Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 482#Zambian Observer

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.

Archive 475

←

Archive 480

Archive 481

Archive 482

Archive 483

Per WP:NYPOST the New York Post is generally unreliable with the exception of issues pre-1942 and its entertainment coverage which (WP:DECIDER) is "marginally reliable".
Steven Greenstreet -- formerly at the Huffington Post -- has been a video producer at the New York Post for a few years. His critical ("skeptical") reporting on UFOs and UFO subculture has been cited by the Washington Spectator [1], Futurism [2], WABC [3], etc. He's a potentially valuable reference as there is a dearth of reporting on the sociology of this fringe topic.
My question: what is the group's feeling about Greenstreet's reporting being citable in the narrow category of fringe topics as a subject matter expert as per WP:SPS? Traditionally this isn't "self-published" but, if we're approaching the Post as having inferior or no editorial controls, it might be in an oblique way? Chetsford (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch. First, a tabloid with a poor reputation for fact-checking is different from self-published. Second, it's not clear he has been published anywhere reliable that would establish him as a credible "UFO researcher" and a handful news sites quoting him isn't enough. Third, fringe topics require particular care. If other sources that quote him are generally reliable, those statements could perhaps be used with attribution in certain contexts. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious about this because there's some (as far as I can tell) NY Post-level non-reliable in some Australian media I wanted to use before but left on the shelf. Is it the publication alone, or does the author factor, are you asking? Like if Bob the Journalist is trivially lifetime WP:RS for anything he's ever written. He's the most cited writer here in the past ten years even. But if he writes on article under WP:NYPOST, does that one not count?

If so, that's a super interesting question, because quality writers post stuff to more independent spaces sometimes, that people will kvetch about. I'm sure many of us have been stung by that before!

If you have RS that says "Person XYZ is a notable expert on brining shrimp," and Person XYZ is indeed rather reknowned in preserving shrimp... but can we not use an article on shrimp brining from him just because a piece of shit source published it?

The specific who+what is more important I think--prove who (author) is relevant about (what) with RS, get that into the author's article, and then you've got an argument about poking an expert exemption into shitty RS as a precedent for any proper who+what outranking the where going forward. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

With newsmedia a lot of reliability depends on editorial standards which means that the reputation of the author is not the only factor. If our shrimp brining expert can't be found on a subject except in a shit source this might indicate the shrimp-pickle related subject is of minimal importance and inclusion is likely undue regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Totally agree. I mean our shrimp guy here in the hypothetical -- he is published in RS that qualifies for all things shrimp. The guy is a more notable shrimping expert than Forrest Gump or that old timey cajun cooking show guy in the old days whose name I forget (super thick accent).

But, for whatever reason, a piece by shrimp guy shows up in an other WP:NYPOST-type barred sourced, and someone wants to use it. Maybe one particular factoid/citable thing they want to include ONLY appears there? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Then no. Sorry. That's not a usable piece of information. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that Greenstreet has been an interesting case of a reporter at The New York Post exercising editorial independence: likely because the editorial oversight doesn't really care if he toes this line or not and, for whatever reason he has a unique perspective on this story that really has no parallel at any other journalist outfit. (I'll keep my own speculation as to motivations of the relevant parties to myself, but I do have my ideas about this.) Anyhoo, what I have noticed in the five or so years I've been following Greenstreet's work and interactions is that, generally, once his ideas are noticed by third parties they receive due accolades from pretty good sources. My predilection, then, is to wait for those accolades before mentioning his work and, perhaps, rely mostly on the mentions of others rather than Greenstreet himself. However, I think that if we are mentioning a work that Greenstreet should get priority for, it is best for us to give credit where credit is due. That he published in NYPost is not for us to judge right or wrong if WP:Independent sources see way to identify the work as transformational. I can think of two instances where this is the case: one) in his quick adoption of Jason Colavito's analysis that the UFO caucus within Congress and the (ex-)DOD have religious tinges to their argument and two) criticizing the government funding that went into all this as well as being one of the first reporters to really bring the Bigelow-Reid connection to light and especially for calling-out the Skinwalker Ranch-paranormal connections to the UFO "investigations" that were funded by semi-secret Congressional appropriations. This point is now largely regarded as salient by most UFO skeptics. Mick West brings it up a lot. So I think when we discuss these framings, it may be appropriate to link to those early NYPost pieces where Greenstreet makes the case along with the references to his work found in other sources. jps (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I remembered one more instance where priority may be relevant and, in my estimation, ought to be given: Greenstreet was the first reporter to question Elizondo's story about his role in Government UFO investigations. I think this is mentioned by others too. jps (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE policy says the creator of the work matters, please cite the article and not an article about the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Are the articles reporting, that should be under the editorial control of the NYP, or are they opinion? I could see a case being made for WP:EXPERTSPS for the latter, as such peices may not being under the same level of control. However then using it in BLPs could be a concern.
In part the concern about the NYP is it's editorial control, so things my be published that other more reliable sources would not. So I'd be against any cutout that resulted in statements in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I had no idea, but it seems his videos are directly published on the WP:NYPOST Youtube channel. It's very hard to see on the way he does some embeds off Twitter (I had to click through a bunch of pages to get to like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RUoYqBewC8

I'm still curious about the angles around this for my hypothetical shrimper thing. There's potentially a lot of useful corner case stuff that could be useful with the tiniest expansion of this allowance, which the more I read seems to allow WP:SPS as a passthrough option for perennial disallowed sources? Is that a correct endgame read Chetsford (talk · contribs)? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The book, History of Medieval India: From 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D. By Radhey Shyam Chaurasia is used on the article Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. Google Books link:[4]

In the early life section. Having read through the source, it seems very poorly written with frequent spelling and grammar errors. I am also not familiar with the publisher, Atlantic Publishers. In my mind, it doesn't seem very reliable but I would appreciate some other opinions.

Thanks! Ixudi (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Atlantic seem like a reputable publisher[5], and Chaurasia appear to have an academic background in history[6]. oweverreading some the book I'm left very uncertain of its quality. Maybe avoiding anything exceptional and finding a better source when possible is best. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Past: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 111#Are Google N-Grams a reliable source?

Whan using Google N-grams as a WP:RS, what should be done about the inconsistency in the results it returns? How do we handle the problem that they don't all agree? If I'm looking (as an example) for a spelling or capitalisation issue, what is the threshold criterion for this to be seen as "consistently capitalized" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Why are Google n-grams ever used as a reliable source? They are made by scanning everything in the shape of a book that Google could get their mitts on. That includes good books, sure, but also a lot of trash. I don't see why anyone should rely on them for deciding anything. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a source. It's a search engine that searches a large corpus of books interpreted via optical character recognition (which is imperfect) and assigned a date via metadata of some sort. Even though the corpus is large, it's still only a small % of all books, and as far as I know, Google doesn't provide enough info about the corpus to assess how representative it might be. The discussion you linked to provided a striking example of clear errors. It's not clear to me what "they" refers to in "they don't all agree." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone using it as a WP:RS -- a source for content of an article? That would be a problem, as it doesn't make statements itself, and it has both imperfect OCR (unsurprising with old documents) and imperfect date marking. However, it can be very useful in discussion -- giving a quick read on the more common phrasing of a term, finding portions of time that might be worth looking more into, etc. We do not require discussion fuel to reach full reliable source standards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no question that G N-grams have a certain amout of randomness that renders them far from determinate. They are NOT WP:RS except in a statement that the N-gram said so. And that type of statement is not encyclopedic. Just forget about them. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

How about using them to decide capitalisation in proper (or not) names? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why they'd be useful for that purpose. Different style guides, most books being too indifferent to follow any style guide at all... I know that Wikipedia editors take capitalization deadly seriously and want to believe in numbers that settle everything, but I just can't imagine that n-grams are at all viable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

They should be used with at least a bit of caution there, not due to inaccuracy, but because they aren't tracking exactly what we're looking for. If you want to know if, say "hocus pocus" is normally capitalized in usage, N-gram will be weighing in not just normal in text usage, but its use in chapter titles, , in headlines, in references to the film of the name, in references to a song of that name, and so forth -- places that will capitalize the term for reasons outside of whether the term is capitalized in standard usage. This will weigh the results. But it can make a good sniff test, a first level of building your thoughts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

So how about this for showing that Berlin Airlift needs to be renamed to Berlin airlift ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a definitive statement to me, with tBa getting about twice as much as tBA in 1950... but a reversal of that ratio in the current decade. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, Ngram is not an appropriate source to cite in an article but can be useful in discussions. They are frequently invoked in renaming (requested move—WP:RM) discussions, including capitalization and other spelling and usage issues. The article's title is Berlin Blockade, with Berlin Airlift and Berlin airlift as redirects. Ngram can also be useful in discussions of appropriate capitalization in article prose. For the record, I agree with Nat that the Ngram shared does not appear to support lowercase. Contextual Ngrams (like these: [7][8][9]) may provide more insight, as can an actual assessment of usage in reliable sources (as opposed to this aggregate Ngram view). Any concerns about the article title or its content should be raised at Talk:Berlin Blockade. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This source is identified here as unreliable because it is self-published. However, the wikipedia page about the source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check confirms the despite questions about its methodology the source's results tend to be very reliable and consistent with other sources. Time to change the rating? 104.195.222.88 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently found a peer reviewed paper that looked into several of the rating sites. Their general conclusion was despite the different methodologies the sites generally agree. There are also instance of peer reviewed sources using these sites as references for research. That said, I agree with the idea that the material shouldn't be used in articles on various media sites. So, we shouldn't use MBFC (or similar sites) to make the claim that a site is reliable/unreliable right/left etc. Springee (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I still say no. It's far too subjective to be useful for an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've recently noticed that there are a couple of list articles on Wikipedia that purport to be lists of fact-checking websites and one is: List of fact-checking websites. It includes Media Bias/Fact Check. That's not a strong enough reason to have it declared RS -- I have been thinking about these list articles because I'm not sure they have good editorial standards. Novellasyes (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The list articles generally don't. Simonm223 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think keeping it out of article space still makes sense. Unless a 3rd party source makes the connection for us I don't think we should reference rating sites in articles. However, it can be useful in talk page discussions. Like Ad Fontes, this is a source that scholarship has used. Also, the paper High level of agreement across different news domain quality ratings H Lin et al, found that despite different methods, there was generally good agreement between the ratings sites. Basically, these are useful resources if we want to discuss if a source is generally biased/factual etc. However, I don't see these as good article space references. Springee (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Springee. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: whether it's self-published, there is no agreement on what SPS means. As for whether it's reliable for WP's purposes, no. These sites all limit their reviewers to Americans, which introduces an American-centric bias into the results. There is no objective way to determine where neutral is. These are subjective judgments, and they shouldn't be presented as if they're objective. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliable for what? American public opinion about sources, then yes but it would rarely be due for inclusion. That it gets used elsewhere sometimes doesn't change what it is or what it's showing. Is it reliable for stating in wikivoice the reliability of a source or it's political position, no. Is it useful for discussing sources? Not really. It could be a useful place to looking when researching a source, but it's ratings are not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. They are ultimately just the opinions of MBFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Like a few other people above, I think MBFC is likely biased in itself partially towards the US angle. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No. I do not think "it is time", or ever will be most likely to change the consensus on this one. At last not based on what I've seen so far. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Also no. These are amateurs who use a novel rating system that, more-or-less, amounts to a gut feeling. Best practice in content analysis is to evaluate two constructed weeks of content for every six months using two independent coders. Insofar as I can tell, they just have someone with questionable qualifications or training Google the site they're rating. By way of comparison they call The Palmer Report "medium credibility" -- our own article on said outlet sources 11 different academic studies to call it a "conspiracy theory" and "fake news" site ... and that's just in the lead! Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Fact check sites are replete with problems and really an opinionated assessment of existing sources. There isnt really a need for them here when we can just go directly to the sources they use. Metallurgist (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I could not find any discussion regarding the reliability of SuperHeroHype as a source for discussing media. Their "About Us" page alludes to a team of editors, but I could not find anything else suggesting one way or another.

Specifically I was looking into this article, which provides an analysis of the ending of the recent Doctor Who episode "The Reality War" that I was hoping to use both to (eventually) confer notability for the character it discusses and as a point of discussion regarding the character herself. Thoughts are much appreciated!

EDIT: Meant to say "discussion" in the first sentence, not "source." -Jessica3801 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it is written by super fans [10]. It seems like user generated content. It may not be usable on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I am attempting to write a full article for Mythos (restaurant) but it is well outside of my expertise. Many sources appear upon a quick Google search. However, many of the sources are formatted as blogs and other, more informal sources. This article from NBC Chicago is the most reliable that showed up, but I am not certain how it would apply to GNG. Cinemablend also shows up, posing as a general entertainment website.

Most of the sources that appear are reviews for theme park-specialized sites. Here are a few I found on the first page of Google:

• Kingdom Insider
• Orlando Informer
• Mouse Planet
• Walt Disney News Today

Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ 20:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Which ones do you want us to look at? It seems you have some idea of what a RS should have. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue I have with this type of site is that they may fall under WP:BLOG. However, maybe they could be reliable as local sources (I forgot the name of the guideline/policy). They may also just be reliable in their own right but my skills for checking that aren't very good. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering that you are writing a new article on a small restaurant, I thnk you should use better sources than the ones provided. NBC source looks ok. I am not sure the restaurant meets notability standards and I see a redirect already for it. It may be better to simply expand the section on Universal Islands of Adventure with a few good sources. If it is hard to find RS, then the topic is not notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Should primary government sources laden with propaganda from both sides (Pakistan and India) be allowed in the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article? I am not referring to secondary media sources from either country, which, in my opinion, can be used to convey government claims and sometimes help filter out the worst propaganda language. In my view, Wikipedia should not serve as a propaganda tool for governments. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Statements made by govts directly involved in a conflict can be used but should clearly be attributed and definitely should be selected with care to stick to the most objective information (eg estimates of the number of dead in an attack, for example) since these are dependent sources. For more subjective statements or claims that can't be easily backed, we'd rather see the statements propagated through reliable independent third-parties so that editors are not trying to judge which statements are important or not, but what these reliable third-parties think are critical aspects of the gov't. (Independent is key here, its why we don't use something like RT for discussing the positions of the Russian gov't since its state owned). Masem (t) 04:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Government sources are always reliable for their official opinion and stance, and should also always be attributed if used. Secondary sources are useful in determining if such comments should be included. A typical example would be 'Reaction' sections in article about a world event, every government ends up publishes a statement but such sections shouldn't become a collect of every reaction. If no secondary source notes a particular governments response, it's a good sign it shouldn't be included.
The language in an article should also be as neutral as possible, MOS:TERRORIST for instance deals with labelling of individuals and groups. But those concerns are more about WP:NPOV than WP:V. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can't find a secondary source describing the government stance and providing significant analysis on its meaning or what makes it important, then it's just random trivia and should be removed from an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a difference between inclusion and verification. If something's worthwhile to include it could be verified by a primary source, but yes it's usually best to include a secondary one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of the difference, I just don't believe in it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There's been a spare of editors wanting to use recent newspaper articles for decades old wars who could learn from reading that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @Masem These go yonder than mere estimation of the dead or dates. Currently, the following primary sources are being used in the article, which, in my opinion, should be removed. The first two are being used to label certain sites in Pakistan as terrorist camps; we introduced the term "alleged" after much back and forth.

