Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_476

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.

Should inaturalist.org be added to the RSN list of sources? It is used on more than 6,000 articles (though some of the uses may be external links, not references), but is essentially a specialized wiki. Having some easily accessible guidance on it may be useful. Fram (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The criteria for adding a source to the RSP can be found here WP:RSPCRITERIA. iNaturalist appears to be WP:UGC, user generated sites aren't usually listed as they are questionable sources by default. It could be possible that certain posts could be reliable under WP:EXPERTSPS if the poster could be shown to have prior publishing in the field. Although that doesn't appear to be the case with the first one I check in while doing a search[1].
There was some talk using a filter for UGC (and similar) sources in WT:RSP#New World Encyclopedia, but I'm hesitant as it would probably be controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested 65.181.9.21 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment With heavy caveats maybe but mostly no (the more I look at use of iNat in WP, the worse it's getting!). The problem with stating "inaturalist.org" in general is that it's almost entirely User-Generated Content that includes journal entries (basically blog posts) which are not S unless it's from a WP:EXPERTPS. There are also their taxa pages, which are lifted direct from WP, although clearly marked as such so hopefully no one would try and cite them! (eeeh) So the question is really what bit of iNat the OP is referring to?

In relation to claims that an organism exists in an area, then we could probably consider Research Grade observations as Reliable (which seems to be what people are mostly using as references in the couple of articles I've looked through), but obviously casual observations can't be used. And having said above that I hope nobody would reference a taxa page I've just found that the first "reference" in Socca pustulosa is... a taxa page which opens with the header "Source: Wikipedia" /facepalm. Same with Xylotrechus colonus. iNat is fantastic platform to which I personally contribute, but substantial chunks of it are unsuitable as encyclopaedic reference material.

The only place it might be useful for is helping describe ranges/introductions - e.g. "in <year>, observations were made in <new territory>", perhaps describing introduced or invasive species - and then only for uncontested "Research Grade" observations. Hemmers (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not clear exactly what actual facts we would be sourcing to iNaturalist. I assume people are probably using iNat as a source for "X is a species" and "is commonly known as Y" because it's very convenient; these will probably mostly be accurate, but we should really be tagging those instances with "better source needed". As far as citing observations for "X is found in Y", I would treat even an uncontested RG observation with great caution. It's like citing herbarium vouchers for plant distribution: I won't say I would absolutely never do it, but rarely and with circumspection and hedging (i.e., "a specimen identified as X [by the determiner] was collected there", rather than "X was collected there"). Choess (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment That's probably a bug that needs to be fixed on their end. iNat pulls Wikipedia articles as the default description for a taxon, and if there's no existing article, it offers a stub template with one citation to iNaturalist so that users can start an article. My general impression, at least for plants, from browsing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New article listing is that I'm not seeing a big influx of stubs sourced solely to iNat, but maybe some of that's being deflected by NPP and I'm not seeing that there? (I am a curator and fairly active there; more thoughts later.) Choess (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen quite a few new pages during NPP where inaturalist was the only or one of the main sources, that's how they came on my radar. But it's e.g. also used in the GA Jellyfish where this is a "source" for the claim "Desmonema glaciale, which lives in the Antarctic region, can reach a very large size (several meters)." In Taraxacum, the claim "Botanists specialising in the genus Taraxacum are sometimes called taraxacologists" is even sourced to the Inaturalist forum(!)[2]. The Featured Article (!!) Sea otter uses Inaturalist observations[3] for the claim "Sightings have been documented in the waters of Cape Nosappu, Erimo, Hamanaka and Nemuro, among other locations in the region."

Inclusion in RSNP doesn't mean a stamp of approval, in this case it should be a deterrent, marking it as generally unreliable or some such. As for the RSNP criteria, requiring previous discussions here:[4][5][6]. Fram (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I looked for prior discussions before making my comment and didn't find any, but now the discussions are in the search, either it was a blip or I messed up my search somehow. I would say the prior discussions show it meets RSPCRITERIA, anyone could add it based on summarising those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing on iNaturalist taxon pages that makes it worth citing as a source in a Wikipedia article. It is a valuable place to find suitably licensed photos of organisms that can be uploaded to Commons. And it has even more photos that aren't suitably licensed. For those photos, it may merit including iNat as an external link if no other photos are available (but that's an external link, not a cited source). The observation data behind the maps is already being fed from iNat to GBIF. GBIF also includes museum specimens and observations from non-iNat sources, resulting in maps with more observations. If dot maps are worth citing for the distribution of organisms, the GBIF maps are better than iNat. Aside from the photos and maps, everything on iNat is supposed to be sourced from somewhere else (including the About tab which is sourced from Wikipedia itself). Wikipedia could cite any of iNat's sources directly rather than via iNaturalist. Wikipedia is already generally following and citing the same taxonomic databases that the iNaturalist taxonomy uses.

For Wikipedia articles that are created via the template on iNat, I guess citing iNat is better than citing nothing at all, but the iNat citation could always be replaced with something better (it took me a couple years of trying to get iNat to simply remove a taxobox parameter in their template that they were misusing, so I'm not holding my breath that their template will ever include any better citations).

I have a couple observations on iNat data quality. It is intended to host observations of organisms. It is not intended to be a comprehensive taxonomic database. As such, its lists of lower taxa in a higher taxon (species in a genus, genera in a family) are not reliable. iNat curators are not encouraged to bother adding pages for organisms that are unlikely to be observed. It has only 145 virus species and 670 bacteria species (pretty much all of them things that infect another organism and cause a visible change in the appearance of the host). It doesn't list very many taxa known only from fossils. And if there isn't a globally comprehensive taxonomic database that covers a particular genus, a list of species in the genus may just be those in a regional source, with additional species added haphazardly as new observations/identification create a need to include them. iNat is supposed to only include vernacular (common) names that can be sourced somewhere else. But there have been names that have been made-up out of thin air on iNat. I'm pretty sure I came across one of them yesterday. We had an article on a New Zealand plant created at the title Karamingi. If you're using iNat's NZ site, karamingi is prominently displayed as the common name (if you use a non-NZ localization of iNat, you can find it listed as a Maori name if you scroll down the taxonomy section). I can't find karamingi attested anywhere on the internet aside from iNat (and some iNat observations rehosted on another site). But it is a hybrid of plants with the Maori names "karamū" and "mingimingi". Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on whether iNaturalist warrants inclusion on WP:RSPS currently, although if so maybe it should combined with other similar citizen science sites like eBird, but as I've said in previous discussions on RSN, iNaturalist should almost never be used as a reliable source. Individual observations, even "Research Grade" ones, are primary sources, and extremely easy to misuse, especially for new or controversial claims (new species and new range extensions are sometimes initially noted by iNaturalist users, but it often takes researchers following up to obtain specimens or otherwise verify records "on the ground" and publish them in reliable sources). Inferring the range or distributions of a species using iNaturalist postings is akin to going into a museum, examining various collection labels on individual specimens, and publishing a range map, e.g. original research; the fact that many museum collections are now searchable online doesn't mean those historic records are any less primary. The taxonomy the iNaturalist uses for any particular taxon may not necessarily be the one that Wikipedia uses (for good reason: taxonomy Wikipedia should be somewhat conservative, not flipping every time a new classification is published), and the common names that iNaturalist users suggest may have little usage in real life: especially for obscure invertebrates and fungi, most of which have no colloquially used "common name". I've seen people invent and add "common names" based on trivia like descriptive terms used on a single amateur blog post ("big green and black beetle") or an online breeder trying to market their exotic critters with sexy names. In short, nearly every bit of data on iNaturalist is already covered by better sources, and any data that hasn't been vetted or covered elsewhere is WP:UNDUE at best, WP:OR at worst. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to add it ([7]) based on what looks like consensus here and from the previous discussions. Please correct or revert if I was technically or factually wrong! Fram (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

swarajyamag is blacklisted. I to whitelist one article, swarajyamag.com/culture/how-catholic-repackaging-of-an-indian-fable-destroyed-its-purpose , was advised to post here to evalluate its individual reliability, but happily forgot about it. Requesting now. For me, it looks like a solid scholarly article, an analysis of one Tamili joke cycle. Whatever content is overlapping with other sources, there are no contradiction, but it also contains some additional observations. Unfortunately I cannot read hindi or tamili or whatever, so I cannot find other sources to replace this one. The author is descibed here (Yes, I am aware it is Wiki, but again, I cannot read அரவிந்தன் நீலகண்டன் , so I cannot write an en-wiki article about him, but frankly, I dont care) and appears to have publisehd quite a few books. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could give what you want to support with the source? This looks like a case where WP:RSCONTEXT is rather relevant. The author is well published but appears to be quite controversial. So the more controversial the content it's meant to support the more likely a better source will be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I see. The only part that may be considered controversial is:

Neelakandan notices that while the Hindu treatise used this story to elaborate on wisdom, commenters wrote that Beschi's goal was to satirize Hindu monks. The reason is that Buddhist monasteries were seen as an obstacle for Christian proselytizing. In particular, the "counting" story portrays monks as fools and an ordinary Hindu as a con man. Combined with the teachings that Catholic missionaries are enlightening the Tamils, Beschi's book essentially imposed the feeling of civilizational inferiority onto the colonized people.

