports Reference' (SR) family of websites (Sports Reference, Baseball Reference, Basketball Reference, Pro Football Reference, Hockey Reference, etc.) are widely cited on Wikipedia across multiple sports.

The SR sites appear to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:TERTIARY sources and have been previously discussed on this noticeboard, but don't yet have an entry at WP:RSPS (which perhaps they should).

This discussion will focus solely on these sites's treatment of "Redshirt" seasons in college athletics.

Consider Gonzaga's Kelly Olynyk. He played two mediocre years as a true freshman and sophomore, then took a redshirt season to work on his strength and conditioning. He was still on the active roster of the 2011–12 Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball team, eligible to play and suited up, but his coach did not play him in any games. The next season he returned to log game minutes as the star player in 2012–13. But Olynyk's Sports Reverence profile does not have a row for his 2011-2012 season. Looking at the SR page, it's as if he was not even on the team.

Same for Cam Martin, who joined the 2021–22 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team as an immediately-elegible grad transfer. His SR profile does not contain this season, though, as Martin's coaches chose not to play him to strategically better their team in the subsequent seasons. Martin remained an active, eligible, suited-up player on the bench during this entire "redshirt" year.

Sports Reference denies Martin the "NCAA Champion" banner that it displays for his 2021-2022 teammates such as Ochai Agbaji. This is despite Cam Martin receiving an NCAA national championship ring as a member of the team and reliable sources calling him a "national champion".

The Sports Reference website's choice not to display seasons for which a player does not have any recorded in-game statistics is resulting in Wikipedia editors treating the player as if they were not an active, eligible, full member of the team for those seasons. From a recent discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball:

• Despite the USA Today article, I'm quite sure SRCBB is not going to put "2025 national champion" on Rioux's profile page.
• Curry's SRCBB profile does not list "NCAA champion". Are there other sources that call them champions?
• Seth Curry not having national champion denoted in his Sports-Reference profile speaks volumes. This alone is evidence that Rioux is not a national champion as provided by the single most reliable, third-party college basketball source out there.
• And, you obviously don't know anything about Sports Reference LLC if you think they're as unreliable as you claim. A blog - lol.

Sports Reference's treatment of these redshirt seasons differs from that of reliable, independent, secondary sources. For example:

• Sports Illustrated, 1982, This Year You're Going to See Red: The redshirt gets to practice like the other players, gets chewed out like the other players, goes to sleep in meetings like the other players and takes his lumps like the other players. He does everything like the other players, except he doesn't play in games. Which is to say, he gets everything football has to offer but the fun. By doing this the player preserves a year of eligibility for later use and presumably not only learns a whole bunch—talk to a few coaches about the pass-blocking ability of an average offensive-line recruit if you want to know what's to learn—but also grows up physically. [...] The rub is that each redshirt counts against the 95 football scholarships (90 in the Pac-10) that a school can give out at one time.

• The New York Times, 2024, report on an intended "redshirt" player stepping in to the conference championship game at a time of need for his team, thereby "burning" his redshirt season in one of the final games of the season. According to this reliable source, "redshirt" players are active and eligible members of the team who can step into the game at any time.

• Kansas awarded national championship rings to all four redshirts on their 2021–22 national championship basketball team. Reliable sources subsequently call these redshirt players "national champions".

• 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes football team awarded a national championship ring in football to redshirt player T.J. Downing. This ring became a central focus of the Tattoogate scandal a decade later and the ring's existence is well documented.

Seeking opinions on if Sports Reference websites are a reliable source for players' redshirt seasons and awards/honors received during redshirt seasons. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

i would suggest that the question of whether a 'redshirt' should be called a 'champion' or not is something better discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball, or the relevant article's talk page.
The about us page of Sports Reference shows that although they were started by one person back in 2000, they are now a company with multiple employees. So not a self published source, or at least not what most editors would consider a self published source. They also appear to have WP:USEBYOTHERS in works on sports by academic publishers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The website Know Your Meme is also a "company with multiple employees"; it's still a self-published website. (As is currently being discussed in a topic above.) Sports Reference is perhaps a usable self-published source because it's produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications but it remains self-published. WP:USINGSPS: If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The recent discussion is about KYM being user generated content, not self published. The arguments about 'self-published' are in regard to whether entries by recognised experts could be used per WP:EXPERTSPS. The wording in USINGSPS (an essay) goes far beyond the wording at SPS or how the policy (WP:V) is commonly interpreted. There's a very long discussion about it somewhere, but I think you may have taken part in it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm mistaken about you taking part, I must have mixed up your username with someone else. Anyway the discussion was at WT:Verifiability/SPS RfC, unless it's closed in favour of the 'traditional published' concept then it's contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll let others have a say, as otherwise it will just be the two of us disagreeing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The sports reference family appears to be more of an info warehouse sort of operation than something which is really usable as a WP:RS. In general I would go with what long form souces say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable as clearly meets WP:USEBYOTHERS and is a subject matter expert, whether or not it's (debatably) self-published. If reliable sources conflict, then reach consensus through dispute resolution (e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball) on how to handle it. There seems to no objective college sports standard on how to label team sports players on a team which collectively win a national championship, even moreso with redshirts. —Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's not entirely clear what the purpose of this post is. It seems to be an extension of the ongoing WT:CBB dispute. As demonstrated by that project discussion, the claim in question about redshirts being champions is a subjective contested assertion bound by the conditions set forth in WP:WIKIVOICE, so whether it's "right" or "wrong" by consensus has no bearing on reliability from an WP:RS standpoint. My understanding is that the Sports Reference group of sites is generally reliable for objective statistics, but the matter in question is a bit more nuanced than that. If this noticeboard is being used to try to score points in the underlying content dispute, that's unhelpful in achieving consensus or ascertaining the reliability of anything. This should be deferred back to the project talk page. Left guide (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is a discussion about the overall reliability of the SR sites for this particular information. Multiple editors reference SR as if the site is a reliable source on the matter of redshirt seasons. I contend that it is not a reliable source on the matter, given that it contradicts every other non-self-published secondary reliable source such as Sports Illustrated and The New York Times. Our overall display of redshirt seasons across all of Wikipedia seems to be largely based on SR's coverage, so examining the matter is important beyond that particular CBB thread. My understanding is that the Sports Reference group of sites is generally reliable for objective statistics, but the matter in question is a bit more nuanced than that. - agreed. This noticeboard thread is to determine if their treatment of redshirts is included as an "objective statistic" in that that "generally reliable" bucket. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Are these sources in the lead of the gun show loophole for the following sentence reliable in this context, or should it be challenged? It seems to rely mostly on comments to the DOJ.

• In the United States, the absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption. Federal law requires that, for commercial sales of firearms – sales conducted by someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns – the seller conduct a background check of the buyer. For firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require background checks, although some states and localities do require them.

• The term "gun show loophole" primarily refers to "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks"[10] [11]

1.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Part 478 (Docket No. ATF 2022R–17; AG Order No. 5920–2024) RIN 1140–AA58 Definition of ‘‘Engaged in the Business’’ as a Dealer in Firearms

The DoJ source refers to PAGE 21 #28988 (8.) "Closes the Gun Show/Online Loophole".

• "Several commenters voiced support for closing what they referred to as the 'gun show loophole', by which commenters meant a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks. For example, one commenter simply requested that the government please stop criminals from easily buying guns at gun shows without a background check. Another commenter expressed that Americans cannot allow individuals with violent histories to purchase a gun at a gun show or online without their background being investigated. A mother and gun owner added that she is relieved to hear that ATF is moving forward on closing the gun show loopholes. ... Some commenters believed the rule presented a balanced approach. One commenter stated that closing the gun show loophole is a 'common-sense measure' and doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners; rather, it ensures that background checks are conducted for all firearm purchases, regardless of where they take place. Additionally, a commenter said that the 'proposal laid out does not appear overly cumbersome for currently licensed dealers or citizens looking to liquidate guns from their personal collection' and that '[c]losing the "gun show loophole" and requiring a record of firearms sold limits the possibility of nefarious characters obtaining weapons while increasing and promoting responsible gun ownership.' Another commenter agreed, describing the rule as a modest, common-sense measure to close some of the huge loopholes that buyers and sellers use to get around our necessary and otherwise effective system of background checks. ... The Department also notes that the term 'gun show loophole' is a misnomer in that there is no statutory exemption under the GCA for unlicensed persons to engage in the business of dealing in firearms at a gun show, or at any other venue. As this rule clarifies, all persons who engage in the business of dealing in firearms must be licensed (and, once licensed, conduct background checks), regardless of location."

2.WaPo "Gun-Friendly Governor '95 Law Lets 200,000 Conceal Arms"

I've quoted some context that explicitly references "loopholes", please forgive me if I missed anything here.

"In Washington, a month after the Columbine shootings, the Senate narrowly passed legislation to close the Brady loophole--including a waiting period of up to three days on background checks by non-licensed dealers. Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the measure. But companion legislation stalled in the House after supporters of the tougher Senate version refused to accept a provision reducing the waiting period to 24 hours, which is the time frame Bush said he favors."

"With many Americans wanting tighter gun restrictions after Columbine, and hard-line gun enthusiasts refusing to give in, Danburg said, "I think [Bush] was trying to play it both ways." But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole."

"As a result, non-licensed dealers "have no way of knowing whether they are selling to a violent felon or someone who intends to illegally traffic guns on the streets," federal law enforcement officials told Congress last year, calling gun shows "a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously." Because Congress has been unwilling to close that loophole in the Brady bill, some state legislatures have done so, passing laws requiring background checks on all gun show buyers. But an effort to pass such a law in Texas last year failed in a House committee."