• The transcript on Operation Sindoor Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India^[1]
• A document hosted by Consulate General of India in Istanbul^[2]
• Briefing on Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos by Inter-Services Public Relations of Pakistan military^[3]
• Another briefing by ISPR^[4]
• Another transcript by Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India^[5]
• Another transcript by the same^[6]
• India's Press Information Bureau^[7] Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

As both I and Masem said these comments should be attributed, the Indian government can claim they are terrorist camps and the article can contain "India alleges these are terrorists camps" but it can't be used to say "these are terrorist camps" in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

For official (and attributed) claims, yes. For statements of facts, no. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia had recently deprecated and blacklisted a Hong Kong-based English-language news blog Dimsum Daily.(See zh:維基百科:可靠來源/常見有爭議來源列表#DimsumDaily) The decision is due to its ongoing publication of fake news (e.g., according to FactWire, they fabricated a quote from a Czech TV interview with a scientist who claimed that COVID-19 was created in an American laboratory, but this interview did not exist and the scientist denied making those statements[11]), poor journalistic practices (e.g., they admitted to "always troll people" and "flattered" for being labelled as a fake news outlet in one of their apology statements after publishing a misleading report[12]), a lack of editorial independence and oversight (e.g., most contributors are students rather than journalists[13]), and a controversial background (e.g., it was founded by a wanted Malaysian businessman and is controlled by a Chinese-funded marketing agency with ties to a social media influencer[14][15]). I did a cleanup in late May to replace all 160+ articles that cited this source with better sources, during which I also found some discrepancies between the source and other reliable sources. But after my initial cleanup, this source continued to be added to various articles over the last two weeks, and its extensive usage worries me about whether we should take action against this news blog to prevent editors from unknowingly citing it, which might perpetuate misinformation. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issue blacklisting this, at first glance I would of though this was a spam site with the generic website layout, no contact details, ties to cryptocurrency... Jumpytoo Talk 17:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Not every terrible source needs to be blacklisted as that would be an endless task. As it stands the site is used in zero articles[16], so there's no compelling needs to do anything (unless I missed something). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, yes, I have already mentioned that this source was originally cited in 160+ articles before I cleaned them up with better sources (you can check my edit history from 26 to 27 May[17]), but it continues to be added to Wikipedia on a daily basis (I just cleaned up an article citing it yesterday: Special:Diff/1294519606). So quite the contrary, this source has been cited extensively on Wikipedia and I believe requires some degree of attention, as manually cleaning it up myself is definitely not an effective solution. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 21:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I did wonder, as absolutely zero usage is unusual. Do to have any other secondary sources like the one from Factwire? It would be helpful to have more sources being critical of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also an article from Radio Free Asia that debunks its misinformation regarding COVID-19,[18] and South China Morning Post[19] and Free Malaysia Today[20] have reported on its controversial reporting methods and management background. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 22:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Blacklisting is meant to be for spam or sites that are unredeemable, and I don't think there's enough here to say that. I have several sites I check every now and again to clear down, I fear like those this isn't bad enough for blacklisting even if it's not really a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Destructoid articles need to be evaluated based on the author's credibility. Does this source have a reliable author? Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

His job title is "Senior Editor", so yes, that's probably the sort of person that would be acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to know if official music stores or official stores in general can be a source for identifying genres of music, shows, etc.? The thing is, I got into an argument with another user about defining genres for music releases in the absence of other authoritative sources. I think that in such a case, articles should formally include the artist's main genres, while the user seems to insist that in such a case, the genre should be filled in based on personal evaluation of the album's sound (for example, sources describe the band as gothic metal, but the user removed the "gothic metal" tag, believing that it incorrectly describes the release). Which, of course, I consider to be obviuous original research. I don't speak Japanese, so it would be difficult for me to find Japanese reviews of a Japanese EP, so I was hoping that at least I could use release targeting in the official stores where it is sold. For example, in this case Amazon Japan or CD Japan. As long as it complies with the project's rules, of course. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

UPD. I've already put a couple of genres in the article mentioned based on the English language review I found, but the question still stands due to the difficulty of finding authoritative enough reviews for Japanese releases. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

I am seeking input on the reliability of several Moroccan media outlets, particularly: - Hespress - Morocco World News - L’Opinion - Telquel

These sources are prominent in Morocco and have been cited for their coverage of the subject Ilyas El Maliki in the context of his achievements as a major streamer and chairman of Morocco’s team in the Kings League World Cup.

In a recent deletion discussion, some editors dismissed these sources as unreliable without providing evidence. But they are widely regarded as leading media outlets in Morocco, and I could not find prior evaluations questioning their editorial standards.

Could the community please assess whether these sources meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards?

Thank you for your time! Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could supply the specific articles you were using. All of these sources might be more reliable for news and less reliable for other things. Articles on streamers tend to be part of the lighter side of news organisations output, and so may not carry the same weight as reporting on major events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, here are some of the articles used: (for context, the official languages of Morocco are Arabic and Amazigh, and the primary foreign language is French, so there's mixed coverage in all these languages by Moroccan media, see Languages of Morocco)

• Telquel: Covering his trail and imprisonment in 3 article 1 2 3
• Hespress: English site has 15 articles about him [21] covering mainly his trails and prison, and his Kings League role,[22] award as the Streamer of the year,[23] etc. Arabic site has 12 articles on him [24] French site has 5 articles [25]
• L'Opinion: Kings League role [26] and trail [27]
• Morocco World News: they wrote about 20 articles about him mainly covering Kings League role [28] and influence on sports (Hakimi)

Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks for your time. Rap no Davinci (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

These all appear to be established news organisation, so the normal things apply. WP:NEWSORG gives advice on dealing with news organisation, WP:RSOPINION on the difference between opinion peices and news eeporting, and WP:RSBIAS on dealing with sources that may not always be neutral (all news organisation have some kind of bias).
It would be up to anyone disagreeing to show why they shouldn't be considered generally reliable. As to the specific articles my main concern was whether they were promotional, as that's not uncommon with streamers, but they don't appear overtly promo. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for your time.

What's next, is there anything I should do moving forward in relation to these sources? and how can I link this interaction in a future discussion if ever needed?

Cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for advice, and my opinion is just that. But if you think I can help in a discussion ping me, I'm always happy to offer a third opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I see, I mistakenly thought the noticeboard is related to WP:RSPLIST. Well, thanks for offering support. If needed, I will ping you. Rap no Davinci (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The RSP is just a list maintain by some editors of sources that have been repeatedly discussed here. There are inclusion criteria for the list, see WP:RSPCRITERIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with u:ActivelyDisinterested. I !voted at the deletion review, I think it's clear by now that it will succeed. Alaexis_¿question? 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

We use it quite a bit. However, it publishes Airbursts and Cratering Impacts [29] which is published by the Comet Research Group[[30]ee] which is very fringe. See Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Comet research group Doug Weller talk 16:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be a repost of their article published in Scientific Reports that had to be retracted[31]. Given that and the language in the Editor’s Note, which seems deep into a galileo fallacy, I wouldn't use it for anything exceptional unless backed up by another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As to ScienceOpen in general they say everything is peer reviewed, but I might base my judgement on the authors rather than the publisher. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it a platform or host for publishers, not a publisher itself[32]? It does not publish Airbursts and Cratering Impacts, it merely hosts the journal. fiveby(zero) 17:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

So in itself not a reliable source, right? Doug Weller talk 18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

ScienceOpen is an WP:ACADREP, for the most part. It's a plaftorm that hosts papers and preprints published elsewhere. It does have a minority of reviewed-on-scienceopen.com papers, a bit like Cureus did post publication peer review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to note that I agree with Headbomb. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

After stripping a lot of Cambridge Scholars stuff out, I still think most of the sources are not RS. I can't find "Just Us Boys. Vol. 3, no. 5. p. 46.", others just seem to be porn sites, some are clearly rs. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, when I ran a search this was the most obvious with lots of use of one CS source Doug Weller talk 15:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with the term, but I don't envy you or your browser history the job of finding good sources for it, given that it's mainly a porn industry term. Looking at the article, it's kind of a crapshoot of sourcing. Some obviously good like Pinknews, some sketchy like Klixxx, and some bad ones like "Just Us Boys. Vol. 3", which I also cannot find mentioned anywhere on the web through Google, Yahoo or Bing. Well, except for this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be this magazine (this link is not safe for work) [33], "We currently print 125,00 copies each issue and distribute to the largest gay centers in North America". This appears to be volume 3, issue 5 as (again I very much doubt this is safe for work) a pdf, but I haven't downloaded it to be sure. Given it's small circulation I'm not sure it's a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Nice find. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it and if there are no obviously reliable sources for the text it’s UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how big a circulation "125,00" is, because I don't know if it's missing a zero or they just put the comma in the wrong place. However, I wouldn't rest reliability on print run; we cite many things to works with far fewer copies produced than 12,500, much less 125,000. However, this chronicle of America's shirt shortage doesn't really scream "reliable source". A quick google Scholar search finds a website of this name being used as a topic, but not as a reference. I don't think we can claim it an RS without further evidence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

So, I read the piece. The way it's cited in the article is WP:OR. It doesn't say what the sentence in our article says about studios' motives. It's also a rather passing reference to set up a movie review, not an article discussing the phenomenon generally. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Harvey, A. D. (2007). Body Politic: Political Metaphor and Political Violence. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-6649-1.

I know of one previous discussion concerning Cambridge Scholars Publishing, but its outcome was rather questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

A print on demand service masquerading as a reputation publisher. The author A. D. Harvey has an interesting past that might explain why he's now self-published. The link in his article is now dead but here's an archive. A self published work from someone known for carrying out elaborate hoaxes should be handled with due care, even if they might otherwise have an appropriate academic background in the subject area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Whatever one might think about the publisher, the author does not appear to be reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Terrible publisher, so unless the author is an actually recognized expert, and not just a guy with a PHD, this is unusable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this reliable? It's published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which is apparently just like self publishing, but the book seems fine. I might use it for information about Byrnihat. KnowDeath (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

It's the same publisher as mentioned in #Body Politic: Political Metaphor and Political Violence (Cambridge Scholars Publishing) above. The author has some other published works in the area of linguistics[34], so it might be reliable for non-controversial linguistic details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to get editors' thoughts on the reliability of The Hayao Miyazaki Web, a subset of Nausicaa.net, a site that used to be run by members of the Miyazaki Mailing List fan group. This source is cited in a number of articles related to Studio Ghibli and animation. For clarity, I'm not concerned here about the Ghibli Wiki, which seems to be a related but separate side of the site. Both sites now appear to be unmaintained, but The Hayao Miyazaki Web has been mentioned by multiple scholars, some of which I've listed below.

• Helen McCarthy: "very useful and easily accessible", "mine of information on the Internet maintained by the owners and members of the Miyazaki Mailing List, an international fan group devoted to spreading information and discussion on the works of Studio Ghibli."^[1]
• Susan J. Napier wrote a paper about the Mailing List in 2006 and interviewed several of its participants: "particularly articulate, engaged, and varied group, encompassing a wide range of ages and a fair number of female participants and representing numerous countries"^[2]
• Raz Greenberg included it in "A guide to further research": "offers extensive information on Studio Ghibli"^[3]
• See also Nausicaa.net § Awards and recognition