But it is stated as an opinion, rather than a matter of fact, so I do not see a problem here. As you wrote yourself, the author is well published, not only books but in magazines as well, so he may be controversial; being Hindu-nationalistic, but definitely not a crackpot. Ha was even interviewed by BBC. And this opinion is rather in line with opinions about all Cristian proselytizers of the past. For example I've seen similar statements about treatment of Old Prussians by invading "crucifers". --Altenmann >talk 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have enough knowledge to give a good answer to this, hopefully another editor will chime in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This was brought up in Greenfield tornado's FAC, but Ethan Moriarty's source on the June First YouTube channel is used once in the article already. He also uploaded a new video very recently discussing more in depth about storm chasers and the tornado (alongside the Macksburg EF3). Since there was quite a bit of pushback, I want to get a bit more consensus before adding or removing anything.

• Moriarty has a master's in engineering. He doesn't have any inherent quality on severe weather, to my knowledge.
• His YouTube channel, June First, contains generally well-produced videos.
  • These videos, however, do not cite their sources outside of the video.
• June First's website is junefirstweather.com.
  • On various subpages of this website, June First (Ethan and several others) present themselves professionally, connecting themselves to Quinnipiac University and several other PhD researchers in a professional setting - see the Engineering Projects subheader.
  • Copywrite is spelt wrong on all subpages. That stood out to me, but other than that, no obvious flaws.
• The two June First sources I'm interested are both YouTube videos.
  • The first is already in the article, in section #Damage analysis - Was Greenfield an EF5 Tornado? - DAMAGE ANALYSIS: Greenfield, IA EF4 on YouTube.
  • The second is a newer video I want to add to #Tornado summary - Greenfield: Iowa's Controversial Tornado on YouTube.

Is June First as a collective reliable for this article? The reliability of them as a source is questionable, but with attribution, would be great for adding comprehensiveness to the article. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable - YouTube as a whole is unreliable, and sources aren’t cited, the biggest red flag to me — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I will point out, the video in question is layed out more like a physical mathmatics proof, resembling that of a academic-paper-style of proof, and all the "steps"/"work" is shown on the video. Doing calculations and showing those calculations would probably fall maybe under WP:CALC / WP:BLUE. Does he need to cite why 2+2=4, for instance? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The type of surveying work he's doing is a lot more in-depth than "2+2=4". They're, yes, what you'd expect in an academic paper, but the question is whether or not Moriarty has the qualifications to have his word taken at face value. Departure– (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but YouTube is unreliable. So, no, Moriarty isn’t reliable. — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

YouTube is a self-published source and can't be put as wholly unreliable at a website basis - see WP:RSPYOUTUBE. Reliability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in my view, which is why I'm bringing this here. Departure– (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine. In that case, “He doesn't have any inherent quality on severe weather” is enough for me to say unreliable. We have no idea his expertise on severe weather, which is the overarching point of his channel. — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

But his analysis is from an engineering perspective. In the video, he shows the physical mathematical proof (basically working through it like a long physic-math problem). Does a meteorologist need to work through the same mathematical proof to be considered reliable on a parking stop being moved by the winds of a tornado? I'm not saying you are wrong, but in terms of this exact question, based on the statements cited, this is not meteorological, but engineering topics. For example, "He calculated that winds of at least 247 miles per hour (398 km/h) were needed to rip the concrete stop blocks out of the ground if they were cracked prior to being pulled up, or 283 miles per hour (455 km/h) if they were uncracked prior to being ripped out of the ground." Who would be qualified to say that sentence? That is the general question. Does he qualify as being reliable specifically from an engineering perspective; i.e. is he reliable to do mathematical & physics-based calculations on damage from a tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

But his analysis is from an engineering perspective is true only for his engineering videos. He doesn’t just do engineering, which is the issue. For example, his “why there haven’t been EF5s” video doesn’t factor in his engineering expertise — EF5 ^(questions?) 15:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additional Comments – Not giving a full WP:!VOTE yet, just some more context to all the info above. The video referenced in the Greenfield tornado article is this video. No outside sources are listed, but for 46 minutes, Moriarty explains the damage from an engineering perspective (mathmatical & physics-based proof shown). Additionally, Moriarty is used in several sections with several references on the Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes article and the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado article. I will give a full !VOTE later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• The block of text sourced to YouTube analysis is this:

In addition to radar data, an analysis by mechanical engineer Ethan Moriarty noted that across the street from the Adair County Memorial Hospital, the tornado ripped new concrete parking lot stop blocks from the ground, which were installed sometime after August 2023. He calculated that winds of at least 247 miles per hour (398 km/h) were needed to rip the concrete stop blocks out of the ground if they were cracked prior to being pulled up, or 283 miles per hour (455 km/h) if they were uncracked prior to being ripped out of the ground. The tornado, once nearly a mile wide at one point, had shrunk in size significantly before impacting Greenfield, with the conservation of angular momentum, a concept where rotational acceleration increases as a rotating body contracts, being a potential explanation for the tornado's intensity near the end of its life. In the conclusion of his analysis, Moriarty stated that he believed the tornado was "without question a tornado capable of EF5 damage", while stating that, had the tornado been rated on a scale other than the Enhanced Fujita scale, it may have received a higher rating.

YouTube enthusiasts are Not Reliable for tornado ratings or physics. I also have concerns that a current shibboleth in online tornado fandom, a belief that National Weather Service experts are systematically under-rating intense tornados, might be a POV that's creeping into Wikipedia through use of low-quality, excessively "online" sourcing, as may be the case with this text. Geogene (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, it’s a belief with reliable sources to back it up (see EF5 drought!) — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

But yes, there usually is an influx of “EF scale bad” users during tornado season. The Wx community tends to be on the younger side (also backed up in a reliable source) so it’s no surprise people hold strong opinions that lead to NOTFORUM situations. — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Look at all the low quality sourcing in EF5 drought. Blogs, YouTube, a primary journal or two, and the rest of it journalism. Is there a wider source quality problem in Wikipedia's tornado articles? Geogene (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m going to have to strongly disagree with the notion that every source in that article is unreliable, but this is about Moriarty and not every tornado article. If you want to reach a wider community base, bring it up at WT:WEATHER. — EF5 ^(questions?) 17:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say every source in that article is unreliable. I noted it's an entire article, ostensibly about climatology, cobbled together from newspapers and Weather Channel-like infotainment. This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where sourcing is discussed, and which takes precedence over whatever local consensus might exist at Project Weather. Geogene (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

cobbled together from newspapers and Weather Channel-like infotainment is how weather articles are written, how else would you want to see them sourced? A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter how "low-quality" you think it is. We don't have hyperscientific, NWS-based studies for everything; this isn't WP:ASTRONOMY. — EF5 ^(questions?) 18:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@EF5 and Geogene: Speaking from experience you will find that as weather articles develop, expand and grow, sources such as the Weather Channel get dropped and replaced with more reliable and better quality sources such as damage reports from the NCDC, local NDMO or even the WMO which help tell the story better. You will find that using high quality reliable sources sourcing, is a part of the FAC criteria and that the Weather Project has had to justify the use of certain sources.Jason Rees (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Jason Rees, you're very much right in that, but we shouldn't be expecting FA-level sourcing for every weather article. Geogene and I will just have to agree-to-disagree, then. — EF5 ^(questions?) 22:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: While I agree with you that we cant expect every single weather article to have high quality reliable sources all of the time, what we can do is ensure that the scope of the article is appropriate. For example I personally wonder if the EF5 Drought article wouldn't be better off being summarized in the List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes with the list being cleaned up to look something like this. As for your disagreement with @Geogene:, I would state that their beliefs are interesting and worthy of some thought on how to better present the information.Jason Rees (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there.

In the retrospective reviews section of "Romeo + Juliet" I wanted to highlight how some retrospectives have come to a very smiilar conclusion about this film, years later. One of the sources to do this is https://www.maketheswitch.com . au/article/feature-romeo-and-juliet-20-years-on - and I was hoping I could cite just this page and the quote "There's so much in this film that enhances not only an understanding of classical works, but of modern language". I understand this site may be reliable in other ways, but this review mirrors others, so I personally would consider this one page a reliable source and am not sure if an exception could be made.

(This is my first time engaging with this process, so I hope that's enough context. I was actually only trying to add this source to my "Changes" comment to start with, hoping discussion might be sparked there) I'll paste my original comment below:

/* Retrospective reviews */ Added retrospective reviews. There's one that backs up another quote. I thought this would highlight agreement. However the second source is deemed unreliable. If it mirrors a reliable source can it _then_ be included as a second source? https://web.archive.org/web/20240616160138/https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/feature-romeo-and-juliet-20-years-on "There's so much in this film that enhances not only an understanding of classical works, but of modern language"

UPDATE: Err, this page bans banned linked but seems to be the page for asking about banned links. How does one get around this catch-22? I've added some spaces, hoping that will work! Retnee (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The site was blacklisted because they were spamming links into articles, sources aren't blacklisted on reliability. You can ask for specific links to be whitelisted on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
There doesn't appear to have been any discussion on the sites reliability. From looking at their 'about us' page[https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about] their contributors range from people with decades of experience in media to someone who worked at a cinema. I would say the reliability of their reviews would depend on who wrote it. Unfortunately the review for 'Romeo + Juliet' was written by someone who doesn't appear have any background in media other than a amateur passion for film. It's not easy to find any details about them, but they appear in this archived 'about us' page[https://web.archive.org/web/20170326105429/https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about]. If you can I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Washington Free Beacon

