WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#lukeisback and sexherald dot com

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1747861271}}

Is the handwritten {{strike|testimony}} letter of Geneviève Esquier, a former French Catholic journalist for the French Catholic publication L'Homme Nouveau, a reliable primary source for her own words {{strike|and testimony}}?

For previous discussions leading up to this RfC, please see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Poem_of_the_Man-God#WP:RSPRIMARY article talk page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_https://edifiant.fr_reliable tangential RSN discussion]. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. (1) The website hosting the primary source document is [https://edifiant.fr edifiant.fr] a popular French Catholic platform featuring free Catholic content including articles, resources, videos, testimonies, and newsletter subscription. (2) The website's ScamDoc trust score is 88% (despite domain owner anonymity), and a trust rating of "good". (3) The website includes footnotes to the primary source document establishing its provenance, indicating it was mailed to them by Geneviève Esquier on March 8, 2023, and published to the website the same day. (4) The website includes additional footnotes to the document, indicating they had verbal communications with Geneviève Esquier confirming certain details in the letter. (5) The primary source document has been in the public domain for over 2 years on [https://edifiant.fr edifiant.fr], with high visibility and no claims of inauthenticity. (6) This handwritten testimony satisfies the Wikipedia policy WP:RSPRIMARY. (7) The handwritten testimony document [https://edifiant.fr/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-reconnait-maria-valtorta/ can be found here.] Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Words? Yes, most likely. Testimony? No. We don't hold RfCs on whether primary-source material is factual, which is what 'testimony' implies. And note that agreeing that the words are hers doesn't in of itself amount to agreement that said words need to be cited in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{summoned by bot}} The letter is a WP:SPS? meaning that it's reliability would be confined to WP:ABOUTSELF. However the usage in the article (see Special:Diff/1285286322 for the last insertion) indicates that it was being used to make statements about third parties and thus fails the limited usage provided for by WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPath^talk 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• No, No and No. There are several reasons why this should not be in the article. To begin with, we discussed this issue forever and a day just above on this page under the title "Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?". The result there was that the source has no provenance. It is totally unclear who owns the edifiant.fr website, but it is obvious that Esquier does not because the site claims they received an email from her with the image of her letter. There is no evidence that the handwriting belongs to Esquier. For all we know this coud be a case of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax which survived in the public domain (in several languages) for about 10 years. Moreover, this is a highly controversial claim. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger ([https://www.amazon.com/Cardinal-Ratzinger-Vaticans-Enforcer-Faith/dp/0826412653| the Vatican Enforcer]) would have danced cha cha in front of the Spanish Steps in Rome before supporting a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. And for all we know, this could be a website set up by a French relative of Clifford Irving to anonymously collect donations. The question is: How long do we need to discuss all this again? 20 years, 30 years? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• No It would be a reliable primary source if it's provenance could be reliably sourced, but the only place saying it's real is couple of closely aligned websites neither of which have any of the commons signs of a reliable source. That the website isn't serving malware and hasn't been sued doesn't equate to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• No This is a WP:SPS that has language on its website explicitly soliciting anonymous contributions. As such we cannot confirm the provenance of the document and thus it is not usable as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• No, not for this. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285375804&oldid=1285295984&title=The_Poem_of_the_Man-God paragraph you are trying to add] concerns {{tq|claims about third parties}} and {{tq|claims about events not directly related to the source}} and therefore doesn't pass the restrictions on WP:ABOUTSELF, even if the providence could be established. Obviously you cannot bypass that just with attribution. The purpose of ABOUTSELF is for people talking about themselves, not to cite them for statements about other people - statements about other people require sourcing that passes WP:RS, which this obviously does not. The "scam score" for a website does not imply that they perform any sort of the sort of fact-checking for statements posted there that a WP:RS would require. The obvious purpose of this paragraph is to imply a fact about Ratzinger's actions and correspondence, not to introduce a fact about Esquier; that is a totally inappropriate purpose for ABOUTSELF. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Question. Source X is generally reliable for the fact that source X says X. That's generally trivial (except when sources are retroactively doctored, which came up with WP:DAILYMAIL discussions), or when provenance is not certain. Aside from WP:DUE concerns, we've unfortunately got a question here about provenance. If there are sources that cite Geneviève Esquier's writings in this context, and do attribute these words to Esquier, then those are the sources that should be cited (or, at least, would be helpful in this discussion).{{pb}}{{yo|Arkenstrone}} Are there other sources that make the same attribution of this document to Esquier? If so, it would be very helpful here—we're generally not going to include information in an article for which the only documentation is a single primary source document hosted on a single website and about which nobody else has written. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Hawk, The only other source is the site that sells the book, and if you look at the previous discussion Arkenstone said "I think Yesterday is right in that the letter on mariavaltorta.com was very likely obtained from edifiant.fr". Hence the edifiant.fr site is the only one. And note that as Simon pointed out below edifiant.fr is WP:UGC. So given your response to Reddit below, that rules it out. Generally, WP:UGC sites of unknown origin can not be trusted. On impulse, I was, at one point considering submitting an anonymous article to that site claiming that there was a letter from Mother Teresa to the effect that she would feed the hungry by multiplication of the loaves to see what happens and if they would publish it. But I did not because they might publish it and then someone (no names mentioned, of course) would add it to Mother Teresa's page and then start a n Rfc about it here. I think I made the right decision. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Why do you fill your comments with your rambling stream-of-consciousness completely unrelated to the point? It makes reading your comments difficult and a waste of time. Just make your points and spare us the rest. Regarding your actual point, can you provide examples of UGC? Please do so in the discussion below where I respond to Simon's related point. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Arkenstrone, does this mean that I will not be receiving a New Year greeting card from you at the end of this year? I guess so. Now, regarding WP:UGC, Simon already responded to you below and I agree with his response. And I will not even attempt to explain the concepts of WP:RS or WP:UGC here given that one of the sites you mentioned below is a Wiki. Yes, fr.mariavaltorta.wiki is a Wiki. How can that be WP:RS? So I have othing else to say on that. And thank you for directly admitting that all the sites you mentioned below state that they got it from edifiant.fr. So edifiant.fr is the only site that claims to have received the letter. End of story. Now regarding your claim below about the editorial policies of edifiant.fr, I am sure if one of Clifford Irving's cousins had set up an anonymous web site that asked for donations, they would have claimed similar things about their verification policies. For all I know, that website may have been set up by a French relative of Mr Irving. That is all I have to say. This discussion is quite repetitive with you typing several times longer items than anyone else. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::??? He's talking about edifiant.fr being UGC, which it is not. You're getting your facts confused. The other links are simply to show that the primary source on edifiant.fr is referenced by these other sources, some of which may be semi-reliable, some not. Edifiant.fr is the site to which the original letter was submitted by Esquier and verified by their editors. Therefore it makes sense that all references eventually end up pointing to the edifiant.fr article.
• ::::Also, I ran the second website [https://www.mariedenazareth.com mariedenazareth.com] through the ScamDoc verification service and it gave an even better result: 95% trust rating, and trust score of "Excellent".[https://www.scamdoc.com/view/411329] Arkenstrone (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Arkenstrone, I just laughed at your last comment. Just laughed. Buddy, Scamdoc scores have absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of the "contents" of websites. They are about security. To understand that note that the Scamdoc score for Reddit is 99% [https://www.scamdoc.com/view/1956]. Yes, 99%. Can Reddit content be trusted? No, no and no. I really do not know what to tell you, given that type of comment on your part. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::As usual you are resorting to straw man logical fallacies, and so you may as well be laughing at yourself. I never said that a good ScamDoc score implies that the site is reliable per WP:RS. But only to counter your absurd stream-of-consciousness nonsense that attempts to paint the edifiant.fr site as some kind of scammy looney-tune site, which is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Both it and mariedenazareth.com are French Catholic platforms that emphasize providing high-quality Catholic articles, resources, and newsletters to support spiritual growth. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{pb}}{{yo|Red-tailed hawk}} Several websites reference the primary source document on edifiant.fr:

::mariavaltorta.com - The official website of the Maria Valtorta Heritage Foundation. It summarizes her account of Ratzinger’s correspondence with Marcel Clément, director of L’Homme Nouveau, and cites the edifiant.fr article as the source of her handwritten testimony. The article emphasizes Ratzinger’s initial reservations and subsequent approval of Valtorta’s work after review.

::[https://mariavaltorta.com/the-unpublished-letters-of-joseph-ratzinger/]

::mariedenazareth.com - In a section titled “Comment aborder les écrits de Maria Valtorta?” (updated November 14, 2022), this site references Esquier’s testimony as published on edifiant.fr. It quotes her account of Ratzinger’s letters and includes a direct link to the edifiant.fr article, noting that Ratzinger authorized L’Homme Nouveau to resume promoting Valtorta’s works after finding no doctrinal issues.[https://www.mariedenazareth.com/questions-de-foi/raisons-de-croire-chretiennes/les-signes-miracles-et-prodiges-divins/les-extraordinaires-visions-de-maria-valtorta/maria-valtorta-est-une-vraie-fille-de-leglise]

::1000raisonsdecroire.com - The article “Les 700 extraordinaires visions de l’Évangile reçues par Maria Valtorta :(+1961)” on this site mentions Ratzinger’s shift in stance, referencing Esquier’s testimony as published on edifiant.fr. It highlights Ratzinger’s letter to Marcel Clément, as described in the edifiant.fr document, to support the claim that he found Valtorta’s writings doctrinally sound.[https://1000raisonsdecroire.com/maria-valtorta]

::fr.mariavaltorta.wiki - The Wiki Maria Valtorta page titled “Benoît XVI et Maria Valtorta” (updated August 18, 2021, with later revisions) indirectly references Esquier’s testimony by discussing Ratzinger’s interactions with L’Homme Nouveau and his eventual approval of Valtorta’s work. It links to the mariedenazareth.com article which then links to the edifiant.fr article. A later page, “La révélation privée de Maria Valtorta” (updated November 30, 2024), also mentions Ratzinger’s favorable stance post-1990s, consistent with the edifiant.fr testimony.[https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Benoît_XVI_et_Maria_Valtorta][https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/La_r%C3%A9v%C3%A9lation_priv%C3%A9e_de_Maria_Valtorta] Arkenstrone (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::: As stated above, all of these sites state that they got their info from edifiant.fr, so nothing new here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hawk, beyond all that, please note that this is a highly controversial claim. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger ([https://www.amazon.com/Cardinal-Ratzinger-Vaticans-Enforcer-Faith/dp/0826412653| the Vatican Enforcer]) would have never supported a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You're completely missing the point. Nobody's claiming anything about Ratzinger. This is only about Esquier's handwritten letter describing her personal experience and witnessing of something. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

: No from what I have seen this is not a good source for this information due to multiple concerns.

1. No provence for the photo, which means that this could be true, or it could be a complete hoax.
2. This seems to be only website (that I have seen) with this sort of information (do note that I haven't done a thorough search for other websites), and this topic doesn't seem to be notable, otherwise there should be more sources for this.
3. This website appears to not be Reliable or have a history of fact checking, to me it looks like a small website that is mostly trafficked by a few people that happen to know it exists, I could locate hundreds of small websites like this one. (In size, not topic.)

Sheriff U3 07:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is this information important and why does it need to be included in the article per WP:DUE? Because the article conveys that Cardinal Ratzinger was not favorably disposed towards Valtorta's work, especially with recent references to Miesel's article (which contains many errors), but also through private letters by Ratzinger in 1985 and 1993 expressing his personal opinion at that time. The handwritten testimony by Esquier adds important context, as she states she was witness to correspondence received clarifying Ratzinger's views.

According to Esquier, she received a letter from Ratzinger addressed to {{Interlanguage link|Marcel Clément|fr=Marcel Clément|fr}}, the former director of the French Catholic publication {{Interlanguage link|L'Homme Nouveau|fr=L'Homme Nouveau|fr}} asking him to stop all articles and sales of Valtorta's work until he had time to review it. One year later after reviewing the work, Ratzinger sent another letter lifting the prohibition expressing that the work contained nothing contrary to faith and morals.

This information provides counter-balance to the articles' one-sided presentation of Ratzinger's somewhat unfavorable personal views of the work without which the article conveys a misleading conclusion. Indeed, up until recently, I also believed Ratzinger was ill-disposed towards the work. Now I see this is not the case, and that the situation is more nuanced. This nuance needs to be captured in the article. Again, this handwritten testimony is an important statement of an eye-witness account. These are Esquier's own words, and she is a reliable source for her own words.

When the time comes and the original letters by Ratzinger are found (they are likely buried in the paper archives of L'Homme Nouveau), we can then replace this reliable primary source evidence with reliable primary or secondary source proof of the original letters themselves. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:"she is a reliable source for her own words". Yes, if they are being correctly reproduced. If that is the case it doesn't however constitute evidence that her claims regarding content of a letter from Ratzinger are factual. We don't analyse primary sources ourselves, and draw conclusions from them. We require secondary sources, with the relevant expertise, to do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, correctly reproduced, and no factual claims as to the content of the letter itself, which requires reliable secondary sources. Understood. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You argue above that "This information provides counter-balance..." It doesn't. Not unless we assume that it is factual. Which we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Right. Counter-balance in the sense of clarifying Ratzinger's opinion concerning the work IF Esquier's statements are later proved true, beyond Esquier's handwritten testimony. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are no circumstances whatsoever where it is appropriate to include otherwise-questionable content on the basis that it might be proved correct later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay. Esquier is a reliable source for her own words, and that's all. The content of what she says is unverified and no conclusions can be drawn from it. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote above "if they are being correctly reproduced", and also wrote "most likely are", this is not an absolute assertion that Esquier is a reliable source on this matter. On reflection, that was a little confusing, but anyway, given that no conclusions should be drawn regarding Esquier's veracity, I can see little merit in inclusion of such content in the article, regardless of whether they are her own words or not. You seem to be trying to shoe-horn them in to counter what secondary sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was stating what I understood thus far based on previous statements. The merit is that she is a well-known French Catholic journalist formerly working for a well-known French Catholic publication. She said something. Given her background, some people value what she says, even if it's only an opinion. People can choose whether to accept what she said or not. What she said is relevant in context. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::'Some people' can value whatever they like. Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow suit. Even more so if others commenting here are correct in seeing the material as falling afoul of WP:ABOUTSELF. Though I really don't think there are legitimate grounds for inclusion either way. The whole thing seems to revolve around a letter from Ratzinger that may or may not have said something-or-other, being used as special pleading to counter reliably sourced information on things he verifiably did say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::To expand further on the above, Wikipedia policy on notability seems adequately satisfied in regard to the Poem of the Man-God article. Satisfied through coverage of the topic in secondary reliable sources. And it is such sources we should be basing the article on. There are no legitimate reasons however why the article should become a battleground between those who have differing opinions regarding the Poems theological significance etc, and accordingly, we aren't obliged to host stuff from obscure websites just because someone wants to push a particular argument. Which you quite clearly do. Go find a forum for that. Or take it up with the Church, and let them decide. When they have, we'll have something to add to the article. From sources we base articles on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You may not be aware, but there was a discussion recently about whether or not to include the words of a literary critic (Miesel) from a questionable source (website that some here claimed was not a reliable source, but also her article contained several verifiable factual errors). The consensus seemed to be that the article's reliability was questionable but we should include it anyway since Miesel was a reliable source for her own words, plus she was a reasonably well-known literary critic. That reference is in the "Criticism" section, and so it naturally conveys a negative point of view concerning Valtorta's work.

::::::::::Similarly, Esquier, a reasonably well-known French Catholic journalist, submitted and confirmed a handwritten letter which was published to a website that some here say is coming from a questionable source. But that website is only hosting a primary source document. The document itself is a reliable source for the authors own words which describe her own personal experience. There is no compelling reason to assume the website is inherently unreliable as a host of a primary source document per WP:RSPRIMARY which has not been contested as illegitimate in the 2 years it has been highly visible. They also provide the provenance of the document and the circumstances of its receipt. Esquier's words convey a certain point of view. In this case, that view is one that is in support of Valtorta's work, which is why it appeared in the "General support" section. In both cases (Miesel v. Esquier) we don't need to accept as objectively true the content of the opinions, words, views or statements that are being conveyed. After all, the contention is they are both reliable sources for their own words.