Given the comments above from — and the source's extensive citation by — experts, I believe it would be appropriate to designate The Hayao Miyazaki Web as generally reliable. I'd appreciate input anyone else has about this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified Talk:Nausicaa.net, WikiProject Anime and manga, and its Studio Ghibli task force. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Your quotes appear to show they believe the source is a good research aid, rather than them citing Nausicaa.net as a source. The same way you could use Wikipedia as a research aid, but it wouldn't be a source you would cite. I'm not finding a lot of the later.
They also seem to host primary sources, copies of interviews and such from other sources. These would be as reliable as the original source, or the interviewees words could be used for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Users comments from the mailing lists would definitely be unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I agree with your assessments of the other content hosted on the website. I believe, though, that the majority of the content is original material of some kind, like this FAQ page currently cited on Princess Mononoke. That being said, what evidence would you need to see to consider this a reliable source? Being a fan site, it obviously lacks any of the usual marks of reliability, but these scholars' recommendations (and use in their own work) are higher praise than I've seen for some established news publications. I don't think it's accurate to compare the site with Wikipedia, since it has a much narrower scope and is not open to general editing. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The best way to proof it's considered a reliable source would be WP:USEBYOTHERS. That is other (preferably academic) reliable sources using it for citation, e.g. "A is true.[Nausicaa.net]", rather than praise for the website. Wikipedia receives a lot of praise for it's content, and it can be a great source for researching a topic, but it's not a reliable source or one you should cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that too, and I mentioned that the source had been used by experts in the original post. McCarthy's book is a little lighter on inline references compared to the more recent books, but Rayna Denison cites it in a 2008 paper^[4] and you can see Greenberg does a couple times in the footnotes of this chapter. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone else would chime in, but for me this is still quite weak. This is at heart WP:user generated content, it should have to clear a high bar to be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So I guess Option 2 is the way to go? 73.75.170.176 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean this comment for the RfC above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Nausicaa.net appears to redirect to a wiki. Wikis are WP:user-generated content, and as self-published sources, they are therefore not reliable. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Z. Patterson: I'd urge you to reread my original message. I'm in agreement with you that the Ghibli Wiki is unreliable, but I'm not referring to the wiki in this discussion. The Hayao Miyazaki Web is self-published, but not user-generated, since it's not open to general editing and has a defined editorial team. I've provided several other arguments on why I think this side of the site should be considered reliable, do you have any thoughts on those? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I see. Seeing how it is a fan site, but otherwise is considered reputable by independent, reliable sources, I would attribute statements from that site if they were to be used from that site. I would not use it in biographies about living people, as the front page says it is a fan site.^[5] Z. Patterson (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Z. Patterson (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Since VentureBeat is a bit of a perennial source at NCORP AfDs and the most recent discussion is something like a decade old now, I figured it was a good time to chuck things here for another look. Now, my initial view was that it was pretty much tech churnalism in the vein of TechCrunch, without any significant issues for actual reliability, but a fair few of the recent articles were showing certain telltale signs, and hey, would you look at that, turns out where there is smoke there apparently is an AI-generated fire.^[1][2][3] Now, a migitigating factor might be that the AI generated text still (allegedly) undergoes human review, however as Dupré points out, other publications have made similar promises. Additionally, said articles are unmarked, which means that we will unfortunately not be able to sort and identify non-AI articles easily. At the very minimum, I'd expect us to start excercising a lot more caution. Whether or not we would consider it entirely unreliable, I will put to editors here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging all of the AfD participants in case they are interested leaving a comment: COOLIDICAE🕶, Darth Stabro, Sumosacerdote, Darkm777, Gheus, CNMall41 Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Could someone point out their latest article that's not a press release for funding rounds, marketing for a new feature/finding by a company or just news regurgitation? I feel like their in-depth journalism has become a negligible fraction of their publications. Sumosacerdote (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Venturebeat being a well known publication that sometimes posts first hand exclusive news and interviews,should be considered reliable. However, when it comes to AI, I am guessing that it would become the norm in the next few years and there is no avoiding it. In fact, AI may become so good that one day we won't be able to tell if an article is AI written or human. Even today tools exist to convert and humanize AI articles. My feeling is as long as the articles go through some kind of editorial review then it probably doesn't matter if AI assistant was used. However, I personally check to so what percentage of article is AI using gptzero and if it is majority AI then I may have some reservations of accepting it as a reliable source. What I am trying to say is that each article needs to be reviewed individually. If the reviewer feels it is low quality due to AI, they should mention that, but I am against making the full website of Venturebeat unreliable. Darkm777 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have always felt that TechCrunch and VentureBeat should be treated the same. They do have great content written by staff writers with editorial oversight, including some in-depth features on companies that allow us to expand information on Wikipedia pages. However, they are also in the business of generating views and clicks so the do even more churnalism and regurgitation of routine news. Each article needs to be looked at individually to determine its reliability.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that  TechCrunch (RSP entry) and VentureBeat are similar publications of similar quality, and I support reclassifying VentureBeat as marginally reliable to reflect the churnalism concerns, even before considering the impact of AI-generated content. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Newslinger. I would consider VentureBeat situationally reliable, but not a high-quality source, before it started using AI. Specifically, anything before April 2023 would be situationally reliable, but anything published in or after April 2023 would not be reliable. VentureBeat looks like it became a content farm at that point. Also, I do not think it should be used in any WP:BLP. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Similar to how WP:VALNET states that Valnet sources should not be used to establish notability, I do not think VentureBeat or similar sites should be used to establish notability, either. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If they are publishing "AI" generated articles they should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Simon, yes, for now I agree. Alas in time that will apply to a large percentage of the media. So new starategies will be needed. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Against reclassifying wholesale - I've still been using them as a source and I haven't seen a dip in quality in the ones I've used. If there's a way to identify and section off their poorer quality AI generated content, I'd be for that. But I'm not for throwing the baby out with the bath water - their staff still creates good content. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think we shouldn't use this source for notability purposes. It is a good example of churnalism. Gheus (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Just as a note, GamesBeat now operates independently from the rest of VentureBeat, despite currently still living at the same URL, so we may need to evaluate the two separately. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

What are the reliabilities of Geeky Hobbies [35] and Fun Board Games? [36]

Context: User @Guinness323: added citations to these sources to the Free Parking article, which I initially nominated for deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Geeky Hobbies is run by Eric Mortensen[37], who is also the author of the article used in Free Parking[38]. The site is probably a self-published blog but if not the article should be considered so, as Mortensen is both the owner and writer. I can't find any use by others for geekhobbies.com or Eric Mortensen.

There's nothing to show who runs Fun Board Games, how they operate, or who wrote the particular article in question[39]. Again I can't find any use by others for the site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that what you're saying is:

• Geeky Hobbies is most likely a self-published source.
• No consensus on Free Board Games.

1isall (talk/contribs) 14:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources are meant to have a reputation or fact checking and accuracy, or some other reason why should be considered reliable. That could be because other reliable sources consider them reliable, or because they are published by a recognised expert, etc.
Ultimately anyone can publish a website and post whatever they like, so there's a need to show why such sites should be taken seriously. I can't find any reason to see these two as reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Then again the WP:RSCONTEXT is board games so maybe they could be considered marginal. As to whether they should contribute to notability I'll leave up to the editors in the AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite being considered an unreliable source in previous noticeboard discussions, militaryfactory.com is used as a citation 600+ times.

Can it be blacklisted/replaced with more reliable sources? Battlesnake1 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

One of the things editors seem to forget is that discussions, RFCs, or listing something on the RSP doesn't remove or replace unreliable sources. The only way that happens is an editor taking it upon themselves to do the actual work of clearing down the source. There's no automated process or simple way of doing it. Ultimately if you believe something should be done be WP:BOLD and do it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the Zambian Observer considered a reliable source?

For example, this article says North Korea has offered military support to Iran following the Israeli airstrikes. However, I could find mention of this in Google News; the only other sources that mention this are Twi-, err, X and Facebook accounts, and it goes without saying that social media is not considered to be a reliable source.

I do see the Zambian Observer being cited in a few articles, so I think we should make a determination one way or another. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find their editorial team and contact details, also it's not mentioned here. They may be okay for Zambian news, but it's not a good source for the assertion that NK supports Iran. Alaexis_¿question? 19:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I'd be cautious about using it for non-Zambian news. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like some greater consensus on whether IFLScience, which "posted misleading information and was not a credible science site" and "has come under criticism for plagiarism, unlicensed use of intellectual property, reporting false and misleading information, and rarely issuing corrections", can be used as a source in articles (indeed, it's already in several hundred). DS (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

It took me a moment to find, but these quotes come from Elise Andrew (the person originally behind the site). The criticism comes from multiple sources; Times.com, Scientific America blog, Knights Science Journalism, New York magazine, and there's more detail at Elise Andrew#IFL Science. It does appear to be a case where verifying and citing the original source might be suggestible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What would your thoughts be on deprecating it as a source? I don't think anyone would have tried if they'd stuck with their original name ("I Fucking Love Science"), but... DS (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately deprecation requires an WP:RFC, for a website with only a few hundreds uses it's a bit of an overkill. I've long said we need something between just saying something is unreliable and total deprecation to warn editors of bad sources, but it's not something that currently exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be deprecated. IFLScience has sensationalist articles, it reports on unpublished papers and research from Arxiv. It is better to use another source, and if no other source is reporting on something that IFLScience is, it probably isn't notable or verified. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Definitely a problematic source for the reasons Turbo said, altho I do like some of their articles and posts. Isnt is a commercial enterprise? So they/she has incentive to sensationalize and get views? Metallurgist (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I had a dispute with a user about the article Booty Royale. The thing is that although the series is officially localized in the West, its English title is completely original. And the user decided to add his own literal translation of the original Japanese title as "Picture of Hell" to the article. When I asked for the source, they first cancelled it with the words "this is how it is usually translated", and when I asked for the source, they removed it too, using the link to the English-Japanese online translator indicated in the title. I obviously don't intend to fight about this forever, so after providing the source I wrote here to find out how authoritative such sources are in general and whether there are any pitfalls that could prevent using online dictionaries/translators for terms that don't have an official translation (as I wrote above, the official localization uses the original title). For example, in the middle of the last century this name was already used by one Akutagawa's novel (I don't know if this is an intentional reference or not) and then the phrase was also localized as Hell Screen. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This should really be discussed on the article talk page first - other contributors to the article may wish to have a say, and they aren't going to see this thread. Beyond that, Wikipedia doesn't have a formal policy regarding how phrases should be translated, beyond the actual article title itself (see WP:FELU), but as a general principle, if there is no source available it is better to have such things translated by a native speaker rather than relying on machine translation. Ultimately it may come down to editorial judgement, and if consensus can't be arrived at some form of dispute resolution. First though, it needs to be discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is edited once every 100 years, and in the past, the threads I opened were ignored even when it came to much more popular pages. It would have simply been lost in history, not to mention that such a question would have been a good precedent for other similar cases. Just last month, there was a controversy over fan translations of interviews from Japanese. Also, I notified the other party, but they just deleted the message. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

We aren't going to set 'precedent' (which is generally a bad idea, for things that ultimately come down to editorial discretion) without ensuring that all those who may wish to comment know about the discussion. If you aren't prepared to use that talk page for its intended purpose, at least post a link to this discussion there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've just learned many times that talk pages are often useless in situations where the page is very unpopular, or where the other side sees that the article is saved on their version and therefore simply doesn't feel the need to participate in the discussion. Not to mention that in this situation I want to know the very fact of using online dictionaries for independent translation of text. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

An unused talk page is self-evidently useless. And as I have already stated, this doesn't come down to 'facts'. If a direct source can't be found for a translation, how something should be translated, and whether it needs to be translated at all, is almost always a matter of editorial judgement. Which needs discussion. From anyone who might be interested, and not just the two contributors immediately involved in a dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

In theory, yes. But in reality, people will simply ignore the discussion if the article is saved on their version (this is largely a question of good faith, but many people seem to genuinely think that they don't need to discuss anything anymore, since their version is left in the article) or if the topic is not particularly hot or interesting. Not to mention an article that is edited a couple of times over many months. But if this formality is so important, then I left a link to this discussion there. I would be very surprised if anyone even paid attention to this, considering that even another user calmly deleted the notification about the opening of the topic and ignored it. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"This article is edited once every 100 years", so its only been edited once? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me? I doubt you didn't get the obvious joke and sarcasm, so I take it you were trying to tease me on purpose? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

We are not a comedy club, and conversations go better when they are serious. how can I tell if any of this is not in fact a joke, after all this seems to have been first published in Japanese magazines, so how is it " officially localized in the West", or is that also a joke? Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

So you were deliberately trying to bait me. Okay, I'll keep that in mind. In that case, I apologize, but to avoid escalation I will refrain from continuing this dialogue with you. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I did not know what you were talking about. Booty Royal seems to be a licensed Japanese product called Hagure Idol: Jigoku-hen, retitled (for the English market as "Booty Royale: Never Go Down Without a Fight!") So what is what is the correct translation of its Japanese name? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

IN fact this seems to be a wp:n issue, as we seem to have one brief mention of "Booty Royale: Never Go Down Without a Fight!" all the sources seem to be about the Japanese original. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I also note that your post on the talk pages reads like your objection to the name is based upon wp:undue, not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If you arent getting results on a talk page, you can ping recent editors or go to the wikiprojects it is tagged in and post about it there. Metallurgist (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've done the second one before, but the response often depends on the project. For example, I always get a response in the "anime and manga" or "video games" projects, but rarely in the others. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is what other people are telling you: there is a hierarchy of steps to try. Try the basic steps first; if they don't work, proceed to the next steps. Once you've exhausted alternatives, come here. These comments are not an invitation to explain what you've done in the past, or why you don't think it will work in this case, or generally to argue with the people telling you what you should be doing; it is guidance about what you should be doing in this instance. You should follow that guidance. (Please do not respond to me by explaining how you disagree with something I've said, or that other people said, or how at some point in the past you've done something; none of that is germaine to the point.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought this forum was for assessing the authority of sources, not for resolving any conflicts as such. If I were to consider it as such, then obviously I would not have come here without trying to get something from the other side, even if we close our eyes to the fact that they still have not responded in any way and have deleted my invitation to this topic. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I note the OP has not bothered to reply on the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Original debate has long since run its course and ended with the status quo, so in order not to waste the community's time discussing the rules in an inappropriate place due to a debate that has lost its relevance, I propose closing this section. Of course, I will take into account the advice given to me here for resolving similar disputes in the future. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Samboy. They recently made some edits to Passport bro, which is a stub that doesn't have many page watchers. I don't often see Fox News cited, but it was in this edit. Obviously, claims about politicians are political, but I'm unsure of when editors usually draw the line on what is political and what isn't. Are feminism related topics usually included as part of that? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

absolutely, that would be "gender politics." Even though the article is under "media" it is clearly kind of a "culture warrior" topic. So unreliable in this instance. Andre🚐 23:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Feminism has been a political football for a long time, and would require attribution and possibly a consensus to use poll data by FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Also, PRAGERU personalities may receive similar push-back. DN (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Well I haven't removed the citation but I did change the text from Fox News says that many individuals prefer the values that women abroad have to These men may believe that foreign women are more likely to have traditional values. I don't doubt the authenticity of that statement, even if it's cited to Fox News. But I also don't doubt what Refinery29 says about women from these countries being subjected to unwanted sexual advances and harassment. Is this discussion proof that Refinery29 isn't a reliable source? It's pretty common for generally reliable sources to have the occasional error from my understanding. But the other editor seems to have reached a different conclusion here. They left comments about the reliability of sources more generally on the talk page as well, if anyone wants to give that a look for context. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Not an AI fake: Social media in China delighted to discover world-famous Jiafei meme is real

This is the article in question, it's used in Draft:Jiafei.