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I find it somewhat perplexing that the Washington Free Beacon is listed as "generally unreliable". It looks like it was last discussed in 2020. Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner and Washington Times are listed as "no consensus." In the conservative mediasphere, I would argue that in the present day, we have that pretty much backwards. See Politico and The Washington Post. The Post described the Free Beacon as "The rare media outlet on the right devoted to original reporting was ahead of the pack on the story about plagiarism allegations against university president Claudine Gay..." They are doing original reporting that is being picked up by mainstream outlets (WP:USEBYOTHERS). They seem to meet WP:NEWSORG while being WP:BIASED. Can someone help me understand why this outlet seems to have been effectively blacklisted? And is this the appropriate venue for re-upping past discussion, or should we do that at WP:RSN? Marquardtika (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, this has been on my mind because of Tara McGowan. She was married and is now divorced and dating U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. However, the only sources mentioning her divorce are the Washington Free Beacon and the New York Post. So without being able to use these sources, her article makes it appear that she's still married while dating another man. Which seems like a WP:BLP issue, no? Is using the Free Beacon worse than erroneously stating that someone is still married yet dating someone else? Because AFAICT, that seems to be the party line on Wikipedia, which leaves me scratching my head...Marquardtika (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The divorce is also noted by Washington Digest. I'm not familiar with that site but their About Us says the right stuff and their home page doesn't look tabloid-ish or click-baity. (I know the thread is about WFB, just hoped to help with the McGowan issue.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Washington Digest looks sketchy to me. It lists its address as being in Austin, Texas, which seems strange since it's a site about Washington, D.C., so I did some digging. It is published by American Digest Media which is funded by a fellow named Shaun Connell. The article reads kind of like it was created by AI. Marquardtika (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That's also clearly made with WordPress. (I doubt it ever proclaims to be about local DC news, though.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

A single source should not be used in that context anyways... Your desired use case leaves me scratching my head... Even if its reliable you can't use it for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

You can see the reasons in the discussions linked. RSN is the right venue. I can move this there if you want me to. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you would move it that would be great, thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

the original "RFC" is here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Using_The_Washington_Free_Beacon_in_politically_related_BLPs_-_is_it_an_RS?

• i see 5 votes to deprecate, 1 vote to say unreliable but don't deprecate, and 1 vote saying reliable. that's hardly an RFC
• some of those claims in the RFC are interesting, might be worth asking if WFB is worth it in BLP claims, especially for highly salacious details
• they seem to have trappings of an editorial control [8], and their editor in chief has somewhat impressive credentials suggesting some control and review [9]

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't an RfC, and it looks like there was no RfC requirement for deprecation back then. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Generally" unreliable doesn't mean unreliable in all cases, so for a claim that's pretty much the opposite of WP:EXCEPTIONAL (for example, that someone who is dating has divorced their ex) I expect editors ought to be able to use there judgement as to what source is best. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
— WP:GUnRel

This is not any of the latter and a very tabloid affair, and I wouldn't have IAR'd without making sure of the Examiner's reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, tabloids are not reliable, and I don't think there would be a different answer here, but WP:GUNREL doesn't override WP:RSCONTEXT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The only contexts in which such GUnRel sources should be used are probably as a primary source, which is indeed also mentioned in GUnRel; perhaps you know of some other context in which they should be used? Saying things about a living person's romantic life is squarely within BLP territory in which GUnRel sourcing definitely qualifies as "poorly sourced" and removed-on-sight per WP:BLPRS. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

We should always used the best available source, but that clause of the policy indicates, also as part of the bolded text, that it applies to contentious material. I find it hard to believe that a claim that someone who is dating other people has divorced their ex could be reasonably argued to be contentious, but either way, such an argument would not be in the scope of this noticeboard. If one wishes to raise the argument that relationship trivia is gossipy junk, then I would take the position that it shouldn't be included regardless of whether or not there's a passing mention in a slightly better source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Off topic, but why should we note who she is currently dating? Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you could have a point there. It was added here by an IP address with a link to Semafor. I didn't add it, but guessing it was of interest since she's a major player in the media and he's an elected official. But could definitely be worth a separate discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It got the GU based on two discussions which are at at least that level. If you want to elevate its status, I'd set up another RFC. This risks lowering its status too, of course - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely have an RFC about this. I don't think it would be "another" RFC though, since I am not seeing a past RFC...just a couple of discussions from years ago with a handful of editors. Marquardtika (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with the observations made by the OP. Which were him agreeing with my observations earlier :-) But yeah, we have it pretty much backwards. Free Beacon is a little better than some of the others in my experience and I think RS will bear that out. Andre🚐 18:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

An RFC is a good idea. There should be a clear distinction between the pre- and post-2018/2019 eras of WFB. In the first, it presented a journalistic veneer over what was essentially a political advocacy project, leading to many of the concerns raised in the 2020 discussion. Since then, however, it has functioned as a serious WP:NEWSORG when reporting facts. Much of the previous discussion occurred before the transition in newsroom leadership from Matthew Continetti, a political commentator, to Eliana Johnson, a professional journalist. Longhornsg (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that there is a relevant divide at play here from Continetti to Johnson and a new RfC would be useful. - Amigao (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, it sounds like there is consensus for an RFC. I started a draft at User:Marquardtika/sandbox. I have never done this before and welcome any feedback (also feel free to edit my sandbox directly, I don't mind). Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

In Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an editor introduced BLP content sourced to The Megyn Kelly Show, a podcast that can be heard on several platforms (e.g., SiriusXM, Apple, Spotify) and that also plays on Megyn Kelly's YouTube channel. Although she is a former TV show host, my sense is that this show is self-published. In this tweet, she said that the show is 100% owned by her. If it's self-published, it cannot be used as a source for BLP content about others, per WP:BLPSPS. I tried discussing the publication status with the other editor on the article's talk page, but the two of us didn't resolve it, and we've also had conflicting views on some other things, so I figured I'd ask here in the hopes of getting an outside opinion. Pinging @Mkstokes in case you want to participate in this discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I no longer care, @FactOrOpinion. You have challenged every single edit that I've made or suggested. Think about that. Every single one, literally. And never on grounds that the information that I'm providing is wrong. Rather, you just either want it deleted or stated in a way that either softens the impact or completely diminishes it. I'm fine with the article being misleading just like every other political article on Wikipedia, espectially if it has anything to do with Donald Trump. You win. Mkstokes (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mkstokes: It doesn't matter whether the information is right or not. It matters whether it is able to be verified. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is non-negotiable. If the only sources you can find for things are not reliable, secondary sources, then that information is not able to be included in Wikipedia. Ask yourself this - if something really is true, why can you only find low-quality sources for it? Just because you believe something does not mean it is true. Just because you can find some sources to agree with you doesn't mean it's true. I can find "sources" that say vaccines cause autism - even though that has been thoroughly debunked and is blatantly false. That is why we require high quality sources that have been reviewed by others who are trustworthy and have a reputation for fact-checking for their accuracy.

@FactOrOpinion: The Megyn Kelly Show is an interview show/podcast. It's been picked up by SiriusXM, but it is ultimately an interview/talk show. So I think it'd be important to look at who is being interviewed - in this case, Will Chamberlain purportedly (I haven't reviewed the actual podcast to confirm). It may be appropriate in some cases to use an interview from the Megyn Kelly Show as the citation of the person who is the guest. But that is still a primary source, and it's definitely not appropriate to use for controversial information about living people. On the other hand, if she hosts Neil deGrasse Tyson and he talks about astrophysics, it may be appropriate to include him in line with WP:SPS, even though he didn't "publish" it - just like it may be appropriate if he wrote a guest opinion essay in the NYT it may be appropriate to source it for his views. Unless there's evidence that the Megyn Kelly Show is maliciously editing what guests say... that would change things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, thanks, I'm only asking whether it's self-published, since it's not the case that all interview shows/podcasts are self-published. I understand the rest. There is no noticeboard that specifically focuses on questions of self-publication, and I brought it here because I know that SPS questions are sometimes discussed here, and this is the noticeboard that Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard redirects to. The edit is a statement by Will Chamberlain about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyer, not a statement by Chamberlain about himself. If others agree with me that the show is self-published, then I will delete the quote as a BLPSPS violation.

Mkstokes, you've previously called WP a "game," so perhaps that's why you think in terms of someone "winning." I am not trying to "win." I am trying to abide by relevant policies, and am seeking outside opinions since you wouldn't resolve this particular issue with me, and in the hopes that if it turned out that other editors agreed with me, you wouldn't dismiss their opinions the way you dismiss mine. Your claim "You have challenged every single edit that I've made or suggested" is false. I've challenged several of your edits because I believe they are inconsistent with policy; I didn't challenge others. Here are examples of some that I didn't challenge: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (and there were a number of smaller ones too). I wish you would stop making false claims about me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, as it is now, it pushes up against BLPSPS - but the information that's being presented (that MS-13 has cliques in the DC area and that the government has at least once before claimed that the Western clique operates in the DC area in a court filing) by this quote isn't really BLP information. I wonder if everything but the first sentence he is quoted saying were removed, would that satisfy your concerns over it being BLP information? Because then it would only be making a claim about the DOJ's historical filings and/or the gang itself - neither of which are BLP information. Part of the "introductory paragraph" (the paragraph proceeding the quote) would need removed as well. But the information about the DOJ filings is already present in the article (under the section "2019 detention and bond hearings") cited to the Washington Examiner - and in that Examiner article they themselves cite Chamberlain's Twitter thread.