::::::::::{{tq | The whole thing seems to revolve around a letter from Ratzinger that may or may not have said something-or-other, being used as special pleading to counter reliably sourced information on things he verifiably did say.}}

::::::::::Not to counter, but provide nuance and clarification by a well-known individual who claims she was directly involved and a witness to the events at that time. Her own words are also reliably (primary) sourced information. That's what she said. People can draw their own conclusions from that.

::::::::::{{tq | just because someone wants to push a particular argument}}

::::::::::It's not about me pushing a particular argument. Everyone has a point of view. One of the purposes of Wikipedia policy is not to prohibit editors from having a point of view, but rather to prevent those points of view, as much as possible, from entering into articles without reliable sources. Criticism and support sections are naturally going to be pushing/presenting a particular argument. As long as they are reliably sourced, that isn't a problem. I won't address your other statements concerning theological significance, battlegrounds, forums, etc. as those are beside the point of this RfC.

::::::::::BTW, your initial statement of words vs. testimony I accepted at face value, as I presumed you were drawing certain special meaning from the word "testimony" which I didn't intend. But upon further reflection, "testimony" is simply someone's words that are sworn or affirmed to be true. But that doesn't make them objectively true. And they are still their own words. So the distinction between words and testimony doesn't seem especially relevant in this context. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::By "some here claim" what Arkenstrone means is that they objected strenuously to the inclusion of the Miesel source and were frustrated that the majority of respondents disagreed with them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Please don't put words in my mouth. And at least try to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|she is a reliable source for her own words}}

:Only insofar as those words pertain to herself, not in regards to the acts and words of others. TarnishedPath^talk 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Are her own words, which in this case she asserts describes her own lived experience (being a witness to hearing or seeing something), do they not pertain to herself? Arkenstrone (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Her words are a reliable source for her claiming to have witnessed something. They are not a reliable source that that thing happened or that she did witness it. If the thing is in relation to a third party (e.g. that someone else did or said something) then a self-published source can be used to verify that the author made the claim, but nothing beyond that. If a SPS is the only source for the claim being made then it is extremely unlikely to be DUE for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair enough. But what if the source is not SPS? There is no evidence to suggest that it is, and some evidence to suggest it is not (footnotes establishing provenance). It seems to me that WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY are far more relevant in this context. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::*WP:ABOUTSELF is clear - it can't be used for material that involves {{tq|claims about third parties}}. Obviously quoting her making a claim about a third party involves claims about third parties. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:And all that is setting aside whether we can even use this letter as an WP:ABOUTSELF source considering that it's a scan of a hand-written letter on a website that encourages anonymous submissions and has opaque ownership. There's a non-zero chance this is a hoax letter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:Both you and Simonm223 have made the assertion that we are dealing with WP:ABOUTSELF, but that applies to self-published sources, and questionable (secondary) sources. But this is not a self-published source nor is it a questionable secondary source. Esquier does not run that website. The footnotes to the document establishing provenance expressly state that she mailed them the letter on March 8, 2023, and it was published the same day, and that they confirmed details of the letter by verbal communication with Esquier. Also, the document is not being used as a questionable secondary source, but as a reliable primary source. I fail to see how WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are applicable in this context. WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY seem to be far more relevant policies in this instance.

::*::"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources."

::*:Arkenstrone (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::*::This is obvious UGC what are you talking about? Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:::I don't understand what you're saying. Please elaborate your point. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::*::::The website solicits, and hosts, anonymous submissions. This makes the content on it effectively like that of a wiki. Thus it is WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:::::What are you talking about? The content is not user-generated. Did you read their editorial ethics? Also, they have a section to encourage readers to send suggestions or corrections, and another section for those who would like to contribute their talents, which virtually every website has. So are you willing to concede that all websites are therefore UGC? Quote:

::*::::::Editorial ethics

::*::::::[…]

::*::::::As a result, we have chosen to be hyper-selective, rigorous and concise in order to share only the best and do it well.

::*::::::[…]

::*::::::All our content is verified, sourced, and regularly updated as needed. This way, our platform allows you to get straight to the point, save thousands of hours of research, and access the best information.

::*::::::Contribute

::*::::::Send suggestions or corrections

::*::::::Have you spotted a typo, an error, or have additional information to share? No matter where you are on the site, you can send us your suggestions at any time.

::*::::::Offer your talents

::*::::::Photographers, designers, graphic designers, developers, proofreaders, documentarians, translators, etc. We are constantly looking for talented people eager to contribute their skills. Send us a message using the form at the bottom of the page to join the adventure.

::*:::::Arkenstrone (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::*::::::What you are describing is an anonymously managed website soliciting contributions from readers whose participation is likewise anonymous. There is no editorial control nor ability to confirm provenance which makes this equivalent to UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:::::::Not at all. What I'm describing is a statement of their editorial ethics and a form for users to provide feedback or suggestions which is very common on most websites. That is not UGC. At all. Quoting from WP:UGC:

::*::::::::Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.

::*:::::::None of that describes edifiant.fr. It is a French Catholic platform that emphasizes providing high-quality Catholic articles, testimonies, content—videos, resources, and a newsletter, free of charge to support spiritual growth. It it clearly not WP:UGC. Not sure where you and Yesterday are getting that. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::*::::::Arkenstrone, look, you can go on singing a lonely tune about edifiant.fr. But this is a highly controversial claim about Ratzinger. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger ([https://www.amazon.com/Cardinal-Ratzinger-Vaticans-Enforcer-Faith/dp/0826412653| the Vatican Enforcer]) would have danced naked on the streets of Rome before supporting a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. And for all we know, this could be a website set up by a French relative of Clifford Irving to anonymously collect donations. You have no case. Accept it and move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:::::::Nothing of what you said addressed my question of edifiant.fr being UGC. How did you and Simon arrive at this conclusion? It's not supported by the facts. Again, please stop deflecting with stream-of-consciousness nonsense. It's not helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::*::::::::{{u|Yesterday, all my dreams...}} and {{u|Arkenstrone}} the RFC has another 3+ weeks to run. Can I suggest doing something else while you wait for a result, you've both stated you positions quite thoroughly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::*:::::::::Actively, an excellent suggestion. I will do so. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the very long discussion of this issue just above in this page (under the title "Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?") and the fact that it was decided that the source has no provenance, the key question I have is: Should we spell "stubborn" with 2b's, 3 or 4? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is, what, the third time? We've had this conversation recently. I think that a snow-close is likely here. And then I hope people can move on. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think it should be allowed to run it's course. A RFC should hopefully bring a conclusion to the matter, and a early close could be used to argue against whatever the result ends up being. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree. Alas the course is likely to be very long, given the lengthy (and often repetitive) answers in support of the item. I guess some user (no names mentioned of course) will have to buy a new keyboard before the rfc has run its course. That user will probably not be me, or you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've said my piece. edifiant.fr is eminently non-reliable and we should not be sourcing primary sources from it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Following up on Red-tailed hawk's useful question in the Survey section, I've asked Grok AI to help with evaluating the reliability of mariedenazareth.com as a secondary source that references edifiant.fr's primary source handwritten letter by Esquier, all within the context of Wikipedia's reliable source policy. The results bring up some of the more pertinent points that have already been brought up by editors here, with some interesting and helpful additions and conclusions. {{yo|AndyTheGrump|TarnishedPath|ActivelyDisinterested|Aquillion|Red-tailed hawk|Simonm223|p=.}}

{{hat|AI-generated output from Grok}}

Grok AI:

To determine whether mariedenazareth.com can be considered a reliable secondary source for discussing the primary source handwritten letter testimonial by Geneviève Esquier on edifiant.fr—specifically her claim about witnessing a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger requesting a halt and later resumption of Maria Valtorta’s book sales—under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy (WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY), we need to evaluate mariedenazareth.com’s credibility, its handling of Esquier’s testimony, and its alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for this specific claim. The focus is on Esquier’s personal experience as described, not the letter’s existence or Ratzinger’s actions.

{{pb}}Clarifying the Specific Claim

Esquier’s March 2023 handwritten testimony on edifiant.fr, referenced in mariedenazareth.com’s July 25, 2023, article “Maria Valtorta est une vraie fille de l'Eglise”, includes a claim (dated “1990–1994” by mariedenazareth.com) that she witnessed or was aware of a letter from Ratzinger to Marcel Clément, then-editor of L’Homme Nouveau. This letter allegedly requested a temporary halt to sales of Valtorta’s books, followed by permission to resume, implying approval. The question centers on mariedenazareth.com’s reliability as a secondary source for discussing Esquier’s personal experience of witnessing this letter, per Wikipedia’s policies.

{{pb}}Wikipedia’s Reliable Source Policy

• Primary Sources (WP:PRIMARY): Primary sources are firsthand accounts (e.g., testimonies, letters). Esquier’s edifiant.fr letter is primary for her claim. Wikipedia allows primary sources for “straightforward, descriptive statements” with attribution (e.g., “Esquier claimed she witnessed…”), but not for analysis or contentious claims without secondary support. The hosting platform must be reliable for context.
• Secondary Sources (WP:RS): Reliable secondary sources interpret or summarize primary sources, requiring editorial oversight, fact-checking, and independence. Advocacy-driven or niche sites are less reliable, especially for third-party claims (e.g., about Ratzinger), but can be acceptable for attributed claims about personal experiences if credible.
• Scope: Mariedenazareth.com must accurately report Esquier’s testimony about her experience, be credible within its scope, and avoid unverified assertions beyond her account.

{{pb}}Esquier’s Primary Source on Edifiant.fr

• Content: Esquier claims she witnessed a Ratzinger letter to Clément (1990–1994) about halting and resuming Valtorta’s sales, tied to her L’Homme Nouveau role.
• Credibility: Esquier’s credentials—journalist and editor at L’Homme Nouveau, author of Catholic books (e.g., Lettre aux Chrétiens de France sur le baptême de Clovis, 1996), and 2014 Toulon candidate—support her plausibility as a witness.
• Edifiant.fr: With an 88% ScamDoc trust score, edifiant.fr is reliable for hosting Esquier’s words (WP:ABOUTSELF) but not for verifying Ratzinger’s actions due to its advocacy focus and lack of editorial oversight.

{{pb}}Evaluating Mariedenazareth.com’s Reliability

Mariedenazareth.com’s article summarizes Esquier’s edifiant.fr testimony, citing her claim about the Ratzinger-Clément letter. Here’s the evaluation:

Credibility and Mission:

• Mission: Mariedenazareth.com, run by the Marie de Nazareth Association, aims to “make Mary known and loved” and promote Catholic faith through multimedia, with a “Catholic ecumenical” Mission Statement: “To make Mary known and loved, and to help as many people as possible discover the beauty, breadth and truth of the Catholic faith.”
• Organizational Context: The association’s Church ties and multimedia output (books, DVDs) suggest legitimacy in Catholic circles, but it’s not an academic or news outlet. Its focus on Valtorta, whose works lack full Church approval, indicates a niche, advocacy-driven perspective.
• Trust Metrics: Mariedenazareth.com has a 95% trust rating and an “excellent” trust score from ScamDoc, indicating strong user trust and reliability for delivering Catholic content. This high rating enhances its credibility compared to edifiant.fr (88%), but ScamDoc reflects user perception and site security, not editorial rigor or independence, which Wikipedia prioritizes.

Handling of Esquier’s Testimony:

• Accuracy: The article accurately cites Esquier’s March 2023 edifiant.fr testimony, summarizing her claim of witnessing the Ratzinger-Clément letter (1990–1994). It doesn’t misrepresent her personal experience, making it reliable for relaying her account.
• Bias: The site uses Esquier’s testimony to promote Valtorta’s legitimacy, linking it to Ratzinger’s authority. This advocacy bias means it may accept her claim uncritically, but it doesn’t distort her stated experience.
• Verification: It notes the letter is with Clément’s grandson but provides no evidence (e.g., scan, third-party confirmation). For Esquier’s personal experience, verification isn’t required, as the claim is her subjective account.

Wikipedia Reliability Standards:

• For Esquier’s Personal Experience: WP:PRIMARY allows secondary sources to discuss primary accounts for descriptive statements. Mariedenazareth.com is reliable for stating, “Esquier claimed, as cited by mariedenazareth.com, that she witnessed a letter from Ratzinger halting and resuming Valtorta’s sales,” with attribution, fitting Wikipedia’s cautious use.
• WP:RS Limitations: The 95% trust rating supports niche credibility, but mariedenazareth.com’s advocacy focus and lack of editorial oversight (e.g., no named editors or fact-checking process) make it less reliable than academic journals or news outlets. Wikipedia prefers sources with established editorial standards.
• Independence: The site is independent of Esquier (no affiliation evidence), but its Valtorta advocacy reduces neutrality.
• Notability: For niche topics (e.g., Esquier’s experiences, Valtorta’s reception), mariedenazareth.com is acceptable to show how her testimony was circulated. For Ratzinger claims, Wikipedia requires stronger sources (e.g., L’Homme Nouveau, Vatican records).

Specific Claim Constraints:

• Scope: The claim is Esquier’s experience of witnessing the letter, not its existence or Ratzinger’s actions. Mariedenazareth.com reliably reports her account, suitable for Wikipedia attribution.
• Trust Metrics Impact: The 95% rating enhances credibility for Catholic content, but Wikipedia’s focus on editorial oversight limits reliability to attributed claims.
• No Overreach: The site’s broader assertion—Ratzinger supporting Valtorta—exceeds Esquier’s experience and requires evidence. For her witnessing claim, it stays within bounds.

{{pb}}Comparison to Other Secondary Sources

• Stronger Options: A L’Homme Nouveau article or Ratzinger biography (e.g., Seewald’s Benedict XVI: A Life) would offer editorial context or archival evidence, but these don’t mention the letter.
• Edifiant.fr: As the primary source, edifiant.fr is reliable for Esquier’s words. Mariedenazareth.com adds value by showing reception.

{{pb}}Conclusion

Mariedenazareth.com can be considered a reliable secondary source for discussing Esquier’s edifiant.fr testimony about her personal experience of witnessing Ratzinger’s letter on Valtorta’s sales, under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy, with caveats:

• Reliable for Attribution: Its 95% ScamDoc rating supports credibility for relaying Esquier’s claim, suitable for Wikipedia to cite with attribution (e.g., “According to mariedenazareth.com, Esquier claimed in a 2023 edifiant.fr testimony that she witnessed a letter…”). This fits WP:PRIMARY’s descriptive use.
• Limited by Advocacy: Its devotional mission and lack of editorial rigor make it less reliable than scholarly or journalistic sources. Wikipedia would accept it for niche, attributed claims but not for Ratzinger’s actions without evidence.
• Scope: It’s reliable only for Esquier’s subjective experience, not broader claims about Ratzinger or Valtorta.

For citing Esquier’s experience, mariedenazareth.com is adequate with attribution. To strengthen reliability, locating the Ratzinger-Clément letter or a L’Homme Nouveau reference would help.