Also, here's the claim it supports:

Jiafei is the name given to a TikTok meme that originated from a photo commonly used as a profile picture by bots on the website that posted advertisments for Chinese product, with the premise of absurd situations. The song used in most ads, called 野花香 (Ye Hua Xiang) (Wildflower Fragrance) by Mo Si Man, also became part of the meme. In late-2023, a Chinese model known as Dai Dai (Chinese: 戴戴) found out she was the meme Jiafei TheGoofWasHere (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The text at the bottom indicates that the original source is this SCMP article [40]. SCMP is generally reliable (WP:SCMP), but these two articles would only count as a single source for the purposes of notability. Astaire (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Community — I am seeking consensus and understanding on use of ndtv.com news as source, in this context, in a biography of a living person (BLP) article (Sachit Mehra). In this diff, you can see the statements that were supported by a source from ndtv.com, which was undone by a user as "unreliable" citing WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I opened a talk page discussion with the editor, citing that I did my search for reliability of this source and did not find any concerning information. It is not listed in the WP:RSPLIST and the noticeboard general search for this source did not reveal any concerning informaiton. In fact, it is currently being used in ~15,000 articles. The editor then responded that they're using NEWSORGINDIA and RSP as the source, along with a list by Indian cinema task force (here). Upon review, none of these sources list NDTV.com as unreliable. In fact, the cinema task force has listed it as generally reliable—quite the opposite of what is being asserted. Upon searching through the noticeboard for this source, I found #1, and #2 — none of which also support the assertion about unreliability. Since further discussion was unfruitful and the source is still being challenged, I am seeking a broader consensus here that can hopefully resolve this (to some extent) for future editors?

tldr; Is NDTV.com a generally unreliable or questionable source? — WeWake (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly what happened. NDTV is a reliable source. I did not object to it for being unreliable nor send you the link to lists to indicate it was not reliable. In fact, the context in which the links were sent was pointing out how both cite NEWSORGINDIA as an exception to the reliable sources on the list. I objected to the specific article you used from the source which is bylined by "NDTV News Desk," indicating it falling under NEWSORGINDIA. Do you have another source that supports the claim? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

CNMall41, two of the sentences that you deleted, "His father, Kamal Mehra, moved from New Delhi to Canada in the 1960s." and "In May 2023, he was elected party president at the Ottawa national convention, defeating the party's Vice President (English) Mira Ahmad." are also supported by Ref 4 (currently) from Hindustan Times. Ref 10 (The Globe and Mail, generally reliable per RSPLIST, currently in the article) confirms his "Chairman of Downtown Biz" role. So three sentences all of which are supported by other sources in the article as well. Given totality of the facts and that NDTV.com article also contained the very same facts, I had no reason to believe that in this context it was an unreliable source. — WeWake (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Why would we need a questionable source to be used redundantly if a source on the page already supports the content? I am confused why we are here now. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking closer, that was the only reference that was inline to support that statement. Likely should have been checked prior to your approval through AfC and then again prior to your removal of the cleanup tag. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes which is why the questionability of the source needed to be clarified. Since it contained the same facts as other articles did, and no other red-flags given everything I have shared above, I had no strong reason to doubt its reliability in this context. Plus, your edit also remove content so a reversal was not an option for me to avoid edit warring. Looks like you're ok with reversal of your edit sans ndtv.com as source? — WeWake (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say I am okay with using the NDTV source? You could easily restore the content with the other sources you claim support it. Instead, you want to use a questionable source. Why? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will revise the article. In the meantime, I have updated my question to reflect the input I am seeking. — WeWake (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you do update your question, I would suggest striking the original and then adding so as not to seem misleading since the discussion above may seem out of sink to others reviewing and opining. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't ban Indian sources. If there are no indications that this is likely a paid news piece, then it can be used in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 17:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

NEWSORGINDIA means to say that such sources are reliable unless a particular report is promotional, and lists ways that help spot such reports. It doesn't say that every article with no byline is unreliable, but that having no byline could be one of the things that helps identify promotional content. There does appear to be some misunderstanding about that.
As to the particular NDTV report[41] and article content[42] I'm not sure if the report is promotional but it does include lots of minor details. For instance I can't find any other major source for him being the chairman of Winnipeg Downtown Biz so it should probably be left out per WP:BALASP (having said that the Globe and Mail mention it in one an article I found while writing a later part of my comment [43], so maybe). But some mention of him being elected as president of the Liberal party is needed, if even just to explain why he was the one accepting Trudeau's resignation. It's also something that was reported on at the time by other sources (Hindustan Times[44], iPolitics[45]). That just leaves the piece about his father's emigration from India to Canada in the 1960's, it's a common but of biographical but it's again not mentioned by many sources (it's mentioned in the Hindustan article). So it's inclusion could be questioned. Ultimately this seems more about whether these details should be included in the article than about a particular sources reliability, something that should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective and doing the background work. I had to come here because of the pushback I received on the talk page discussion specifically around the reliability of the article (talk page edit "Not my job. Get consensus or look up the links provided"). So I appreciate having discussion in a forum, and a consensus if any, that everyone can benefit from in the future. WeWake (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's not muddy the waters. You were provided with reasoning but did not want to see it. If you want to make an accusation of conduct, please do so at ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

CNMall41, I think we have already chatted about this. So you're welcome to respond to others comment if you have anything to add there. Thanks! — WeWake (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This category is being used as a clearing house for unsourced claims that various Chinese Classical philosophies and various contemporary politicians in China are conservative. An example, Confucianism is on the list despite the fact the only mention of conservatism in the Confucianism article being one that contradicts its inclusion. Xi Jinping and Xi Jinping faction are also included. Neither page makes any mention of conservatism. I've made several requests for reliable sources but the editor who keeps forcing these inclusions has provided many sources that, upon review, do not support inclusion for various reasons (reliability in some cases, and straight-up contradicting the claim in others). I need help here. And, frankly, I'm getting pretty upset over the bad sources being supplied and need some dispassionate eyes since I think it'd probably be wise for me to step away until I regain my composure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm putting this here because this is not so much a neutrality issue as a source reliability one. Some of these claims may, on the surface, even feel intuitively correct. However a perusal of the associated pages and their sources show they're unsupported to be in the category. Furthermore some of the novel sources provided include Intercollegiate Review and Jamestown Foundation which I doubt the reliability of but for which other opinions would be valuable. I would also urge anyone who does participate to make sure they carefully read the sources as many sources used in the discussion have been misrepresented. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What am I missing? I can't see that Xi Jinping or Confucianism are in, or have recently been in, Category:Conservatism in China.
In general categories need to be supported by content currently in an the article. So if an article doesn't mention the category subject it should be removed from the category. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok nevermind, I see this is about Template:Conservatism in China rather than the category. I don't know if there's any specific guidance about inclusion in such sidebars, but I would have thought it would be the same. The target article should include content that makes it clear why the article is included in the sidebar, simply because readers won't understand it's inclusion otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Also these sidebars can be used for subtle pov pushes when they're not supported by RS. Sorry for mixing up category and template. These areas all seem far too wild-west from a sourcing perspective for my comfort. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Like categories I don't think sidebars need references. Instead they should only link to relevant articles, and the content that supports that link needs references. It's kind of like the leads of articles, they shouldn't require references as they should only summarise what already exists in the body of the article, and the content in the body of the article should be referenced.
As an example take Confucianism. It could (depending on sourcing) contain a small section on its use by modern Chinese conservatives, that would requires referencing to reliable sources. If that section existed then including a link in the {{Conservatism in China}} sidebar would be appropriate. So it's more a matter of what's due inclusion than sourcing, as the sourcing should already exist in the target article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This was my point at the template talk about Confucianism. I found one reference to conservatism in the article about Confucianism and that was saying that Confucianism has an ambiguous place in the left-right dichotomy. IE: It is not clearly conservative. Similar problems with the inclusion of Xi Jinping, Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy) and Xi Jinping faction - the articles don't really speak to conservatism as a topic at all. But the editor who keeps re-including these is arguing basically that they meet the vibe check and therefore should be included. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the Xi Jinping article that he is a Chinese conservative, and in the Xi Jinping article, at least "Conservatism in Hong Kong" is mentioned. If you remove anything related to CCP from the template, there's nothing left. Conservatism in China or Conservatism#China article describes conservatism of Xi Jinping, Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Confucianism and Legalism.

No existing users have objected that Confucianism is a key component of Chinese conservatism; even if the Christianity article does not state that Christianity itself is a conservative, it is not denied that it is the principle of Western conservatism; as a similar example, Neo-Confucianism is included in conservative Ideologies in Template:Conservatism in South Korea, and no one seems to be taking issue with it. Furthermore, the CCP no longer pursues orthodox Maoism or orthodox Marxism-Leninism, but instead develops socially conservative state capitalist policies; Chinese Wikipedia includes Chinese conservatism (more precisely neo-authoritarianism) in the CCP's own infobox.

Just as Simonm223 removed Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) and Pro-Beijing camp (Macau) even though "conservatism" was clearly mentioned in the article, Simonm223 seems to want articles related to the CCP not to be included in the conservatism.[46] I don't think when discussing the pro-Beijing camp or neoauthoritarianism, which is absolutely marked by modern Chinese conservatism, there is no reason for the CCP and Xi Jinping to be left out.

Sentence from the Confucius article: Confucius is often considered a great proponent of conservatism; Confucius (孔子) is the founder of Confucianism (儒教). ProgramT (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I just added a reference to Chinese conservatism to the Xi Jinping article.[47] And even before that, the link 'Conservatism in Hong Kong' existed in the Xi Jinping article. ProgramT (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources at the above diff are quite questionable - An american conservative advocacy group, a book that makes reference to neoauthoritarianism but not conservatism and a forbes article. ProgramT I have serious concerns about your source review standards. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this may perhaps be an issue with the article as I had always thought that Confucianism was generally considered conservative and indeed it is described as integrating "philosophy, ethics, and social governance, with a core focus on virtue, social harmony, and familial responsibility"—virtue ethics and social/cultural conservatism being viewed as conservative/right leaning in a western context.

On the other hand perhaps it serves our readers better to describe Confucianism in its own terms rather than via labels such as "conservative". In which case, I think we should have the option of including the referencing with the template (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

My position is that describing Confucianism as Conservatism is somewhat like calling Platonism Conservatism. It significantly predates the concept of conservatism and, while it may have been involved in its genesis, it is a distinct worldview with significant differences. This is what the line about Confucianism's ambiguity is about. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree that we should avoid describing ancient Chinese Confucianism as a contemporary concept. That said, it is interesting to note there are academic observations (e.g., by Daniel A. Bell) of how traditional values of Confucianism have been promoted in modern China in an effort to preserve traditions. Here is one of his works. Path2space (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as I said at the top in some of these cases there is an intuitive through-line. But these changes need to flow up from the articles rather than jamming pages onto a stuffed template based on intuition alone. If the Confucianism page says something apropos about conservatism in China then it could be added to the template. It isn't presently there. And template additions should not be used to circumvent reliable sourcing - if the sources to support the template aren't in the article the article should not be added to the template. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding, I wasn't saying Confucianism should be defined with modern terms, rather the article on Confucianism could contain a section on how modern conservatives in China use and promote Confucianism as part of their politics. That section would justify it's inclusion in the Conservatism in China side bar.
Without it you have a kind of reverse Easter egg situation, where a reader navigates to the Confucianism article through the Conservatism in China side bar, but the Confucianism article contains nothing about Conservatism in China. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we actually agree - just are approaching the question from slightly different angles. Certainly you are talking sense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

In 2023 an expedition to climb the highest point in Uzbekistan took survey measurements of Khazret Sultan (widely described as Uzbekistan's highest point) and also of a nearby peak called Alpomish, and reported that Alpomish is approximately 25 meters higher than Khazret Sultan, making Alpomish the true high point. This was published on the expedition leader's personal website, which was rightfully rejected as non-RS for an exceptional claim of this nature. However, the same claim has now been published in the 2024 edition of the American Alpine Journal, in an article submitted by the expedition leader. The question: is publication by the AAJ sufficient validation of the claim to justify changing what we describe as the Uzbekistan high point, even though other online sources like the CIA World Factbook have not yet responded to the report by changing their articles? -- LWG ^talk 19:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That says its a magazine even tho the title is journal, but perhaps its halfway in between. That article is better than the self published website. You could try and put it and see if anyone disputes it or put both figures attributed. Doesnt Mount Everest have disputed figures? It looks like AAJ has been cited or mentioned in over 300 articles. Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure "magazine" is an accurate characterization of an annually-published 300+ page book that lacks advertisements and popular interest columns and such. It's not an academic journal in the typical sense, but it's definitely a serious publication. Here is how they describe themselves and their editorial process.

The reason I brought up this question is that some editors have been attempting to introduce the new high point ever since the original expedition, but others have been rejecting it as non-RS. I agree that the original blog doesn't outweigh the CIA Factbook, but I am seeking guidance on how to weigh the AAJ against the momentum of older sources. -- LWG ^talk 01:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a magazine, and for things like elevations, I'd want to see scientific data, not an individual alpinist' best guess/measurements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

For the mountains in question rigorous scientific data is simply unavailable as far as I can tell. The question is which secondary/tertiary sources we are going to trust when they cite different non-scientifically rigorous numbers, and specifically how we weigh older sources against more recent ones when the claim is that a new discovery has been made. But if consensus is against using the AAJ for that purpose I will defer to that. -- LWG ^talk 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

courtesy pings to @DJ Cane, Horse Eye's Back, Buidhe, and Isaidnoway: whom have participated in Gilbertson related discussion the last time it was at RSN Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ping to @Cullen328 in case this interests you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

In the Uzbekistan article maybe mention both estimates and attribute? I expect AAJ is probably right, but may not be as authoritative as other sources (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue being raised is the author of the AAJ article, who had previously published the same info on his personal website, and now AAJ has published it under his byline. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at it and it appears to be similar to WP:FORBESCON. Given significant vested interest in force by affiliates of Gilbertson to get his name out on Wikipedia, I feel it can be done by using more traditional source from publishers that generally publish in science related articles _without_ using Gilbertson source to ensure no COI issues occur.

We should refrain from citing surfing mags for oceanographic information or trainfanning zines for transportation info. We should also refrain from citing mountaineering sports mags for geology. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If there is indeed a concerted effort by affiliates of Gilbertson to promote him here, I want no part of it. Even if we accept the AAJ article as RS for the purpose of citing the elevation of the mountains in question, there is no need to mention Gilbertson beyond the citation. I suppose the question of handling COI is an article-by-article discussion more appropriate for the individual talk pages than here. Regarding the AAJ as a source, I see the comparison with WP:FORBESCON, but I think the AAJ is significantly beyond a "surfing mag" or "trainfanning zine" in terms of editorial control and expectation of facts-based reports rather than narrative writing. I agree that more traditional sources would be preferred if they existed. But we're not weighing the AAJ against a competing contradictory claim elsewhere, we are weighing the AAJ's decision to publish material over the fact that other sources have not yet done so. I don't think the AAJ should be seen as so unreliable that it should be excluded from consideration preemptively. -- LWG ^talk 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Their about page says:

The AAJ publishes first-person reports about big new routes, first free ascents, and significant attempts and mountain exploration anywhere in the world.

And then on the AAJ submission form page, it says:

The AAJ does not pay contributors. We have always depended on the generosity of contributors to create this essential resource for the world’s climbers.