In other words, is it maybe not as urgent to remove the entire statement by Chamberlain, but perhaps just change it so it is not information related to the living person and then tie it in with the Examiner article that's cited at the other point of the article? I don't have a strong opinion either way - I'm just trying to help find a middle ground because I can see how it's confusing to someone that we cite an Examiner article to include information which the source gets from Chamberlain, but we can't cite Chamberlain himself explaining that same information in an interview. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It was the statement about Abrego Garcia's lawyer that I was the most concerned about. I'm guessing that Chamberlain would meet the EXPERTSPS qualification, though I haven't investigated. Is he an RS for that sentence ("the Western clique does actually operate in Maryland and DOJ has routinely claimed that in any number of filings, plea agreements, indictments"), and does it add anything to what we already have? I don't know. The example he gave on Twitter was from a RICO case filed in 2010 with over 700 entries in the case docket, ~20 defendants, several superseding indictments, ..., so for all I know, he's just talking about filings, plea agreements, and indictments from that one case. If I only heard his statement and didn't know anything more, I'd have assumed that he meant multiple cases, and that the info is current. Does he have evidence beyond that one case? I don't know. In another tweet, he suggests that a 2015 article "echoes" what he found in the one indictment he cited. But it turns out that that article is based on a different part of the very same indictment. (Did he know this and pretend that it was different? Did he not know this because he didn't check? I don't know.) In other tweets he says things like "likely lying" and "likely" a gang member, as if he had some way to judge the likelihood.

I don't mind citing the Washington Examiner piece because the DOJ statement is clear (and I see the DOJ indictment as the underlying source, not Chamberlain; he's just noting that he found it and not doing any particular secondary analysis). It's probably OK with me to limit it to the first sentence and add it to the "2019 detention and bond hearings" section, but I'm still a little iffy about whether he's an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez GroundNews uses external independent organizations to determine if news organization left, right, center, etc. So does AllSides. What does Wikipedia use? It's own editors. So it's definition of "reliable sources" is ny nature biased. So let's stop the preaching, okay. Furthermore, reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period. So let's stop with the bullshit. No Ph.D defends their dissertation by exclusively citing secondary resources. So Wikipedia has it completely backwards. For instance, the vast majority of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the national media by Wikipedia defined reliable sources. Only "low quality" sources noted the COVID-19 protocols were unscientific and the source of the virus itself was a lab leak. So what the he'll are you talking about? So-called "high quality" sources got it wrong! So spare me the bullshit, okay? All you've said is that the media machine has a monopoly on the truth. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, then. 🫡🇺🇸 Mkstokes (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe strongly in representing all sides: not just sources with a reputation for expertise, accuracy, and fact-checking, but also sources known for their ignorance, for patterns of dishonesty, for their indifference to the truth, or for their lack of professional standards. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

All sources are biased and that specifically includes any source that claims it's not, such as groundnews or allsides. Their opinions on reliability and political stance have zero relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it's those policies and guidelines that determine reliability not editors opinions.
Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and by restating what high quality sources report rather than what editors personally believe is right or wrong, this is by design. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

AllSides does not evaluate source accuracy or credibility, so it is irrelevant for determining whether a source is reliable. The WP:BLPSPS policy applies to all claims from all sources regardless of political orientation. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mkstokes: your *belief* that COVID was from a lab leak or that the protocols were ineffective is your right. Both of those are blatantly and demonstrably proven wrong though. You are claiming that because you can find sources that agree with your narrative, they must be high quality. That’s simply not true. If you want to trust sources that have a proven track record of outright lying, misleading, not making corrections when they’re proven wrong.. that’s your right. But it doesn’t mean that others will do the same, nor that other people will ever listen to you. It has nothing related to 1984 at all. In fact, you trying to say that because you believe something it must be included - that’s closer to 1984 than people prohibiting conspiracy theories from being parroted on Wikipedia.

To summarize, you have every right to believe demonstrably false things, and even conspiracy theories. But you don’t have the right to force others to listen to you parrot those falsehoods or conspiracy theories. Also, stop using those emoji at the end of your statements. It’s patronizing and rude. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 15:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for commenting again, but Mkstokes, you are the only person here that's pushing the idea that only certain media sources are appropriate. In fact, Wikipedia uses a wide range of sources - if you go to any article, unless it is about a current event (for which "media" is the only sources that are going to be available), I think you'll find that well under half of the sources are "media". And you talk about "reputable researchers" valuing secondary sources - Wikipedia does too! If you value secondary sources so much, why are you pushing so hard to use primary sources (interviews with this one person, or his tweets) to include something in this article? Lastly, you claim that the "vast majority" of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the media - this is demonstrably untrue itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether Mkstokes knows what confirmation bias is. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, based on everything that Mkstokes has said on Talk:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I'm guessing that when he wrote "reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period," he actually meant "reputable researchers value primary sources over secondary sources, period." For example, on that talk page, he's said things like:

Wikipedia is the only place on the planet that refuses to use primary source materials for articles about a living person. Rather, it will only use secondary source material about a living person. So, even if the Supreme Court says X, if a "reliable" secondary source doesn't write about it, X is deemed to not exist on Wikipedia for living persons. Meanwhile, in this same article, we are looking askew at "hearsay" evidence. Secondary sourcing almost by definition is hearsay, which is why every academic institution on the planet prioritizes primary source information over secondary source information.

This is why he says "Wikipedia has it completely backwards" and why he's "pushing so hard." He especially wants to be able to cite court documents in the article, and has repeatedly argued against the BLPPRIMARY proscription against using court documents as sources for WP content about living persons. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, ultimately, I understand why BLPPRIMARY specifically calls out "trial transcripts", but I do slightly disagree with it. For example, if I have a Wikipedia article (which I don't), and I'm found guilty of a crime by a court, then I don't see why - other than an abundance of caution - it would be problematic to cite the court's final ruling of guilt for that crime. While I disagree with Mkstokes that "the vast majority of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the national media by Wikipedia defined reliable sources" - but I would agree that the vast majority of state/local court cases aren't covered in secondary sources, often even if the person is otherwise notable. There is obviously a question over whether it is due to include such convictions in the first place - but technically it would violate BLPPRIMARY to include the court's final ruling as the source for the simple statement of "X was found guilty of (crime) by (court)".

I've gotten off topic I think now, so I'll leave it with this - even if my view that the above would be okay (using a court record of a conviction as a primary source for that simple statement of fact that anyone who looks at the court record would be able to clearly see stated in it) is accepted (which it isn't); that still would not allow Mkstokes to cite the claims made by one party during the court case as a primary source for information about a living person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If Megyn Kelly owns her own show "100%", then yes, I would consider that self-published. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:RS, it doesn't matter if the content is accurate or not. It matters that MK is the person responsible for approving what she reports. That makes it effectively self published. It would be a bit like the editorial board of a news paper publishing their views on a topic. In such a case we would treat the information like an editorial, not normal factual reporting. Springee (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Springee That's a very good point. If the editorial board of the New York Times provides an opinion about a political issue, it can be cited because it's a reliable source, even though be definition it is also self-published. Yet there is a blanket ban against self-published citations for WP:BLP. The editorial board of the New York Times is untimately responsible for approving EVERYTHING they publish. As for all comments from @Berchanhimez and @George Ho, they aren't worth responding. I'm for getting the story 100% correct, period. Wikipedia's policies ensure the opposite and would NEVER be used by a reliable source. Imagine the New York Times saying it's journalist can't use primary source info?!? That's seems strange to me. In this case, Abrego Garcia is the source of the claim that he illegally arrived in the U.S. around March 25, 2011. This article is supposed to be following the policy of WP:BLP. Yet we can't even add to the mainspace a claim made by the living person whom this page is about! That seems strange to me as well. Mkstokes (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The limitation on the use of self-published sources in articles about living people isn't just a matter of reliability. The WP:Biographies of living persons policy imposes limitations beyond just reliability, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY are based on concerns other than just verifying content to reliable sources. They're not something that can be ignored or argued away, other than attempting to change those policies. If the subject has made a statement about themselves, specifically only about themselves, than it can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF that is a limited exception though. It can't be a person making statements about a third party in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that "In this case, Abrego Garcia is the source of the claim that he illegally arrived in the U.S. around March 25, 2011 ... Yet we can't even add to the mainspace a claim made by the living person whom this page is about!" is mistaken. If Abrego Garcia himself had made a statement about himself in a self-published source, then we could use it as a source, as long as that source and the WP content abide by WP:BLPSELFPUB. The problem is that you wish to use a court document in which someone else makes a claim about what Abrego Garcia said. That is not an example of BLPSELFPUB. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be a bit like the editorial board of a news paper publishing their views on a topic. In such a case we would treat the information like an editorial, not normal factual reporting. This isn't true; or, at least, it's missing a vital piece. WP:RSOPINION is for opinion-pieces in sources that are otherwise reliable, ie. the publisher must have proper editorial controls and the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy RS requires, even when being cited as an opinion. RSOPINION doesn't automatically make all opinions published everywhere reliable as long as we add attribution, it allows us to use opinions published in reliable sources. An opinion published in a SPS (or other unreliable source, ie. one with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or one that has no meaningful editorial controls) cannot be used even with attribution, outside of the limited restrictions allowed by SPS. And obviously this violates SPS. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

With regard to talk shows, in no universe were any of them ever considered reliable for statements of fact. I suppose some of them might be used under WP:RSOPINION, assuming consideration of due weight, though that would indeed not be an option for self-published shows such as this one.