TLDR I disagree that most sources describe GSL as "primarily a situation". Maybe as an example, but not "a term that primarily refers to"...Perhaps someone here can offer a fix or maybe an explanation here that makes sense to me. If it is a reliable source for "primarily a situation", my immediate concern here is how well reflected that is in the body of the article, and, whether that language should currently be presented in VOICE or if it should use attribution.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is strictly a YouTube channel and Facebook page, its owner is anonymous, there is no discussion anywhere of its editorial policy or professional standards, and AFAICT it has not been used by any real news media. I would think this would fall squarely under "user-generated content" and thus be non-RS, but I've encountered two experienced editors who insist it is reliable and that interviews on it are notability-contributing for BLPs.
Thoughts? JoelleJay (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

A YouTube channel with 400 subscribers and no apparent presence other than Facebook? It certainly looks to be WP:UGC. In general unless editors can make a very good case for it I don't see why it should be considered reliable.
Interviews are not independent, which usually makes them unusable for notability purposes regardless of where they are published. But they can be reliable in a WP:ABOUTSELF way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The source wouldn't be notability-contributing either way, since it would count as a primary source (it just does interviews with the subjects of those articles) ApexParagon (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding as well, but there are several editors who somehow consider such interviews to be "independent secondary SIGCOV"... JoelleJay (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If a significant person/organisation (e.g. national TV channel) deems someone worth interviewing, that can be a point towards notability but doesn't provide it on its own. An interview by a person/organisation without that significance does not indicate anything about notability.

An interview can only ever be a primary source for the views of the person being interviewed (or the organisation they are representing) and, in some cases, the views of the interviewer (or the organisation they are representing). However a faithfully recorded/reported interview is a reliable source for those views, which are sometimes DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It can be a soft indication towards notability but it does not itself contribute to GNG as, as you said, the interview is a primary source for the interviewee's statements and thus those statements are not independent secondary coverage of the interviewee. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, anyway, the point of my raising this is to assess reliability; do you have input on that? I can find no evidence of any organization behind the channel, its editorial policy, or even who the channel author is; surely the default is not to presume it is RS and that its videos can be used in BLPs? JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I don’t think it could be considered a reliable source if it has zero presence outside of YouTube and Facebook, or any sort of info on their editorial policy. ApexParagon (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@JoelleJay I have nothing useful to say on that point that others haven't already said. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see why this would be anything other than WP:UGC. Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF would apply, but only maybe; we'd need to have reasonable understanding about the provenance of the clips before we'd want to even do that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk So the article at issue has now thankfully been redirected, but only after a truly exhausting amount of effort trying to explain why this source isn't acceptable to autopatrolled editors...is there something ambiguous with our PAGs? JoelleJay (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The ambiguity with how it was used in the page before it was redirected is about whether or not this sort of thing qualifies as WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not horrible in light of those guidelines; some of the stuff it's used for are very basic information (e.g. "He moved to Cidra, Puerto Rico after his marriage in 1980" and "Serrano is from Coamo, Puerto Rico"), though others (i.e. "He would go on to break the Puerto Rican national record in the 10,000 m") both I and sourcing guidance would prefer an independent source for (and one should exist if it's breaking a Puerto Rican record).

As for that interviews on it are notability-contributing for BLPs: no, this doesn't appear to be notability contributing. The two main reasons—that it's a primary source interview (WP:NBASIC presumes notability based on secondary sources) and that it's clearly self-published—appear quite unambiguous. That being said, I'm not super familiar with the landscape of the Puerto Rican distance running community and I could be missing something; for fairness's sake, it might be worth pinging in those two experienced editors to have them explain what their reasoning is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @Red-tailed hawk. @Habst was claiming enough of the info from this source was actually spoken by the interviewer and was thus independent secondary coverage, in which case I think it would be unacceptable as a source in general (non-expert SPS) and especially for a BLP. The ambiguity I'm referring to is the apparent presumption that such a source is or "could be" RS even in the absence of any info on its publishing standards, and that therefore it still ought to be considered for notability purposes. I was under the impression that reliability must be demonstrable and not assumed, particularly for BLPs, and that the lack of any info on a source at all, let alone its editorial policy, should be sufficient to deem it non-RS. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:JoelleJay, thank you for the ping. There's a lot here so I will just try to respond to the comment you pinged me with. The creator of Leyendas del Fondismo is Jorge Maisonet, who I think is fair to say is a subject-matter expert on Puerto Rican long-distance running. He's done interviews with multiple notable Puerto Rican Olympians, his interview with Serrano was just one of them. If any of the content I added was against WP:ABOUTSELF I'm open to hearing it, but I guess it's moot now that the page has been redirected anyways. --Habst (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

By policy, subject-matter expertise means established experts who have published their work in the relevant field in independent RS. There is no evidence this is the case. The issue was never ABOUTSELF, it was your claims that the channel was RS and that any of it contributed to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the notability question is answered by the AfD, although I'll couch that by saying neither of us understand the language the outlet is publishing in so there could be something we're missing. The ABOUTSELF is important also because regardless of the notability question, there's no issue with expanding an article with ABOUTSELF claims. --Habst (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You claimed By the way, where possible I did not source claims to the athlete himself but instead to the interviewer anticipating this exact scenario. So the 350 words you sourced to this interview was specifically (an attempt at) a non-ABOUTSELF usage and you were touting it as a notability-contributing source, which is why the reliability is relevant.

That you maintained The YT interview is definitely not anonymous or unverified and not self-published either, because it's published by Leyendas del Fondismo – and there's definitely no copyright issues involved, so I'm not seeing the RSPYT issue. even after no one was able to find any information demonstrating the reliability of the channel, and continue to claim the interviewer is an "expert" even here, raises concerns about where else you have introduced random YT channels and UGC/SPS as third-party sources on BLPs. I was not intending this thread to become about behavioral issues, so I won't expand on this point further, but I hope the unanimous position by uninvolved editors here will discourage similar scenarios coming up in future AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is getting into the weeds now, but it's also true that the way this interview was conducted, the interviewer would say something and then the athlete would confirm it. So yes, even though details were attributed to the interviewer in a notability-contributing sense, the same details could also be attributed to the athlete in an ABOUTSELF-sense.

I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions. If you have issues with any other source I've used, please raise them instead of gesturing without specific examples. I generally have always tried to keep a higher standard for sourcing than P&G permits out of an abundance of caution.

Lastly on behavior, I will say again that I think it's important that we both treat each other with respect, stick to the P&G substance, and not make personal comments, as you have done repeatedly to me. I greatly appreciate your arguments even when we disagree and I hope you can treat me with the same good faith. --Habst (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Interviews are not independent of the interviewer or interviewee. But they may well be independent of other things. For example interviews with the Monetary Policy Committee and the Office of Budget responsibility might be considered independent of each other, for the purposes of establishing notability. They might also constitute RS for the subject under discussion, and content could very well be considered both significant and not undue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough, okay, but what is the reliability of this YouTube channel as a source of third-party info on a BLP? JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Curaçao Chronicle ([12]) is a (to my knowledge online-only) publication I have seen consistently cited while editing Curaçao-related topics on the encyclopedia. Here in English it's cited 172 times, a not-insignificant number, likely due to the fact its a rare English-language resource about Curaçao. Despite this I currently question it's viability as a reliable source. Most articles published by the site are short, lack detail, and are listed under anonymous names such as "Correspondent" and "Press release", as such, I believe its worth asking if we should continue allowing use of this as a source. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look particularly unreliable. Do you have any evidence of errors in the source? Perhaps places where it is contradicted by more established sources in Dutch or Papiamento? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a specific citation for a specific item in Comparative advertising. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparative_advertising&oldid=prev&diff=1286336855

I cited isamunangpatalastas.blogspot.com. User:Kuru later deleted the citation and deleted it, replacing it with a "citation needed". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparative_advertising&diff=next&oldid=1286337436

I have reasonable proof that the blog is run by an expert. The sole owner of the blog, Alex[ander Maynardo] del Rosario Castro is reasonably expertised in Philippine advertising, having worked for it since the 1970s. Here is an article about him in the Asian edition of Campaign (magazine), a magazine for the advertising industry: https://www.campaignasia.com/article/creative-qa-publicis-jimenez-basics-alex-castro/264930

Here is his LinkedIn profile, which I think that isn't supposed to be cited as a source in Wikipedia but tells that he worked for Ace Saatchi and Saatchi from the 1970s throughout the 1980s and later Publicis Jimenez Basic from the 1990s throughout the 2010s, the agency that he was working for whilst he was doing the Campaign Asia interview. https://ph.linkedin.com/in/alexander-castro-143b1b143

An excerpt from his LinkedIn is provided:

[BEGIN LINKEDIN EXCERPT]

Senior Executive Officer-Creative Publicis JimenezBasic, Makati, Metro Manila / Jan 1995 - Apr 2014 19 years 4 months / (Supervised the creative conceptualization, presentation, and production of advertising and promotional materials for blue-chip clients like Procter & Gamble, Selecta, Unilab, San Miguel Corp, Magnolia, Purefoods Inc, Pfizer , etc. Worked with art directors and copywriters to produce award-winning and business-generating advertising and below-the-line campaigns. Executive Creative Director)

Synergie, Tokyu, DMB&B Advertising / Bangkok, Thailan [sic] / Jun 1991 - May 1995 4 years (Creative head of the multinational ad agency that serviced the advertising creative requirements of clients like Procter & Gamble, Thai-Danish Milk, Sony, CPC-Knorr.) Creative Director

Ace Saatchi & Saatchi / Makati, Metro Manila / Apr 1981 - May 1991 10 years 2 months ( Planned, conceptualized, presented and produced thematic campaigns as well as below-the-line communications for agency clients that include Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Nestle Philippines, SMC-Magnolia, Purefoods, among others. These include tri-media campaigns on Print, radio TV, as well as Events, Merchandising and Point-of-sale materials, publicity stunts, collateral print materials, among others.)