{{hab}}

Arkenstrone (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Grok has absolutely no comprehension of Wikipedia's policies, the preceding output is wrong on just about every level and is a waste of editors time. If you want to make an argument or understand the relevant policies I suggest reading them yourself, Grok's answers are basically very verbose nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's wrong? How so? I read the policies, and compared Grok's analysis with my own comprehension of them, and it appears perfectly in compliance with them, even including verbatim excerpts of Wikipedia policy in several instances. I fail to see how Grok got it "wrong on just about every level". Please share where Grok got it wrong, specifically. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry but that would require reading "AI" glurge. Hatted as irrelevant is the best place to put automated textwalls. I think someone should write an essay about how, if you find yourself using automated text generators in a noticeboard argument, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK because you've lost all credibility. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No. If you want to put forward an argument based on your reading of Wikipedia's policies I'll happily discuss it with you, but I'm not going to spend my time talking with Grok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My argument is essentially the same as Grok's, as I've carefully examined what Grok produced and it is perfectly coherent and understandable with clear points being made throughout. If you or others can't see that, I submit that it's likely because you don't want to and perhaps some bias is entering into the mix. I've simply used Grok to analyze and provide additional context and information. In summary, and in my own words, citing Wikipedia policy:

::::1. Primary sources WP:PRIMARY are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved (e.g., testimonies, letters). Esquier’s edifiant.fr letter is a primary source for her claim. Therefore, even by Wikipedia's own standards, the primary source document is allowed provided it communicates only her own words and lived experience. However, to further strengthen it's reliability, I've located a reliable secondary source that refers to this primary source document.

::::2. Reliable secondary sources WP:RS analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize primary sources. Certain editors have mentioned that a reliable secondary source that refers to and discusses the primary source document would increase it's reliability in context, since it shows the primary source document is circulated and discussed, further strengthening it's legitimacy. That's what mariedenazareth.com does, as it is a very popular and respected French Catholic website.

::::3. There are different levels of "reliability". I am not saying mariedenazareth.com is a reliable secondary source at the same level as academic journals or news outlets. But only adequately reliable for confirmation of Esquier's own words about her own lived experience. Note, there are other websites that discuss this as well, but it seems to me mariedenazareth.com is the most reliable one as it produces a lot of additional French Catholic content completely independent of this issue.

::::4. The ScamDoc ratings for both websites (88% for edifiant.fr and 95% for mariedenazareth.com), while not a definitive indication of reliability, shows they are secure, established, well-regarded in the community, and clearly not "scam" websites. So this dispels all arguments concerning these websites' legitimacy. "Anonymous website ownership" is not an argument, since privacy is a legitimate concern for many website operators.

::::5. None of the other claims certain editors have brought up to justify their no vote, involving WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, and WP:UGC hold any water. The primary document are Esquier's own words of her own lived experience. Speaking of her own experience satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF. The primary document is obviously not self-published, so WP:SPS does not apply. And information generated on both edifiant.fr as well as mariedenazareth.com are not user-generated content, so WP:UGC doesn't apply. Also, WP:DUE is met, as I'm proposing only one brief paragraph, which the article does not rely on in any way, but provides useful context and information by someone who is both credible and involved in these matters. The policies that are most applicable in this situation are WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS and both are adequately satisfied as discussed above. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::We've read your argument before. At length. If you've still failed to convince anyone then it is probably, again, time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::These are just all the points you have raised before, and have failed to convince others editors. I suggest reading the advice at WP:1AM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No. This is a summary of the clarified points all in one place (instead of separated into a dozen different incoherent threads) with additional information included because a secondary source was not previously located. None of these points have been refuted. Consensus or convincing others, is not a substitute for arguments based in Wikipedia policy. I've shown Wikipedia policy to be on my side, and I'm waiting for you or others to refute each point above with sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. Also, citing essays as a substitute for Wikipedia policy is not very helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'll leave it to whoever closes the RFC to decide on policy interpretation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|If you want to put forward an argument based on your reading of Wikipedia's policies I'll happily discuss it with you...}}

::::::::I just did, citing several Wikipedia policies, but now you are refusing to discuss. This forum is a form of court, subject to Wikipedia policy. Also, I repeat, consensus is not a substitute for sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. That's like two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've unhatted that section. If you want to hat that section, then you're going to have to explain why those points are {{tq|a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies}}. Or, at the very least, rebut my summary of the most pertinent points above. I've reviewed those arguments and they appear sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. If you don't agree, then explain why. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Grok's output is ludicrous. To determine credibility, Grok cites {{xt|"trust rating"}} scores from [https://www.scamdoc.com/ ScamDoc], a site that says it {{xt|"uses artificial intelligence to classify websites and emails"}} with a [https://info.scamdoc.com/guide/presentation/ goal] of {{xt|"helping users make an informed decision before conducting a transaction or sharing personal information"}}. ScamDoc's [https://info.scamdoc.com/guide/scoring/ scoring criteria] include whether the domain uses HTTPS and domain privacy, and [https://info.scamdoc.com/guide/scoring/online-reviews/ whether user reviews report] that the business behind the website is responsible for {{xt|"undelivered products, significant delivery delays, unsolicited subscriptions, use of drop shipping"}}. All of this is completely unrelated to whether a website is a reliable source of information for citation in Wikipedia articles.{{pb}}The Grok output is so irrelevant to Wikipedia that I agree with ActivelyDisinterested (who previously collapsed Grok's output) and Simonm223 in that the AI output should remain collapsed. At this point, the current consensus in this discussion is to keep the AI output in a collapsed state, so I have collapsed it again. Using AI-generated arguments in talk page discussions is disruptive as it is disrespectful of other editors' time, considering the lack of effort it takes to generate the output compared to the amount of effort it takes to review it, so please do not do this again. {{bcc|Arkenstrone}}— Newslinger talk 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion of this source here in 2021. At WP:VG (Here and here)

Use of source: This source is used on over 7,000 articles (per [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Screen%20Rant#general-stats WmCloud]). This ranges from media and pop culture (comic books, video games, film, music, television, etc.) and is cited clearly popular and important seen articles like Quentin Tarantino, Malcolm X and Kylie Minogue.

Why is it relevant? There was a discussion at WP:FILM (within the past year, and for clarification, started by myself) which took take a deeper look at the content of it and other sites owned by it and ValNet. The conclusion of the discussion led to the creation of WP:RSP/VALNET suggesting we limit the content used by these sites to reviews clearly labeled as reviews and direct interviews, as the sites were shown to have poorly researched historical articles on film, attributing material to social media sites (reddit, letterboxd, etc.), and when used by others, it was in terms of interviews conducted by the site itself and direct reviews of films. While editors have brought up that the reading should have only been used for screen rant material after the ValNet purchase, this was only done after the discussion was agreed upon by other editors and no editor or material has been shown to suggest it was ever following its own policy. I bring this up, as the last big application by WP:FILM does not coincide that the site is reliable for for entertainment subjects as it stated at WP:RSP.

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748631668}}

{{rfc|media|rfcid=B6CA11B}}

RFC: What should [https://screenrant.com/ Screenrant.com] be designated as?

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

Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2. This is one I've gone back and forth on, but I think the status quo at WP:RSP and WP:VALNET is reasonable for Screen Rant under Valnet (2015–present). It's acceptable for basic pop culture facts but is not "high quality" as defined by WP:FACR. It should not be used for claims outside of pop culture, and it should be immediately removed from BLP claims per WP:BLPSOURCE. It also should not be used as evidence of notability or to indicate that something is WP:DUE in an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1, at least for modern pop-culture stuff. Of course, some of its articles are of little use (articles focused purely on plot, random "best of" lists, etc), but it's up to the Wikipedia writer to separate the wheat from the chaff. But those problematic articles are only a problem because of their format, not their actual content. Making things up, repeating conspiracy theories, attacking people, and the usual stuff that would lead to consider a site unreliable as a whole, do not apply to Screenrant. I have not worked with historical film articles, but the main focus of the page seems to be on modern pop culture anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment: Just to clarify, they definitely write about material related to historical content such as [https://screenrant.com/search/?q=John+Wayne 12 articles related to John Wayne in the past month]. Not to mention the articles I mentioned, they are obviously used in articles about real people. I'd be happy to point out basic errors, but I think this requires more clarification on what you mean by being acceptable for "basic pop culture stuff" perhaps with some examples. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Could be reliable for direct quotations from interviews, but should not be used in BLPs or counted towards notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 {{sbb}} I agree mostly with Thebiguglyalien above. Per WP:VALNET their properties are considered borderline - and that should continue for this specific property unless there is specific evidence that it is not subject to the same control as the other properties they own. It is obviously not a high quality source for FAC purposes, but it should not be problematic to source uncontroversial information to it - in fact, it may be the best source for some of the uncontroversial information it includes. I do think it should be limited to sourcing entertainment (film/video gaming) related content, and should not be used to source anything remotely controversial about BLPs. And as always, with less-than-ideal sources, if there is better sourcing available, it should be preferred.{{pb}}But I disagree with the OP here about how we determine the reliability of a source. Specifically, User:Andrzejbanas seems to claim that if Screen Rant uses, say, Reddit to get leads on information, it is inherently unreliable. That's not how reliable sources work. A reliable source can certainly get its information from unreliable sources. The question we must ask here is what the "reliable source" (that got its information from an unreliable source) did to verify the information it got. If we prohibited all information that has any origin on social media from being here, we'd have no reliable sources whatsoever. Even the most reliable sources like the New York Times get some of their leads from social media, for example. And no evidence has been presented that I can see that Screen Rant doesn't attempt to verify (or at least qualify as from social media) the information it gets.{{pb}}Lastly, the discussion on WP:FILM isn't actually linked. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it in the archives (searching on WT:FILM for "Screen Rant" and "screenrant" to try to find it) and I couldn't find it. I would appreciate if that discussion itself could be directly linked since it's being used to justify this discussion here - and if it can be linked here I'd appreciate a ping so I can review it fully and revisit this comment if necessary. But as of right now, I see no reason to move it from "borderline" or "more considerations needed". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :To clarify, {{ping|Berchanhimez}} the use of social media is tricky. Using to consider "reception" would be weak. The discussion and my points made are still on the main talk page of WP:FILM. You can see them here. I've provided several sources from ValNet sites discussing how they misrepresent their sources, contradict themselves in their own articles, and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::That explains why I couldn't find it in the history - when you said "within the past year" I assumed that meant within the past year (and also not currently on the page). My fault. Perusing that discussion, I would be okay with adding a qualification based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#c-Andrzejbanas-20250220140200-Valnet,_Collider,_and_MovieWeb this comment] you made. Specifically that they are of "questionable reliability" and that they may operate as "content farms". I do, however, still take issue with your attempt to "dig deep". We don't question our sources on their sources. If they verify the reliability of the information they include from, say, Reddit (or other social media), then that's their right. Our concern is their editorial processes as a whole - not where they get information (or leads). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Apologies, I just couldn't remember if the conversation stated earlier this year, or later last year. (is it nearly May already?) While I understand that other sources could be questioned, I have yet to see the same situations on the ValNet pages and while it could be addressed, things like Variety seem to pass the WP:USEDBYOTHERS regularly in academic journals and published books and other news agencies. When trying to find it for sites like screen rant, I only found them used by others in a serious manner I'd they may have some exclusive interviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Option 1 - I actually think what's currently on the Reliable sources list is a good spot for it to be. There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Could you clarify? The current listing would be option 2, as it has additional considerations about the source and directly mentions that it's a marginal. Option 1 would be that it is reliable for controversial statements about living people etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3-4 It's churnalism and we should not be depending on it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Especially as Screen Rant, in particular is known to use "AI" automated text generators for their churn of pop-culture articles. For a recent example: [https://screenrant.com/wednesday-season-2-anthony-michael-hall-cast/] was at least partially drafted with AI as confirmed both by human senses and validated by multiple Chat GPT checking programs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per User:Simonm223. I don't think it is quite at the level of being worthy of deprecation, but I started a discussion about one of its sites a year back here, and these sites absolutely qualify as churnalism. At best, Option 2 in line with dubious but still relatively innocuous online tabloids (cf. WP:DEXERTO). JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 for general articles, Option 3-4 for list articles. I was going to say that it's not necessarily unreliable - certainly is churnalism, low-grade soft media - but... considering the commonality of its list articles, those are bogus as citable sources. They're opinion pieces that are generated as click-bait. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749146475}}

{{rfc|media|rfcid=E56F219}}

Regarding the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon. Previous discussions from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_227#Washington_Free_Beacon 2017] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Using_The_Washington_Free_Beacon_in_politically_related_BLPs_-_is_it_an_RS? 2020]. Discussion that led to creation of this RFC is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Washington_Free_Beacon here]. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Question #1 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Matthew Continetti (2012–2018)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Question #2 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Eliana Johnson (2019–present)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

• Generally unreliable - the previous editor was a salacious political firebrand, and the paper regularly did BLP vios and false statements, as per RFCBEFORE. It appears to have reformed, but any article during previous EIC should be taken with a grain of salt, and other sourcing is generally preferrable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Alaexis and others, see previous RFCBEFORE.
• :{{cot|some of the undue/unreliable stuff from RFC Before, and other things i scrounged up}}
• :Zialater made these points about 6 years ago based on searching, i assume, snopes [https://www.snopes.com/search/?q=washington%20free%20beacon#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=washington%20free%20beacon&gsc.page=1]
• :* [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/] claim ilhan omar funded groups tied to terror
• :* [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/] claim that europe was gonna label "jewish-made" products
• :* [https://www.thedailybeast.com/dear-conservative-media-do-some-more-damn-reporting/] reduced reliability in wake of trump election
• :other stuff that is unreliable or undue
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/national-security/no-birth-certificate-required/] some [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/may/08/national-right-life-committee/obama-white-house-security-unborn-babies/ 2012 conspiracy] amplified by free beacon
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/blog/the-obama-bird-genocide-is-out-of-control/] an opinion piece about windmills and weaponization of solar farms causing a "bird genocide"
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/issues/cia-dedicated-program-recruit-transgender/] cia's dei program is dedicated to recruiting transgender folks
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/blog/elysium-is-actually-an-anti-obamacare-parable/] some tortured analogy about obamacare death panels and a scifi show