To be honest though, I don't think the unreliability of the source is the main issue here, I expect the treating of Wikipedia as a battleground is the primary inhibitor towards productive collaboration. Ultimately, if one wishes to right great wrongs, I can only say that Wikipedia, not being the root cause of those wrongs, is not a place that can resolve those wrongs. We are not responsible for the reliability or lack thereof of sources that chose to take certain points of view, and if an editor wouldn't accept that, I don't think there is much we can do other than move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that Berliner Morgenpost (morgenpost.de) is cited quite a lot in articles that are related to politics, news, sports etc. Which also includes currently relevant people, events and organizations, such as Friedrich Merz or Alternative for Germany. I wondered if such a small newspaper can be considered a reliable source and can be safely used in articles with such high relevance? Kacza195 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more in which contexts you're unsure about the reliablity of the Morgenpost? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a German source. Not even sure if we can evaluate it adequately. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that, for example, Berliner Morgenpost is used in an article about demographics of Berlin, including number of countries its residents originate from, percentage of migrants, which foreign languages dominate etc. But also murders of M. Nils, I. Abdulkadir and Matiullah Jabarkhil by German law enforcement, their reporting of arrests and altercations with Hells Angels and Bandidos in Germany, National Democratic Party/The Homeland's stance on Rudolf Hess, Friedrich Merz personal life, Berlin Pride attendance in 2019 and so on. I wondered if Berliner Morgenpost can be considered reliable enough to be used as a source in such cases. Kacza195 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for going into detail. I'd say it can be considered reliable per WP:Newsorg as a well established newspaper. Also looks like Berliner Morgenpost didn't get into any trouble with the German Press Council, which would've been the case if there were grave issues with its reliability (only searched back ~10 years). With the topics you described, there should be coverage from multiple sources available. I'd opt for a non-newspaper reliable source where availabe. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The German article might be of interest here, as well as WP:NONENG. FortunateSons (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

First, let me admit that I have never been to Berlin, and the couple of German classes I had to take as an undergrad were decades ago. But I looked at this and it seems to be reliable for "local items" such as the water shortage there, etc. Also they cover politics given that they are in Berlin. But they would not be reliable for comments on the economy of China etc. given their local nature, and lack of worldwide reporters, etc. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you consider it reliable for topics and events outside of Berlin but within Germany? Kacza195 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would assume yes, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Generally speaking, larger regional German newspapers are reliable within the entire country or even all of Central Europe. FortunateSons (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Kacza, I know that this may be a bit too techniocal to become a Wiki policy, but I think the concept pf reliability is not a yes/no issue but requires a confidence factor. In this case, I would say the reliability of the newspaper is 90% about items in Berlin, and about 50% about those in Paris. For places in between scale that linearly, so for Cologne it would be about 75% reliable. By the way, the term "generally reliable" is called a linguistic value in multivalued reasoning circles. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI: purely out of curiosity I decided to actually do the math, and for events in Cologne it would be about 68% reliable. 75% reliability would be applied to e.g. Bayreuth in Upper Franconia. Kacza195 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

One article I've been editing in relies heavily on this site. A quick look at the About page shows it is a single person running it. [10]. He is pretty clear when he says "My work has also involved researching Puerto Rican, Mexican, white and African American migration along with researching the neighborhoods they lived or still live in, in order to determine the origins of these streets gangs in correlation with interviews and other research. I have been doing this research for over 20 years; however, I do not have any background as an “official” researcher, I simply have been doing it out of my own home." I just want to get a second opinion on the reliability. I feel like it doesn't meet RS standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, sometimes amateurs are reputable in niche fields, and a quick google searh for this Zach Jones (A.K.A Zook) did indicate that he has some respect. His an interesting read, though. and some do quote him [11]. and his readership has been growing. This book by David Farber published by Cambridge University Press praises him: "grateful for the amazing work of Chicago gang historian Zach Jones, whose site, Chicagoganghistory.com is the best source for a detailed, sure-handed..." I guess Farber's favorable voice counts. --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I understand sometimes amateurs are. That's why I'm here. I'm not sure that minimal stuff raises him to a RS. The lack of verification/editorial oversight troubles me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • You do have a point in terms of our policies. I didnt vote yay/nay, just gave some indications. --Altenmann >talk 21:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Jones seems to be an amateur or folk historian, that would in general mean that his site should be treated as non-expert opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • What he does is not rocket science and does not need academic credentials. And since he spent years of research he had become an expert, recognized, e.g., by a noted scholar, David Farber (see above), which basically amounts to peer review. And of course, his findings must be attributed to him, because it is not a widespread knowledge "sky is blue". --Altenmann >talk 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Dengrating history as a field isn't going to get you anywhere and he doesn't even have non-academic credentials... No that doesn't basically amount to peer review, that is a completely absurd claim. I would also note that Farber is not himself a criminal historian, he's an American history generalist so not really a peer if thats what you're going for... Even if he was widely used by others I'd still say no, that is the lowest standard after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

So possibly accurate, possibly expert, possibly knowledgeable, but technically unreliable not reliable? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Any other thoughts? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Diff 1, Diff 2

Hi, a long time user, first time asker. I feel a bit stupid, not knowing the proper Wikipedia legalese, and if this is a wrong place, I apologize.

A user has added a bit of info on a person, apparently written by the subject (Chkhikvishvili is a leader of the mentioned group). But it's not really a Biography. I know self-published/primary sources/autobiographies are frowned upon, but they point out similar sources are used elsewhere. I know I probably should be able to coherently argue why they're bad, but I exclusively use news and academic sources so I have little knowledge regarding self-published sources.

Thanks RKT7789 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The diffs here are not WP:ABOUTSELF as they refer to group actions rather than the actions of the author. As such it is not an appropriate WP:SPS for use. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Does ABOUTSELF not also apply to some extent to groups? ABOUTSELF says "themselves", which is plural, it doesn't specify one person. Not saying this is a great use case but I've seen numerous instances of people using sources from an organization/group to cite basic facts about it. E.g. a company's or school's website says when it was founded

I wouldn't use it here because these facts aren't basic and it doesn't appear to be due weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Has this ever been WP:Published? It's Chkhikvishvili's manifesto that he gave to followers and some other people, but I don't think it's publicly available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC) ** addendum ** This was answered on the articles talk page, it is available to the public online so has been WP:Published by Wikipedia's definition. Discussion continues on that page about it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I know it's poor form for me to spread disputes across multiple pages, but how would you respond to the claim it's an appropriate primary source? RKT7789 (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:PRIMARY doesn't give a definitive answer but does provide some good guidance. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Qualifies the careful use of primary sources by suggesting they should be reputably published. This source was not "reputably" published. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge I don't think we can say that an educated person with access to a primary source like Nazi Terrorist (auto)biography could successfully verify the information. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. This would suggest, as it discusses living subjects, that we should exercise extra caution in the handling of primary sources.

Based on these three policy excerpts I would say that my policy interpretation would be to exclude the source but I will concede that policy, as described, has ambiguity and demands an editor judgment call here. So I'm going to say I would personally remove this but other editors might feel differently without deviating from policy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Panimur page which were given from non native sources such as Assam sentinel has misinterpretation and misinformation about it. All the actual information about it, is in local FB page media outlets written in languages of the locals(Dimasa language). Can we use those pages for citation or reference instead of Assam sentinel? Mishimao (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This is going to a be a very generalised answer, as you question isn't very specific. Facebook isn't generally regarded as a reliable source. The exception would be if a newspaper or other already reliable source was making Facebook posts, but even then other sources would be preferable. Sources do not have to be in English, see WP:NOENG, so there no reason sources in Dimasa can't be used. Sometimes if there is disagreement between it should be discussed in the article.

In general secondary sources are preferred, Wikipedia is interested in what is said about a subject not what a subject says about itself. So newspaper published in Dimasa would be acceptable but your personal knowledge, or other peoples personal would not. If there's any disagreement with how articles are edited they can be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

One editor on NewsBreak claims that a library blog is not sufficient to define a company as a purveyor of Pink-slime journalism. Another editor says that it is a fine source and that the claim is correct based on the definition of pink-slime journalism.

The post is "written by members of the Library's Information Integrity Team, is part of a series that covers disinformation and other related subjects. The goal is to help create a well-informed citizenry of active participants who shape our world." i know you're a dog (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I have also requested a 3O https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements i know you're a dog (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is an appropriate source because the authors, librarians who specialize in information integrity, can be considered experts with a sufficiently relevant expertise related to the claim. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Its an SPS, no it is not reliable for such an accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s not a SPS just because it’s a blog. i know you're a dog (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Blogs are SPS as they are written and edited by the same person, or persons. In this case the library staff. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? This is not a "blog" in the sense of "I go to wordpress.com and start a site and post whatever I want on it", and it is certainly not a self-published source in any sense (it is published by the public library on its website). WP:SPS sheds no light whatsoever on whether an informational article written by members of the Pima County Public Library's Information Integrity Team and published on the PCPL website is a reliable source. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

LOL, so (hold on?) its not an SPS because it is written by the staff of the library, and published by them on... their website? Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes indeed "the library" is not the same entity as "its employees". Can you personally publish your opinions on your employer's website? Does your employer have named groups like "Information Integrity Team" whose work is not overseen by anyone? This website is a "blog" in precisely the same way WP:NEWSBLOGs are "blogs", which is to say, not in any way relevant to self-published status or reliability. (Whether it is a reliable source or not for this purpose is a question that requires an analysis carried out in a competent way, not whatever it is you're doing here.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I addressed this in depth on the talk page, but will paste it here for posterity:

WP:BLOG is about self published sources, not blogs in general. In addition, it reads Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Furthermore, (and I can't believe I have to defend libraries and librarians, but here we are) librarians who work on an information integrity team certainly meet the bar for experts. There is no inherent reason to expect that they are biased, and librarians are often tasked with research in order to present information fairly and accurately. Librarians are a critical asset for academics and they work hand in hand when conducting research. The Pima County Library appears to require a masters in library science for even their entry level positions (as is common in the vast majority of libraries today.)