So it is definitely contributor generated content, and if it is to be used, I'd argue that any content added would need to be attributed as an expedition by Eric Gilbertson, and his findings, rather than in wikivoice, or attribution solely to the magazine. It looks like they have previously published numerous expeditions by him as well, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2018, 2024. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Cool cool, I can accept that. -- LWG ^talk 17:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

However, that doesn't necessarily make it WP:DUE as bland xxx -est in xxx is just trivia. For example, largest tire swing set in xx county, the highest public park in City of xxx, and so on and on. So, any inclusion of Eric Gilbertson contents would be due weight issue, but I think that would be on NPOV/N matter. Graywalls (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the DUE concerns. Another alternative to using it as a source in the article, is to put it in a Further reading sect or an ext link. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned by @Buidhe, Gilbertson in AAJ is probably on the right track but the fact still stands that this is essentially self-published and thus doesn't reach WP:RS status. As noted in other discussions about Gilbertson's findings (see: Talk:Mount Rainier for instance), for inclusion on Wikipedia Gilbertson's findings should be peer reviewed or otherwise accepted by an entity with more authority on the subject.

Gilbertson's method is to take some surveying equipment up various mountains and self-survey them. Nothing wrong with that, but then he puts an article out on the subject on his blog and attempts a media blitz without verification.

More generally, I'd say it's fair to use AAJ as supporting material but not as a singular source for a data point. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO too weak for supporting stating it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Maybe enough to put it in as an attributed claim. With a claim of exceeding the height of the currently accepted peak by a whopping 25 meters I would think that there would be other sources (e.g. satellites). North8000 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the Gilbertson AAJ article the difference between the peaks is below the resolution of available satellite data, and the Soviet-era surveys didn't record a point elevation for the Alpomish summit, which was what motivated the 2023 measurement attempt. Maybe other editors know more places to look, but I personally haven't been able to find the kind of rigor people seem to want here even for the current claimed Uzbekistan high point of Khazret Sultan. -- LWG ^talk 21:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This source from 2024 matches what the article states:

• Rakhmatova, Natella; et al. (22 July 2024). "Assessing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Drought in Uzbekistan: Findings from RCP and SSP Scenarios". Atmosphere. 15 (7): 866. doi:10.3390/atmos15070866. The Tien Shan and Pamir Mountain ranges also cross the country, with the highest point being Khazret Sultan, which rises to 4643 m above sea level Isaidnoway (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That source doesn't appear to be reporting rigorous measurements of that mountain, or even appear to be about elevation or topography at all. It just asserts that height of Khazret Sultan in an aside in the Materials and Methods section without citation (the two citations given at the end of that sentence relate to the climatological claims and don't discuss Khazret Sultan at all). There's no indication that Natella Rakhmatova et al. have any more relevant expertise on this subject than Gilbertson, or that they or their publishing journal did any more validation of the Khazret Sultan elevation claim than a quick lookup in sources that predated Gilbertson's claims. To be clear, I'm not saying that we must accept the Gilbertson source, just pushing back on the claim that the alternatives are more rigorous. -- LWG ^talk 22:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you. There's also no indication the source currently used in the article has any more relevant expertise on this subject than Gilbertson or anyone else. It is a self-published website that is a hobby for the guy who runs it. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, that's my point - people are objecting to Gilbertson because he's not peer-reviewed scientific data, which would be fair except that we don't seem to have any peer-reviewed scientific data on this subject. -- LWG ^talk 03:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to lead. We follow what reliable sources say. It's not intended to quickly disseminate information based on questionable bloggy sources with a COI source which was attempted to be promoted on Wiki for gaining views, social media followers, prominence or things of those nature. The Gilbertson brothers sources are particularly contentious given the past history of repeated creation. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Gilbertson_(climber) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Gilbertson_(climber)_(2nd_nomination) Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here in this discussion is attempting to promote Eric Gilbertson for nefarious reasons. I WP:AGF the OP is trying to get a determination on whether the usage of an article in AAJ authored by Gilbertson, can be used in an article. I am coming down on the side it can be used with attribution. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Another thing that occurred to me is why are we even listing the highest point of Uzbekistan in the country article? Is it really due weight there given it's apparently so unimportant no one (except possibly gilbertson) has even bothered to survey it properly? (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding to the ping, as I have been unusually busy off-Wikipedia. I want to speak out quite forcefully against any comparison of the American Alpine Journal with WP:FORBESCON content which has minimal editorial oversight or to compare it with "trainfanning zines". (And I happen to be a railroad buff.) The assertion that AAJ should be dismissed as contributor generated content because it does not pay it authors is equivalent to asserting that the content published by medical journals and other scientific journals is not reliable because the authors are not paid, and the claim that it is essentially self-published is uninformed nonsense that displays ignorance of its publisher, the American Alpine Club, founded in 1902 and one of the original members of the highly prestigious Union International des Associations d’Alpinism. The comparison of the highest mountain in a given country as equivalent to largest tire swing set in xx county is similarly ludicrous and unnecessarily dismissive. Pretty much every Wikipedia article about a country mentions a high point, even including the tiny country of Monaco. I am unaware that Wikipedia has systematic coverage of tire swing sets by country or county. It should be obvious to thoughtful editors that world class mountaineering is an exceptionally dangerous sport and that mountaineering publications in general and the AAJ in particular take safety and accuracy very seriously. The AAJ is a 95 year old publication with an outstanding reputation and can be considered the "publication of record" of American mountaineering. It is more analogous to an annual book than a magazine. Here is a quote from the publication: All reports are carefully edited by a team of experts, ensuring accuracy and objective reporting. That's not FORBESCON or a 'zine or self-published. In the realm of mountaineering, the AAJ is an exemplary publication of the highest reliability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I partly disagree with this. When the content is trip reports written by people who were there, there is no real way for there to be independent verification. Standard practice in the climbing/mountaineering world is to take people at their word. So there is no real fact checking, which conflicts with our stated standard for wp:rs. insofar as we cite these trip reports it should probably be attributed.

Just because the high point is commonly included in articles, does not make it WP:DUE in every case. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

How is that different from any other discipline involving field measurements? To take an example from my own field, if I submit for publication linguistic data that I claim was uttered by a 53 year old male native Murkim speaker from Milkim Village, nobody is going to trek out there and find the guy and check his birth certificate. They are going to take my word for it on my actual observations provided my analysis and methods check out and there is no reason to suspect me of academic dishonesty. Peer review isn't a replication study. -- LWG ^talk 12:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If we had a career dentist DDS who is a mad scientist in his free time and he made his own actual observations of solubility of uranium hexafluoride in a solution of 1/3 ethanol, 1/3 methanol and 1/3 isopropanol at -25C, that's no reason to cover it just because nobody else had it formally published.

Gilbertson is a mechanical engineer with a h-index of 5 in mechanical engineering discipline. He's not a geology or earth science professor, so his findings would be considered that of a "seasoned hobbyist's personal account", just like the mad scientist's finding. I'm with buidhe on the use of AAJ for altitudes. Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

A mad scientist is defined as a scientist or inventor who is insane, especially one whose madness (intentionally or unintentionally) endangers himself, others, or the world. So trying to compare Gilbertson's findings to that of a mad scientist's findings is absolutely ridiculous, and not grounded in reality. In addition to the numerous articles the AAJ has published by Gilbertson, he has also been published in the Canadian Alpine Journal in 2016, he has scaled the highest peak of every country in North America, he was one of only three Americans to receive a Snow Leopard award, reliable sources describe him as a mountaineer, and Larry Signani, who headed the first survey of Mount Rainier said Gilberton's findings are sound. He's been mountaineering for at least 18 years, and I have not seen any reliable source whatsoever compare what he does to that of a mad scientist. I'm not seeing any compelling reason his findings, attributed to him, can't be included in Khazret Sultan. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Where is the validation of Gilbertson in geology or earth science related discipline though? Graywalls (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not required. The publication is a reliable source, and attribution to these findings are his is sufficient. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There are discussions about sources here and here. For some unknown reason the protagonists are arguing about who should create a report here so I am doing so. I have no opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger

Maybe in this case a case by case basis should be used for the sources in the article. Stuff like The Paper, China News Service and People's Daily are quite different in nature.

By the way, here is more context:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#RfC: Global Times
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV) (Non-CGTN CCTV channels are not deprecated; state owned sources usable with context)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject China#English language news sources (People's daily online is put as one suggested resource)

Additionally, i think there should be subcategories to state owned sources. Overall, from what I've seen and heard from both fellow editors, personal experience and other WP:RS, the state owned sources of local governments, such as Hunan Daily, The Paper(both of which I used in the current argument), The Beijing News and Nanfang Daily(2 sources I often use) are overall more independent than sources affiliated with the central government(They still are reliable IMO, but I think overall I find provincial government affiliated sources better.). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the state operates less control is (to my mind) irrelevant (well not even that, just operates control at a more local level). Unless it can be shown they they contradict national media. Otherwise, they are still not neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

See the articles for The Paper and Nanfang Daily(those in particular are seen as argulably the most neutral); also complete contradictions with national media does not really mean it is neutral or not neutral, other stuff such as tone counts.

The Paper has also been used as an example of "independent coverage" in several occasions such as [48] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

True, but if they do not contradict them, that is not a good sign there is in fact a meaningful editorial difference. So we need toi ahve a good reason to use state-controlled sources, no matter at what level they publish. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, contradictions do not mean there is no difference.

There are tonnes of openly anti-chinese sources and pro-chinese sources which do not contradict, however how they report things is vastly differnet Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

But this is about establishing that there is a difference; otherwise, why not treat all Chinese state media the same? That is the case YOU need to make. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest checking out the wikipedia articles or the sources themselves;

But here is an example

https://m.mp.oeeee.com/a/BAAFRD0000202411281029241.html (Southern Metropolis Daily - Guangdong provincial government affiliated, also famous for being rather more indpenedent)

https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=29482672&from=kuaibao (The Paper- shanghai goverment affiliatted)

The two sources report criticism of the Pingyin county government's plans on making new heliports and developing the low-altitude economy , while the China News Service(central gov affliatted) article report the benefits of the county government's plans Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide the quotes of the criticizing government officials, as I cant find it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

SMD source:

Many of the questions are coming from criticism by locals, such as "国有独资企业承揽低空经济有何隐忧？谨防国资垄断" (Idk how to translate this, but it basically brings up local concerns of monopoly of state owned enterprices) and "“低空空域作为公共资源是有价值的，但在低空空域规划、基础设施、如何管理使用都未明确，空域资源还不具有实际价值的情况下，这9亿多元的金额是如何估算的？”马剑直言，如果按照平阴县的这一做法，是不是意味着，全国县级财政资产增加了几千亿元？" basically about concerns of the costs

The SMD article is mostly about local's concerns about the project, while the CNS article is mostly saying how it will benefit the local economy Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

And I read how experts are saying those criticisms are wrong, that in fact these seem to be trying to push the idea that the criticisms are mistaken, at least that is the impression I got. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Sorry for the confusion, I found the wrong the paper article

https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=29545062&from=kuaibao

This article is on the same topic and provides much heavier criticism in comparison, stating that for such a high cost somehow the helipads were not used Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

In very general sense it's to general a question to answer. Some state owned media isn't reliable, others are not independent, while several are both independent and generally reliable.
In China all news sources are never going to be completely independent of the state, but will still vary when it comes to reliability. Context will also be important, reports about non-controversial details events in China are likely to be more reliable than those of the articles on more controversial issues. They will all be reliable for the statements and opinions of the ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue in all countries news will never be independent in any context, it is more of reliability Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The difference is the amount of control; the BBC has no governmental editorial oversight at any level. Any such control is exercised via things like what they say TO them, not what the BBC says. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

My point is, there is no such thing as a completely independent source, however overall most chinese state media is generally reliable for non-controversial topics per previous consensus. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Then what are we discussing, if they can already be used? Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you here; Don't know why a completely new discussion is needed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The reason why is because there's an argument at AN/I about whether or not to use a police website to say "non-controversial" things about the police in which one editor opined that no state source, from any state, should treated as reliable in any circumstance.

Of course reliability is supposed to be contextual. I have not seen the diffs of actual usage and don't know if the inclusions were "non-controversial" or not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I personally think that this question is overly broad, and for the original ANI argument, I think this seems to be more of a rookie mistake(I have to say so per AGF and I also hope that this is simply a rookie mistake) on the other user's end, as they seem to be a new editor and aren't really familiar with WP:RSPNOT, as their main argument was that the sources I used did not show up on WP:RSP. So basically, I would assume/hope that this was all thanks to an inexeperienced editor not knowing guidelines, which to be fair we have all done before when we were unexperienced Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't like biting the newbies when we can avoid it. Hopefully you're correct. But also, hopefully, we can close this thread off with minimal tears. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Some news organisation are partially or fully controlled by the government, some have limitations or controls on their reporting, and other are completely independent of the government. It's a spectrum and all of them can't be treated in the same way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of those links do not work. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that those here who are saying context matters go to the sections on the SWAT and Chenggyuan talk page and contribute directly to the disputes. Judgments about the usability of a certain type of source shouldn't be used as a substitute for judgments about the usability of a specific example of it in "this-or-that" context. Nghtcmdr (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you actually believed context matters and case by case would be better, this discussion wouldn't even have started at all.

I would suggest a speedy close since as I said, this came out of a rookie mistake of WP:RSPNOT and lack of judgement, not the need for a long discussion Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting discussion but it seems to me that all media are state controlled, what varies are the means that states use. The British state controls its state broadcaster BBC with a ruthlessness that can be breathtaking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

For Chinese media sources, the main guideline that was built from consensus is "does the Chinese government have a reason to lie/hide what they are reporting?". I don't see a reason why Chinese media/government sources would falsify mundane, non WP:EXTRAORDINARY detailing of the role/job of SWAT teams, but noting that per WP:NONENG, if an English source can be used instead of a Chinese one it is preferred as it is easier to verify by other editors. For the other article it is more debatable but English sourcing is available (SMCP) so that matter would be moot per WP:NONENG. Jumpytoo Talk 05:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

kinda irrelevant, but SCMP is basically the best english source for chinese things as I noticed it has the least mistranslations. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo Can you clarify what it is that you are recommending? There are two areas of disagreement, one coming from the SWAT article, the other from the Chengguan one. For the SWAT article, the disagreement revolves around the write-up for the "Use of term in other countries" section. My version [49] is drawn from an English-language journal article while the version by the other editor uses state-owned publications that are all in Chinese [50]. Based on your comments, it appears you would prefer my version of the "China" subsection as that's where there is information overlap, but I can't tell what your opinion is when it comes to the other editor's "Prison SWAT" subsection where that overlap doesn't exist.