[END LINKEDIN EXCERPT]

Here are fleeting mentions for his work in the advertising industry:

"Philippines 25 best ads over the years [..] 24. Astra Threads' Superman [..] Agency: Ace Compton [..] Creative Director: Mon Jimenez [..] Copywriters: Margarita Arroyo/Alex Castro [..] Art director: Salavdor Luna [..] 1984" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 Sep 2002) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=n1Y1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=alex+castro&article_id=1924,26039068&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhss_B0uWMAxVbcGwGHURjM_o4ChC7BXoECAYQBw#v=onepage&q=alex%20castro&f=false

Compton would be acquired by Saatchi, hence the name Ace Saatchi and Saatchi, formerly Ace Compton. (The New York Times, 16 Mar 1982) / https://archive.is/X765e

An obituary involving an Ace Saatchi and Saatchi executive, suggesting the name change did happen "Ace/Saatchi & Saatchi (formerly Ace-Compton)" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 21 Dec 2003) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1kRaAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=ace+compton&article_id=2703,32563191&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQo5qy1OWMAxWbS2cHHVhFMJkQuwV6BAgMEAc#v=onepage&q=ace%20compton&f=false

".. what was then Ace Compton (now Ace Saatchi Saatchi) in the early 1970s" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 10 Nov 2006) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=sVc1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=ace+compton&article_id=1187,17327524&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQo5qy1OWMAxWbS2cHHVhFMJkQuwV6BAgHEAc#v=onepage&q=ace%20compton&f=false

"Jimenez D'Arcy advertising executive Alex Castro" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 Apr 2002) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=21g1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=alex+castro&article_id=1904,7344962&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT6N2r0OWMAxUxRmwGHbbNIdUQuwV6BAgJEAc#v=onepage&q=alex%20castro&f=false

Jimenez D'Arcy would later merge with Basic, forming Jimenez Basic (Campaign Asia, 7 Feb 2003) /https://www.campaignasia.com/article/headlines-jimenez-moves-closer-towards-merger-with-basic/188939

"Alex Castro of Jimenez Basic Advertising", (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 24 Mar 2004) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=dlc1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA19&dq=alex+castro&article_id=1830,17728330&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT6N2r0OWMAxUxRmwGHbbNIdUQuwV6BAgMEAc#v=onepage&q=alex%20castro&f=false

Jimenez Basic would later be adopting the "Publicis" name (Campaign Asia, 1 Sep 2008) / https://www.campaignasia.com/article/jimenezbasic-adopts-publicis-branding/207312

These facts support his LinkedIn portfolio and in turn his advertising experience.

Letmeinericandre (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kuru Letting know about citations Letmeinericandre (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The policy of self published sources, such as blogspot.com, is that they are reliable if they come from a subject matter expert "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (see WP:SPS). The idea is Wikipedia relies on other reliable sources to show that the expert should be considered a reliable source. Has Alex del Rosario Castro published any books or journal articles about advertising?
Also when you say "I have reasonable proof that the blog is run by an expert" do you mean you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is an expert or that you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is running the blog? You have to be absolutely certain that it's him running the blog, and there's no chance it's a random person using his name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

> do you mean you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is an expert or that you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is running the blog? You have to be absolutely certain that it's him running the blog, and there's no chance it's a random person using his name

Both. I am certain that it is him running the blog. This is going to be extemely harder to prove. His Facebook profile (https://www.facebook.com/alex.r.castro.7) posts the links to his blog posts on isamunangpatalastas regularly. Here is a comment from him detailing his work with former Tourism secretary Mon Jimenez (https://www.facebook.com/secmonjimenez/posts/pfbid0bpBuS7o8qppozZjo8sKnZoodDFo2MXkfWuPt48Fn7t8WD7gLTRJ21Qw18L73XgAGl?comment_id=118753923154449)

As it is incredibly hard to find Wikipedia sources for Philippine advertising as it is not a hot topic, every source older than 2015 becomes as reliable as anything on Watters World or Ingraham Angle. Most of the discussion occurs on non-news sites.

Also I think writing a book seems to be too high of a standard for a reliable person. Anyone can write a book.

I have given non-usergenerated sources from the internet. The books.google.com sources are newspaper scans coming from a zombie Google project from 2008 (Google_News_Archive) that scanned such newspapers like Philippine Daily Inquirer. And try making an article on campaignasia. You can't.

Post from his facebook account posting a link from his isamunangpatalastas blog: https://www.facebook.com/alex.r.castro.7/posts/pfbid0ci4fhcwBf63yLE1R2DvLrLCu8qEGUnorgMNnmNhjmfHk4TRLLMAGZr7GAB54SqYGl

Letmeinericandre (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point. Does Alex del Rosario Castro have publications on advertising? A book, peer reviewed paper, or something like that? This would help display he is an expert. In general many people are experts in their jobs, but that does not mean that are considered authoritative by peers. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying less passively aggressively compared to the other dude. I think he may have. I cannot remember. But I know that that alone is a terrible reason to back him up. I think he did contribute in a book, but the problem is there is scarce documentation about him. I can't afford going to NLP (National_Library_of_the_Philippines) just so I can prove that he is indeed "trusted" by some random website for something that I'm supposed to forget three months later. Letmeinericandre (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry your read my stating of Wikipedia's policy as passive aggressive. However without proof of prior publishing the self published source won't be considered a reliable source. Wikipedia's content should be built on "trusted" sources. Also WP:ASPERSIONS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I see. Sorry. I'll see what I can do. Letmeinericandre (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Good. Hope you find something. If he has a conribution in a book, that may be a better source to cite than his blog too. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is academictree.org a reliable source? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's about us page[14] states users are able to contribute content directly, which suggest that it's WP:UGC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this: [15] a reliable source as used in a discussion about accusations of torture by Colonel Marcel Bigeard during the Battle of Algiers (1956–1957)? Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

fr:Alain Ruscio appears to be a published historian specialising in the subject area, and the journal (fr:Cahiers d'histoire. Revue d'histoire critique) has been around since 1969. Both appear quite political, but bias doesn't mean inaccurate (WP:RSBIAS). It contains quotes from General Massu that he witnessed Bigeard committing torture in Algiers, referenced (in part) to this article from Le Monde[16] (archive). It doesn't appear to present any other witnesses, but the other source in the article from France24[17] says (translated) "Marcel Bigeard had justified the use of torture in Algeria as a 'necessary evil,' while claiming to have never practiced it himself. But many witnesses testify to the contrary.".
For reference the context appears to be this sentence from the article "Bigeard later justified the torture in Algeria as a 'necessary evil,' while claiming to have never practised it himself. However, numerous witnesses attest to the contrary." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at the linked page above regarding a series of endorsements from bankers for the Conservative Party. An editor has repeatedly tried to add these endorsements in the article despite opposition on the talk page, and has done so again tonight, claiming consensus after the discussion stalled for 2 days. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This board doesn't handle editors behaviour, see WP:DISRUPTIVE for editors who are editing against consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was inviting watchers of this noticeboard to participate in the discussion to seek a clearer consensus, as the discussion involves the coverage of the endorsements in RSs. Though I do think there are some bad actors acting in the general context of the election article, I am aware of where ANI is. Apologies for not being clear enough. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 21:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to give this a bit of background because I think GhostOfDanGurney did not explain well and shifting the focus to editor behaviour is unfortunate. The dispute is around a letter of endorsement published as an advertisement in a Canadian newspaper, in which a group of businesspeople endorsed the Conservative Party in the upcoming election. The advertisement was picked up and covered by several other Canadian newspapers, which also investigated the membership of this group and identified several prominent individuals by name, many of whom have their own biographies on Wikipedia. Some editors have argued that this endorsement is undue on its face and should not be included in the article at all because it is a paid advertisement. Among editors who agree that inclusion of the endorsement is warranted (owing to independent coverage and/or the notability of the individuals named as part of the group), there is an additional dispute about whether the advertisement should be included in Wikipedia as a single endorsement by the group that published the advertisement, or as separate endorsements by each individual named in third party coverage.

I agree that more eyes would be helpful, as the discussion has been stalemated for several days and is devolving into edit warring, which everyone with half a brain cell knows needs to be reported somewhere else and we are all quite capable of doing so if that becomes necessary, so you don't need to shove that down our throats, thank you very much. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Then comments should be phrased around the reliability of sources not editors behaviour. It's not tone policing to point to the NOTFORUM comment in the header, even for someone with half a brain cell. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I have been alerted by an editor on French Wikipedia @Pa2chant.bis of the reported death at age 94 of the French artist and writer Sandra Jayat (apparently born Lucienne Jayat), citing this source: https://www.deces-en-france.fr/resultats/28373655-jayat-lucienne . This comes from a site which says about itself (translated to English), from https://www.deces-en-france.fr/contact : "# Where does the data come from? - Town halls transmit the deaths recorded every month to INSEE, which compiles them and makes them public in a royalty-free file available on its platform. INSEE's statement about this file: INSEE cannot guarantee that the file of deceased persons is free from omissions or errors; it cannot incur any liability for the use made of the information contained in these files. In particular, the information contained in these files may under no circumstances be used for the purpose of certifying the vital status of individuals ." So I am wondering whether this qualifies as a sufficiently reliable source for use on English Wikipedia. Of course it might be better to wait for a published obituary somewhere, but advice would be appreciated. If this source is considered useable, it would enable me to remove the BLP template from the article and also insert a non-free (subject is deceased) image into the infobox, as well... Regards - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Also relevant to the above: "The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, abbreviated INSEE or Insee, is the national statistics bureau of France. It collects and publishes information about the French economy and people and carries out the periodic national census." Also from the cited website: "Deces-en-france.fr is a search tool within the file provided by INSEE; it is not possible to modify the data already retrieved. You can contact INSEE directly to report missing or incorrect information, which they will then update or not update in the deceased persons file. When INSEE publishes a new update to the file, deces-en-france.fr will automatically retrieve it." Tony 1212 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The comments saying they won't guarantee absolute accuracy is typical legalese, it's there to stop people from suing them. The issue I would see is this appears to be WP:BLPPRIMARY, and confirming for absolute certainty that the Lucienne Jayat in that record is the Lucienne Jayat in the article. Those issue combined makes me think it's usable, better to wait until an obituary comes out.
As an aside BLP policy doesn't immediately end with a subjects death. BLP still applies to those who have recently died, see WP:BDP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, I initially had the same hesitations as you on WP:fr (we also avoid WP:BLPPRIMARY), but it seems that this person died in complete anonymity, no obituary from relatives or family having been published since February. It is doubtful that such an obituary will appear, unless we contact potentially interested journalists who would investigate the subject. The french village pump concluded that the information was credible [18]. Cheers. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Different language Wikipedias function entirely separately, so frwiki's solution doesn't apply anywhere else. I'm still concerned that apart from a name there is nothing to connect the article subject to the database entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, my initial hesitation was that there are many amateur, or user-contributed ancestry/genealogical sites around and I thought on first acquaintance that this might be one of them, however having found on further reading that it simply ingests the official INSEE file and then processes the latter unchanged in offer to offer a search facility, I have proceeded to treat it as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes as is happening on French Wikipedia for the Sandra Jayat article there.