Moreover:

• This specific post is referenced by Snopes, which is GREL.
• This post is also linked to by Ted Sullivan, who says he is a " Retired senior lecturer in Journalism at University of Northampton". That claim can be verified by the university where he worked, as well as two different newspapers.

• And other posts from the library's blog are linked to by:

• Discover Magazine
• How Stuff Works

As well as used as a source for:

• John Dillinger
• Scotch Bonnet (es.wikipedia)

Needless to say, WP:BLOG doesn't apply here. i know you're a dog (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well as disagree as it is a self-published blog (it says its a blog). But in order to avoid wp:bludgeon, this is my last comment with a firm "No". Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh good I thought you might want to engage with the clear demonstration of your error, just plain last-wordism is better. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Two more sources have been identified since I posted this:

Nieman Lab

The pivot fund for the Georgia news collaborative i know you're a dog (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

These three sources are all fine; the two new ones probably better than the original. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If agree with 128.164.. these seem much stronger sources than the original one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• The issue here isn’t SPS but DUE WEIGHT. How much weight should we give to the opinion of a county library’s staff? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Unless it's in respect to the county it's serves I would say none, but it's a discussion for the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you say that? Can’t librarians be expert in subjects that have implications outside their county? i know you're a dog 18:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  The facts are established by Reuters, along with other RS. The issue is the use of the phrase, which at the time was only sourced to the library. i know you're a dog 18:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• So use the actual RSs and don't use the SPS from the library. Seems like a simple solution here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The source: Ecker et al has written the book "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" [2012]. I quote:

The fishy claim: "Psychotherapy that regularly yields liberating, lasting change was, in the last century, a futuristic vision, but it has now become reality, thanks to a convergence of remarkable advances in clinical knowledge and brain science. In Unlocking the Emotional Brain, authors Ecker, Ticic and Hulley equip readers to carry out focused, empathic therapy using the process found by researchers to induce memory reconsolidation, the recently discovered and only known process for actually unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level." (emphasis mine).

The article: Neuro-linguistic programming

The claim it is supposed to verify: NLP isn't pseudoscience.

It this a WP:RS to WP:V such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The fishy claim looks like it is a rephrasing of a publisher's blurb which comes before the content of the work so it's probably irrelevant. You're asking if we can trust this work to tell us something about NLP's status as a pseudoscience, specifically that it is not a pseudoscience? fiveby(zero) 00:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

So the answer to that question is no. NLP is briefly mentioned twice:

Numerous other systems of psychotherapy that regularly produce transformational change could have been included in the unification demonstration in Part 2 if not for book length limitations...For case examples of transformational change via TRP in sessions of Alexander Technique, Neurolinguistic Programming, Progressive Counting, and Tapping, see (https)://bit.ly/15Z00HQ.

on page 5 citing some website. If the authors wish to discuss NLP case examples and demonstrate it is not a pseudoscience they can write a longer book. In a chapter on EMDR:

Dual focus is present also in some other therapeutic systems of transformational change, such as Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), Progressive Counting, and acupoint tapping, but reliance on bilateral stimulation is EMDR’s distinctive form of dual focus.

(both quotes from 2024 Routledge edition)

I think this work is simply irrelevant so no need to evaluate author or content. fiveby(zero) 00:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page (thanks very much for that) and the content proposal seems to be this. Looking in first edition the basis is the publisher's "yields liberating, lasting change" from the blurb and the single mention in this edition: inclusion in a table labeled "Focused, experiential, in-depth psychotherapies that are congenial to fulfilling the therapeutic reconsolidation process if the therapist applies them to do so". The other Ecker source mentioned, "Using NLP for Memory Reconsolidation: A Glimpse of Integrating the Panoply of Psychotherapies" is published by the in-house magazine of some org selling memberships. I think no need to pay much attention to these proposals from the IPs. fiveby(zero) 02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It's important to raise the reliable source-issue in a fair and neutral way. Let's have a look.

As @DiscipulusVirtutis notes that the first sentence of the Wikiepdia page on NLP states that NLP is pseudoscience. "The phrase "NLP is a pseudoscientific approach" implies a universally accepted categorization, which may not fully represent the complexity of the discussion".

So the argument made is not that NLP as pseudoscience is disproven. The argument is that it is not universally seen as such in academia.

In support of his argument I note that at least some reputable scholars vouch for NLP. One important example being the co-creator of "Coherence therapy", formerly known as Depth-oriented brief therapy, which is well-respected within its segment of postmodern therapies (Neimeyer 2003, 2009). He is the co-author of "Unlocking the emotional brain" [2012], published on the reputable academic press Routledge. The second edition was published in 2024.

Unlocking the Emotional brain claims to equip readers to carry out focused, empathic therapy using the process found by researchers to induce memory reconsolidation, the recently discovered and only known process for actually unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level. This neuroscientific view is not exclusive to them. In 2015, four prestigious (with a total of 500 published research articles between them) psychologists published a BBS target article, Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science (Lane et al. 2015)

In their counter-response, Lane et al. noted UtEB’s model to be highly compatible with theirs, and remarked that further research is needed to nail down the conditions which make reconsolidation the most effective."

So not only is Brucke Ecker's therapy respected (Neimeyer, Routledge), his neuroscientific approach also has respect in the scientific community. In other words: Brucke Ecker is a respected academic. Not a "fringe peddler".

It's worth noting that the neuroscience is not the most central point of the argument. The central point is that a reputable academic vouches for NLPs clinical effectiveness.

Ecker vouches for the clinical effectiveness of NLP in the book Unlocking the Emotional brain. My argument is that his name/authority alone is enough to warrant an adjustment of the universal categorization of NLP as a pseudoscience. Note that this categorization is a very strong statement, and can easily reach too far, and can get into conflict with wiki's NPOV. RockMarden (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia should state the mainstream view as fact, and then attribute any decenting views from reliable sources. It's not required that there's universal agreement. What is or is not the mainstream view is of course open to debate, but not everyone in the field has to agree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" is a WP:FRINGE/pop-science book. While (like everything) it's reliable for what it says, it is not reliable for any non-mundane knowledge, and so of zero use for writing encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" is a WP:FRINGE/pop-science book."

  Asserted, but not argued... I'm forced to reiterate the relevant section of my comment:

  In 2015, four prestigious (with a total of 500 published research articles between them) psychologists published a BBS target article, Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science (Lane et al. 2015)

  In their counter-response, Lane et al. noted UtEB’s model to be highly compatible with theirs, and remarked that further research is needed to nail down the conditions which make reconsolidation the most effective." 194.69.213.204 (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that those two quotes are passing remarks, but they do show that the book passingly endorses many disparate fringe views. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

  Ecker has endorsed too many quackeries to remain credible. Endorsing all those pseudoscientific therapies does not make him look sophisticated, it makes him look like a fool. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed some articles using these as sources. Are they reliable enough for inclusion? HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

We'll need more information. What is the context and what claims are they supporting? Canterbury Tail talk 16:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. On the article Yesterwynde, both sources are used for the track listing for the orchestral bonus tracks below the regular track listing. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:TRACKLIST for guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Usually, we follow WP:AFFILIATE's guidance in a general sense, and Apple Music's interview content in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Usable in tables, usually undue in prose.--Launchballer 20:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The context in which I have seen Apple Music and Spotify used is as references in discographies. My opinion is that in that context they are listing of products sold by vendors, and are satisfactory primary sources, although non-commercial sources are preferred. For ranking purposes (as a form of charting), they should be considered unreliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

If they're used to verify facts about the piece itself, that's usually okay.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vendor streaming charts must be considered reliable for the question of which songs have the highest amount of streaming from that vendor so far as independent reliable sources (such as newspapers) consider those charts to be reliable for that purpose. However, unless the vendor streaming chart position is reported by an independent reliable source (such as a newspaper), it will probably usually be WP:UNDUE (assuming that national charts such as Billboard are available). If, for example, the NYT reports a vendor streaming chart position, there is no question of rejecting that NYT article. If the NYT thinks that chart position is important, then it is important, in whatever context the NYT is reporting it. James500 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Oriental (Morocco), a dispute has arisen over which name in Standard Moroccan Tamazight (written in Tifinagh) should be used to label the "Oriental" region in the article’s infobox. I argue that the correct and verifiable name is ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ, as shown on the official Moroccan government website:

🔗 https://www.maroc.ma/amz/taxonomy/term/9

On that multilingual, government-maintained site, ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ appears on the map as the name for the Oriental region in Tamazight. The site allows toggling between languages and shows region names consistently in Arabic, French, English, and Tamazight (Tifinagh).

Opposing editors argue that other Tifinagh names exist (e.g. ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ, ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ, ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ), and that therefore we need reliable secondary sources to confirm which one is "official." They cite WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR to claim that we should not use ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ without independent verification. However:

These alternative names are not supported in the sources they are said to come from. For example: ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ is never actually used in the articles it's claimed to be in. Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250507212900-Skitash-20250507211400

ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ and ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ were lifted from other-language Wikipedia articles (like Tachelhit), and do not appear in government documents or authoritative contexts. Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250507205600-ElijahUHC-20250507204800

The Moroccan government is the official naming authority for its administrative regions. No interpretation is being made beyond what is directly shown on its website.