For the Chengguan article, it revolves around the write up for the clashes section. Again, based on your comments, it appears that you'd support a rewrite based on the SCMP article, but I can't tell for sure. Nghtcmdr (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr No, what @Jumpytoo(Correct me if I'm wrong) is saying is that state owned sources would be reliable in this case. I don't see a reason why Chinese media/government sources would falsify mundane, non WP:EXTRAORDINARY detailing of the role/job of SWAT teams,

Additionally, I would suggest you address the concerns from other editors [51], [52] on WP:ANI regarding your behavior towards other editors before trying to continue debating. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

For SWAT, the Chinese sources are reliable for the given content, but if the English source could be used to cite the same content I would use that for editor convenience.

For Chengguan, it is of a similar rationale; we can use the English SCMP source to cite the same information so we don't need to use the Chinese sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 02:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we could have both sources.

However, the main point is, in both contexts, they are likely to be reliable. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo I can do the rewrite for the Chengguan section, but I am still unclear on what it is that you are recommending for the SWAT article. It appears that you are saying while my write up of the "China" subsection should be kept, so should the other user's "Prison SWAT" subsection. Is this correct? Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

For SWAT, from a glance I don't see any reliability issues with the sourcing used in both versions. I will let you two hash out how the content can be merged. Jumpytoo Talk 03:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr I would not suggest making any changes outside of grammar to either article on your end, since you are the subject of a discussion on WP:ANI and such editing could be evidence of WP:ICANTHEARYOU or WP:GASLIGHTING Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo I'll open a new section on the SWAT talk page and continue trying to resolve the dispute there. However, before we put this discussion between us to rest, I do have one final question which I forgot to ask earlier and that concerns the sourcing in the "Notable Incidents" section. Right now, for the "China" subsection, each entry has a source at the end of it, but it seems more appropriate that they should go inside the linked article that explains the incident. Your thoughts? Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:SOURCELIST it's only required if its a direct quote or possibly contentious. It's neither of those things so it's left to editor discretion. Personally I would not add them myself, but if they were already there I would leave them there. Jumpytoo Talk 07:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving them. SWAT being involved is not always notable info on the incident article, though notable incidents with SWAT involvement is definitely notable info on SWAT. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac you left out the second and more important half where the other user said "but noting that per WP:NONENG, if an English source can be used instead of a Chinese one it is preferred as it is easier to verify by other editors." You not fully agreeing with what they said is not a reason to distort what they actually said. Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nghtcmdr

1. You not fully agreeing with what they said is not a reason to distort what they actually said. please seee WP:GASLIGHT. I did not distort what they said, in fact it is ironic you are trying to falsely accuse me of distorting what they said, as this is your comment Based on your comments, it appears you would prefer my version of the "China" subsection as that's where there is information overlap, but I can't tell what your opinion is when it comes to the other editor's "Prison SWAT" subsection where that overlap doesn't exist.
2. I did read WP:NOENG, but I said we could keep both sources.
3. I highly suggest you to stop falsely accusing me, as all of this will be seen on the WP:ANI discussion.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac There would have been no distortion issue if you didn't quote only half of what the other user said. Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I quoted the important part of what they said. The important thing, is that they have agreed the chinese sources have no reliability issues[53], which disproves your entire point of deleting content, as many users have pointed out before [54][55].

Again, you refuse to read any consensus or policies that disprove your claims. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• As noted above, you need to evaluate each state-owned source separately, as well as how reliable the information is likely to be for each statement. The unfortunate reality is that in some countries there is no reliable local media for many topics, and information will have to be left out as a result; there is a discussion below where the same issue is being discussed with respect to Singapore. Furthermore, trying to predict what a government is likely to censor or falsify is very difficult. In my view, a lot of editors also significantly underestimate what a government may have an interest in. Various governments routinely decide they need to censor or falsify some very unexpected things, and a lot of information that could be considered basic at first glance is not actually basic once you consider the full context. It is also likely to be contingent on the culture of the specific country (e.g. what is considered socially proper) and on the worldview or motivations of the specific people in charge.

As an example, governments generally have an interest in portraying themselves as competent, well-liked, and helpful. This should be unsurprising for any government, of course, but this incentive applies to a wide variety of information. For information on government services, as in this case, any information about training generally reflects on their competence, any information about duties generally reflects on their helpfulness, and so on. This doesn't make state-controlled sources entirely unusable, but attribution is likely required, and if there are no independent sources on the topic, it may not be possible to write neutral content. The issue is reduced for potentially embarrassing information, but not necessarily eliminated: in addition to cultural differences in what is considered embarrassing, it may be a matter of internal politics (e.g. blaming a person/group that's currently politically disfavored, or to deflect criticism away from other people/groups), it may be that acknowledging a certain degree of failings is used as a strategy to control the narrative (e.g. to minimize its importance or present it as an isolated incident), it may be to present themselves as responsive to criticism, etc. These may or may not be relevant in any specific instance, but they generally still have to be considered. Sunrise (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think consensus is overall that the state affiliated sources in this case would be considered reliable [56] [57]. It also seems that contrary to popular belief, Chinese state affiliated sources have been more open to potentially embarrassing information, such as tonnes of the most reliable information of Chengguan brutality against police coming from state affiliated sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the discussion in this section hasn't addressed the specific sources, though several of us have recommended exerting more caution than you seem to be using. For instance, my own comment is primarily about the analysis procedure that needs to be applied. Perhaps consensus would indeed support reliability in this context, but I would note that linking two arguments by people who support you, only one of which mentions the sources in question, is very weak evidence for a claim of consensus. With regards to potentially embarrassing information, I agree that these sources have a limited freedom to criticize in some cases (but not in others), and I have also included a description of the caveats that still apply even in that context. Sunrise (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Context: I was planning to nominate the article My Monopoly for deletion because it had no citations to sources, and I couldn't find any, except for this page about it on Retro to Go [58] and this page about on CoolThings. [59] I want to know if these sources are reliable; if they are, I will add citations to them in the said article, but if they are not, I will proceed with the nomination of the article for deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I found out that these sources are blogs, making them unreliable. I'll just proceed with either a PROD or AFD for the article on My Monopoly. 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Retrotogo.com about us page[60] states To put it simply, Retro To Go is a blog about retro things, so it's not a reliable source.

Coolthings.com is marginal as it has some very minor use by others, being used as a citation in a couple of books published by Springer but that's it. It's about us page[61] shows it's part of Adfamous LLC, which holds a lot of different sites[62]. If it wasn't for the use by others I would say it feels a bit like a content farm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Knew it.

• Retro to Go explicitly states it's a blog, and blogs are unreliable sources.
• CoolThings is close to being a content farm, which is a user-generated source, so it's also unreliable.

I have already proposed the deletion of the My Monopoly article, but I've found one other source: GeekAlerts. [63] What's the reliability of this source? It obviously won't be enough to establish notability, though, so I'm still predicting the deletion of this article in a week. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

GeekAlerts appears to be somewhat established, it lists it's staff on its about us page[64] and appears somewhat well established. I can't find any real use by others, but again for board games it probably ok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Urban, Hugh. "A Dance of Masks: The Esoteric Ethics of Frithjof Schuon". In Crossing Boundaries: Ethics in the History of Mysticism, edited by G. William Barnard and Jeffrey J. Kripal (New York: Seven Bridges Press), 2002. Page 440.

Frithjof Schuon was a philosopher and spiritual leader. Near the end of his life he was indicted for child sexual abuse but the charges were dropped two months later for lack of evidence. Urban's article critiques Schuon's philosophy/theology through the lense of this incident. I want to cite the appendix at the end of Urban's article, where he lays out the details of the allegations and the court case. Given that Urban is an academic I think his summary should be reliable. Other editors want to exclude this citation because they believe that Urban's critique of Schuon's theology is unfair and dishonest. A fresh set of eyes might break the deadlock, the article talk page would be the place to comment. Thanks, Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Are the British Deaf Association and UK government reports reliable for the numbers of British Sign Language speakers? On Languages of the United Kingdom I made this edit, reproducing figures from the BDA.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds that "What the BSL (sic), or anyone, thinks the true figures are is just opinion” and that it was “original research” for the BDA to make statements based on official statistics, stating that lobby groups could not be trusted.

Although to me this is clearly not WP:OR (I made no inferences myself), I endeavoured to find another source in case this one was seen as unreliable or primary. So I found this UK government report from the Department of Work and Pensions that directly cited the BDA’s figures without any caveat.

The same editor refuses to accept this source on the grounds that "it isn't a secondary source. All the UK govt source is doing is passing over the opinion of the BDA. It is not giving a considered opinion of its own about those numbers. A govt published source anywhere is rarely if ever truly secondary" and that as government reports should not be used as a source because they are "self-published". I have to be honest, I wasn't aware that government reports were, by default, considered non-reliable sources for statistics.

Google scholar shows these figures are cited in numerous articles, but I get the strong sense based on the editor's comments about sourcing and mistrust of the BDA that no source reproducing its figures would be acceptable - and possibly no numbers at all would be acceptable as they are all "just opinion". (By the by, the current figure used sourced behind a paywall to Ethnologue - a website that I see that previous RSN discussions find is generally reliable but not perfect - doesn't seem to be cited much if at all, so it looks like the numbers should be updated.)

So I thought I would nip things in the bud and ask here. It also seemed to me better for users to link directly to a widely relied-on source (or to a government document relying on it) than on an otherwise random scholarly article that just happened to use those figures. Especially as the BDA gives a breakdown of speakers into the four nations of the UK.OsFish (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes both are fine and reliable for the figures, that other reliable sources use the figures adds to it's reliability. Govermental sources are considered reliable for statistics relating to their country, WP:PRIMARY sources are acceptable as are sources that could be considered nsidered biased (see WP:RSBIAS). If there are differing figures there's no reason both can't be used, unless one figure is outdated in comparison.

It's not WP:OR, as that only applies to editors and content on Wikipedia, it has absolutely not thing to do with sources. This is well discussed and the argument is a none starter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for a comprehensive response. It’s pretty much as I was thinking too.OsFish (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Following a discussion on Singapore-based sources, I decided to open another RfC regarding the current wording of The Straits Times' reliability on RSP from the previous RfC:

The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. However, since Singapore has a poor record on freedom of speech and press, and given known practices of self-censorship and political meddling into coverage, news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, some issues remain, especially the interpretation of: "There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage." For a bit of clarification, The Straits Times isn't at all state-owned and is still a private entity. As I quote from its parent company SPH Media Trust: "SPH Media Trust is managed privately by its shareholders. The management shares are regulated through Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and its issuance and transfers have to be approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information, and in "any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff" the vote of one management share is equivalent to 200 ordinary shares." These shares are mainly held by banks and education institutions in Singapore. I won't really say ST should be treated like WP:XINHUA, which is more directly government-owned, although one can say it's a similar situation due to Singapore's and China's poor press freedoms.

Another part: "news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt". While a few might interpret that more narrowly, as in "the ST is generally reliable for not-explicitly-political topics" (e.g. elections, politicians), I recognize that others may interpret it as meaning that the ST is only generally reliable for topics not related to any SG governmental agency or its projects. And the latter broader interpretation is rather problematic, because Singapore is a small city-state and most infrastructure projects are tied to the government in some form. It would not be possible to create a comprehensive, or even broad, article in Singapore without using local sources like ST, since other external news seldom report on local infrastructure projects.

I would also like to point out instances of ST's independence, such as its critical commentary of the Light Rail Transit (2012), placemaking in Holland Village, Clarke Quay and on rising rents. There's also coverage of ST's critical analysis of some government policies such as SimplyGo: [65] and [66], and it has also published a few opinion pieces showing that ST does not always toe the official government line: [67] and [68]. In the recent elections, there's also sufficient coverage on the opposition: [69], [70], [71] and [72].

I believe the wording should be improved such that it's clear ST is generally reliable for factual reporting, particularly on some local (non-controversial) issues, but greater caution should be applied for political coverage (such as those concerning elections and politicians). And/or that the current RSP entry for ST could probably be divided into: "Generally reliable" for non-politics topics and "additional considerations apply" (or "marginally reliable") for politics topics. There should also be a clearer definition of what also falls as a "politics topic". For instance, is a transit project, run and managed by a government agency, a political topic? If so, is ST reliable on that topic?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

While Singapore's press freedom record is undeniably inadequate compared to other liberal democracies, I would argue it is not comparable to the level of state control seen in China. There remains a degree of editorial independence in Singapore that allows for coverage of politically sensitive topics, albeit in a limited form. For instance, The Straits Times recently reported on Ng Chee Meng, a politician of the ruling party, addressing both his photo with Su Haijin, a convicted money launderer, and his conduct at a controversial Ministry of Education dialogue (link). Such reporting on ruling party figures would be impossible in the context of Chinese state media.

Singapore's media environment may be more aptly compared to that of Qatar (WP:ALJAZEERA), where coverage of domestic political issues is generally restrained. In Qatar’s case, the restrictions are arguably more severe, as criticism of the royal family is strictly prohibited and the country does not hold national elections. However, both contexts allow for open and professionally managed reporting on international and non-political subjects. While The Straits Times generally presents factually accurate and well-structured reporting, one could argue that they lack critical depth or investigative rigour on politically sensitive matters. That said, it does not necessarily conform entirely to the government line in the way seen in fully authoritarian regimes like China or Russia, as illustrated by the examples cited by ZKang123. I therefore support his proposal to revise the wording of the RSP entry to reflect a more nuanced distinction, particularly given that government involvement in Singapore extends into many areas of public life, such as infrastructure and policy, owing to the country's small size. Aleain (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:RFC, and if it was it's question wouldn't be brief or neutral (see WP:RFCBRIEF). All you've done is create a new section to continue the prior discussion. Can I suggest reading WP:RFCOPEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, right. Then should I just remove the RfC prefix then?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I've done so. It doesn't stop you from discussing the wording of the RSP entry, it just avoids any confusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It's being added to multiple articles by User talk:Cypern20. Publisher is [73]. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

100% of this editor's activity is to add books by Winbladh or links to sites connected to them. Reliable or not, this is a pretty clear case of WP:REFSPAM. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Very off topic for this noticeboard, but edits going back to 2020 show refspam for the same author[74][75][76]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

If you search for "iUniverse," you find a lot of citations to books published by this self-publishing company. We shouldn't be citing them, removing these citations is a good thing to do if anyone is looking for a semi-robotic task. Prezbo (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The reliability of a self published work is going to depend on the author, see WP:SPS. So these would need to be checked before being replaced or removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I would hope anyone attempting to "semi-robotically" remove iUniverse citations without cause would find themselves "semi-robotically" blocked from editing Wikipedia. Self-published sources are not necessarily bad. Some are quite excellent, in fact. Anyone that thinks commercial publishers provide even a modicum of fact-checking these days is dangerously unfamiliar with how the publishing world works. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I see a similar discussion ongoing for China-based state-owned sources and I also want to raise two issues I'm having over when putting FAC nominations for Singapore-related articles such as Singapore Rail Test Centre and Sengkang LRT line. The former is in fact now being at GAR because of concerns raised over the use of government press releases and how the other secondary sources, particularly local media, are not independent and said to be merely repeating those claims.