2 separate questions arise, however, as far as the article/s are concerned... first, can we be confident that this Lucienne Jayat is indeed the person who is the subject of the article? I would say cautiously yes, on the presumption that there are unlikely to be 2 "Lucienne Jayat"s dying in Paris around the same time of (approximately) the same age (but see below), and that the 1930 birth / Moulins place of birth have already been given elsewhere in at least 1 source (drawn apparently from French Who's Who, although that source is closed to me). I would hope to see this confirmed by an obituary at some point, since the subject is by no means undistinguished in France.

Second, and more concerning for the Wikipedia article/s, is the 8-10 year discrepancy between the stated 1930 year (and place) here, and other biographical accounts - and indeed photographs - suggesting a younger age. I have started a discussion of this on an external forum here: https://www.djangobooks.com/forum/discussion/comment/121116/#Comment_121116 so we can see what others outside the wikipedia world might think, and any such comments can then be reflected either by a change to the article after a little while, or in an appropriate note. Thanks for the responses above. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This concerns LGBTQ themes in Western animation where I removed contents from the article, and the other editor restored it. I thought this is an insignificant information from reddit r/Arcane, while the other claimed it's not because it's a comment by the show's creator.

The discussion took place here on my usertalk page. It did not go well, so I'm bringing the case here to ask others' opinions. I still think reddit can't be used as a reliable source. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Reddit is a crap source in general. For AMAs sometimes people take the time to verify the author. For contributors, not really. Even if we knew this was the correct person, it's still primary, and if a primary source is the only source, then that raises issues with WP:DUE. It would be different if PCGamer or whatever picked up on it and wrote about it. Otherwise we're not in the business of compiling social media posts, or this project would just end up being a glorified twitter feed. GMG^talk 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If the account can be 100% confirmed as the author, an accounting claiming to be a specific person is very insufficient, then it would be reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF way or WP:EXPERTSPS as it's a writer talking about the show they write for. Whether something someone said should be included in an article is a matter of NPOV rather than reliability, just because something being reliable sourced doesn't mean it should be included. The discussion on whether it's due inclusion is something best discussed in the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Reddit is 200% not an acceptable source for anything. Even if this is a confirmed account, it's undue because it comes from a primary source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If all information from that was undue then why would we bother having the WP:ABOUTSELF carveout? Not saying the case here is appropriate but provided the account is legitimate it's not worse than any other social media. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the reason I included it. It did seem, from Overton's tweet, that the account IS genuine. I think this whole discussion is rather silly, to be honest because Reddit is only cited TWICE on the entire page, and the rules, as I understand them, say that these sources CAN be cited if they are done minimally, and they ARE cited minimally on the page as a whole. Historyday01 (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can confirm that the account is genuine, they could be considered a reliable source for information about work that they specifically were involved in. So long as the claims are not unduly self-serving.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but how can I confirm that if I don't even have a Twitter account (I deleted mine earlier this year) and the tweet cited has since been deleted? She still HAS a Twitter account, however. Most of that type of stuff isn't accessible anymore if you don't have an account. It's infuriating. Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

An archived version of the link is fine. I would say that since that account, which is known to both you and her to be genuine, that confirmation is sufficient to confirm that the Reddit account is hers.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so does that mean that the compromise text that I put in the article, which another editor on here reversed is OKAY? Or not? I really, really don't want to get into an edit war, and another user on this forum already accused me of starting one. Because this is how the Reddit link, in question, would be used:

In the series, Caitlyn Kiramman, a recurring character, is attracted to Vi, a woman from the undercity, despite their different circumstances. Show writer Amanda Overton said that the relationship between Caitlyn and Vi is "naturally developing," with writers honoring the lived experiences of both characters.^[1]

Historyday01 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It's reliable for that, again if Twitter account is genuinely hers and not that of an imposter. That doesn't necessarily mean that the content should be included.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman, I think that archived tweet is reliably sufficient for confirming that the Reddit account is the genuine person. What do you think?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

still arguably WP:UNDUE. if it were an important detail a secondary source would have reported it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it might not be due. I was specifically asking about whether you think that the tweet can reliably confirm that the Reddit account is the same person.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There are some situations where WP:ABOUTSELF applies; WP:PRIMARY sources have to be used with caution to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, and they're not generally usable for exceptional things because in that case giving them any attention at all risks being OR, but they're not rigidly banned in all situations. For Reddit, the most likely parts that are usable via ABOUTSELF are confirmed AMA interviews, for, say, basic uncontroversial biographical details or the like. It's important to be cautious about due weight, sure, but usually one sentence or so is fine unless there's some context that makes it controversial. (Though, I believe the quality of AMAs has slipped since Reddit fired the official person who handles them - but in its hayday it was definitely been used by other RSes, so WP:USEBYOTHERS applies to that specific narrow case, even if it's still ABOUTSELF.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

agree with GMG. if it was WP:DUE, another reliable secondary source would have reported this.

as is, we can't even confirm the redditor is the actual show creator. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Historyday01, would you come over and explain the part where you think the redditor is the creator? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comment above in reply to PARAKANYAA. Since you did not include it in your description, which sadly is not surprising coming from you, I called Overton a key series writer and noted that I would cite Reddit "if that's the only place the information can be found" and called Overton as "someone important to a show," adding "I'm not going to cite some random fan analysis. For those reading the article, it is important to add information coming from one of the show writers." That is the key thrust of what I said. I will admit that I may have overstated it a bit to call her a "key series writer" but she IS credited with writing four episodes for the show ("Everybody Wants to Be My Enemy", "Heavy Is the Crown", "Pretend Like It's the First Time", and "Killing Is a Cycle"). So, I stand by inclusion of this material. I would be willing to cut down the section, even to just one citation, but I do NOT support removing it. Historyday01 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said that it was a comment from the show creator. It was a comment from a show writer. That is different. Please correct your comment to update that. Otherwise, you are twisting what I said. Historyday01 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

A writer is a creator. I don't see the point of the distinction considering this is about sourcing a reddit comment from someone who worked on the show. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The distinction is important, especially when it comes to animated series. I do not understand why you think this is an issue worth bringing to this forum. I have already said my piece here, in many comments, and in order to facilitate discussion, I do not wish to participate in this discussion after this point, as it does not appear to be going anywhere productive. I ask that all participants on me do not ping me about this topic. Thanks Whatever the decision is about Reddit following the end of this discussion, I will use it as a guide for further editing going forward.Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Okay, I guess I basically violated this now, so I'm striking this last statement. Anyway, I do hope this discussion ends soon, sigh. It seems we are just going around in circles.Historyday01 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Historyday01 Wikipedia is not a forum, an neither is this noticeboard. (Sorry for the ping but, but I though I should inform you of that.) Sheriff U3 02:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel that this comment is pretty unnecessary. Why did you even ping me? I don't get it. You could have just left a comment on my talk page to this effect. How is your comment relevant, in any way, shape, or form, to what we are talking about here? Historyday01 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You stated in the above comment: "I do not understand why you think this is an issue worth bringing to this forum." That is why I notified you through the above comment about WP:NOTFORUM, and I pinged you so that you would notice it. (I don't know what your notification settings are for talk page discussions.) Yes I could have told you through your talk page, but this way if someone else decided to notify you too, then they would see that I already told you about it. (Not everyone checks the talk page before starting a discussion unfortunately.) Sheriff U3 16:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I understand why you commented on here. That's all I'll say on that. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Update: I reduced my number of comments on here, as I found there were a number of comments on here which were unnecessary. I do not plan on commenting or replying to any other posts on here. The content has already been removed from the page (by one of the users in this discussion), so I'd say this issue is mute, and further discussion on this topic is wholly, and completely, spurious. Following this discussion, if this happens again, and I'm called to this forum by another user for this discussion, or any discussion about reliability of sources, I will decline to participate.Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Historyday01 I'm not expecting a reply based on your above statements, but as to this statement - Whatever the decision is about Reddit following the end of this discussion, I will use it as a guide for further editing going forward - : Reddit in general isn't reliable at all. However, if an account can be verified as a specific individual, their comments may be reliable as a source for verifying information about them or something they were closely involved in. If there's a dispute about whether or not that information is worth being included, the relevant Noticeboard would be Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I came here because my comment about WP:RSPREDDIT was not addressed earlier. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Reddit, Quora, Stack Exchange and forum posts all fall under WP:UGC. It should not be used other than for uncommon case-by-case exceptions, such as when activity on Reddit is the subject of reliable mainstream media coverage and you include the link to the Reddit thread talked about in the reliable mainstream media outlet. As a matter of general sourcing practice, forum posts and other bloggy junk should rarely be cited. Graywalls (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree, but in some limited cases, Reddit can be fine. I would argue this is a limited case, especially if one of the links is removed. I just limited it, in a recent edit, to ONE link, rather than two, since both were from the same discussion. It is only ONE sentence in the entire article and now there is only ONE link to Reddit on the ENTIRE page, which is very, very minimal. It does not count as "undue weight." To say so, based on the text in my recent edit, seems silly and untrue. I also cut down another related comment by Overton.Historyday01 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It still falls under WP:UGC. If you have to rely on bloggy junk source like Reddit, Stack Exchange and like to source it, it likely doesn't belong. If it's worthy of inclusion, it will likely be covered by reliable secondary sources. Please do not continue to edit war. Graywalls (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reddit and similar forums are not RS. There is no oversight on the quality of the material they produce. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Graywalls and Ramos1990, forum posts can be reliable sources by a source about things they were closely involved in, if the account can be verified as genuinely that of the individual in question. See this recent discussion. Now, whether including that content is due weight, that is a different question. If there's dispute over that, I'd recommend that the question go to the neutrality noticeboard.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@3family6:, just noting you were a major participant in that discussion, and not necessarily of neutral position. When it comes to ABOUTSELF I see it as sourcing to cover something that's universally acceptable to include and the sources are to only serve as verification of facts. If we were to assume authenticity of source is certain, it's still an absolutely unreliable source to substantiate justifiability of including what's said in it and should not be used to flesh out contents from it. So, where they were born, date of birth and sort of thing would be ok. However, things written by an individual tend to contain what the _individual wants to say about themselves_ and Wikipedia articles are not a webhost, so covering those things would be undue. This is because anything self published is almost universally a terrible indicator of inclusionworthiness. Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

just noting you were a major participant in that discussion, and not necessarily of neutral position. Why does that need to be noted? And opinions on here aren't "neutral", they're the specific judgments of specific editors. As you can see from that discussion, I sought opinions from other editors because I was not sure of the reliability of a source in an unusual situation. You can see their responses. Do you take issue with it? If not, why bring that up.