WP:PRIMARY allows citing an official source for simple factual claims (e.g., the official name of a government region), so long as we are not interpreting it beyond what is stated.

WP:BIAS suggests caution when rejecting content about marginalized languages due to lack of secondary sources, especially when a government body (in this case, Morocco) has standardized and published the name in that language and script.

Can we treat the Moroccan government's own website (https://www.maroc.ma/en) as a reliable source for the Tifinagh name of the Oriental region (ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ), even in the absence of secondary sources? Does using this verifiable, official name violate WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR? ElijahUHC (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Alas a very small fraction of people on this board speak the relevat language. So most reponses will probably be random. Sorry. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand. My main question is this: "Can we treat the Moroccan government's official website (https://www.maroc.ma/en) as a reliable source?" not is the word correct. Since it's a governmentally designated regional name, Should the government that coined it be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? ElijahUHC (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In general goverments are reliable for themselves, so in this case the Moroccan goverment is reliable for the Moroccan government using that Tifinagh name for the Oriental region. It wouldn't necessarily be reliable to say that that is the Tifinagh name people use. The difference would be between an official name and a common name, I can't say if there is a difference in this case but the Moroccan government source doesn't rule it out. Secondary sources my be required to determine what use is correct.
As Y,AMD said I doubt anyone on this board will be able to help with Tifinagh translations, you could try asking on WT:WikiProject Morocco there could be other native speakers who are part of the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the whole issue with translation, but we’re beyond that if you’ve read what’s happening in the article. An editor is denying the use of Tifinagh unless it’s referenced. When a reference from the government itself was used, the argument shifted to the need for a secondary source. But this is all about a government-defined regional name. What I’m trying to clarify is: is the government itself a reliable enough source to be cited for a term it created? Because the talk page is getting bogged down in the rule of secondary sourcing—for a regional name officially defined by the government ElijahUHC (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if i got too complex here, in short. I'm not making a linguistic claim, but asking if the government website is enough to be considered a verifiable source under what WP:PRIMARY allows for government-assigned regional names. ElijahUHC (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried to answer this with my first comment. Only the final sentence is related to translation. Governments are reliable for statements from that government. So in this case they are reliable for the fact that the Moroccan government uses ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ, whether that is the name that people actually use is another matter. The government source doesn't rule out disagreement from other reliable sources. There can be disagreement between reliable sources, with the government source being one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometime today, I wondered why there is such a brouhaha about the use of specific languages here. Then I remembered the issue of the Catalan language. First, let me admit that I have very limited knowledge of Spanish, and speak no Catalan. But I do know that the use of Catalan vs Spanish can be a major poitical issue. And after all governments are political organizations. So before this goes any further, let us wonder if there are political rather linguistic issues at play here. That is all I have to say. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s true that language choices can carry political issues, especially in multilingual states. But in this case, the issue is strictly about verifiability and official usage, not political alignment or advocacy.

The Moroccan government uses Standard Moroccan Tamazight, in Tifinagh script, nationwide for official purposes. While there are other Berber languages and dialects, this discussion is not about them, because the name in question refers to an administrative region, not an ethnolinguistic, cultural, or historical region.

This is about whether the name, as it appears on a official government site, meets the criteria of WP:V and WP:PRIMARY for inclusion — nothing more. ElijahUHC (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the official government site is a reliable primary source for the names used by the Moroccan government. Just like the US government is a reliable source for the fact that they use their own name for the Gulf of Mexico. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Moroccan government website is valid only for the official name, and this would likely be due. The fact it is a primary source is irrelevant here, the Moroccan state is reliable for the naming of its own provinces.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what are people's views on the reliability of www.Ghanahighschools.com? This is being added to Ghana school articles by an editor to verify schools' categories, day or boarding, gender of pupils etc. Examples here and here. The site says GhanaHighSchools.com was established and programmed by the Dodoo Coding Club (DCC), a non-profit organisation based in Pokuase, Northwest of Accra, Ghana. We teach local children and teenagers computer coding. Our goal is to develop a substantial academy of capable computer programmers in Pokuase who can assist companies with IT/coding services. I don't see anything on the site that says where it's getting the information from, or whether there's any checking. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a slightly odd one, I'd bet good money that they are pulling the data from some sort of official database but there's nothing on the site to explain if that's the case. The site itself appears to be a student project by the Dodoo Coding Club, I think it's the result of scrapping the internet. Some of the details could be referenced to this pdf[12] for the Ghana Education Service. The other details, courses studies and facilities, are likely from the schools themselves. It's likely these references should be replaced with better sources.
Your first example for instance is a mix of the pdf I mentioned, and the schools about us page[13]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it can be used until there is some significant objecton to its usuage. It is a non-profit and has a database of sorts. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

so do you mean i can use that source to do my editing? Abdul Rahman Abdul Kudus (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Lately, I have seen a lot of AfD discussions on Indian listed companies where analyst reports are used as credible/reliable sources. I think it’s time we take another look at the WP:LISTED guidelines, especially when it comes to these types of reports. From my experience during the Senco Gold AfD, I realized that many of these analyst reports aren’t truly independent. They are often made for internal use by portfolio management firms that already own shares in the company. Sometimes, they even push a specific story like hyping up a company before an IPO. If we closely look at the fine print of these reports, especially the disclaimers, the firms publishing them clearly mention potential or material conflicts of interest. They also state that they or their associates may have received compensation from the companies covered in the report within the last twelve months. We should be a bit more skeptical about these reports and think carefully before using them to decide if an article is notable.

I have seen this come up in two AfDs where I shared my thoughts - Apar Industries and IdeaForge.

Charlie (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:ORGIND seems to already speak to this issue. - Amigao (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If these analyst reports are seen as trade publications under ORGIND, and given that their authors have close ties to the subject companies, either directly or indirectly then many Indian AfDs ought to be deemed entirely invalid. It is now clear that the rules related to LISTED have been wrongly assumed. Charlie (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Such "analyst" reports are clearly not WP:IS. - Amigao (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That makes things quite clear on my end. Thank you. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

As I have pointed out at the Thermax AfD, you should refer to the "Disclosure" section of the report to assess independence in the context of that specific report, rather than the "Disclaimer" section, which is intentionally worded in a generic manner in accordance with SEBI guidelines for all registered analysts. Yuvaank (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yuvaank I understand your point, and I have noticed it myself; the disclosure and disclaimer often contradict each other and sit uneasily within the same document. While disclosures suggest an absence of bias, while disclaimers imply that bias might exist but is being acknowledged to avoid responsibility or legal consequences. This tension between the two can appear contradictory when assessing the report's independence. I recognise that SEBI likely has valid regulatory reasons for requiring both, but the mixed messaging does raise questions. Charlie (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, there is no question (in my mind, at least). Analyst reports should not be dismissed solely because they contain a boilerplate "Disclaimer" with generic wording. Any actual conflict of interest pertaining to that specific company or report will be mentioned in the "Disclosure" section, which is what should be used to assess that report's independence. As SEBI has pretty stringent disclosure requirements, analyst reports tend to have a much higher level of integrity than WP:RSNOI media sources that publish paid puff pieces without disclosing. Yuvaank (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's explore this a little bit deeper by examining the analysts' reports discussed at the Thermax AfD;

1. HDFC Securities,

2. YES Securities

3. PL Capital.

Despite the analyst's personal independence (as declared in disclosure), each firm's prior or potential financial ties to the subject companies introduce a possible institutional conflict. Moreover, in all three reports, the disclaimer introduces a potential conflict at the associate level, which is not explicitly addressed in the disclosure. Here, associates are essentially different arms of the firm, such as investment banking, asset management, or advisory services—like those within the HDFC Group e.g., HDFC Bank, HDFC Mutual Fund, etc.. In the case of YES Securities, this could include YES Bank and other related entities. So, you see those boilerplate disclaimers are there for a reason, this is an ecosystem where such analyst reports are often prepared for internal use within portfolio management services. Even if the firms themselves don’t hold positions, their associates typically do often holding shares in the subject companies or promoting a particular narrative, especially around upcoming IPOs or stock market buy/sell activity. Charlie (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, SEBI’s guidelines for disclosures and disclaimers in analyst reports are strict and appropriate for regulatory purposes, given their role as market regulators. However, this does not mean such reports automatically meet Wikipedia’s standards of independence for the subject company especially in cases involving cross-holdings through associates, or any similar arrangements. Charlie (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can come to some sort of compromise? Maybe while we do not outright dismiss these report as not independent their reliability as a WP:ORGCRITE source is weakened and therefore should see if there a better sources for the subject first?