{{cob}} Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable - I would place the reliability of the more advocacy/tabloid era of the Free Beacon in the same bucket as WP:MEDIAMATTERS. Marquardtika (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on context - in this era it qualifies as an advocacy outlet, usable with in-text attribution. But not reliable for verifying unattributed statements of fact written in “wikivoice”. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable per current rating, do not use for politics or BLPs. Trashy advocacy source given to gossip. Absolutely not a source we should be using - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable I do think that the WFB was more ideological during Continetti's tenure, that being said, it still engaged in original reporting and several of the things it reported on were picked up by more mainstream outlets. Like other ideologically driven outlets such as Mother Jones, its reliability depends on the type of content being cited. For original reporting and routine coverage, it meets the standard of verifiability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable - There was certainly clear bias, especially in this era, but not of a nature that it ought to lead to differing treatment than myriad other sources with clear ideological slants. Obviously, how the content should be treated depends on the context, but that's always the case with anything we do here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable - no examples of uncorrected falsehoods have been presented. Open to downgrading my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Striking out my vote after having reviewed examples provided by u:Bluethricecreamman. While they are not unambiguously bad ([https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/ here], the False verdict hinges on the assertion that IR USA and IRW are distinct), they seemed to publish less potentially useful pieces during this period. Alaexis_¿question? 06:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable The way that this outlet selects stories is so enmeshed with their political opinion that it is functionally impossible to separate opinion from news with this source. The opinion of a political extremist media outlet is generally unlikely to be due inclusion in articles. Simply put this is not a source we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Openly and repeatedly published outright falsehoods and misinformation for political purposes. Among the worst of the several right wing outlets that did so over the past decade, openly promoting conspiracy theories as facts. Silverseren^C 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Attribution is a good opition in general either way. But there is a basis for WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Coverage just doesn't support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See eg. the coverage of its flat misinformation about Truthy.{{cite web|first1=David|last1=Uberti|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=How misinformation goes viral: a Truthy story|url=https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/how_misinformation_goes_viral.php|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}{{cite news|first1=Henry|last1=Farrell|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=No, the National Science Foundation is not building an Orwellian surveillance nightmare|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/22/no-the-national-science-foundation-is-not-building-an-orwellian-surveillance-nightmare/|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=22 October 2014|issn=0190-8286|via=www.washingtonpost.com}} Other sources, like {{cite journal|first1=Craig|last1=Silverman|title=Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content|url=https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8Q81RHH|date=2015|doi=10.7916/D8Q81RHH|journal=Tow Center for Digital Journalism}}, document its place in the misinformation ecosystem, describing how it originated a misleading and unverified claim, stating it as fact. This is not how one would expect coverage to describe a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additional considerations for BLP, generally reliable but dueness always matter - the most salacious info on BLP topics should still be corroborated by other news sources before being put on wikipedia, otherwise it's likely undue. seems reliable as is, might have some bias like any other outlet so always weight dueness. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Newslinger, HaeB, and Astaire made me want to refine my vote.
• :* In general: Additional considerations, For investigative/original reports: Additional considerations for BLP, generally reliable but dueness always matter, Other: proceed with extreme caution, likely extremely unreliable or undue Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - In the Eliana Johnson era, they have broken several high-profile stories via original reporting that have seen notable WP:USEBYOTHERS. See [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/01/04/free-beacon-harvard-claudine-gay/ The Washington Post], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/nyregion/columbia-deans-antisemitism-panel.html The New York Times], [https://www.axios.com/2024/08/08/columbia-deans-texts-antisemitism-resignation Axios], and [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/25/aaron-sibarium-conservative-media-00117899 Politico], for example. Aaron Sibarium is a legitimate journalist. See [https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-reporter-aaron-sibarium-harvard-president-claudine-gay-plagiarism-2024-1 Business Insider]. Marquardtika (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable with Eliana Johnson as editor-in-chief, with various original and credible scoops having been used by other reliable outlets. - Amigao (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable in this era. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I have a hard time considering the Washington Free Beacon generally reliable when [https://freebeacon.com/ its current home page] has a prominent section titled {{xt|"Enemies of Freedom"}} that lists exclusively members of the US Democratic Party, and [https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ the section's entry] {{small|([http://archive.today/2025.05.02-031249/https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ archive link], [https://web.archive.org/web/20250502031327/https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ archive link 2])}} on Barack Obama repeats the conspiracy theory that Obama is a {{!xt|"secret Muslim"}}. Another questionable article linked from the Free Beacon{{'s}} home page is [https://freebeacon.com/media/fact-check-eugene-daniels-says-journalists-care-deeply-about-accuracy-and-are-not-the-opposition/ "FACT CHECK: Eugene Daniels Says Journalists 'Care Deeply About Accuracy' and 'Are Not the Opposition'"], which is a mislabeled opinion piece with the statement {{xt|"If Daniels meant to imply that journalists are currently not behaving like an opposition party under President Trump, then of course that is false"}}, instead of an actual fact check. The Free Beacon{{'s}} reliability falls somewhere between {{rspe|The Daily Beast|The Daily Beast|nc}} and {{rspe|The Daily Caller|The Daily Caller|d}}. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I had a look at that Obama article - this is obviously an opinion piece (as evident form the section title alone) that is very polemical and not a suitable reference, but is that "occupation" seriously an endorsement of this conspiracy theory, or rather tongue-in-cheek snark? Has the publication made serious claims elsewhere - in a non-opinion article - that Obama practices Islam? (Can't find anything in a quick search [https://freebeacon.com/?s=Obama+Muslim], but haven't looked thoroughly.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am almost certain the "secret Muslim" thing is intended as a joke, given the piece's tone and the fact the website still maintains an active "satire" section [https://freebeacon.com/tag/satire/]. Astaire (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, the satire section seems to be along the lines of the Babylon Bee. Obviously unreliable and unusable, but also easily identifiable and clearly distinct from their original news reporting. Marquardtika (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Another portion of the Free Beacon{{'s}} [https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ "Enemies of Freedom" entry for Obama] claims, {{!xt|«"Born" in "Hawaii" in 1961, B. Hussein Obama moved with his mother at age six to Indonesia and ate dog meat»}}, with the words born and Hawaii in scare quotes. About a week ago, the Free Beacon published [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/why-democrats-should-hate-and-republican-should-love-barack-obama-the-foundational-maga-warrior/ an article] claiming {{!xt|"Obama was particularly aggrieved by Trump's relentless quest to uncover the truth about his birth certificate, a matter that has yet to be fully resolved"}}, with the word has in present tense. Both sentences echo Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.{{pb}}Many of these problematic articles are not adequately labeled or tagged. Although the Free Beacon has a [https://freebeacon.com/satire/ "Satire" section] and an [https://freebeacon.com/arts-culture-opinion/ "Arts, Culture & Opinion" section], none of the articles I linked to are in these sections. Instead, the [https://freebeacon.com/media/fact-check-eugene-daniels-says-journalists-care-deeply-about-accuracy-and-are-not-the-opposition/ faux fact check] was placed in the [https://freebeacon.com/media/ "Media" section] and the [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/why-democrats-should-hate-and-republican-should-love-barack-obama-the-foundational-maga-warrior/ latter article about Obama] was placed in the [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/ "Democrats" section]. One of the authors, [https://freebeacon.com/author/andrew-stiles/ Andrew Stiles], is described by the Free Beacon as {{xt|"senior writer at the Washington Free Beacon"}} with no disclaimer regarding the veracity of his content. This lack of disclosure blurs the boundary between news content and polemic on the Free Beacon, and is an "additional consideration" regarding the website's general reliability. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The "fact check" and the Obama article are both written by Stiles and part of the [https://freebeacon.com/stiles-section/ "Stiles Section"], which I specifically highlighted in my response as generally unreliable.
• ::There is precedent to upgrade or downgrade the reliability of a specific writer (e.g. upgrading Sibarium, downgrading Stiles) at WP:RSP - see the entries for Boing Boing, Jacobin, Der Spiegel, Quackwatch, and Hardcore Gaming 101. Astaire (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, per Newslinger. It's not just a blaring advocacy source, it's a trashy blaring advocacy source. Should not be used for politics and really should not be used for BLPs. I wouldn't object to deprecate, frankly - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for its investigative and original reporting (especially from Aaron Sibarium). Option 2 for editorialized or sensationalistic articles that lack original reporting. Option 3 for assorted tabloid nonsense.

:* Per BuzzFeed News, the Free Beacon is best described as {{tq|somewhere between a traditional news organization and a high-concept prank... Alternately parodic and wire-service serious, it has broken major political news, mostly negative, about Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and occasionally members of rival Republican factions, like Rand Paul}}. [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/eliana-johnson-free-beacon]

:* The Washington Post described the Free Beacon as {{tq|the rare conservative media outlet that does significant reporting of its own}} and said that it has an {{tq|unusual commitment to original reporting... The puckish Free Beacon has managed to dig up damaging stories on politicians — Republican as well as Democrat}} [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/01/04/free-beacon-harvard-claudine-gay/].

:* Politico called the Free Beacon {{tq|an online publication that is explicitly conservative and dedicated to “combat journalism,” but which is somewhat grudgingly respected in liberal circles}} [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/25/aaron-sibarium-conservative-media-00117899], specifically praising Sibarium's work.

:* The Atlantic wrote that the Free Beacon has {{tq|produced some memorable political reporting over the years}} and suggested that it is a rare example of a right-wing outlet doing credible journalism [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/dispatch-tries-sell-real-news-right/605860/].

:Under Johnson's tenure, the Free Beacon has broken multiple stories of significance that were later mentioned in WP:GREL sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), such as:

:* Plagiarism allegations against the Harvard University president [https://freebeacon.com/campus/harvard-president-claudine-gay-hit-with-six-new-charges-of-plagiarism/] [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/03/the-decline-and-fall-of-harvards-president], after which she resigned.

:* Leaked text messages between Columbia University administrators [https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-administrators-fire-off-hostile-and-dismissive-text-messages-vomit-emojis-during-alumni-reunion-panel-on-jewish-life/] [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/nyregion/columbia-deans-antisemitism-panel.html], after which they were placed on leave.

:* A hospital network using patients' race as a factor in rationing COVID-19 treatments [https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/food-and-drug-administration-drives-racial-rationing-of-covid-drugs/] [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based-covid-rationing-ideology/621405/], after which this practice stopped.

:* A free speech uproar at Yale Law School [https://freebeacon.com/campus/a-yale-law-student-sent-a-lighthearted-email-inviting-classmates-to-his-trap-house-the-school-is-now-calling-him-to-account/] [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/yale-law-diversity-bureaucrats-made-five-mistakes/620428/], after which the school's associate dean retired.

:* A controversial deposition from the Columbia University interim president [https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-universitys-armstrong-cant-recall/] [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/nyregion/columbia-president-armstrong-federal-deposition.html], after which she announced her departure.

:However, the Free Beacon's track record does not extend to tabloid silliness like [https://freebeacon.com/media/breaking-exclusive-cnns-brian-stelter-spotted-shoeless-and-disheveled-on-amtrak-train-leaving-dc-after-nerd-prom/ this recent story about a CNN reporter not wearing shoes on a train]. Articles like this, and the [https://freebeacon.com/media/fact-check-eugene-daniels-says-journalists-care-deeply-about-accuracy-and-are-not-the-opposition/ Eugene Daniels "FACT CHECK"] mentioned above, are written by Andrew Stiles and compiled under the website's [https://freebeacon.com/stiles-section/ "Stiles Section"], along with obvious satires like [https://freebeacon.com/newsletters/exclusive-we-got-joe-bidens-list-of-absurd-demands-for-speaking-gigs/ "Exclusive: We Got Joe Biden’s List of Absurd Demands for Speaking Gigs"]. This section is a grab bag of undue BLP material, opinion pieces, joke articles, etc. Not encyclopedic, but they are self-contained and easy to separate from the rest of the paper (just look for the byline). Astaire (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Under Johnson, the WFB improved in journalistic rigor and made many original reports that were widely used by various outlets (i.e. NYT, WP, etc.). Reporters such as Aaron Sibarium are professional reporters and his work has been validated through secondary coverage. The official editorial stance is conservative but the official stance of Mother Jones is liberal/progressive. The actual thing in question is the site's factual reliability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - The WFB has done plenty of legitimate reporting during this era, and I'm frankly a lot more confident about this as a reasonable source than Continetti. Of course, the fact that they house satire on the same site as news reporting means extra care should be taken on exactly what is being used from the site. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additional considerations (Marginally reliable): Generally reliable for investigative/original reporting per WP:USEBYOTHERS with Johnson as the new EIC. Conservative bias on politics. Satirical and pop culture articles generally unreliable. I'm seeing this one as a right-wing cross between a WP:DAILYBEAST and a WP:MEDIAMATTERS which are both WP:MREL. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - is there a corrections policy/examples of the outlet issuing corrections or updates when needed? Currently I don't see anything that militates towards the current GUNREL designation, but given that there seems to be consensus that they do in fact print quality original journalism, I think looking at editorial behaviour should probably be the difference between an MREL or GREL outcome. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::There are editor's notes such as [https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/a-note-to-our-readers-on-the-departure-of-bill-gertz/ here] and [https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/editors-note/ here]. Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! The later note is more encouraging (that is the kind of behaviour that gives some confidence in the editorial processes). The earlier one, which affects question 1 more than question 2, raises some questions (what are the different editorial processes for "aggregated" news pieces as opposed to "original investigative" ones, and are these types of articles categorised separately in a way that is visible to the reader?). I see the above !vote says {{tq|Generally reliable for investigative/original reporting}} but less reliable for other things, and I'm wondering if the difference is always obvious.

:::Another question: Now that there are some more GUNREL !votes, I see a several that argue that the outlet pushes misinformation/conspiracy theories. Can we please have a link to articles from the Beacon that exemplify this? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable. On one hand there is a lot of stories they broke, on the other hand u:Newslinger's examples are concerning. I think that the distinction suggested by u:BBQBoffin makes sense (investigative/original reporting vs satire, pop culture and opinion-style pieces). Its use should be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote a given piece. If it's authored by someone who had produced high-quality content previously, that should be a positive signal. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Significantly better than during the previous era, although not entirely sure whether its now Marginally or Generally reliable... But I think we're at least close to where we would need to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Don't like the choices. A related case started on 21 April is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Free_Beacon_cite Free Beacon cite] thread on the talk page thread of Charlie Hebdo shooting, participants = Peter Gulutzan, David Gerard, David O. Johnson, Gamebuster. David Gerard removed a cite of the Free Beacon and later mentioned "a broad general RFC" somewhere. I believe this edit should be overturned and more generally Free Beacon censorship should end. But I'm not enthusiastic about the the RfC's 4-way choices and their links. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do you have a suggestion for a different option beyond the given choices? When I wrote the RFC I just copied the four main options that seem to be listed in other RFCs about source reliability. I thought they were the standard options. Am I missing something? Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Renaming_%22Option_4%22_in_RfCs recently-changed] 4-way form pays attention to only the publication rather than the other things in WP:SOURCE; the links are to an essay-class page defining (changeably) what your !vote means, regardless what your comment is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable My opinion about the outlet under its new management is unchanged from my opinion of them prior: The way that this outlet selects stories is so enmeshed with their political opinion that it is functionally impossible to separate opinion from news with this source. The opinion of a political extremist media outlet is generally unlikely to be due inclusion in articles. Simply put this is not a source we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable I don't see the claimed improvement in content by the publication. They still push the same conspiracy claims and misinformation, just perhaps slightly more subtly. The claims above of their breaking reporting picked up by others seems to entirely revolve around Claudine Gay and nothing else, which was itself a massive political furor. And therefore no need to use an already unreliable source like this because of that one instance. I see no point in using this source for anything. Any actual useful stories will inherently already be covered by better and more reliable sources. Silverseren^C 15:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|The claims above of their breaking reporting picked up by others seems to entirely revolve around Claudine Gay and nothing else}} This is simply untrue. I gave five examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS for their investigative reporting (and there are others, omitted for brevity), only one of which was the Claudine Gay story.
• :{{tq|They still push the same conspiracy claims and misinformation, just perhaps slightly more subtly}} It would be helpful if you gave some examples of this in their news reporting. Astaire (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for investigative and original reporting. Tchouppy (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable on comments on WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• I just want to confirm here, since there is a lot of focus on stories that they're breaking, that we're all aware that WP:RSBREAKING exists, right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. No indication that their reputation has improved; if anything it has gotten worse, with sources overtly describing them as publishing misinformation - see eg. {{cite book|accessdate=2025-05-06|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003171270-8/mis-disinformation-social-media-melissa-zimdars|chapter=Mis/Disinformation and Social Media|title=The Social Media Debate|first=Melissa|last=Zimdars|date=2022|quote=The right-wing media sphere is very interconnected, and websites tend to legitimize each other and circulate the same information across social media platforms. Websites like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon, Campus Reform, Gateway Pundit, and many more are known entities for spreading unreliable junk.}}{{cite book|first1=Elaine|last1=Kamarck|first2=Darrell M.|last2=West|title=Lies that Kill: A Citizen's Guide to Disinformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oOsBEQAAQBAJ|publisher=Brookings Institution Press|date=3 September 2024|isbn=978-0-8157-4073-5|via=Google Books|quote=One of the linchpins of disinformation networks is the multiple levels of the information ecosystem that try out particular attacks to see which one work before elevating them to sites with a wider readership. Rumors might start out on obscure bulletin boards such as Reddit or 4chan, but as they gain currency, they move up to conservative sites like Infowars, Breitbart, or the Daily Caller. If people read those articles, the information can get picked up by conservative newspapers like the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon. The most effective stories eventually are broadcast by mainstream media such as Fox News or other cable outlets.}}{{cite book|first1=Melissa|last1=Zimdars|first2=Kembrew|last2=Mcleod|title=Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1WPMDwAAQBAJ|publisher=MIT Press|date=18 February 2020|isbn=978-0-262-35739-5|via=Google Books|quote=If you searched Google for information about potential collusion between Russia and Donald Trump in May 2017, the first results that appear are propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively.}} Simply breaking stories isn't WP:USEBYOTHERS; simply doing "original reporting" doesn't make a source reliable. Any outlet can sometimes break a story. What matters is the context; whether secondary sources treat them as reliable. And high-quality sourcing absolutely does not - they're treated as producing a fountain of misinformation. Many of the stories they "broke" - especially surrounding are described by high-quality sources as full of distortions. Their coverage of Claudine Gay in particular has attracted serious academic criticism, eg.{{cite web|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=Claudine Gay, Plagiarism, and AI|url=https://www.aaup.org/JAF15/claudine-gay-plagiarism-and-ai|date=24 October 2024|website=AAUP|quote=Or at least that is what the bad faith efforts of Christopher Rufo and the Washington Free Beacon would have us believe. ... A more comprehensive review conducted for the Harvard Crimson by Rahem D. Hamid, Nia L. Orakwue, and Elias J. Schisgall (2023) demonstrates how Sibarium’s original reporting distorts the context somewhat.}} WP:RS isn't about effectiveness, it is about reputation. They plainly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|Their coverage of Claudine Gay in particular has attracted serious academic criticism, eg.}} - huh? A "distorts the context somewhat" would be pretty gentle even for lots of criticism within academia - professors sling worse invectives at one another in academic debates all the time, without us GUNRELing an entire academic journal because it had published an article that was criticized in another one this way.
• :And your quote (which you misleadingly end with a full stop that is not present in the original) conveniently omits the subsequent part of the sentence part where the author admits {{tq|although they [The Crimson] acknowledge many errors of a similar kind [as those reported by Sibarium] across multiple pieces authored by Gay}}. What's more, in the sentence right before, the author himself seems to accept the Beacon's core factual allegations: {{tq|Writing for the Washington Free Beacon, Aaron Sibarium (2023) has highlighted numerous instances of overlapping phrasing, unclearly cited or incorrectly formatted quotations, and apparent copying in Gay’s scholarly output.}} When it comes to differences of interpretation (plagiarism or not), it's also worth noting that the opinion which the article advocates ({{tq|I do not even see plagiarism, in any meaningful sense of the word}}) flatly contradicts that of several other academics, e.g. Carol M. Swain. However, you apparently want us to believe that the article somewhat represents the academic consensus, as if Sibarium had engaged in climate denialism.
• :Based on this additional information and the fact that you tampered with a verbatim quote in a way that both furthered your argument and violated MOS:PMC, it could even be reasonably argued that your own comment here "distorts the context somewhat". But I wouldn't accuse you of being {{tq|a fountain of misinformation}} just because of that.
• :Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The "fountain of misinformation" bit summarizes the other sources, which are much more in-depth and clear that the Free Beacon is not a reliable source (one of them says as much in as many words.) I included the bit about Gay merely because that is the main focus of people arguing that it is reliable and to demonstrate that there are sources that cover that as part of the the same thing; and "somewhat distorts" adequately summarizes their position, as you conceded. If the best you can muster in defense of what is supposedly its star bit of reporting and the thing that its defenders believe is that academics have only said that it "somewhat" distorts the facts, then that's hardly enough to overcome significant academic coverage overtly describing it as a {{tq|propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable website}} or saying that it is known for {{tq|spreading unreliable junk.}} This is simply not something that could conceivably be considered a reliable source; the only serious debate is between unreliability and deprecation. They are not simply biased, they overtly and systematically distort the facts in the service of an ideological agenda. "One of their hit pieces got wider coverage" obviously does not render such a low-quality source reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - Many articles are well researched. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable They have been putting out good investigative pieces in the last few years. -Bruebach (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable/additional considerations. They do some original reporting to reasonably high levels of journalistic professionalism. We'd want to make that easy enough for WP editors to use, while at the same time cautioning editors that they need to keep an eye out for the other content. They are conservative and they make that clear. Perhaps because of their conservative convictions, they might take on stories that others would miss or not think to investigate. We wouldn't want to miss stories like that. Novellasyes (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749304872}}