I agree that with ABOUTSELF, it works for verification but does not mean that the content is worth including. As I stated in the comment above, whether the material posted by the character writer on Reddit is worth including is a different question, for a different noticeboard. But in terms of reliability, Reddit posts and similar forum posts can be reliable sources about an individual if about themselves.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, at a bare minimum AMAs by confirmed individuals reach the threshold of WP:ABOUTSELF. There's substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS for that specific case, and they have an established method of confirming identities that is clearly treated as reputable by high-quality secondary sources, so if we're not going to accept them then what ABOUTSELF stuff would we accept? Of course, ABOUTSELF comes with a lot of important restrictions (not exceptional, not unduly self-serving, nothing about third parties, etc) but it's still usable. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reddit should not be used as a reliable source, as it is user-generated content. If you can't find any other sources (that are reliable) then it most likely should not be included. Social media platforms don't have any sort of oversight. (Except for moderation of content posted, but that is different then what we want for Reliable Sources.) also we don't allow forums and wikis as Reliable Sources for the same reason. (Wikis are worse though cause the content can change from when it was originally cited.) I suggest that you try looking for a RS, then if you don't find any you just don't add the content. While you are looking though the content should not be on the page. (You can have it in your sandbox so that you have it available for it and when you find a RS.) Sheriff U3 05:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

In this case, it's an editor wanting to use a particular Reddit post as a primary source statement by a source about themselves. Which, if it's actually the individual in question, would be reliable. Whether it's worthy of inclusion, that's another matter.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If the article subject is a chef and they like your steak well done and that's what it says on their official page or verified Instagram, it passes the factual reliability of the claim. Oh and he's a cat dad and likes purple cars. It's an absolute unreliable source of indicating such statement is even worth a mention.

However, if an intellectually independent writing is done by reliable secondary sources that discuss his penchant for well done steak and his culinary creation, that source can be seen as a reliable indication of inclusion worthiness. Graywalls (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That's all part of WP:DUE (NPOV), not WP:RS (V). Whether something can be reliably sourced, and whether it should be included are different subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the context. "reliable" isn't just factual accuracy. It's about reliably establishing inclusion worthiness as well. ANY Reddit post is a reliable indicator of the fact that the said account xx made a post on subreddit on time day month year. Graywalls (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"It's about reliably establishing inclusion worthiness" could be used as the short description of WP:NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Who says there can not be some overlap between NPOV and RSN relevance? Writing a "persuasive" piece would be a POV issue even if all the sources fully pass RS criteria. A source that can reliably show that this and that company was established in 1985, but can be a non-RS for "to produce high quality widget" Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This has gone very far off topic, social media posts are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF details. If those details should be included or not is a matter of NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You're conflating reliability with neutrality here. A source could be reliable, but the content not included because doing so would violate a neutral point of view in some way. And this noticeboard isn't about the latter issue. This noticeboard is for evaluating if specific sources are reliable or unreliable for specific usages.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The easiest solution is to find sources that no one will argue is not reliable (e.g. secondary sources, not Reddit). It may result in someone else contesting it again in the future. The content that was removed seems like it would be covered in another some secondary source about the character development. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that secondary would be preferable, in this case, it seems that it doesn't exist. To be clear, using it as a primary source would not be citing Reddit, it would be citing the primary source that used Reddit. As I've said above, the information might not be due. But there's nothing necessarily wrong with verifying material with a primary source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Reddit, in general, is WP:UGC and unusable as such for factual information. However, that is in general; if an account is readily confirmed to actually be some real person's account, and that real person is making a comment that would be acceptable in an WP:ABOUTSELF context, I don't see what makes this different than Facebook/Instagram/X/LinkedIn/any other social media platform. That context is extremely narrow, however; I'm not quite convinced that it applies in this exact case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The trouble here actually is an editor is editorializing. There's nothing wrong with say, quoting an expert who commented in his field, and he happened to have done it on reddit or Twitter, or even his personal blog, as long as the article gives attribution and does not interpret the words. Instead, this is artistic interpretation, and believe it or not, there are some creators whose opinions about their own works is not notable. Such comments need to come from a secondary source, and would still require attribution. 174.246.128.118 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

If it can't be used as a source, can Reddit be used as an external link instead per WP:EL? George Ho (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It can't be used as a workaround for not using it as a source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Has anybody heard of SlayNews.com ? Are they being serious? or are they mock news / comedy site like Onion?

• FDA Admits Covid mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Cause Cancer

Are they to be consider credible? CaribDigita (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

For consideration, List of miscellaneous fake news websites has an entry on Slay News. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Obviously not reliable. Doesn't need an RSP entry. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Just plainly obvious garbage. Aside from the ridiculous blog entries made by just a couple of 'authors' that do not seem to exist outside of the site, one of the custom meta ad tags is shared with newsaddicts.com, which shares a phone number and address with a depreciated source of similar quality. Not sure if there's really a relationship - anyone can add any address to their fictious news site - but it's not a great look. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I usually try to give an evaluation of a source and breakdown the relevant policies, but in this case I'll just say this is trash with no redeeming features. The particular article in question completely misreports the journal article it's supposed to be based on, and the rest of the site is no better. Should definitely be removed if it's found in any articles. Thankfully the only article it currently appears in is List of miscellaneous fake news websites[19]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable. A quick skim showed virtually nothing we look for in a reliable source. And as I've told other editors, if these bombshell (bonkers) claims were even remotely true, they'd be on headlines across the world, not just one weird blog. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian today published an investigation into articles across a variety of British outlets by freelance journalist Bernard Bale. While they don't state a firm conclusion, and Bale has defended his work, it does look concerning. I found about 16 citations of his work in Wikipedia [20] [21], do people think they should be removed? the wub "?!" 18:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, first one I looked at (Timothy Dalton) cites Bales for a direct quote. The Guardian article implies but doesn't state that at least some interviews didn't take place (and thus implies that the quotes are invented). Maybe tag as "better source needed"? Or, if the information sourced to a Bales interview isn't critical to the article, just remove it? Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I read this earlier and had some of the same thoughts. It's not clear that all of his interviews are fake, but certainly some are on dubious ground. Finding supporting, or better, sources for any content is likely a good idea, given most will be BLP articles. If Bale is the only source for something I would give serious thought to removing the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I support removing all his sources. As well as doubt about the veracity of his interviews (which the Gaurdian carefully words), I cannot independently verify that he was a print or broadcast journalist. Fences&Windows 21:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree about removal: everything is now suspect, not just his "A-lister linked to small town" pieces. In addition, the Guardian piece points to the danger of cites under other bylines which are in turn sourced to Bale pieces; something to watch out for going forward. jnestorius^(talk) 01:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP identifies Fox News as GUNREL for politics (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). An editor just added content sourced to a Baltimore Fox News affiliate to Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This article is political and national/international in scope, and the content added is not Baltimore-specific. Right now, I'm only seeing the info that's reported in the affiliate's story in GUNREL sources like Fox News national, NY Post, Just the News, etc. (It looks like Fox News national built off of the Baltimore Fox News reporting rather than vice versa, given the time stamps on the two articles. It's not totally surprising that it would first appear in a Baltimore affiliate, as Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland.) In browsing the RSN archives, I haven't found much about the reliability of Fox News affiliates for political reporting. Figured I'd check here. Should it matter, it's BLP content. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

While it's a Fox affiliate, the bigger concern is that WBFF is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. I don't believe we have specific guidance for those stations, but maybe we should. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sinclair owns ABC, CBS, NBC and CW affiliates as well as Fox affiliates. Are they “concerning” as well, or just their Fox affiliates? Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

All of them, possibly. See Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Political_views. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

John Oliver had a fantastic breakdown, well reported and researched, on how Sinclair forces its stations to run editorial content masquerading as news stories without disclosure. No Sinclair station's reporting should be trusted. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

My view is that, yes, WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS does apply to local affiliates discussing national news. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No. There is a footnote right next to each line of the fox news RSP entries that says "Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG." i.e. those entries do not apply. Separate issues: Sinclair ownership; WP:WEIGHT of a local news outlet for a story that gets national and international coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

On Rhodo’s last point… I would agree that a local news outlet (regardless of affiliation) is likely not the best source for national news (except, perhaps, when reporting on how local populations are reacting to a national event - and mentioning that local reaction in an article does raise WEIGHT concerns). Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that footnote; I'd missed it. Re: whether it's DUE, there's some coverage of this bit of info in some national news sources, but so far, all of the national news sources I've found covering it are GUNREL. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

agree with Rhodo and Blueboar... there is question of weight and dueness of any local station's POV compared to more "proper" sourcing. Supposedly, if there is a detail that is interesting and due in the story, it should have been reported by national media if it is truly a story of national concern. wrt to the current edit, question is if this is a due detail and if other stories have included this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

here are sources that properly describes the human trafficking issue and would be much more due [22] [23] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah… I was about to mention that the BBC has covered the human trafficking allegations. That would be a much more appropriate citation. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The human trafficking allegations are already in the article, sourced to RSs.