I can understand for SRTC since it's a new exclusive rail facility and I decided to withdraw my FAC nomination due to NPOV concerns. But I find pulling it to GAR a step too far. If The Straits Times or local media are considered as invalid since they are considered still too close to the government and merely copying these claims, then almost every article related to Singapore would need to be re-evaluated and purged since there's often very little coverage on our country by international news and we rely a lot on government reports. Already I tried my best, along with the GA reviewer starship, to scourge for more secondary sources, such as International Railway Journal covering this subject. I also doubt even local news reports would blindly copy from the press releases before publishing them, since they still have editorial standards to verify these claims...

I also despise the generalisations of Singapore's news sources as unreliable just because they are "pro-government". The Straits Times has also been assessed as reliable as a newspaper of record except in cases of political controversy, and I don't see any political controversy here behind that project. Singapore is a small city-state and almost everything here is tied to the government in some form.

Similarly for Sengkang LRT line, the sources (LTA, Straits Times, SBS Transit) used are for statements of basic facts, including the opening of stations, the construction of the lines, the awarding of contracts, the technical specifications, the features of stations... But again, concerns are raised about the sourcing quality.

I have to raise this up to this board because otherwise future GANs and FACs for Singapore-related articles would remain stuck just because there aren't sufficient independent and reliable sources to the satisfaction of other reviewers. I just hope for consensus on the use of Singapore-based sources for Singapore-related articles, because to avoid them entirely is very unrealistic.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... It would be good if you can provide the list of articles that we should evaluate in this context. – robertsky (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As in Wiki articles or news articles?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for this discussion. My objection to these sources is not that they are unreliable in the sense that we can't trust them to correctly report basic facts. When The Straits Times writes Renovation works will soon begin at Sengkang LRT station to improve the flow of passengers, and will be completed at the end of 2024, said the Land Transport Authority (LTA) I completely trust that the LTA really did say that. But having 100 of that type of source is not what we should be basing GA and FA articles on. RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I was advised by Robertsky to raise this issue on this board, because you can't seem to stop and keep criticising my use of local sources.

Anyway if you really have a problem, then feel free to really haul all my GAs and FAs to GAR and FAR.

• Hume MRT station: 14 Straits Times, 12 Land Transport Authority, 2 Ministry of Transport (out of 45 sources)
• Nicoll Highway collapse: 34 Straits Times, 14 Land Transport Authority, 3 Ministry of Transport (out of 128 sources).
• Toa Payoh MRT station: 22 Straits Times, 7 LTA, 3 government press releases (out of 52 sources).
• North East MRT line: 76 Straits Times, 37 LTA, 9 Ministry of Transport, 11 SBS Transit (out of 204 citations)
• Changi Airport MRT station: 26 Straits Times, 14 LTA, 2 government speeches (out of 72 sources).--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Were they saying that those reports weren't independent because they simply repeated press releases, or the the paper isn't independent? It seems from skimming the discussion the issue was the former, not the later. The same press release being republished by different media organisations is still one press release, regardless of state ownership or the country. You see the same issue with newswire agencies, with different news media publishing the same report - it's just one article being republished in different locations.
The other issue appears to be articles authored by the local rail authority, obviously no matter where these articles were published they wouldn't be independent. Again whether the source was state owned media, private, in Singapore, or not wouldn't change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This is essentially a repeat from Talk:Singapore Rail Test Centre but The Straits Times is NOT churnalist. They don't copy and paste the press release word for word in their articles. They took the liberty of interviewing the relative authority from the LTA and even gave contextual information. Also don't other news organisations use press releases for some of their articles? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Even then, I think there's a notability/WP:DUEWEIGHT issue, since the Straits Times, as a state-owned outlet, is clearly not neutral when reporting on the importance of things the state does. The BBC, for example, regularly posts articles which seem largely of interest within the BBC itself -- if an article on Doctor Who were cited entirely to BBC News, even though those things are technically separate organisations, I would not consider DUEWEIGHT (which requires independent sources, per the link in its first sentence) to have been shown. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe editors who are not familiar with Singapore should exercise more nuance when evaluating Singapore-based sources. ZKang123 has made several valid points. It is virtually impossible to avoid using local sources, even those with ties to the government, when writing about topics related to Singapore, including ordinary subjects such as public transport. If sources like The Straits Times or CNA are deprecated or deemed unreliable, it would significantly weaken Wikipedia's coverage of Singapore across a wide range of subjects. As a small country, Singapore typically receives little international media attention for everyday developments outside of politics. Locally, the main alternatives to state-affiliated media are sensationalist online outlets such as Mothership, which often have even lower standards of reporting and sourcing. Bringing his well-researched articles to GAR at this point feels premature. If Singapore Rail Test Centre is demoted from GA, it would send a discouraging message to contributors working on good or featured articles related to Singapore and cast a shadow over the future of Singapore's WikiProject. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here off-wiki, though these thoughts are strictly my own. I do recognize that there are issues regarding press freedom in Singapore, and that Singaporean news sources such as The Straits Times are listed as marginally reliable on WP:RSP. However, from what I've gathered, they'd still be considered reliable with regard to matters that don't involve the government. In instances that do involve the government, they'd be considered primary sources (and thus can't be used to cite any critical analyses of the subject). Due to Singapore's small size and its lack of full press freedom, I'm not sure that—for some Singaporean topics—it would be possible to create a comprehensive, or even broad, article without using such sources.

The LTA, MOT and other government sources are definitely primary sources and should be treated as such. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah at this point I'm not questioning about the use of primary sources, because that's more of a separate discussion. However, the problem now is that when writing Singapore-related topics, it is impossible to avoid using local sources, when writing about local topics in Singapore such as public transport. And the only reputable local sources (in English) are either The Straits Times, which is still a private entity with shares held by banks and local education institutions, or Channel NewsAsia under Mediacorp, which is definitely state sponsored but it's like Al-Jazeera with an regional/international outlook and the government tries not to interfere much into its coverage.

To frame it from another perspective regarding DUEWEIGHT, there would not be as many objections if it were the New York Times reporting on the opening of a NYC transit route, even if NYC's transit system is owned by New York state, because the NYT is not itself affiliated with the state government. Or that some tram line in some obscure town of the US or Europe would be brought to FA more easily just because there's sufficient local free press news coverage, but not a tram line in an authoritarian state. Which I find it's a rather unfair assessment of what articles should be brought to the FAC stage as reviewers continue to insist on the use of independent sources, which given SG's press freedoms, is almost non-existent.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers continue to insist on the use of independent sources, which given SG's press freedoms, is almost non-existent: it sucks, and is by no means your fault, but I'm afraid this is an admission that an article meeting the FA criteria cannot be written on this topic. There are no exceptions in WP:RS etc for "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, unless the only sources you can find are unreliable, partial or dubious, in which case, don't worry about it". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, then, why don't you open an FAR on my past FAs, then? Since they aren't supposed to meet the standard?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

On the face of it, this seems a strange argument: a bit like "you're giving me a speeding ticket? But I drove much faster yesterday!". But, to be clear, if I came across another article largely based on primary or non-independent sources (that is, an article relying on government sources to talk about a government project), that would to me mean that it did not meet the FA criteria, and could be the start of the road towards FAR if there were no means of remedying it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I welcome for you to do it then, if you are so keen.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a certain implication here that sources may not be used in FAs if they're only "marginally reliable", and not "generally reliable". I don't really agree with the implication, insofar as that I think marginally reliable sources can be used in the circumstances where they are considered reliable (in instances where a marginally-reliable source is deemed to be reliable only for certain topics).

Specifically relating to the topic at hand, I had a look at the Straits Times' entry on WP:RSP. The entry says: "There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage." I interpreted that more narrowly, as in "the ST is generally reliable for not-explicitly-political topics" (e.g. elections, politicians). However, I recognize that others may interpret it as meaning that the ST is only generally reliable for topics not related to any SG governmental agency. This may benefit from additional clarification—perhaps another discussion here, for example.

The second thing I'd like to address is whether the ST is independent with regards to the LTA, MOT and other agencies. My feeling is that, even if both the ST was by the government (which may not even be the case), it may still be true that the ST reports critically on actions that other government agencies take, rather than just acting as a mouthpiece for these other agencies. If I'm looking at these other RSP discussions correctly, the concern was not that the government was censoring the ST directly, but that the ST was self-censoring. Again, this is something that would benefit from another RSN discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I've never liked the idea about not using MRel sources in FAs. The source could be not only the most reliable source available, but the most reliable source possible. That it's MRel may just mean it's should be used in a very specific circumstance, but outside of that it's fine. All MRel means is that you you should check it's entry in detail, it's not a middle ground between generally reliable and generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there are two matters to establish here, with two different "bars" -- are the ST etc reliable enough to be cited at all, especially to verify factual information? Secondly, are they independent enough to establish notability and WP:DUEWEIGHT on government-related topics, or do we need the article to be based primarily on more independent sources, even if they could then be used within it to cite particular details? The bar of reliability for the first is relatively low, but I think that for the second is quite a bit higher: in particular, establishing that they generally tell the truth wouldn't be enough, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In truth, also given this mainly concerns the residential town of Sengkang, that it would be more difficult to find other viewpoints on this topic. That said, I don't really believe this is an issue of DUEWEIGHT because for a line that is running for only 20 years, this is a significant capacity upgrade for a town that's expanding. A CNA article (cited in the article) has published a couple of residents' viewpoints about concerns of crowding and capacity and how LTA is working to improve. I was also explaining what the upgrade works involve, otherwise other editors would come and ask what upgrades specifically, which I thought it's relevant concerning the 2017 renovations. Anyway, this discussion is better brought back to the FAC.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there - it was recently drawn to our attention that Healthline.com was deprecated and placed on the Wikipedia blacklist in July 2023, per this talk page. Upon discovering this, we reached out to one of the editors (@Colin) involved in the original blacklisting discussion for guidance and after further discussion, were directed to appeal the decision on this board, so here we are.

Once we became aware of the blacklisting, our Editorial and Medical teams moved quickly to review the 16 specific links flagged as problematic within the original thread.

We ran a further audit of 880 (invariably older) articles in the topic areas and adjacent topic areas flagged in the original thread. In all cases appropriate updates were made by our editorial team based on input from medical professionals within our network. These updates varied in scope—from minor edits to language and sourcing, to extensive rewrites or redirects.

As a specific example, in relation to @SandyGeorgia’s note regarding dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), after medical review we clarified the distinction between DLB and Lewy bodies dementia (LBD), including referencing that those terms are often mistakenly conflated. We also amended the assertion that DLB is caused by abnormal protein deposits in nerve cells, clarifying that whilst they are present, the exact cause is as yet unknown.

On a broader note, over the last 15 years and more, Healthline has invested in creating and maintaining a large library of free-at-the-point-of-access health information that draws on peer reviewed medical research, all of which receives medical review (or fact check in the case of our News output) carried out by credentialed medical experts. Our Medical Network comprises 200+ practicing medical professionals. Our Editorial team is composed of more than 100 in-house writers, editors and subject matter experts. Every one of those individuals carries a deep and personal commitment to editorial integrity, and to the paramount importance of creating accurate and accessible health information.

We do not create spam. We do not deploy generative AI in any of our content. We are not a content farm. We are a team of experienced and committed editorial and medical professionals working to create accurate and inclusive health information at scale. Often that means we cover broad and emerging health topics that people are actively searching for information around. We do so in a balanced and inclusive way, calling out pseudoscience and medical inaccuracies wherever they exist, but also ensuring we remain accessible and non-stigmatising.

We’re by no means infallible, but we think deeply about how we can better show up for our audiences through the information we create and distribute. That approach evolves over time, meaning some of our existing content either becomes out of date or no longer passes muster against evolving styles, values, societal norms, and the latest medical research. It is an ongoing challenge to surveil and maintain a corpus of 50k+ articles, but it’s one we own with integrity and intentionality. As part of that process, we value and constantly elicit feedback and insights from a broad range of quarters. Those insights enable us to identify blindspots, and we use them to refine and improve both our library of content and the surveillance processes we deploy to maintain it.

We hope the extensive work that we undertook upon discovery of the articles that led to our blacklisting underlines that ongoing commitment.

We also believe it’s important to bring attention to the inconsistencies in how these standards have been applied to Healthline. No editorial content on Healthline is generated using AI - something that was inaccurately assumed by at least one Wikipedia editor in the original thread. There are many other health sites of comparable size, reach and focus to Healthline that cover the same wellness topics as we do, and who openly cite their use of generative AI in their content creation processes, yet remain listed as credible sources. Although we recognise Wikipedia’s caution regarding wellness content, it’s important to note that most major health publications cover wellness topics extensively and are not being flagged as a deprecated or blacklisted source.

Ultimately, at a time when people need access to trustworthy, inclusive, medically accurate health information more than ever, we believe we share the same values you do: editorial integrity, scientific rigour, and making information freely accessible to as broad an audience as possible.

We hope you’ll take another look at the updates we undertook and the wider points made above and reconsider the blacklisting. HealthInsights (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any evidance that you are considered a reliable source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

also can you actually give an example of an updated (now error-free) paper of yours? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Healthline:_deprecate_or_blacklist?. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven We don't appear to be able to include direct links to Healthline in our messages. Assume this is because we are blacklisted?

In 2023 we formed a partnership with the CDC and CDC Foundation to reflect their recommendations for RSV vaccinations and treatment in the patient population of pregnant people and infants within our content in order to provide scaled insights into the impact of communication messages on RSV vaccination uptake.

We are extensively referenced across various reputable health sources including the CDC (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/3/21-1561_article), ClevelandClinic (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22210-pulmonologist), and nih.gov (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2025/when-it-comes-health-benefits-coffee-timing-may-count). Additionally, an independent study published on Pubmed found Healthline to be rated "good" within accuracy, readability, and transparency (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6381637/).