{{rfc|sci|rfcid=84120E1}}

What is the reliability of the The Debrief [https://thedebrief.org/]?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 (generally unreliable). The Debrief is the new(ish) blog of paranormal podcaster Micah Hanks (host of "The Graelian Report" - an apparent portmanteau of "grey alien" ... one of the alien species flying saucer believers think are battling the Galactic Federation of Light led by the "good" Pleiadians). With The Debrief, he appears to be trying to edge into the mainstream by branding it as "science and tech" and mixing summaries of mainstream science news with the usual cruft (there's an entire section on flying saucers [https://thedebrief.org/category/uap/]).
  Hanks has written and spoken in a variety of media about ghosts, ESP, "lost" civilization, flying saucers, Bigfoot, etc. (see: [https://open.spotify.com/episode/6fdSoJDbtvDxkWH0AIrGft], [https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-micah-hanks-program-1576/episodes/012515-esp-and-disappearances-44119], etc.) These reports appear largely uncritical and seem to originate at a starting point which presumes veracity of the paranormal. He also frequents the paranormal lecture circuit (here he is at "East Coast Paracon" on a "remote viewing" panel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgJLTfEGwmQ]). He is also a guest talking about flying saucers on News Nation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6mHcv6OIg] which we previously determined was unreliable per WP:UFONATION. Insofar as WP:USEBYOTHERS it was widely cited around one event, the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, based apparently on the exclusivity of its access to Grusch or those who know him. I can find no other instances of USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Addendum: I'm also fine with Option 4 if needed to attain a consensus, though, I share the concern of Chess that it might not be used with enough frequency to make it worthwhile adding it to the edit filter. Chetsford (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 (totally unreliable). Just forget about it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Difficult to forget about anything that contributes to dramah... and disruption. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, we can always hope that the domain name The Debrief will be abducted by some UFO people and will disappear from the internet. Would that be nice? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::With the requisite probing that comes with it perhaps{{bcc|Yesterday, all my dreams...}}...? ;) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation. It seems to be a mixture of FRINGE and reposts of articles available elsewhere. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Is this frequently used enough onwiki to be worth adding to the edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (additional considerations). It's used in 50+ articles, it requires care but it's of great utility and we wouldn't want to wholesale purge it. Obviously, it a pro-UFO outlet, so it's not reliable for extraordinary claims about alternate worldviews. But ASIDE from FRINGE claims, it meets RS in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correcting. When it makes uncontroversial claims about living people (Person X has joined Organization Y), it seems generally reliable. Feoffer (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3, leaning option 4. It's WP:FRINGE material from a WP:TABLOID, non-RS blog. No reason to entertain it, plenty of reason to remove. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. Generally unreliable for claims about UFOs etc since it represents a fringe view on the subject. Claims of that nature sourced to The Debrief should be removed. But there is no need to exclude its use for uncontroversial claims and reporting about the activities and persons involved in the fringe UFO community. -- LWG ^talk 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 Micah Hanks is obviously unreliable and so is his blog. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 Unreliable misinforming trash - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3, possibly Option 4. Micah Hanks is reason enough to define The Debrief as unreliable, but that it claims to have a "reputation as an unbiased source of news" and yet typically publishes material like [https://thedebrief.org/was-this-underreported-fighter-plane-crash-ufo-related/ this]...that's a hard NO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why do you object to that article of all articles?! it debunks a legend, concluding "there is nothing in the official records to suggest that any sort of UFO or other anomalous activity was involved.... The tragic event seems to have been the result of poor decisions made by the pilot." Feoffer (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. Simply not a basis for decent encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. Not a WP:FRIND or reliable source for UFOs, conspiracy theories, paranormal, occult, etc. For citing uncontroversial information or general facts, there are likely much higher quality sources available, so why use The Debrief? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :My own involvement began as a side discussion on the "Sol Foundation" AFD. 21st century stuff is not my forte, but my thinking is that while their beliefs are no doubt fringe, it is not a fringe claim for us to report that various notable fringe promoters have allied under a common name, which is all the source in question was being used for. Seems like the project is better off if we can tell readers "who" the "Sol Foundation" actually is, so they can read our articles on the members, rather than just send them back to the wilds of the internet Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I hear you. I haven't followed that discussion. Could you give an example of data you'd want to extract from The Debrief? The Debrief articles I see about Sol [https://thedebrief.org/academics-investors-and-uap-seekers-unite-at-the-2024-sol-foundation-symposium/ read like propaganda written by a PR person]. I think it would be difficult for casual editors to discern how to apply an exception to an otherwise deprecated source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't actually know if we need to cite Debrief in the article, but it's coverage of the controversial group of notable people does count toward notability, at least according to my thinking. To complicate matters, the group is at least partially religious in nature, getting coverage in Catholic press as well as UFO press, both of which are fringe worldviews but still count towards notability (in my eyes). But admittedly, about 50 years outside my expertise, I can't keep straight who is who in the 2020s ufo world. Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4. It has no real fact checking or editorial oversight. Their non-UFO reporting isn't any better. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Usable depending on context. Decide on a case-by-case basis. Visiting the [https://thedebrief.org/ site], which is clearly not a blog as is being exaggerated here, the articles look and read like straight reporting in the majority of instances. 5Q5|^✉ 12:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is a science clickbait website. As others noted, anything that might be worth it can be found in better sources.-Bruebach (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Feoffer. Shouldn't be used to push that agenda but seems fine to support inter-UFO community stuff when that would be appropriate in context. There is not, in fact, "likely" better sourcing for a lot of this kind of thing. The debunking/skeptic sources cover it from that angle, which is fine, but will often leave out basic facts irrelevant to their point that are helpful for encyclopedic article writing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Debrief has not previously been discussed at RSN but is coming up with greater regularity by flying saucer enthusiasts who are using it as a source for related articles. A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The last discussion appears to have been Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 425#Thedebrief.org, which appears to be have been impart a result of this discussion Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 98#UFOlogy promoter BLPs.
  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22thedebrief.org%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 This search] shows some limited current usage in Wikipedia's articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{re|Chetsford}} I don't see an {{tl|rfc}} tag on this discussion. Would you like to add one? — Newslinger talk 13:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Oops, thank you, Newslinger! Totally forgot - now fixed. Chetsford (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I see an analogy with the publications associated with minority worldviews. Ensign (LDS magazine) isn't a RS in the same way NYTs is; we're not citing it to prove the Golden Plates existed. But Ensign is generally reliable, when properly used. Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• I'm with Feoffer here: it's unreliable (or at least undue) when used as a source for subject areas where it's at odds with the preponderance of more reliable sources. But there's no reason we can't cite Ensign (LDS magazine) for a claim like "so-and-so is a LDS theologian whose writings focus on [topic]" and I think The Debrief is acceptable for similar purposes. This far I haven't seen any case made against The Debrief besides "it publishes the writings of people with factually-incorrect beliefs about UFOs" which is an argument that would seem to apply to any publication aligned with a minority worldview. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Media Bias/Fact Check [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-debrief-bias/ rates] The Debrief as "High Credibility" and "Mostly Factual" while still note the unsubstantiated UFO claims. I don't know how much weight we give MBFC ratings, but at minimum the rating demonstates Debrief is a media source, not 'just a blog'. Feoffer (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :MFBC and other such sites don't base there analysis on Wikipedie's policies and guidelines. They might be useful for further research of a source, but I wouldn't give their conclusions any weight. This isn't a comment on if Debrief is a blog, or whether it's reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's fair -- we shouldn't cede our editorial judgement to something like MFBC. But some arguments above really did suggest it's not a media site, so that narrow argument does seem refuted. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::MBFC have a report of Science-Based Medicine using the same kind of language[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-based-medicine/], however per WP:SBM it should at least be considered partially self-published. Again such decisions should be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than an external source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::By way of comparison, MBFC also rates PoliticusUSA as "highly credible" for factual reporting. Chetsford (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we might want to consider whether VOA should be considered GUNREL from May 2025 forward per [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/07/us/trump-news?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk8.aab_.e460M-ZWazOu&smid=url-share this NYT article]. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seems to be a notable concern according to [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/07/voice-america-one-america-news the Guardian] as well. DN (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Raised this already at WT:RS. Masem (t) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not a particular fan of VoA as a source, but should we see this veer in the direction this suggests, it would be due a re-consideration. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we should definitely be concerned, see what happened to covid.gov, but has the output of VOA changed yet? If they do start outputting reposts from OAN then they would become unreliable as OAN is unreliable, and where an unreliable source is published doesn't change its status (all the DM reposts on MSN and Yahoo for instance). I just worry about jumping the gun before changes have been made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::But we should also wait, until we see what it does. But we do need to keep an eye on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:For now its a wait and see but its likely going to need to be date seperated as you suggest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, agreed. I was just flagging it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a way to have any link to it archived automatically? Just to prevent tampering with older articles. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::According to WP:PLRT the Internet Archive runs through the Wikipedia EventStream and archives all links it sees automatically within about 24 hours, which is probably about as good as we can do. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, I assumed there would be a larger delay, this is probably good enough, thanks. FortunateSons (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well, so much for it advertising the land of the free and the home of the brave. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::It can't happen here. I wouldn't trust any US government source for at best the next 4 years. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I can thoroughly recommend 'Travellers in the Third Reich' which is about what people travelling to Germany said in the years before WW II. It is quite fascinating seeing what tourists, businessmen, diplomats, writers and others said about their journeys there, I still find it hard to believe how it all happened and how those who disagreed were cowed into silence or had to flee, how people one might expect to know better became ardent believers, how the youth in particular were taken over. NadVolum (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would support infinite (non date specific) deprecation of all USAGM properties because (a) the sources clearly support that they have always been unreliable, and less importantly but still observedly, (b) our unwillingness to deprecate in the past exposes us to ridicule now.

:One year ago I advanced a successful RfC that led to the deprecation of VOA sibling broadcaster Radio y Television Marti. I also advanced an unsuccessful RfC related to another VOA sibling, RFE/RL, on an objective basis of unreliability (chief among them was that its reorganization under the USAGM removed all cushions between editorial and political policy). While I still strongly believe all USAGM broadcasters (including VOA, RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia, etc.) should be deprecated, I will generally note that now when we do it -- having declined to do so last year -- we will open ourselves to claims of political bias. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, of course. However, deprecation, when it happens, should cover the whole history of VOA as clear evidence supports that it is and has been unreliable throughout its existence; any recent events are superficial when viewed through a holistic lens of USAGM and BBGs documented, decades-long history of errors, omissions, political manipulation, and agenda-setting oriented towards supporting the wild global ambitions of its sponsor. It's perceptually perilous, but -- more important -- factually incorrect, to suggest VOA's reliability can be turned off and on like a light switch. Chetsford (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::If VOA stops it's current reporting and starts reposting OAN, then there will have been a definitive switch. Just because the name would stay the same doesn't mean it's would be the same organisation. If someone bought a newspaper and completely changed it from the ground up, then reassessing it and potentially changing it's reliability would be valid. If something no longer bears any relationship with it's past, there is no reason it should be treated the same. If anyone wants to make a claim of political bias they would have to show where that happened, not just that different sources are handled differently.
I would agree that nothing should happen now, as I said in my original comment. We should wait to see what happens and how secondary sources report on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not really certain we agree at all. To clarify, I believe all USAGM properties should have been deprecated ten years ago and the error can be remedied at any point including now. We already have decades worth of secondary sources that demonstrate to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that each of the USAGM brands have not been functionally independent since they were founded, even with the ostensible protections offered by the now defunct BBG. I itemized a mere fraction of these in the Radio y Television Marti and RFE/RL RfCs. Whether or not it starts simulcasting or syndicating OAN is superfluous; that's a drop in a reservoir that long ago crested the dam. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not being drawn into past RFC, especially if they closed with a consensus that these were reliable. If you believe there is already enough evidence to change that consensus you can always start a new RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Xt|"I'm not being drawn into past RFC"}} I don't think -- or at least didn't mean to -- draw you into a past RfC. You seemed to imply no secondary sources exist about the unreliability of USAGM brands; I was merely correcting that point that, in fact, there are scores of secondary sources spanning decades. {{Xt|"especially if they closed with a consensus that these were reliable"}} One closed with a consensus to deprecate, the other closed with a consensus that additional considerations apply. I would respectfully posit that, in the second case, that consensus occurred largely due to !voters similarly adopting a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach to the subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the key concept here is the presumption of regularity. If our treatment of government sources varied with the change of political party then yes, we'd be open to a charge of bias. I doubt you'd find much support for the idea that we can say that about the present situation in the United States. Developing an argument that the VOA has always been unreliable, and that the current (possible) changes make no different, seems like a difficult and unnecessary hill to climb. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As the person who closed the past two RFCs, I agree that that would be a tough battle, and probably one that would generate more heat than fire. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It is difficult, I agree, though I'd posit that's largely due to the American sensibilities of most of our editors whose cultural frame associates VOA and its sibling brands (particularly Radio Free Europe) with Cold War-era nobiliary intentions to such a degree that they're willing to overlook decades of documentation that reveal a more pernicious M.O. that would warrant deprecation for any other outlet. The second RfC was correctly closed by Voorts as a consensus for Additional Considerations. However, the !votes of many editors were still and undeniably bizarre. Faced with a dozen points from RS showing RFE/RLs historic and ongoing infiltration by intelligence services, its politicized editorial focus, its routine disciplining of editorial staff for reporting that challenged the wild global ambitions of its sponsor, and its history of broadcasting fabrications and falsehoods, many editors still simply lodged a simple and perfunctory "meh - don't see any reason not to trust it *shrug*". I've been on the wrong end of many RfCs and I can usually comprehend the perspective of the other "side" even if I don't agree with it. This one, though, left me utterly befuddled. Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree entirely fwiw although as one of Wikipedia's loudest VOA critics that probably is no surprise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|"You seemed to imply no secondary sources exist"}} I don't see how I did, and iif I gave that impression it has nothing to do with my comment.