This new allegation is that Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes is the owner of the car that Abrego Garcia was driving in 2022 (when he was stopped for speeding and the DHS says he was suspected of human trafficking), and that Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes had been convicted of human trafficking (which also may not be DUE, given that it's about the car's alleged owner, not about A.G.). I've now investigated a bit and have questions about whether the Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes alleged to be the car's owner is the same Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes who was convicted of human trafficking in 2020, and whether he was really the car's owner. The Fox affiliate wrote that an unnamed DHS source says they're the same person. But the DOJ statement about the Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes who was convicted of human trafficking says that the minivan he was driving was rented. This is content stuff that I'll bring to the article's talk page to check for consensus about whether it's DUE and whether the source is reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed last month in Archive 472#Fox-affliated TV stations and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. I don't think that FOXNEWSPOLITICS covers Fox affiliates as it stands. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Rhododendrites pointed out the footnote, so I no longer have a question about Fox News affiliates in general. The only RS question I have now is whether this particular Fox affiliate article is reliable for the specific information that was sourced to it, "The vehicle Abrego Garcia was driving was reported to be registered to a known human trafficker," which I discussed a bit in my 17:24 comment. (That WP text has been removed for the time being, until it's resolved.) There's a separate question of whether the info is DUE, but that's not an RSN issue. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with Boynamedsue comment below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Per Rhododendrites, this local affiliate is not covered by the politics ban, and its story is actually accurate, in the sense that Homeland Security has made this claim. The edit it is supporting is WP:WEASEL and a breach of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but that's not the source's fault. I would concur though, that a national level story should be supported by content from national or international level media organisations, and if FoxBaltimore was the only org making this claim, it would probably not be WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. To date, no reliable national media organizations have picked this up, and the Dept. of Homeland Security has not made any public statement confirming it (e.g., on its own website). So we're omitting it for right now. In this specific case, it would surprise me if the DHS has confirmation but isn't itself making a public statement. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that the links to national/international sources above do not actually confirm the specific existence of a DHS claim around the ownership of the car. Off topic for this board, but in my view the claim should not be included until a reliable national-level or academic source repeats it.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I would go on a case by case basis, what qualifies as "national political news" is going to vary greatly (is an article about a DOGE team in DC cutting the funding for a rest area at a local national park national or local?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't look like "original reporting." It appears to be like a Sinclair Broadcasting required-run editorial story. Absolutely not reliable. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Is vidiq.com[24] considered as a reliable source? The article it is being used in is Hindley Street Country Club —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Youtube viewership figures are available from YouTube directly, they will always be more reliable than someone republishing those figures. Sites such as this also give YouTube channels rankings, these will never be due for inclusion in an article. The other statistics they provide should be viewed with caution unless they are backed up by other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we FINALLY have an RFC and admit that Fox News Isn't News and Isn't Reliable, It's Just Propaganda? https://www.ft.com/content/7aaea62c-f9f4-4f09-b474-f79edba09a94 73.206.161.228 (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

that's more or less reflected in current consensus around WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. There is nothing wrong with a source being biased, though increasing bias often means more likely to be undue. And further demoting Fox News for politics probably means WP:DEPREC. Please also see WP:DEPS, but it would mean there is absolutely no editorial control, and the news stories are always on the level of breitbart, oann, national enquirer, and RT, in terms of being categorically wrong. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is some active dispute about a usinh Fox as a source then there is no need to revisit anything. Are they being used somewhere in an article and talk page discussion on the article's talk page hasn't been able to resolve the situation, or are they being used in a way that wastes editors time having to deal with clean up? Discussions are meant to be about evaluating sources for Wikipedia's purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus shows that fox news can be used for local topics (like the store fire in town or the school shooting.) It just can't be used for topics related to politics. I doubt that there would be support for a complete ban, just the political reporting would likely be banned for being used as a RS. (Which it currently is already for the most part.) So a RFC is not necessary I think. We already have plenty of consensus for previous discussions to show that it should not be used as a RS political topics. It would likely be a waste of time to open a rfc and find out in the end that the consensus is roughly the same as it was in 2020-2023. (That is when there was a bunch of discussion about it's reliability.) Sheriff U3 05:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"It would likely be a waste of time to open a rfc and find out in the end that the consensus is roughly the same" - I disagree. At least then we'd have an updated consensus. And Fox has clearly gotten worse over the past year. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Fox does appear to be even worse. But I agree that Fox RfCs require an inordinate amount of editor time and it is unlikely that the result would be different. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that something would take time and effort to do is not an argument that it's not worth doing. And with how much worse Fox is today than it was even a year ago, the guidance needs updating. The only way to test if there is enough movement in consensus to change the rating is to actually do the work and not be lazy, and it would not be a "waste of time" to have updated discussion since the last RFC was over two years ago and Fox has become exponentially worse in that time. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually deciding the worth of any effort is exactly about how long it would take and what you'd get out of it. Grind this axe somewhere else. 174.246.128.118 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You really came here just to troll people from Midland TX huh? 73.206.161.228 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

https://covid.gov used to be a good source of reliable information about COVID-19. It has since been hijacked by an group spreading COVID conspiracy theories. It fails our policies on medical advice and no longer reliable.

The Social Security Administration (ssa.gov) will be using Twitter/X as its primary outlet for communication with the public. This platform is known for spreading conspiracy theories, either directly or through nearby posts. It is a cesspool of targeted propaganda, disinformation (see also Facebook).

The reliability of the Federal Government is impossible to gauge due to its distributed nature. Is navy.mil reliable? Nevertheless, we can and should make an effort to better understand. Up until a few months ago it was generally assumed to be a reliable source. No longer a valid assumption. -- GreenC 02:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In general, I've been thinking for a while that we might want to time range limit usage of US .gov websites to archive versions prior to this year. We can always revise the time range later as needed. We generally use archive link time dated versions anyways for .gov sites since they do sometimes change with new/different info regardless and we're using them to reference information from a specific version. Silverseren^C 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There's also been a huge amount of 2025 United States government online resource removals. Here's one resource listing/linking to efforts to archive the information. The Reactions section of the article above identifies a few other places making efforts to archive some of the material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I came here to post this same thing. This is just the last straw in a long line of disinformation and misinformation being added to US Government websites since Trump took office. It is beyond time for us to have a full RFC and deprecate all US Government sources as unreliable until further notice. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

*at least all US Government sources after Trump took office.

73.206.161.228 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

As in all things, never forget its the government's claim, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that now we have to worry about Trump's regime taking adverse actions to try to strongarm previously reliable sources into repeating the claims. Or have you not been paying attention to what's been done to the Associated Press over Trump's fake renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and AP's refusal to go along with that "Gulf of America" Orwellian Revisionism? 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not a .gov website, so that is another matter. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Let's parse this out. Doublechecking the Fox News coverage, which they have made front page news: they have a fawning repetition of all the claims, and then reference to the New York Times publishing an "article" in March. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html)

The "article" is actually an op-ed from one Zeynep Tufecki, who is a sociologist - not an epidemiologist - and whose op-ed misrepresents virtually all of her purported sources either in content, in origin, or both. (Much of her purported sourcing comes from a known anti-vaccination conspiracy site, per https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstream-media-source-is-funded-by-anti-vaxxers/).

I think there is a legitimate reason to be worried that more of this sort of thing will be happening. Tufecki, for instance, seems to be engaging in several publications like this recently, quite possibly (a) to ensure that her Turkish ties do not get her deemed a person of concern to the Trump administration and (b) to try to ensure that her grants continue, given that other researchers in the field have seen research shut down for spurious reasons, especially researchers focused on the spread of misinformation and disinformation. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The "Gulf of America" now appears on a bunch of government websites, as an internet search on [site:gov "Gulf of America"] shows. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Some statements on government websites are facts and others aren't. The problem is that many facts are disappearing from federal government sites, and the facts:non-facts ratio is getting smaller. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Therefore, use with caution, and not for MEDRS subjects. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This needs to become far more general. "Not for MEDRS subjects" - do we then need to have other categories beyond that? How many areas does the Trump administration need to expand their "flood the zone" tactics to before it's too many? How much is too much? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/business/trump-misinformation-false-claims.html

"use with caution, and not for MEDRS subjects" feels like just trying to kick the can down the road. Why not have an RFC? 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean: facts are disappearing and being replaced by falsehoods. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In some cases. In many other cases, they're being removed and not being replaced at all, as is discussed in the article link I provided above. Both are a loss of factual information, but they're distinct. FactOrOpinion (talk) FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be wise here to draw a line between the political branches of government and other areas, inasmuch as one can. Websites like whitehouse.gov reflect the statements and positions of the administration that occupy the White House. It hosts things like the text of executive orders and proclamations, as well as position statements. There are other websites, like federalreserve.gov, which hold things like economic research working papers and the monetary policy report.

I think common sense is all that's required here; that the CDC page for signs and symptoms of TB would not be reliable for MEDRS purposes because whitehouse.gov the U.S. president's position that COVID is a lab leak is quite a bit absurd. That the IRS description of FATCA reporting requirements for U.S. taxpayers would be unreliable because of a report from the House of Reps oversight committee is ridiculous.

There are quite a good number of government websites that are reliable for facts, and there are some that aren't—the government is large and diverse. If we are ignorant of basic civics, we might come to some sweeping conclusions about the whole of the bureaucracy based on the political branches publishing documents that contain sharp political spin. But that would be sloppy, and harmful to our project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're joking or not @Red-tailed hawk. Consider: covid.gov USED TO go to a CDC website. Now it's been redirected to a White House batshit-insane propaganda page.