As a specific example of an updated article based on feedback we received from Wikipedia, in relation to @SandyGeorgia’s note regarding our 'Understanding the Different Types of Dementia' article and specifically the section related to dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), after medical review we clarified the distinction between DLB and Lewy bodies dementia (LBD), including referencing that those terms are often mistakenly conflated. We also amended the assertion that DLB is caused by abnormal protein deposits in nerve cells, clarifying that whilst they are present, the exact cause is as yet unknown.Let us know if there's a way for us to include Healthline links and we will be happy to provide more examples. HealthInsights (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

ON Pubmed it says "Websites excluded because they are not explicitly based on systematic reviews" Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

PubMed is a search engine/database. It is not a publisher. The "independent study published on Pubmed" is actually a peer-reviewed[77] journal article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So what does it say about them? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, AFAICT the only thing that this (open access) paper says about Healthline is that the study didn't look at their website. They're listed in Table 2, "Websites excluded because they are not explicitly based on systematic reviews". See https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-019-0772-5#Sec3

@HealthInsights, I'm assuming that someone on your marketing team fed you that line about the study rating your website as "good". Maybe you should go back to that person and find out:

1. whether you linked to the correct study (everyone makes mistakes; I've personally pasted the wrong URL into a comment multiple times in the past), and
2. the exact, quoted words in the study that refer to your website, so we can double-check that the alleged content actually is in the source as claimed.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Your example shows exactly why we cannot trust this site. You claim to be "cited" by CDC, but if you follow the link in the CDC article it takes you to a completely different article. That doesn't happen with peer-reviewed papers in press. I am sure that health authorities do want to partner with health and wellness sites to promote reality-based information, though I think they could do a better job (for example, excluding any site that promotes pseudoscientific commercial ideas like homeopathy or chiropractic). Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. This is still not a RS. See www(.)healthline(.)com/health/sepia-homeopathy - egregious bollocks. Also, it's blacklisted due to spamming.. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It was not blacklisted due to spamming. Zero evidence was given in the RFC about actual WP:SPAM. The RFC said: Due to the heightened requirements for biomedical and medical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the RFC is to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meet WP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline as a hazard to readers.

In other words, we put it on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for reasons unrelated to spam. We put it on the spam list because we were concerned that readers, who almost never read any cited sources at all, might actually read this source if it were cited.

I'm doubtful that blacklisting was warranted. We could probably have addressed additions with a Special:AbuseFilter warning and a bot that auto-tagged all uses with {{unreliable medical source}} instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Everything we might source to Healthline is covered by WP:MEDRS requirements which their business model is totally incompatible with. I spot checked some of the examples cited in the last RFC, and I found plenty of obviously wrong content (Chiropractic as a treatment for ADHD, etc.) is still on their site. And even if a few things got fixed, we should be worried about all the bogus information that wasn't specifically mentioned in the last RFC. Leave it blacklisted. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that although we talk about sources being generally reliable or generally unreliable there is an unspoken "for Wikipedia's purposes" after those statements. Healthline was deprecated and blacklisted because of the additional sourcing requirements for certain medical information in Wikipedia articles as laid out in WP:MEDRS. Healthline is a medical website, while Wikipedia isn't. They don't have to follow WP:MEDRS, but Wikipedia should because Wikipedia's editors are not medical experts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, let's take Guy's example. Go read the article rather than assume an article on homeopathy is "egregious bollocks". I read the introduction, uses, cautions and side effects, when to seek care, and the bottom line. All factually accurate AFAICS and in line with what most editors here would hope for. Then we come to the "Effectiveness" section. Let's quote it:

Homeopathic medicine has not been widely studied for safety or effectiveness. Whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs to meet regulations, the same is not said about homeopathic remedies. An old 1999 research review showed that there is not enough evidence that homeopathy is clearly effective for any single condition, but there is probably little risk.

The same 1999 research review above showed that homeopathic remedies are so diluted that there often isn’t even one molecule of the original solution present. Some researchers have hypothesized that the benefits of homeopathy are mainly due to the placebo effect. But in the research review above, double-blind, randomized trials showed significant differences between homeopathic remedies and placebos.

Homeopathy can be effective. One explanation for this may be that during serial dilution, there might be an interaction between the water molecules and the original solution to create a sort of memory of the original solution at an atomic level that we don’t measure with a simple microscope.

Don't think we'd argue with the first paragraph, or the first two sentences of the second (some would argue there is a "risk" if patients avoid seeking effective care for serious conditions). The rest is more contentious. The sentences are in themselves true. Those trials did indeed show significant differences between homeopathic remedies and placebos. Homeopathy can indeed be effective (but most here would argue not for the reasons practitioners claim) and the memory effect is indeed "one explanation" albeit not one accepted by western science. But our biggest problem for claiming this is "egregious bollocks" is that those sentences are a close paraphrase of the source article in the British medical journal. Maybe we should blacklist the BMJ?

Relying on such an old source from 1999 (which the article does admit to being old) is a problem. The sources listed at the bottom of the Healthline article don't link for me but I found them here and here and I don't think anyone here would rate those journals. However if those are just sources for what homeopaths "use" sepia homeopathy for, which appears to be the case here, then they are fine. Remember there's a big difference between what "treatments" are "used for" and what they are "effective for". Western drug companies and pharmacies sells millions of bottles of ineffective cough medicine.

While the efficacy section is more credulous than we'd be, the contentious sentences are nearly word for word what the BMJ says. In the end, the "bottom line" of that Healthline article is no different to what we'd write, except we wouldn't be giving the medical advice to first see your GP.

I don't think articles Healthline's "Wellness" section should be used as a source, but their Health section is generally fine. Stop cherry picking your favourite quack remedy and actually go read a bunch of common-or-garden conditions and diseases and ailments. We all here know one can prove anything by cherry picking. We could cherry pick quack/contentious articles in the BMJ or NEJM or Lancet if we wanted. Pick half a dozen of the non-contentious conditions you know about and read their articles.

I think our articles on contentious topics like homeopathy should be strictly sourced to the highest quality sources. Like, cough, a review in the BMJ. But I followed the above article to their article on psoriasis (www(.)healthline(.)com/health/psoriasis) and it does not suggest using homeopathic sepia. Indeed I don't see a quality difference between that article and the NHS. The Healthline article cites its sources, and the NHS doesn't. The NHS page on psoriasis would have been written by an NHS Website staff member, not a consultant dermatologist. And neither was the Healthline article. However, we know the healthline article was reviewed (www(.)healthline(.)com/reviewers/joan-paul-md) by Joan Paul, who "is an ABMS board certified dermatologist who specializes in psoriasis, skin cancer, skin of color, and global health." I know the NHS web pages are expert reviewed, but there's no detail.

I don't see any reason why Healthlines Health articles on non-contentious topics can't be used as an "ok" source. It is accessible to the general reader, not behind a paywall. And we are the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. This is material that is sourced and reviewed by named experts.

As for the claim about spam, I'd like to see evidence please. I suspect there's a confusion over our use of the blacklist mechanism to block a site some editors hate, and reality. -- Colin°^Talk 08:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem is how do WE differentiate, do they have a seperate "wellness" section, do they only ever publish wellness advice there? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So we have to do original research to decide whether an article is in their walled garden of bollocks or not? I don't think so. And actually I thnk you missed my point: any article that proceeds on the assumption that homeopathy has any validity whatseover, is by definition credulous nonsense. I'm not suggesting it as a source on a contentious topic, I am saying that its adoption of in-universe claims by hoemopathists disproves the assertion that its peer-review system works. Of course there are still a trickle of papers int he reality-based literature looking at hoemopathy, but the trickle is drying up and that is a function of science doing science and refuting nonsensical claims. This claims to be a health resource summarising the best available information. The best available information on homeopathy is that it is confectionery not medicine. I am convinced that there will be nothing in this website that is not covered by an alternate and more reliable source that hasn't tried to abuse Wikipedia for SEO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Colin, I could argue all day long with the first paragraph. For example, the claim that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs is not only factually incorrect, but something that is widely known among Americans that have ever had any professional dealings with the FDA. This is the kind of mistake that "credentialed medical experts" and "subject matter experts" don't make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yikes; the FDA approved Aducanumab in spite of the advisory panel recommending against it, leading to several prominent resignations, and of course, the drug was later abandoned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• No way Jose Healthline is far from WP:RS. I do not want someone getting sick because of these "long pleadings" by their marketing staff. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Not yet If they still say things like One explanation for this may be that during serial dilution, there might be an interaction between the water molecules and the original solution to create a sort of memory of the original solution at an atomic level that we don’t measure with a simple microscope. then they clearly aren't reliable, plus, as far as I can tell, they are still owned by Red Ventures? Some of their information may be top quality, but if they are known to also include misinformation and might abruptly go back to posting AI-generated cruft, how can we call them reliable? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• No if they can't even get the basic stuff like water memory being horseshite, blacklisting is still warranted.

  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blacklisting may have gone too far, Struck per Doc James. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC) but the site is not reliable. One indication that they don't have proper editorial oversight is that, even after issues were raised here, they weren't corrected. I inquired in this discussion what they had done about that, and got no answer. Is there a marketing reason for being in a hurry? And yet, their article on Tourette syndrome still has errors (and by the way, is also very poorly written -- have a glance, even someone unfamiliar with TS can see the poor writing, which suggests lack of adequate editorial oversight).
  1. Vocal tics don't have to be "outbursts" (even they give throat clearing and hiccuping as examples of vocal tics)
  2. Maybe they meant to say that it's a tic disorder ("Tourette syndrome is a tic syndrome"); makes me wonder if the person writing this article knows what TS is.
  3. Their definition of a tic sounds equally novice (I don't expect most physicians to understand the difference between involuntary and semi-voluntary response to an unwanted urge, but this goes beyond that).
  4. "As many as 1 in 100 people in the United States experience milder symptoms." This figure applies to tic disorders, not TS. Again, suggestive that the person writing the article doesn't know the difference.
  5. I don't even know where they got this, since it leaves out environmental factors: "Researchers believe that an inherited genetic difference may be the cause."
  6. Outright wrong: "The diagnosis requires both one motor and one vocal tic for at least 1 year."
  7. Under treatment, haldol is the first listed, with no disclaimers -- so now we're getting dangerous. I stopped there; have not revisited dementia. The list above is not comprehensive.

If this is the best this group can do before re-approaching Wikipedia when problems were pointed out to them, I'm not too concerned that they are blacklisted. They have inadequate oversight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, that was a waste of time; I now see I raised most of those points in the last discussion, and nothing changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the disorder vs syndrome thing is intentional. The Neurodiversity movement argues against calling neurodiverse behavior "disordered" because it sounds derogatory or disease-related. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood -- the writing overall is so unprofessional that it's hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• A general concern. What bothered me most was the length of the pleadings by the marketing staff. That means they really, really want to get Wiki-approved. The concern is that they may clean up their act to look good for now, then slide back being sloppy. And it would take some time before their sloppiness is detected, and they get blacklisted. In the meantime they feed people misinformaton. I suggest a 10 year ban on them, then think about it again. Better be safe than get people sick. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  There should be no time limit placed; if they can demonstrate they have changes we can reconsider this in a year. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep blacklisted They continue to copy and paste our images without attribution and this despite it being reported to them. So add copyright concerns to the list. https://www.healthline(.)com/health/gout#gallery-open-Gout-effect-on-ankle Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• The sepia homeopathy page is egregious both-sides-ism and blatant misrepresentation of the consensus opinion on homeopathy. No we should not trust a source that hedges its commentary on homeopathy efficacy with "not enough research has been done" (yes there has!) and is based on one 25-year-old semi-favorable article (not a review!) in a BMJ special issue series on CAM by a biostatistician and a GP, two highly unreliable homeopathy publications from a "homeopathic physician", and the website for the National Center for Homeopathy. No we should not trust a source that claims a "holistic nurse" with an unaccredited, unlicensed 3-year "PhD" in "health psychology" from a for-profit online university (please watch this informative documentary) is qualified whatsoever as a medical reviewer of such an article.
  I don't see any distinction between what you're classifying as "wellness" articles and "health" articles. The url for the sepia homeopathy page is just /health/sepia-homeopathy.
  There is no reason to use Healthline when plenty of reputable free sources exist. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted To add to the examples, they have pages supporting Chiropractic (including for ADHD!) and Reiki. The approach appears to be to find some study written somewhere to support CAM treatment without any apparent care for whether that's what studies in general or meta-analyses show. Too much of a risk. That they are coming to ask without first addressing such glaring issues as the ones people have found here suggests to me that they're not yet serious about being a top level medical information resource. OsFish (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted I don't see what we would use Healthline as a source for. It's not suitable for MEDRS, so it can't be used as a source for medical information. Best to keep it blacklisted to prevent users from mistakenly using it to support medical claims instead of a MEDRS-level source. Unless the visitor from Healthline can suggest some other topic healthline could be used to verify? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• keep blacklisted per above 3 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted - Wikipedia readers benefiting from GDPR, or similar, shouldn't be forced to opt-in to tracking cookies just to verify a source. Little pob (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The app Watch Duty has been used more and more frequently as a citation source on Western United States wildfire articles and related pages. However, according to the app information its a combination of OpenStreetMap, traditionally reliable sources, but also is user updated as well, making it a wiki-like entity. As such it would seem to fall afoul of the same citation rule as other user generated sites.

As the 2025 fire season is ramping up already it would be good to get clarity on the app as a source across the various pages.--Kevmin § 17:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't WP:User generated content, unlike a wiki you can't create an account and edit events or add comments. Only their staff and volunteers can do that. However although they say those staff ands volunteers are active and retired firefighters, dispatchers, and first responders[78] if you check their team page it's apparent not all volunteer reporters match that[79]. If you look at page to become a volunteer reporters[80] those things are 'Nice to have' rather than a requirement. But over all it's quite clear that they are somewhat picky with who can report, make edits, or comments. As to how reliable they are I would like to see use by others, but I haven't had time to do a proper search. I'll try to do some more as I have time.
Is there a project that covers this type of content? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I notified wp:wildfires of this discussion, and will note that on the talk page there there is a short fizzled discussion regarding this same issue. I can say that for Washington state its actively not reliable with fire sizes being misreported, and so small fires or incidents are shown as different from what other agencies are collectively showing.--Kevmin § 14:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Watch Duty seems well reported on[81][82][83], but that's the kind of thing that makes the app notable rather than reliable. What I can't seem to find is anyone using their reports as the basis of reporting on a fire.
It could be that this is a better resource than it is a reliable source, they link to updates from a sheriff or fire department and those could be used as reliable sources (maybe with attribution). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: The app has been used in the 2024 fire seasons across may western states, such as 2024 Idaho wildfires.--Kevmin § 13:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

All I can say is I wouldn't use it as a reference, although as I said the reports it links to could be usable. They may screen who can do reporting, but that's not a high bar. Without some kind of use by others, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)