::::::{{tq|"that consensus occurred largely due to !voters similarly adopting a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach"}} I find that it's best just to take editors at there word, rather than trying to guess some secondary meaning.

::::::My point was (only) that if you believe that you have enough evidence to start a new RFC you could, and that I didn't want to get into discussing prior RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The VOA's last story is from March. If the VOA is just syndicating stories from One America News Network then the source is still One America News Network. It is a waste of time to bother editing the reliability of a source based on things that may happen. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sort of. It makes sense for us to update our WP:RSP entry to highlight this, since it's the sort of thing that many editors may miss. And it doesn't make sense for us to leave a green RSP entry with no warnings that only refers to a VOA that no longer exists - it ought to be updated to note the change in order to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no point in updating the VOA entry when they haven't published anything, this is just politicking rather than actual concern in regard to the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Please don't make assumptions about other editors' motives. I posted this because it's noteworthy and we will likely need to act on it. I could care less about the politics of VOA. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yesterday, the Trump admin fired 600 VOA employees - a third of the entire staff, per [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/us/politics/trump-voice-of-america-firings.html NYTimes]. Seems to indicate that they are indeed making course towards partner content. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 16 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)

::{{tpq|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)

Can primary sources be used to represent an organisation's stated position? As I understand it, WP:PRIMARY allows the use of a primary source for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". WP:ABOUTSELF states that self-published sources "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". I relied on these policies to present an organization's position with proper attribution in the section titled "Positions". I cited an official statement from SEGM to reflect their attributed opinion (not a statement of fact) that they believe puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trial settings: [https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence]. This was removed citing WP:PRIMARY: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=1289556593&oldid=1289547900] But how else can an organization's official position be cited, if not from its own statements or documents? Since this is not the first time this happens, I would like to ask a third opinion on the matter. JonJ937 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This seems to be an appropriate use of a primary source. However, this relates to a topic that seems to be in flux… positions change frequently. Thus, the source might be outdated (you should check whether SEGM has any issued subsequent statements that might indicate a change in their position). Blueboar (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the comment. I checked their website and couldn't find any recent updates to their position. They normally state their stance with wording like 'It is SEGM's position that...'", or include a separate section titled "SEGM Position". JonJ937 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Even for an organization's official position, it is usually best to have not just the primary source but also high-quality secondary sources to put it into the right context. The question is what is WP:DUE and whether it is reasonable to include (even attributed) medical misinformation in spite of WP:MEDRS. Our article on Andrew Wakefield does not go out and report claims from his pro-viruses activism as "opinion" either. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Seconding this. I believe that citations aren't just for verifying whether something is true, they're for verifying why it's relevant. If it's not covered in secondary sources, that calls its overall relevance into doubt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:ABOUTSELF details can come from primary sources, but remember that is a limited exception. As Kusma said we wouldn't rely on Wakefield for certain ABOUTSELF details because they would likely be self-serving or exceptional claims. SEGM is a contentious organisation, so relying on only it's self statements alone would likely be a NPOV issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your comments. I'm working on editing the "Positions" section, which is meant to reflect the official views of the organization. I think the most accurate way to do that is by using the organization’s own statements, rather than relying on how others interpret them. In my understanding, WP:ABOUTSELF permits to use self-published sources to reflect the person's or entity's own opinions. SEGM’s official position is that the U.S. should limit the use of puberty blockers to clinical trials until there’s more evidence about their effectiveness and long-term safety. I linked their statement above. This is a widely debated topic, and medical organizations around the world have different views. However, there is a general international trend toward taking a more cautious approach, with the WHO acknowledging that "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". [https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-library/tgd_faq_16012024.pdf] Of course, if broader context on the ongoing international debate over the use of puberty blockers is needed, we can include that as well, along with the organization's official position. I have no issues with that. I just believe that the organization's own views need to be accurately reflected. JonJ937 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the problem you have is {{tq|"which is meant to reflect the official views of the organization"}} is simply not true. In all cases secondary sources are preferred. The article might include how an organisation describes itself, but if there are reliable secondary sources that also discuss the topic then they can't be ignored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:With SEGM, absolutely not, per WP:FRINGE:

:* WP:FRIND: {{Tq|The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, as such sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of mainstream secondary sources. Points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles.}}

:* {{tq|While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article}}

:* WP:PROFRINGE: {{tq|Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.) For this reason, notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.}}

:Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the material must be {{tq|neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} and {{tq|not involve claims about third parties}}. This fails on both counts, not even including the fact RSN's last discussion on SEGM found {{tq|It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here. WP:ABOUTSELF exception applies}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine]

:The quote you added was FRINGE nonsense put into wikivoice: {{tq|SEGM believes that due to the substantial uncertainties surrounding the long-term risks and benefits of hormonal treatments, any invasive and irreversible interventions should be limited to clinical trials, following comprehensive psychological evaluations and a transparent informed consent process}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289547900&oldid=1287606134&title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine]

:* This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that there are "substantial uncertainties"

:* This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that treatments are "invasive and irreversible"

:* This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that they call for a "transparent informed consent process"

:** According to them, this means that informed consent {{tq|must accurately disclose the limited prognostic ability of the gender dysphoria/gender incongruence diagnosis for young people}} because as they say earlier {{tq|Studies consistently show that the vast majority of patients with childhood-onset gender distress who are not treated with "gender-affirmative" social transition or medical interventions grow up to be LGB adults.}} - which is a piece of misinformation known as the desistance myth

:* Every single WP:MEDORG in the US thinks this is bullshit

:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::What about MEDORGS outside the US? Springee (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::We are not discussing whether an opinion is fringe or mainstream; we are discussing whether it is appropriate to cite an organisation's stated position with proper attribution. I believe Wikipedia’s guidelines allow this, regardless of whether we personally agree with the opinion. Regarding the "substantial uncertainties," this debate is indeed not limited to the United States. I cited the WHO, the organization that usually reflects global medical consensus, which states that the evidence for gender-affirming care in children is variable and limited. The European Academy of Paediatrics has stated: "The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested". [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38374879/] Even in the United States, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons notes that "the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty". [https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/asps-statement-to-press-regarding-gender-surgery-for-adolescents] The NHS in the UK also acknowledges uncertainty (the same word as SEGM uses) about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment and lists possible permanent complications. [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/] These are not fringe opinions, In fact, WP:MEDRS advises us to pay attention to positions of both the WHO and NHS. I could provide many more sources, but it is clear that SEGM’s position on puberty blockers aligns with a broader shift in international consensus. It has long been argued that the U.S. is becoming a global outlier in not taking a more cautious approach to the medical treatment of gender dysphoria: [https://www.wsj.com/politics/u-s-becomes-transgender-care-outlier-as-more-in-europe-urge-caution-6c70b5e0] JonJ937 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The opinions of SEGM have already found to be fringe on this the WP:FRINGE/N board previously. We don't need to establish that again as it is established that they are a fringe group who publish fringe opinions. As such WP:FRIND most certainly does apply as per YFNS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There was a strong consensus on the fringe board that opposition to puberty blockers is not a fringe position. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_104#Puberty_blockers_in_children] So SEGM's opposition to them is not fringe either. This discussion is not about fringe theories, particularly since there is consensus that this specific view is not fringe, but about the use of primary sources to represent an organization’s stated views. JonJ937 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think ActivelyDisinterested is correct here. I asked a similar question years back with respect to the NRA. The NRA's views on things like red flag laws shouldn't be viewed as factual views on the topic. However, they are the view of a gun rights organization and thus, within the NRA article, their aboutself stance on the topic may be quite relevant. Certainly if a claim from a source conflicts with the SEGM's stated position that should be noted. In this case, if a RS says, SEGM's stance is X but the SEGM's official position is !X then aboutself can be used. What shouldn't be done is if no RSs bring up a position SEGM has stated but we quote their position anyway. Springee (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, this includes cases such as the WP:ADL when they describe something as antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::As I mentioned above, SEGM's position that puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trials is consistent with the recommendations of international and national health authorities and medical organizations, particularly in the UK, Finland, Sweden, and others. So, can we include a sentence like "SEGM believes that puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trials", linking to their official statement? Also, since there is an ongoing international debate about the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers, should we include an overview of that debate in the article? If so, what would be the best format? Should we follow SEGM’s position with the views of major international and U.S. medical organizations and point to the divergence in opinions? JonJ937 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The main concerns here about due weight and npov are not being satisfied by your belief that SEGM's views are similar to that of some national medorgs. I understand that you really want to show off SEGM's views, however if secondary rs don't write about them, why should we.LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is not my belief. This is what Undark Magazine writes:

::''On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/]

::''

::SEGM advocates for similar restrictions. How does WP:WEIGHT prevent including an organization's own views in a section titled "Positions" in the article about that organization? The article exists to describe the organization's activities and viewpoints. If we leave out its main position, how is that neutral? JonJ937 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Because it's a crackpot view per WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, it is not, because the position held by health authorities in many countries cannot be considered fringe. This specific position was discussed on the fringe board (see above). Secondary sources also mention SEGM's position that puberty blockers and hormones should be limited until more evidence on their benefits becomes available. Undark Magazine:

::::{{quote frame |Against the backdrop of these rapidly diverging continental perspectives, Malone began looking for professionals who shared his belief that better research is necessary before youth are given access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries. In 2019, he co-founded the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, or SEGM (pronounced SEG-um). [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/]}}

::::So there are both primary and secondary sources on SEGM's position about puberty blockers. JonJ937 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again you are trying to re-litigate the recent RfC at WP:FRINGE/N that established that SEGM is a fringe advocacy group mostly known for spreading transphobic misinformation. That some authorities have fallen for their nonsense doesn't change that they're fringe.Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:People raise important points about WP:DUE that often militate against the use of primary sources as you describe. That said, there are definitely situations where those concerns are satisfied and it is appropriate to cite an advocacy organisation (that would not be RS in general) about its own opinion. In those situations, SEGM is reliable for its own position. The due weight debate can happen on the article talk page or WP:NPOV/N if needed. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

: More sources.

{{quote frame |In 2022, the Swedish government’s National Board of Health and Welfare said hormone treatments for minors “should be provided within a research context” and offered “only in exceptional cases,” while adding that the “risks of puberty suppressing treatment … and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits.” In Norway, the country’s Healthcare Investigation Board recommended in part that gender-affirming care treatments such as puberty blockers be defined as experimental. Meanwhile in France, the Académie Nationale de Médecine in February 2022 recommended the “greatest reserve” when considering puberty blockers or hormone treatments due to possible side effects such as “impact on growth, bone weakening, risk of infertility” and others, according to a translation. [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors]}}

{{quote frame |In 2020, Finland’s health agency restricted the care by recommending psychotherapy as the primary treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria. Two years later, Sweden restricted hormone treatments to “exceptional cases.” In December, regional health authorities in Norway designated youth gender medicine as a “treatment under trial,” meaning hormones will be prescribed only to adolescents in clinical trials. And in Denmark, new guidelines being finalized this year will limit hormone treatments to transgender adolescents who have experienced dysphoria since early childhood. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/health/europe-transgender-youth-hormone-treatments.html]}}

Also [https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/12/13/the-uk-is-the-latest-country-to-ban-puberty-blockers-for-trans-kids-why-is-europe-restrict] [https://www.academie-medecine.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/22.2.25-Communique-PCRA-19-Gender-identity-ENG.pdf]--JonJ937 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to cite an organization's own statements when presenting its positions, in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Some context about the global debate on the use of puberty blockers could also be provided. Quite frankly, it is a highly contested topic with no clear scientific consensus, and Wikipedia should aim to represent the views of all sides objectively and in a balanced way. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

On a lot of pages related to classical history, it is not uncommon to see direct citations to ancient writers such as Herodotus and Plutarch, often taking the claims of ancient writers as face value. (See Ptolemy IV Philopator for an example of direct heavy use of classical sources). Citations to classical writers are also found on a lot of other pages. In my opinion, uncritically citing writers who lived well over a thousand (or two) years ago is pretty dubious, and ideally instead we should really be citing the opinions of modern (or at least within the last century or so) scholars who comment on the remarks and claims of these writers, and citing directly should only be done very sparingly and extremely cautiously (i.e. always attributing to the writer in question), if at all, as it is easy to engage in WP:OR using them. I think it would be good to have something at WP:RSP about it like we have for religious texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Full agreement from yours truly. And I would extennd the time frame and include sources such as Galen. And given that some of the "supposed" writings only survive in translations and later quotations, the whole issue is often less than clear. I mentioned Galen, given that there is even a question as to how many Galens there were. Regarding Plutarch, given that at times he differs from Suetonius, just quoting him alone is obviously a mistake. We need modern comments on these ancient works, for sure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:While adding commentary or analysis from modern scholars is of course always ideal (as is simply using modern, scholarly sources in place of, or in addition to, ancient ones, wherever possible), I would point out that the "dubiousness" of using ancient sources on their own doesn't necessarily apply across the board: mythology is an exception, as it isn't something that ancient authors can be "wrong" about. The usage of such sources in a mythological context is of course still subject to WP:PRIMARY, but I say this just because I wouldn't want to end up with a guideline that inadvertently prohibits directly citing Apollodorus for the claim "Apollodorus calls Zeus the son of Cronus", for example.

:But yes, I would agree with the general point here, especially in the context of historical events. I would also note the existence of the essay Wikipedia:Primary sources in classics. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I wouldn't want to end up with a guideline that inadvertently prohibits directly citing Apollodorus for the claim "Apollodorus calls Zeus the son of Cronus", for example.}}

::Even in this sort of seemingly simple case there are several caveats that editors would do well to be aware of, however:

::* Apollodoros might support the claim that "Apollodorus calls Zeus the son of Cronos", but we need to be careful to attribute those claims to Apollodorus; the fact that a surviving source gives one particular version of a myth does not mean that was The Canonical Version. Apollodorus says that Asopus was the son of Oceanus; other sources say that it was the son of Zeus or Poseidon.

::* Especially for a subject like Zeus, for which there is a lot to say, the fact that a story is told by one author does not necessarily mean that it's important enough to include on its own; we need to base which stories about Zeus are important to include primarily on secondary sources (though this is more a question of WP:WEIGHT than WP:RS)

::* If you are going to cite an ancient source, don't rely on the 19th-century translations which are freely available online. In the case of poetry, translational fidelity was frequently sacrificed for metrical reasons; in the case of the fragmentary lyric poets editors and translators just made stuff up to fill in the gaps; more recent discoveries or scholarship have sometimes changed the agreed-upon text. Otherwise you end up with: "In the Ode to Aphrodite, Sappho describes Aphrodite as riding a chariot pulled by swans (Sappho 1 Edmonds)" – the Greek actually says the chariot is pulled by sparrows but in Edmonds' edition he just substitutes swans. Even when the editor is more generally reliable than the famously bad Edmonds, scholarship moves on: "Sappho dedicates a hymn to Kypris and the Nereids (Sappho fr.5 Voigt)" is entirely verifiable by checking the cited edition – and there are 50 years of scholarship for which this is the agreed text – but a 2014 discovery proved that the beginning of the poem doesn't mention Kypris at all.

::Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Certainly. I agree with every part of that. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, and I don't mean to suggest that you aren't aware of these caveats. I thought it was worth explicitly putting in the discussion, though, because I see all of these issues in our articles. It is both in our older content (which was often either copied wholesale from out-of-copyright encyclopedias or gradually accumulated by random users adding whatever details about a subject they could easily find online) and in newer content added by enthusiastic new users who clearly haven't thought too deeply about these issues (in many cases I suspect young people without any academic training in a humanities discipline and without access to sources other than popular history books and easily-available translations of the major primary sources aimed at a general rather than academic audience). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, all good. In some sense, all of those points derive from other guidelines or from general good practice (WP:INTEXT, and the general principle that statements which aren't factual or widely agreed upon should typically be attributed to their source; WP:WEIGHT; and WP:RS and WP:RSAGE), but they're all good points, and it's worth articulating them in a discussion which might result in a guideline being written up. I think I was treating them all as implicit truths (and I wouldn't say that any of them necessarily go against the permissibility of citing ancient sources for simple mythological statements, as the same points – or slightly more generalised versions of the same points – would probably apply equally to a number of other kinds of content), though maybe they aren't quite as "implicit" as I think they are, seeing as it would be entirely accurate to say that the majority of our Greek mythological articles currently don't adhere to those principles.

:::::One could probably add a handful of other points (or caveats) to the above:

:::::* Primary sources can be misinterpreted: texts can have corruptions and lacunae, and in some cases the original work may simply have been poorly written (such as the Fabulae), resulting in the translated text being stilted or difficult to interpret. Some readers might even be thrown off by flowery translations. This is aside from basic content misunderstandings such as not realising a name is an epithet for a deity, or not knowing whether the words "Ocean" and "Night" merely represent figurative language or refer to specific deities.

:::::* You should of course also make sure you actually read a primary source before citing it, per WP:SWYRT, and because some secondary sources – I'm looking here at the DGRBM, in particular – can get their citations wrong at times. There can also be discrepancies between the source itself and how it's presented in a scholarly discussion (the swapping of Greek and Roman names of gods would be a common example). A website such as Theoi.com also has the pernicious tendency of adding certain information (especially names of mythological figures) in square or round brackets to passages of quoted text, when this information isn't present in the original.

:::::* Knowing the age of certain sources – as well having some general contextual awareness about them – is also important. Repeating a genealogy from Tzetzes (and citing only him for the claim) as though it is representative of ancient Greek belief is misleading. This is not to mention the issues with repeating, without context, the glowing endorsements of the Greek gods found in Pseudo-Clement, or the "creative" mythological material in Natalis Comes.

:::::* What's discussed at WP:CLPRIM#Transmission (which you've indirectly touched upon) is also worth noting, as I suspect it's something that most editors aren't aware of. "Hesiod, Theogony 600", unaccompanied by any sort of bibliographic information, doesn't refer to an exact, definite text, so making clear which edition or translation you're working from is essential.

:::::– Michael Aurel (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Careful citation clearly distinguishes between what sources, ancient or modern, have to say about a subject, and what we know to be the case. There should be no problem in quoting or citing Greek and Roman writers for what they say, provided that their opinions aren't treated uncritically. Indeed, in history generally, and classics in particular, most modern references rely primarily on what historical sources report, and so those sources need to be cited, provided that the citations aren't needlessly cumulative or misleading. There's not much more frustrating than seeing a claim about historical events made by a modern writer with a strong opinion about a subject, but having no way to determine what the sources being analyzed are.

:Naturally, anything that goes beyond mere citation should come directly from secondary sources to whatever extent is possible. Sometimes secondary sources are cited generally in articles that rely heavily on extensive treatments from just one or two of them, even though they may cite several different ancient authors internally. This can give the false impression that an article depends chiefly on primary sources, but the fault here is with the manner in which the sources are cited, not the fact that they're cited.

:My rule of thumb is to cite the most authoritative sources for each point, both ancient and modern, and prune the ones that have the least detailed or helpful information when they become cumulative. Generally ancient sources are good for bare facts and what the ancients knew or thought they knew about things; modern sources are good for compiling and analyzing those facts and making broad statements about them.

:These sources should be complementary, not exclusive; part of the value of detailed citations is allowing readers to find the ultimate sources and consider them in light of what later writers have to say on a topic—and given that classics has been a major subject of scholarship since the late 1700's, opinions vary widely and have changed over time—sometimes repeatedly, along with the availability and accessibility of sources, both ancient and modern. When carefully written, an article will make clear both what the original sources for any statement are, and what contemporary scholarship has to say about it. When an article fails to do this, the remedy is to supply what is missing in the ordinary course of editing. P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's an ongoing problem, yeah. I agree with what others have said so far. And I find that mostly the people at WP:CGR and other history-related wikiprojects usually have a pretty good sense of this, but there are a lot of contributions still out there from (mostly) newer editors who didn't necessarily come from an academic history background who don't understand this and don't necessarily have it explained to them before they make a good number of contributions.

:A couple caveats:

:1. Though we should cite modern scholarship wherever possible, primary sources are important as well and often we'll want to cite both, so it's not always the best idea to remove them. In the absence of a handy secondary source to cite, I often find that it's possible to reword a claim such that it's *not* wrong per se even if it's factually inaccurate. e.g. If I write {{tq|Pherecydes of Syros drank from a magic well and predicted an earthquake}} in WP:Wikivoice like it's totally normal and cite Diogenes Laertius, that's a potential problem. If on the other hand I say {{tq|Diogenes Laertius states that Pherecydes of Syros drank from a magic well and predicted an earthquake}} instead and tag it with Template: Primary source inline, that's not quite as bad, the source does in fact verify that Diogenes said that. Ideally it would be prefaced by a modern source saying something like {{tq|Several miraculous and apocryphal deeds were attributed to Pherecydes by ancient biographers...}}. It can be more difficult when we have primary sources making less fantastical claims that also happen to be wrong, like when someone was born or who their teacher was, but in those cases if we *know* it's wrong it shouldn't be too hard to dig up a modern source that says so.

:2. Many of our articles were copied from public domain sources such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which do frequently cite primary sources without any accompanying secondary source (other than themselves). These sources, while written by some of the best scholars of their time, are generally rather outdated and often far more credulous than modern scholars, and most of those articles do need to be updated. I tend to think it's better than nothing in most cases, though if you encounter anything that's copied from there, make sure the article has the relevant attribution template, such as Template:DGRBM; many of them have been removed or were never placed on the articles in the first place and in addition to being important to not commit plagiarism, it helps to be able to track them to have the template on there.

:I'd also second the essay Wikipedia:Primary sources in classics as a great resource to point people to if you get pushback; it's not policy but it articulates the problems pretty clearly. Perhaps there's something that could be done to put a condensed version of that on WP:RSP? Psychastes (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for linking Wikipedia:Primary sources in classics that's a really fantastic in-depth essay on the topic that I wholeheartedly agree with. I would support AD's suggestion below to link to this essay at WP:RSP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Separately, I think that in a lot of cases with these stories they really should be in the narrative present to indicate that they are stories. Ifly6 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know if a specific guidance is needed, but I do agree that we should rarely cite ancient texts on their own. WP:PRIMARY is already a relevant guideline here. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:It depends on what the source is being used on. Wikipedia:Primary sources in classics gives some helpful information. But in general there are divisions in articles about what a classical author states and what scholars today think about the matter. Context usually matters. WP:PRIMARY is helpful with handling Classical sources. I also know that there are modern commentaries from scholars on Classical sources for example, on [https://books.google.com/books/about/Caesar_s_Civil_War.html?id=MTPKIGmCzMwC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Julius Caesar's "Civil War"]. Also I find that many of the books that are used as primary sources such as from Loeb Classical Library, they tend to have introductions by translators or experts which explain and interpret the Classical author's text, giving important context and secondary source material essentially before the primary source material. For example, [https://books.google.com/books?id=eSKTvJDrr5kC&pg=PR9&dq=plato+complete+works&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz4v-0uZ2NAxU0LkQIHSM_IncQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=plato%20complete%20works&f=false Plato's Complete Works]. Sometimes there are footnotes by the translator or expert on the primary source text too giving modern commentary as you read the ancient authors works. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:The idea of having a summary of (and link to) WP:Primary sources in classics sounds like a good idea. Such sources shouldn't be used without attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Concur. WP:PRIMARY is the guiding document and the essay about primary sources in classics is a good one. There may be times when it's apropos to include a quote. For instance if you are describing something Plato said directly you might, you know, quote Plato. However beyond that limited use case it is best to cite living classics scholars. It's a vibrant academic discipline and there's plenty of contemporary work. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::(Also I wish I knew about this essay when I was engaged in that dispute over Vinland a while back - it would have saved me a lot of typing.) Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think it is OK, as long as modern scholarship does not challenge the claim, if so. Go with the modern source. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with those who mentioned WP:ATTRIBUTION too. Ramos1990 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::The (imo pretty obvious) source, pun unintended, of a lot of the bad articles that the OP talks of are inexperienced or negligent editors deciding to add material to the encyclopaedia by turning to Livy or Dion Hal first and then just paraphrasing whatever translation was on hand. This was really evidently with the pre-rewrite Founding of Rome and Overthrow of the Roman monarchy articles (or the current Pyrrhic War). Setting a P&G that simply precludes doing that would drive such editors to better sources that would be preferable not only for the encyclopaedia but also for their own self-development. Ifly6 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No issue with the idea of a notice or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

: Many of the commenters here contributed to WP:CLPRIM, as did I. I would support an addition like WP:RSPSCRIPTURE which links to CLPRIM, along with essentially the same guidance that directs primary sources be used only with citation to reliable secondary sources and prohibits editors' analysis as WP:OR. I also completely agree with {{u|Caeciliusinhorto}}'s comments on transmission, which in another form were incorporated into CLPRIM: it establishes also the folly of just quoting or citing primary sources for what an internet edition appears prima facie to say.

: At the same time, I see absolutely no need to banish parallel primary source citations (eg {{tq|MRR 1.123, citing Livy 1.23, Suetonius Julius 12.3, Dio 1.2.3, and Plutarch Caesar 1.2.3}}). Such parallel citations are of great use to specialist readers – especially so when they are complete surveys of all the relevant sources – and I think we should encourage their inclusion; editors, however, should not seek to create their own surveys: only secondary sources can tell us, usually by speaking for themselves, whether a citation is due or not. Ifly6 (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes its inappropriate to provide a truly outdated source as a stand alone citation, at best its simply not due if it hasn't been mentioned by a modern writer. I think the line is also a lot closer to a hundred years than a thousand or two... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at Ptolemy IV Philopator in a bit more detail now, I'm not sure if that page actually has an issue; most of the paragraphs with primary source citations in them seem to cite {{tq|Hölbl, Günther (2001). A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415201454}} at the end. Routledge is certainly a reputable publisher and Hölbl seems to be a reputable Egyptologist. If I were to nitpick, it would be better to have more than one modern scholarly source supporting the majority of the claims, but admittedly I also don't have the background to assess if Hölbl is enough of an authority that it doesn't matter. Taken under the assumption that all of the secondary source citations at the ends of the paragraphs support the primary sources cited, I don't think there's any glaring issues with that article, it looks pretty close to the ideal we're describing, though it may help if anyone else wants to take a closer look and weigh in. Psychastes (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::If the citations there should be taken to mean {{tq|this content is supported by Holbl 2001 p ### which cites Polybius #.## and Suchandsuchius ##.##}}, they should be joined up into the same citation, and the text should convey that dependency, rather than be put in separate citations like {{!tq|Polybius #.## and Suchandsuchius ##.## // Holbl 2001 p ###}}. I haven't read Holbl 2001, so I don't know whether they should be joined up or not. Perhaps we could ping or tag the original author(s) for clarification? Ifly6 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like the main contributor to the article is @Furius, who has been active recently and might remember how he cited the claims in Ptolemy IV Philopator, though admittedly most of the article seems to primarily date from 2018. In general my default assumption with this type of citation style would be that it's probably parallel given that all of these secondary citations are at the ends of paragraphs (which is technically all that's required), though I certainly wouldn't change it to be explicitly so without checking the source. Psychastes (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::When I was doing these Ptolemaic articles, I read Hölbl and other secondary sources. When they cited a primary source, I double checked the citation and then included it as well. Furius (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd be slightly resistant to "as cited by" for passages from classical authors that are regularly cited for a given fact, because that ties the primary source inescapably to one secondary source, which may or may not prove to be the best one. Furius (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm unconvinced by this rationale. We won't know if something is the thing cited without checking multiple sources, in which case you could just add them on. Also consider form like {{tq|Whateverius #.##, cited by: A 2000 p ##; B 2000 p ##}}. Ifly6 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, perhaps that page is not the best example if I've just misread the citation style. I think Demetrius of Phalerum is considerably worse, given that it almost entirely relies on classical sources (note the 1925 source is actually a translation of Diogenes Laertius who lived around 200 AD) Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, yeah, I agree, that's a good example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demetrius_of_Phalerum&diff=1290084772&oldid=186943350 looks like it's mostly still got the text] from [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aentry%3Ddemetrius-bio-44 the DGRBM entry], with some apparent WP:OR from people digging back into those same primary sources that the DGRBM cites to do their own research. Seems to have been mostly a slow bleed by a number of uninformed editors with minimal pushback, certainly ought to be cleaned up and updated though.