That means that due to the insane and corrupt Trump administration's actions, any directed links Wikipedia had to covid.gov resources are now broken or worse. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that perhaps for MedRS, we should downgrade US Govt websites from Green to Yellow, that is Additionally Considerations should apply and attribution and secondary source verification should be included for controversial or fringe claims. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The presence or absence of factual info on a gov (any gov) website (primary sources) is not conclusive, prefer secondaries where possible and avoid drawing conclusions from biased sources.Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you implying that all government websites are primary source? If so, I'd have to disagree. For example, the whole of the IRS website publications regarding the Earned Income Tax Credit are secondary—the primary sources are the Statutes and CFR entries; the agency analyzed them and has compiled lay-readable guidance on them. They're extremely useful, and quite reliable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

So are secondaries. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The agency in charge of enforcing the laws and statues explaining how they will enforce those laws and statues is absolutely a primary source, regardless of the administration. Masem (t) 16:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Governments, culture, and views change through time. It makes no sense to all of a sudden say government sources are unreliable because of such chnages. FDA and EPA often change positions and do have tolernaces for things that are not verified by any scientific bodies (e.g. dietary supplements, medical devices, poisonous subtances, etc). When you look at European, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc govement sources they also contardict each other in such matters. Health ministries or agnecies of Canada, US, Britain, China, Germany, Nicaragua, Ghana, India, etc never match up. Asian and Latin American minitires of health which have very different policies on medical practices allow for things that are prohibited by other western governments. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"FDA and EPA often change positions" - in the past this has been incremental change based on available scientific knowledge and data. Not "taking down the website focused on vaccinations of a pandemic-level disease and replacing it with a batshit-insane conspiracy theory page because Orange Shitler didn't like how the real medical professionals didn't go along with his 'just snort horse dewormer, you'll be fine' lunacy." 73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources from non-US govermental institutions are generally not used for unattributed statements of fact. Such US sources have been used because of there ease of use and access, but really they should only ever have been used in the way as sources from other governments. As sources from US govermental institutions come to show a more US centric view point, they should no longer be used in lieu of more neutral sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we not have an RfC on whether the US government is generally reliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought the question to broad. Which part, for what? If the a US politician called a press conference and spent four hours extolling the virtues and washing you eyeballs with bleach, it would be a reliable source for that politicians words. If the CIA released a detailed report on the intricacies of the Iranian nuclear weapons program it should have intext attribution regardless of how persuasive the report. If they said the right way to spell peaches was "peeches" it would obviously be unreliable given the weight of other sources, but they would still be reliable for census data. The list is endless. My point was that when it comes to general or globe subjects the opinion of the US government shouldn't be stated as fact.
If anyone wants a RFC I suggest they workshop the question, otherwise it will just end as a trainwreck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

So about the census... you may want to rethink your example there. The moment after Orange Corruption got into office he altered the census results for purposes of congressional districting. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it would have been better to say they would be considered generally reliable, no source is absolutely reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What does "As sources from US govermental institutions come to show a more US centric view point" mean? There are many federal sites that are US-centric more or less by definition (e.g., US census data, information about the Social Security Administration) and others that mostly aren't (e.g., NASA). I don't think the issue is that some federal info is becoming more "US centric," but that it's become less reliable (e.g., has misinformation or propaganda) and some is simply disappearing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think existing policy covers the situation adequately even if in the past we have tended to give more credence to gov websites than we probably ought to. It's not as if there is much doubt about the intention behind the recent changes but I'm also sure the current US administration is not the only one guilty of this sort of thing. Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I would agree. What I was saying was that the past credence given to US government websites was due to the US goverment view 'generally' (I'm not saying it's wasn't slanted) following a the global consensus view. That has changed and so how we handle them needs to change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Whether a global consensus view exists depends on what the topic is. Origins of COVID? sure, because COVID is a global phenomenon with global research. But there are many articles with US government sources (census, etc.), and where the article's focus is only on the US and there isn't global research. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

In general WP:ATTRIBUTION is a good and safe option to use when citing any goverement agency or position. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

See my comment above that discusses that exact point[25]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Relatedly, there is a proposal to add the "official" US govt position to the lede of COVID-19 lab leak theory.[26] Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Any US goverment source that contains things like "New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into..." is not reliable. As the DOJ is part of the US government, they should not need "new evidence" they should know as they are talking about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Official" postions change. They don't have automatic weight given either way. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  My comment has nothing to do with official positions and official positions are not part of judging the reliability of a source. They would be fine for quotes or intext attribution of opinion, but that's true of whoever is running whatever country at any particular time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• As a general rule, "normal" government websites are only usable as primary sources for the positions the government has taken; and even then, anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:BLP-sensitive, and so on would be better cited via a secondary source. (Many things people want to cite to government websites also involve complex legal issues and are therefore not suitable to cite to a primary source; they're things that will almost always require the interpretation and analysis that only a secondary source can offer.) In situations where a government contradicts the best available secondary sources we would use those secondary sources and only mention the government's position via them, if at all. None of this is unique to the Trump administration, it's sort of the "default" for how we handle government sources in general. However, there have been some exceptions to that general rule - government-funded sources that have attained a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy along with enough independence from the government that they're not considered just a government mouthpiece. The BBC, for instance, is generally reliable, because it's editorially independent from the British government and has a strong reputation. It's quite reasonable to suggest that the Trump administration's aggressive efforts to centralize power have undermined that sort of reputation for any federal US sources that were previously considered reliable in that way... but it would probably have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, simply because any such government sources that were treated as non-primary WP:RSes were already exceptions. (And also, it may not matter because the Trump administration is mostly not co-opting the sorts of sources that might previously have been reliable, it's deleting them. The COVID page mentioned above, for instance, hasn't really been updated, it's been entirely deleted and redirected elsewhere. Voice of America, similarly, which was reliable per WP:RSPVOA, has simply been deleted. If the Trump administration had destroyed its editorial independence and, as a result, its reputation, it might have become unreliable; but since it was simply shuttered we don't really have to worry about that.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• The Military History of the Third Century Iran, Ilkka Syvänne, Katarzyna Maksymiuk, Siedlce: Scientific Publishing House of Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 2018.

Unfortunately I have little information regarding this work, having only stumbled upon its existence a day ago. Considering that much of Ilkka Syvänne's works are considered unreliable, I was curious as to whether this was considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the details of the book[27] it appears to have a lot of aspects that would suggest it's reliable, but the actual content is outside by area of knowledge. I've posted a notification to WP:MILHIST to see if it helps bring some additional comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The Purewa Cemetery website is cited 105 times in Wikipedia: [28] but they quite clearly source their information from Wikipedia and that includes this: [29] which is a probable hoax image and likely untrue details such as the Vanderbilt house (only source online for that is Wikipedia and this website)

I don't believe this website can be considered reliable given their copying of information from Wikipedia without any due dilligence given to verify if the information is factual.

They are presumably reliable for the claim of a grave of someone being located within the cemetery, although they wouldn't be a source that establishes any weight to that information. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Not that simple. I think it may be reliable for claims about where someone is buried, but some of its individual pages borrow from wikipedia. Other pages such as this one seem to be reasonable as a decent self-published secondary source, though I wouldn't give them much weight in notability discussions. However, there are a massive number of deadlinks to this page which need purging.

It's all a bit of a mess I'm afraid. Thanks a million to whoever has been adding this reference so sloppily! Boynamedsue (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That last point is a real problem, the "/view/?id=" links[30] all revolve to whichever funeral service is currently happening. Possibly dumping readers into real live events of unrelated individuals. None of them will have any valid archives, as they all appear to have been streams. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The pdf you link also cites Wikipedia, just not as often as their main website. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I also noticed it was used in Yen May Woen but the person in question is 'Joelle May Woen' and she has no entry when I look her up on the site. But the archive has this [31] Nothing on Google uses this name and no source beyond this connects May Woen with New Zealand. The details match perfectly but there is no independent verification here and nothing that connects May Woen to New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The Purewa Cemetery website is cited 105 times in Wikipedia: [36] but they quite clearly source their information from Wikipedia and that includes this: [37] which is a probable hoax image and likely untrue details such as the Vanderbilt house (only source online for that is Wikipedia and this website)

I don't believe this website can be considered reliable given their copying of information from Wikipedia without any due dilligence given to verify if the information is factual.

They are presumably reliable for the claim of a grave of someone being located within the cemetery, although they wouldn't be a source that establishes any weight to that information. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Not that simple. I think it may be reliable for claims about where someone is buried, but some of its individual pages borrow from wikipedia. Other pages such as this one seem to be reasonable as a decent self-published secondary source, though I wouldn't give them much weight in notability discussions. However, there are a massive number of deadlinks to this page which need purging.

It's all a bit of a mess I'm afraid. Thanks a million to whoever has been adding this reference so sloppily! Boynamedsue (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That last point is a real problem, the "/view/?id=" links[38] all revolve to whichever funeral service is currently happening. Possibly dumping readers into real live events of unrelated individuals. None of them will have any valid archives, as they all appear to have been streams. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The pdf you link also cites Wikipedia, just not as often as their main website. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I also noticed it was used in Yen May Woen but the person in question is 'Joelle May Woen' and she has no entry when I look her up on the site. But the archive has this [39] Nothing on Google uses this name and no source beyond this connects May Woen with New Zealand. The details match perfectly but there is no independent verification here and nothing that connects May Woen to New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The Lemkin institute is used 32 times as a source, and has come up in the recent discussion here, with no agreement on it‘s reliability. Considering this and it’s republication of a Mint Press piece here, am I correct in assuming that their republished content a) maintains the reliability of the original publication and b) is to be treated with caution? FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

While I like this specific advocacy group a fair bit more than many others that come up here I'd say the same guidance as other advocacy groups should apply. Their opinions are likely notable within their domain of expertise but we should be careful with attribution and avoid wiki voice in use. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

So additional considerations, if this were an RfC? FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional considerations, yes, as I would say for most reputable advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two ways of looking at its reliability. First, are their findings used by reliable sources and *how*? Judging by a quick google news and google scholar checks, the answer is "not a lot", with many critical pieces.