Will need more views on this. I will ping @HighKing as this user is much more experienced in WP:NCORP AFD than I am. Imcdc Contact 03:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Imcdc, CharlieMehta, WP:LISTED suggests some examples of where to find references which meet the criteria for establishing notability, but WP:LISTED doesn't say analyst report are de facto acceptable by their very nature - all sources should be read in conjuntion with WP:ORGIND. There is a tremenduous variety of sources classed as "analyst reports" and not all meet NCORP criteria. All sources should be read in conjunction with WP:ORGIND which states that not only must the author/publisher be independent (i.e. not have a commercial relationship whether it is direct or indirect) but that the content must also be independent (i.e. not relying entirely on content provided by the company, but must also include "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" *about the company* "that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".) With that in mind, it is usually a simple matter to see that some sources (classed as analyst reports) simply report on stock movements or financial reporting with nothing that can be classed an opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation about the company. Others produce a profile with information copied from the company website or from a financial report. For me, "analyst reports" produced by a lot of companies are more like directory entries with a company profile that you can find on the company website. Unless I can see that the analyst provides some original throughts, for example the analyst compares the company to others, or positions the company within an overall sector based on particular activities (not just a bland revenue-generation table which is gleaned from company-produced financials), I am sceptical. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in a discussion that is taking place on MOS:NOVELS about the inclusion of book review aggregator websites in articles. In practice, these sites have been cited in articles only when presenting their aggregation consensus. As such, the discussion is centered on whether the inclusion of these consensuses constitutes undue WP:WEIGHT. Input would be appreciated. Though I must emphasize that this a nuanced RfC and contributors should understand it is not to determine if these sites are "reliable" for their review aggregation. Review aggregators are sources which assess other sources by providing scores and summaries using their own subjective methodologies. Their trustworthiness in that role is not the focus of the RfC, but rather their total lack prominence. Articles must fairly and proportionally reflect established viewpoints of a topic, and the absolute insignificance of these websites and their consensuses in reliable sources appears to be a transgression of that core policy. Previous community discussions determining Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to be "generally reliable for [their] review aggregation" (WP:RSP) were made on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT, not from arguments about reliability. However, the two intersect and because the RfC aims to prohibit a general category of sources which fail WP:USEBYOTHERS, it has been requested that I notify RSN of the discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The link appears to be broken, the correct one is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#RfC on book review aggregators for anyone interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the error! Thank you for the correction, I have updated the link. Οἶδα (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the reliability of https://maorinews.com specifically this article [14]?

It is being used on the pakeha article. It should not be confused with Te Ao Maori News [15] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that is a self-published website with no evidence of any reliability or use by other sources that'd establish it as an RS. I also don't believe it is a newspaper despite the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears to include the archive of a periodical published between 1988 and 1990 https://putatara.net/about/ What statement sourced to it are you querying? Per the instructions at the top of this page "supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Daveosaurus (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The article at maorinews was just a draft. The citation has now been replaced with a citation to the final published article from the University of Auckland research repository. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to figure out if that is a peer-reveiwed publication; according to the National Library (https://natlib.govt.nz/records/21982578) 'They provide a forum for the dissemination and discussion of educational ideas, and present research and scholarship being undertaken by members of the Faculty.' Traumnovelle (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an entry for the CBC? CoolDino1 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Long live the disambig of course regarding CBC. And here is the page Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Only need an entry if people have questioned it a lot. As far as I know, it hasn’t been. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. CoolDino1 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, CBC's reputation is generally good enough that it's rare for it to be brought to WP:RS/N so it's not a perennial source largely on the basis of a good reputation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

How much should we discount work by academics operating in countries with low academic freedom when their findings support the position of their country's rulers? Should we take a similar approach as the one for state media used for WP:CHINADAILY? Superb Owl (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Including or not including the United States? --GRuban (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ruban, why just limit it to the US? Also UK, France, Spain... And also let us recall that the world changes- The US has changed over the years, and may change more, just as Spain, Hungry, Poland and Portugal have changed. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Superb, in my view the answer is "yes, absolutely so" but I think the issue goes beyond political items. When I used to "wear a younger man's clothes" I recall an argument (Gerald Wick, "Activism with feeling" New Scientist and Science Journal 11 February 1971) that even funding for scientific issues is affected by the political stance in the country. The case for China (also Russia, Hungry, etc) is obvious. As a side issue, compare what different Wiki languages say about the manipulation of Renminbi. It would be a truism to say that "truth does not change by language" but on the internet (Wiki included) and the press it does. An unpleasant fact, but a fact. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

funding for scientific issues is affected by the political stance in the country - True. I saw a show which talked about how U.S. scientists observing penguins many decades ago observed what they would have called "homosexual" type behavior, but they never wrote down any of those observations in their log books because they felt that if they did the government(s)/legislators which funded that research would cancel their grants. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that making uncontextualised a priori judgments on the academic output of entire societies is beyond the scope of this board. Case-by-case basis.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. I find this to be a deeply uncomfortable line of discussion. Wikipedia is already far too often treated as a de-facto Ameripedia with the POVs of people from rival countries to the USA frequently treated as intrinsically less neutral than the pro-American POV. Taking that out of the realm of media and attacking the reliability of academics on the basis of their country of origin seems like it would make this problem far, far worse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's definitely a concern, and it might be worth noting that concern somewhere in our guidelines, but it has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Things I'd look for would include how it's covered, received, and used outside of the nation in question, how the journal or scientific establishment in the country in general are covered internationally, and so on. I'd also look at whether there's evidence that people are adhering to the bare minimum legal requirements, vs. actively seeking to please their government by broadcasting their official position. It would also impact WP:DUE weight - if the government funds a thousand studies saying that their official position is correct, and secondary coverage makes it clear that the process used for this funding lacks independence, that's a valid reason to drastically reduce the weight given to those papers. Conversely, the lack of papers in a particular region on something the government forbids obviously can't be used to establish that it lacks weight. --Aquillion (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with the other editors who emphasize that this is best treated on a case by case basis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

See also this blog.

What the whut is that abomination? Is it a reliable mirror/archive? A spam-infested cesspool? Something in between? Should we blacklist it? Deprecated it? Allow it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be a web host. Would it not just be a WP:SPS? Ifly6 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Holy crapsicle. I tried the first link I found in this search[16] and it nearly crashed my phone. The underlying material could be reliable, either as WP:SPS or as hosted WP:PRIMARY sources, but if anything the URL should be blacklisted. The Internet Archive appears to have backed up these links in a more functional state, adding archives and marking them as deviated could be the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The first five links I tried were all perfectly functional to me. I definitely would not support blacklisting but it is just self published material. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's device dependant, I checked a few more and am consistently served redirects to malware. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is economist Edward Glaeser's blog post[17] hosted at the London School of Economics: "This post represents the views of the author and not those of the COVID-19 blog, nor LSE. It is based on Edward Glaeser’s contribution to Localising Transport: Towards the 15-minute city or the one-hour metropolis?, an event hosted by LSE Cities, the Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft and the LSE School of Public Policy, and supported by SAP SE and knowledge partner Teralytics." an acceptable source for the following article text in the 15-minute city article:

"Economist Edward Glaeser is highly critical of the concept, stating that while he supports the idea of walkable cities and congestion pricing to reduce carbon emissions, the 15-minute city would be not be a city but "an enclave — a ghetto – a subdivision" which "would stop cities from fulfilling their true role as engines of opportunity." He advocates instead that governments should subsidize and improve transportation for the poor so that every neighborhood can have access to the whole of the city." ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

As more background about why Glaeser is relevant here, Edward Glaeser :"Glaeser is known for his work showing the economic and social benefits of dense and abundant housing in cities." And Edward_Glaeser#Contribution_to_urban_economics_and_political_economy. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a question of due weight, not reliability. Not sure what help we can be here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So you are saying that this IS a RS? (I understand that DUE is another issue.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that this is a due weight issue as you were apparently told back in 2023[18]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So what policy do we use to determine due weight, just the opinions of editors? My suggested addition above is half the size of the original I drafted. And the *ONLY* other criticism in that article is one paragraph starting with "In a paper published in the journal Sustainability, Georgia..."

Is CLAIMING WP:DUE something anyone can use to oppose any addition they don't like? ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

DUE can be a difficult policy. If there are differing opinions on what should or shouldn't be included in an article then discussion and consensus building should take place on the articles talk page. If there is no satisfactory outcome WP: Dispute resolution has good advice.
As to reliability Glaeser's blog would probably be reliable per WP:SPS, but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. Looking at the articles talk page the arguments are about WP:BALANCE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. So it's not the reliability of the blog that is being questioned, but what reliable sources show the details from the blog should be mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I request a review of the **"Early life and education" section** of Maryam Nawaz regarding two issues:

1. 1. 1. **1. Disputed/Unverified Claims**

The article currently includes: > *"After being rejected by Kinnaird College due to academic performance, her father... intervened by suspending the principal."* > *"Dropped out in 1992 after her scandal with Capt. Safdar Awan."*

• • Problems:**

- **No primary evidence**: The Kinnaird College claim lacks neutral verification (e.g., college records). - **Biased framing**: The term "scandal" is pejorative; her marriage was a personal choice, not a controversy.

1. 1. 1. **2. Proposed Neutral Edit**

Replace disputed claims with: > *"She later pursued higher education at King Edward Medical College but left medical studies after her marriage to Capt. Safdar Awan, subsequently earning a master's degree in English literature."*

• • Supporting source:**

- "Maryam Nawaz". Pakistan Times. Retrieved 13 June 2024. (Corroborates her KEMC attendance).

1. 1. 1. **Request for Consensus**

- Should the current claims (Kinnaird rejection, "scandal" narrative) be:

 - **Removed** (per WP:V and WP:NPOV) due to lack of reliable sourcing?  
 - **Tagged with {{Disputed}}** pending better evidence?  

- Is the *Pakistan Times* source sufficient to support the revised neutral phrasing? Dg creative (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the {{RFC}} template, as this isn't a WP:RFC. It's difficult not parse you post but "No primary evidence" appears to be a misunderstanding of how referencing works. Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, verification from primary documents isn't required as long as the details come from a reliable source.
In general if you are disputing the factual accuracy of something you should discuss it at the articles talk page, this noticeboard is only for advice it can't determine what should or shouldn't be included in an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to participate at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#How is it "Third Party Source" if the journalists are Pakistani? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)