Second, who stands behind the organisation? Rn there is only one person there who can be considered an expert [40] - Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, the co-founder. So it would seem that we should treat this source as little more than a self-published blog by an expert. Alaexis_¿question? 22:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve listed the least bad news and scholar citations on its talk page for review. Look a little weak to me - it’s barely notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

To the question of reposting content of another source, yes the reliability stays with the original publisher. The specific article you linked to is by Mint Press and is as reliable (or unreliable) as other Mint Press published content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

But the fact that they see fit to

republish a conspiracy theory piece by a deeply unreliable source reflects badly on their judgement right? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, publishing conspiracy theories isn't the mark of a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This organization spreads misinformation, as discussed at Talk:Khojaly massacre. Lemkin institute falsely claimed that no independent investigation of the massacre had been conducted, despite the existence of two independent investigations, one by Human Rights Watch and another by Memorial, both cited in our Wikipedia article. Lemkin refers to an online publication by conspiracy theorist Len Wicks, who has a background in aviation management and tourism and is neither an expert nor an eyewitness to the massacre. Given Lemkin’s poor fact-checking and strong ideological bias, I don't think Lemkin is a reliable source for factual statements, and their attributed opinion should be treated with caution. Grandmaster 09:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is a US-based non-profit human rights organization, run by multiple experts with PhDs in genocide studies. The institute covers various topics ranging from Iraq, Bangladesh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Transphobia, and Ukraine. It is non-partisan. The Lemkin Institute is notable for being cited in dozens of peer-reviewed publications, in different languages, as well as in Reuters, RFERL, Al Jazeera, JAMnews, University of London City Press, and Genocide Watch. The Lemkin Institute has also been mentioned in the proceedings of the UK Parliament. You can also see that the Lemkin Institute is listed by Genocide Studies International along with the United Nations as one among "five institutes... dedicated to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocity crimes around the world.". It's a reliable source; if there are any specific examples requiring discussion, they can be discussed on article talk pages. Vanezi (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  It is a one-person show. After Massimino quit, Elisa von Joeden-Forgey remained the one who runs this organization. Occasional mentions in the media, scholarly journals or by an individual member of Parliament do not make the organization a reliable source. Other users have noted that the Lemkin Institute reposts conspiracy theories and generally does not have good fact-checking standards. My question is, should Wikipedia articles cite this organization's blatantly false claims that contradict well-known and easily verifiable facts? In particular, the Lemkin Institute's claim that there was no independent investigation of the Khojaly massacre, despite the existence of two such investigations. Grandmaster 23:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Lemkin Institute is not a "one-person" organization. Here is their staff listing [41]. In fact, the institute recently added a co-executive director within the last month [42]. You're blatantly stating false information.

  Let's be clear, Lemkin Institute acknowledges that the Khojaly massacre occurred and that it was a war crime [43]; however, the institute contests the specific narrative painted by Azerbaijan that it was a "genocide." Lemkin Institute acknowledges there were victims and states that the victims demand justice; however, not all massacres are instances of genocide. Vanezi (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Also, is it a "conspiracy theory" if it is true? I have checked some of the links in the original article (that started this paragraph), and it looks like the article checks out, Huldra (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have found this website, [44], being used as a citation on a few LGBTQ-related articles. My problem with this site is that it has stated itself to be a blog -- one of the citations I removed on the Jimmy Somerville article had a disclaimer at the bottom reading, "All original material on this blog is copyright" (italics mine, link to article [45]).

To me, this makes it no-brainer unacceptable for use on BLP articles, but I do see it being used on other articles, including a couple of BLPs [46]. Which leads me to ask -- is this website a reliable source, or am I correct in my instincts that it should be avoided? JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The author of the blog also has a book called "Gay in the 80s" that probably would constitute a WP:RS so I'd start by making sure the citations were to the blog rather than the book. I would suggest, on the basis of the blog author's career that WP:EXPERTSPS may apply to the blog too (with the usual restrictions). Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight. The only citations I removed were to the blog on the Somerville article, a BLP. FWIW, I have not removed them from anywhere else. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

We should not use self-published expert sources for BLP so that's an appropriate removal imo. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The author is a blogger and activist and has one self-published book. Of course he's had a life outside of blogging, but that doesn't necessarily make his blog (nor his book) an "expert source" for the purposes of WP:EXPERTSPS. Like most blogs, generally avoid citing outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, otherwise attribute if it must be cited, but for any Wikipedia topic there may well be dozens if not hundreds of equal quality blog posts, and if this blog or author is the sole source commenting on a topic, than it may well be undue. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Can the Youtuber Shank Mods be considered a reliable source for this claim on the Sony PVM-4300? An IP editor recently added a (relatively) short claim to the article Sony PVM-4300, which is the largest CRT:
[A] version called KV-45ED1T was available on the Japanese market that bundled an external TV tuner, model VT-X5R, mounted in a drawer integrated to the bottom of the monitor chassis, and the included remote provided buttons to control it.
The citation provided was a video by Shank Mods, the only known owner of the monitor, which provides a rather in-depth overview of the monitor. An article on CRT Database, partly authored by Shank Mods, was previously cited to verify the measurements of the monitor since simple measurements do not require special expertise. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I would normally point to [[WP:EXPERTSPS], but this case is why "generally" is in "generally unreliable". The latter part of the claim mounted in a drawer integrated to the bottom of the monitor chassis, and the included remote provided buttons to control it. is simply a matter of visual observation, so the video showcase would be reliable for the purpose. The first part of the claim, however, regards history and is not immediately verifiable. However, since Shank is the only-known owner of this monitor, I would just attribute the statement to Shank Mod for now unless better sources can be found. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now added direct attribution to the claim. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This issue came up in the Natalia Grace article. After Nikkimaria removed the DailyMailTV source and I reverted explaining that it is not the same as the Daily Mail, I was suggested to raise it at RSN.

As noted on the Daily Mail article, the "international news program" based in New York City is produced by Stage 29 Productions with Phil McGraw (Dr. Phil) as executive producer and "was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Entertainment News Program in 2018".

The specific DailyMailTV article I used is an interview that was referenced on other news sites (BBC, Elle, Yahoo, etc.). J3133 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why DailyMailTV would not be covered by WP:DAILYMAIL? The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Entertainment News Program is for programmes which "focus on human interest, popular culture and celebrity gossip and interviews" – that doesn't look to me like a great reason to believe that winners are inherently reliable. (TMZ is another two-time nominee and we don't consider that necessarily reliable). If the content is also supported by the BBC, we could use that – but the new content you added in this edit doesn't seem to be included in that or indeed the other sources you cite.

More broadly than the question of reliability, I have no idea why the time of Grace's birth would be important to include in the article anyway! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, why would we assume that a Daily Mail publication is not covered by the prohibition? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it would be included in WP:DAILYMAIL, it covers the organisation not a specific means of publishing. If an organisation decided to start publishing in different media, it would be a waste of time discussing it over and over. Deprecation is not a ban, but you would need to show that there is an exceptional reason why the source should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the specific edit that Caeciliusinhorto-public mentioned I can't see why it should be included at all -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's in unless there is consensus that is formed as consequence of a RFC that it's out. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking about using a Hub News article in a Wiki article I am drafting. I'm not sure about its reliability, but it looks fine at a glance. The main page is https://hubnetwork.in. They seem to focus on Northeast India. Here is a list of articles that use it as a source. Is it reliable? KnowDeath (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Does this relate to Draft:Byrnihat and this Hub News article? If so I would say it's reliable for the Central Pollution Control Board's assessment of the pollution in Byrnihat, and the Deputy Chief Minister comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it generally reliable for news though? KnowDeath (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

For news from their local area? Probably. For things less related? Maybe. The issue is that the more general the question, the more general the answer is going to be. I'm having trouble finding information about them, so being more specific is difficult. Their 'about us' page[47] describes themselves as "an independent digital media network that aims to provide platform for content creators and storytellers", but they appear to be a news network. For news from Meghalaya or the north east of India they should be ok, especially if they are just reporting government announcements, but I would be hesitant if it was something contentious outside that area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this source good enough for BLP-stuff, specifically the content at Draft:CaseOh#Early_and_personal_life? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

They are likely reliable for news and opinion related to Kenya, where they appear to be a established news organisation. But their interest in publishing a puff piece about a random streamer half way across the globe is likely down to the fact they offer 'Native Advertising'[48]. The article should be treated as if it was a press release. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

For reference the original link, rather than the MSN repost, can be found here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd say having stuff like "girlfriend-weight-house-net-worth-earnings" as part of the URL is pretty much always a guaranteed sign that the page in question is unreliable slop, scraped from who-knows-where and turned into a generic article via algorithm/AI. Just like all the other countless celebrity networth/weight/height/girlfriend/bio/family/etc websites on the net. Neither written by an expert or journalist, nor checked by actual editors. Any such references/links should be deleted on sight. --2A02:810B:581:C300:61B7:FE88:F656:B5A (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Fully aligned to 2A02 - there are thousands of these scraper sites that randomly harvest biographical detail with zero oversight, much of which is unknowable (you simply cannot get to someone's 'net worth' without massive public holdings that dwarf the liability details). The fact that this series of 'biographies' is hosted on a semi-reliable site does not help. Seriously - eye color = black? Sam Kuru (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Seen them on Wes Watson, with what read to me like LLM slop [49]. Perhaps they're respectable for local articles, but they're also publishing cobbled together trash like this and I sure wouldn't trust that - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

There's been quite a few instances of this. A somewhat reliable news sources in its own market, that also has a rather promo article on minor figure that's completely unrelated to their normal reporting. I think they can all be considered advertorials. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting that the source in Wes Watson was also originally through MSN rather than directly to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think google prefers msn, and it's not glaringly obvious that msn is an aggregator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right there's nothing linking the two articles, just a result of external search results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

MSN is pretty indiscriminate in it what it pulls in at this point. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to check the actual publisher and switch the reference to the original source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Per the "height/weight/worth" crap noted above, I would say that there is little evidence that this site meets the criteria laid out at WP:RS, and in particular, completely unsuitable for BLP articles as a result. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)