:::And yeah the dreaded Template:cite LotEP probably ought to be deprecated or at least modified immensely, the way it is now it looks like a source from 1925 which, while still not *ideal*, is a far cry from Diogenes Laertius, who might as well be a cautionary tale in the unreliability of ancient sources, given how he mostly just pastes together extracts from contradictory testimonies haphazardly. Psychastes (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd be glad to see a statement in WP:RSP. Article creators and editors may be unfamiliar with these problems and even think that an ancient historian is, being a historian, a secondary source. Thus we have for example many articles on battles based solely or largely on Livy (e.g. in :Category:4th century BC in the Roman Republic) though as Battle of Saticula#Modern views rightly says, "Livy's battle-scenes for this time period are mostly free reconstructions by him and his sources, and there is no compelling reason why this battle should be an exception." It's understandable that editors with an interest in, say, military history might be unaware of this and meticulously summarise freely available Livy rather than seek out modern WP:SCHOLARSHIP but it's not good for our readers. NebY (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Entirely agreed. Ifly6 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• (1) Some classical sources are secondary because they are history books describing events that happened hundreds of years before they were written. (2) Some classical sources are reliable for some purposes (but not all). (3) Primary sources, such as eyewitness accounts, may sometimes (but not always) be more reliable than secondary sources, such as history books written long after the events they describe. Some classical sources are very unreliable precisely because they are secondary sources trying to describe events from hundreds of years earlier that they know nothing about. See, for example, the comments of Betty Radice in the introduction to The War with Hannibal. I cannot support the veneration of "secondary" sources that is based on a profound misunderstanding of what the word "secondary" means, and what actual primary and secondary sources are and are not reliable for. The community needs to stop trying to weaponize the words "primary" and "secondary" by treating them as synonyms for "unreliable" and "reliable" respectively, which they are not. I certainly oppose the inclusion of this discussion of classical sources in RSP. James500 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :No, that's not correct. All classical sources are primary sources for the purposes of wikipedia. Analyzing ancient sources for yourself to determine which ones are reliable or not is considered WP:OR. This should be done by professional historians, not wikipedia editors. Please do not do add information to wikipedia based on your own interpretations of classical sources. Psychastes (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::If it was, in of itself, original research for a Wikipedian to !vote on whether or not a source (whether ancient or modern) is reliable, then everything that has ever been said and done at WP:RSN would be original research, including everything you have said in this thread. Please do not make WP:NPA personal attacks by falsely accusing me of adding "information to wikipedia based on your own interpretations of classical sources", as I have not done that. James500 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::WP:TROUT Psychastes (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, all classical sources are primary sources. {{tq|Further examples of primary sources include: ... religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-8 WP:OR]. Ifly6 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This issue here is not whether the Wikipedia policy purports to define classical sources as "primary". I can see that it does. The issue is that the Wikipedia policy's definition does not match the definition used by professional historians, and accordingly the wording of the policy is therefore causing confusion and obfuscation that disrupts the project. The solution is to simply rewrite the policy, which is what I am suggesting we should do. James500 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Re {{tq|the definition used by professional historians}}. I think you'll find that all classical historians call Plutarch's Vitae Parallelae or Livy's Ab Urbe Condita primary sources even though they wrote of people who lived centuries before their time. Ifly6 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::On a search for livy+"is a secondary source", the first thing that comes up is The Princeton Guide to Historical Research (2021), which says he is secondary for "events that took place centuries before [his] birth": [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7v0FEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false]. The author is a history professor. It would be helpful if I could see your sources, if you are telling me that classical historians use a different terminology from other historians? James500 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Taking a look about Google Scholar, I concede that it is not universal to call the ancient sources "primary sources". {{small|(An explicit counterexample is Worthington, in Alexander the Great: a reader, whose focus on "real" primary sources elicits explicit clarification in the [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004.03.20/ BMCR review].)}} However, this terminology is very common: see the first heading under WP:CLPRIM; a Google search will yield yet more library pages putting Plutarch and Livy in their primary sources tabs. The next immediate thing that comes to mind are source books like Gary Forsythe's Primary sources for ancient history, with a [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.12.24 BMCR review] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=rqY5DwAAQBAJ excerpts]. If you flip through the chapters and look at what the excerpts are, you'll see that they are mostly ancient literary sources. From the review:

::::::{{tqbm|His collection of sources includes all of the greatest hits of Roman historiography. We start out with Plutarch’s Life of Romulus, followed immediately by Livy on the end of the monarchy. From then on, the narrative history of the Republic is told almost entirely in excerpts from Livy and Polybius, supplemented by biographical sketches from Plutarch. Polybius is also utilized, as he should be, to explain the Roman constitution. Appian, Dio, Sallust, Caesar, Cicero, and Suetonius round out the sources for the late Republic.}}

::::::Similarly, Mellor and Podany's The world in ancient times which contains Plutarch's Pericles (written centuries after Pericles' death) and Mathisen's recent [https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/ancient-roman-civilization-history-and-sources-9780190849603?cc=us&lang=en& Ancient Roman civilization: history and sources] (described as "primary sources" in [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2020/2020.01.26/ this review]) which contains Plutarch's Romulus and substantial portions of Livy. This usage is remarked upon in another [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005.07.51/ review]:

::::::{{tqbm|When reading those introductions, students probably will observe that the phrase “primary sources” on the title page is appropriate only if it refers to ancient texts written in Greek or Latin... This is how a classicist will understand the phrase, but such traditional stories as an anthropologist of our time would classify as primary source material—retold orally and unaltered by literary ambition and intellectual reflection—are mostly out of reach to the student of classical mythology. The sources at hand are typically several steps remote from their supposed originals.}}

::::::Reviews regularly discuss [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1996/1996.01.11/ poor referencing of the primary sources] (eg Plutarch and Arrian), the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3648508 presence of many citations to primary sources] (in CAH² 13), or authors' [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001.08.32/ credulousness] (Zosimus lived long after the Palmyrene empire) towards primary sources. Context indicates they are referring to the ancient literary historical narratives.

::::::Moreover, most books will also include a section discussing problems with sources and their citations, which will often refer to ancient literary sources collectively as primary sources (eg [https://books.google.com/books?id=mmo3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0#v=snippet&q=%22our%20primary%20sources%22&f=false Tempest Brutus] {{tq|our primary sources are the secondary historians of their own day}} and Wilson Dictator {{tq|Primary sources often stated... Dig. Pomp. 1.2.2.18... Livy 2.18.8... Livy 4.13.11... Dion. Hal. 5.70.1... Plut. Fab. 3.5.}}) and also [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22abbreviations%22+%22primary+sources%22+%22oxford+classical+dictionary%22&num=10&sca_esv=e1b0a352cc9e0a98&hl=en&udm=36&ei=TickaKSFCvahiLMPk_DXoQc&ved=0ahUKEwik5IHGmqKNAxX2EGIAHRP4NXQQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22abbreviations%22+%22primary+sources%22+%22oxford+classical+dictionary%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIj8iYWJicmV2aWF0aW9ucyIgInByaW1hcnkgc291cmNlcyIgIm94Zm9yZCBjbGFzc2ljYWwgZGljdGlvbmFyeSJInitQ7gxY2ilwAngAkAEAmAF2oAGdCqoBBDIxLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB78csgcAuAcA&sclient=gws-wiz-books direct you under that name] to some scheme that contains abbreviations for authors (OCD: Plut. = Plutarch, Suet. = Suetonius, Polyb. = Polybius) who could not have been around to describe the events they wrote about. Ifly6 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support adding this to RSP, per my comments above, and this is evidently a problem many editors struggle with. Psychastes (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Ifly6 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse|1= As the above discussion makes clear, there are two different and contrasting meanings for the phrase "primary sources". As described in Wikipedia's basic guidelines, a "primary source" usually means a firsthand account, as from the subject of an article, a participant in an event, an eyewitness, or someone else with direct involvement or knowledge. Such sources must be used with the utmost care so as not to present a biased view, which is why secondary sources are always preferred, but in limited contexts these primary sources can still be cited, provided that it is clear what they are and how they are being used.

In the context of history, and classics in particular, "primary sources" usually means the historical accounts, records, or epigraphy upon which the work of modern historians is largely based. In some cases these accounts were written by subjects or participants in the events recorded, but more often they are written by persons one or more steps removed from them, often using the accounts of witnesses or previous works, and then summarizing or analyzing these using their own skills, much as historians do today—albeit without the same degree of perspective or historiographic tradition.

The argument here is that because historical articles make freer use of writings from history—"primary sources" in the historical sense—than other articles in say, the fields of arts and sciences excluding history make of "primary sources" in the non-historical sense, a special policy needs to be created setting stricter standards for the use of primary sources in history articles than the standards that apply to other articles in using primary sources in the non-historical sense. Among the most forceful advocates of this argument here is the author of the above-referenced essay. And with this particular argument, I must respectfully disagree.

In historical writing of any kind, it's standard practice to identify and discuss what the surviving writings from the given era or previous scholars of that era have to say about something. In the field of classics, those are usually the main source of historical, rather than sociological data. Archaeology is an ongoing process and gradually uncovers more information about the way people lived, but as Cornell observes, rarely can it definitively prove or disprove a particular account of history. It is impossible to say anything substantial about specific persons or events of antiquity without referring to and relying on the accounts contained in historical writings, even in cases where those writings show a clear bias or are known to have been in error as to particular facts.

It is argued by some here that because the analysis of these sources cannot be done by Wikipedia editors, all references should come from secondary sources—in this case meaning any that are not "primary", i.e. historical, as we rarely bother distinguishing between "secondary" and "tertiary" sources for this purpose—and that the most recent such sources should necessarily be preferred over older scholarship. I have seen it argued that any source published after 2000 is inherently preferable to sources published in say, the 1970s or even the 1990s, and that anything from say, the 1920s is at best suspect, sources from the mid-19th century wholly distrusted, and the gods forbid that anyone cites Gibbon!

This position proceeds from two fundamental fallacies: first, that the most recent treatments of historical events are necessarily the most accurate, because they take into account recent discoveries; and second, that because our understanding of historical events evolves and changes over time, the latest views are inherently more correct; since the people of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries shared values very different from our own, their judgment and understandings of history are not only flawed, but so fundamentally suspect that they should simply be avoided rather than cited or used as a basis for writing articles on Wikipedia.

The first of these, that ongoing discoveries continually render older historical scholarship obsolete, is at best a considerable exaggeration. In the field of classics, virtually all scholarship on historical persons and events is based primarily on what the ancients had to say on a topic; archaeology plays a very limited role, and seldom overturns any particular fact that is reported, accurately or inaccurately, by Greek and Roman writers. It can of course show how extensive a city was, what its defenses were or when their construction or destruction occurred, or the methods employed; but it cannot usually be used to dispute when someone was born or died, or how the events of a war unfolded from a political perspective, or what laws were passed or religious festivals celebrated.

These things come almost exclusively from Greek and Roman writers, often compiling accounts of events that occurred decades or centuries earlier, from the surviving accounts and records that they had at their disposal. And there have been no significant changes in the canon of classical literature over the last century or so; nobody has discovered the lost books of Livy or the histories of Licinius Macer or Fabius Pictor, though we all hope that such things might still be unearthed or unraveled by advanced scanning technology amongst the charred scrolls of Pompeii. Occasionally our steadily-increasing body of epigraphy allows us to add some names to the consular fasti or revise the dating of events—usually events too minor to have been described in detail by Cassius Dio or other imperial historians, but apart from these and the correction of typographical errors in publications of all eras, the basic sources of facts and their details have hardly changed in centuries.

What has changed is the manner in which these sources are discussed, analyzed, and interpreted. And that is in a constant state of flux; opinions on the significance of what Greek and Roman writers said, on their personal influences, biases, and reliability; and modern views informed by the events of the last three centuries of modern history, with its struggles over democracy, race, sex, religion, and other values. A 19th century source describing race or social class, slavery or the position of women relative to men will have a very different perspective from one published today. In fact sources published at any point in modern historiography will differ from one another, both with the passage of time and with their contemporaries.

Take, for example, the widely divergent set of views as to the history of Rome down to the middle Republic; you have Cornell, who is generally inclined to accept the basic timeline of events for the early Republic, though he questions the traditional account of the "conflict of the orders", and whether the whole of the populus that was not patrician can correctly be called "plebeian" during this period. You have Forsythe, who generally rejects the entire narrative tradition of Roman history down to the fourth century BC as a series of deliberate fabrications by later writers, obscuring a truth that cannot be meaningfully unraveled. These are both contemporary views, diverging almost as far as it is possible to imagine.

It is true that earlier generations of historical writers were frequently more credulous when it came to accepting the narrative tradition, for the simple fact that they did not have the benefit of generations of predecessors analyzing the same material to look back upon. But that doesn't render the insights of Niebuhr or Mommsen or dozens of other classical scholars irrelevant, or even incorrect within the context of the events that they discussed, nor does it make any particular author of the present day more relevant or correct as to matters that frequently cannot be proven or disproven relative to the historical sources. If time alone becomes the criterion for judging the worthiness of scholarship, then we may as well throw up our hands and cite nothing, because the latest sources of today will be hopelessly outdated in just a few years.

What changes over time is rarely the historical sources; it is their interpretation, and that interpretation is always necessarily subjective. Unless a fundamental change in the basic facts has occurred in the last twenty, or fifty, or a hundred years has occurred, a simple account of them is as reliable no matter which of a hundred respected scholars of the last two centuries wrote it. Where a change in the understanding of events has occurred, there can be no objection to supplementing or replacing one source with another, but there is nothing revolutionary in this; it's basic Wikipedia editing and requires no special permission or deviation from ordinary policy.

There can and should be no objection to citing a passage of Livy or Polybius or Cassius Dio for the facts that they record, provided that it is clear that they are the sources, and the articles citing them do not present their opinions on various matters as objective fact; and that a general reference from modern historical writing is cited for anything that analyzes or provides context for the facts that they report. If this is missing, then supply it. If there is reason to believe that they are incorrect about something, then whatever modern source says so should be cited. Of course secondary sources should be cited wherever it is possible to do so, as long as neither they nor the Greek and Roman writers named are unnecessarily cumulative.

The ancient sources should always be cited, because they are the basis for almost all modern historical writing; they will not change significantly, irrespective of where modern historiography goes in the next twenty or fifty or a hundred years. They are almost always accessible to modern readers, given the vast reach of the internet; and while Wikipedia editors are often—though not always—able to get around the paywalls that surround recent historical writing (sometimes with considerable effort), readers using the articles to gain a better understanding of their subjects are usually not. Deleting references to the Greek and Roman texts that inform modern historians is akin to hiding the very materials that readers are most likely to want to see for themselves, and that does a grave disservice to both them and the encyclopedia.

If the problem is that not enough secondary sources are cited, the remedy is obvious: find and cite more of them. Not seek out and destroy citations to primary sources; not cut out older scholarship like a cancer for no reason other than its chronological age, even if it speaks directly to the point for which it's cited and isn't clearly superseded on that point by any later discoveries. In many cases there will be no substantial disagreement on the basic facts, and in others there will have been no more recent scholarship if nothing new has been discovered about a topic. If two or more sources have differing views, then cite them and say what they disagree about, instead of assuming that whatever the most recent opinion is must be correct.

There is nothing here that isn't covered by and consistent with basic Wikipedia policy regarding sources and citations. Historical articles should not be given a more restrictive set of rules that impede rather than assist the basic flow of information. If there is a problem with how a particular source is cited or for what purpose, then the solution is to correct it through ordinary editing, just as one would for any other article. If the issue is that a primary source is relied upon for something that modern scholarship has something to say about, then cite the modern source and make certain that the cited text reflects what that source says. If sources differ in their analysis or treatment of something, then cite them and say how they disagree. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here; we already have processes to deal with issues like this. P Aculeius (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC) |2=Warning: wall of text follows; proceed with caution.}}

: RE {{tq|There can and should be no objection to citing a passage of Livy or Polybius or Cassius Dio for the facts that they record, provided that it is clear that they are the sources, and the articles citing them do not present their opinions on various matters as objective fact; and that a general reference from modern historical writing is cited for anything that analyzes or provides context for the facts that they report.}}, I don't disagree, but I believe this is the exact thing that is often unclear to newer editors or those less familiar with classics, and, while I also believe it follows from already existing Wikipedia policies, I do not believe it follows non-trivially, and we would benefit from an explicit statement of (basically the quoted text here) at RSP. Psychastes (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

: RE {{tq|a simple account of them is as reliable no matter which of a hundred respected scholars of the last two centuries wrote it}}, I respectfully disagree; this may be true for (some parts of) Ancient Athens in the classical period and the late Republic/early Empire, but, for example, the vast majority of critical scholarship on Hellenistic philosophy has been done since the early 1970s and for the late antique Commentators on Aristotle since the late 1980s, scholars from prior often didn't have critical editions of the texts, and even someone like Hermann Diels or Eduard Zeller is often just flat wrong about the basic contents of the vast corpus of texts they discuss, let alone their interpretations! and Hegel or Friedrich Schleiermacher are so rarely correct it makes sense to expunge them entirely because they didn't even *have* the texts. Even a large part of historical Plato scholarship has been overturned by the discovery of early papyri with what 19th century historians alleged were *late* pseudepigrapha! But for the more thoroughly-studied parts of the classics, I find there's almost no shortage of reputable scholars from the past fifty years willing to re-make basically the same (valid) interpretations of Cicero or Virgil. So while we shouldn't go through and purge every cited source who published before 1925, if someone is insisting on an older source because it's the *only* place they can find verification for a claim, it somewhat begs the question why no more recent scholars have tried to make the same claim. Psychastes (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed on the earlier and later points. The only way to determine whether inclusion of some primary source citation is WP:DUE (or not) is by reference to modern reliable sources. Ifly6 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::You missed the first part of that sentence: "them" refers back to "the basic facts", not analysis of things, much less philosophy. It is unlikely that anyone is going to discover that the Pelopponesian War was actually fought over cake recipes or that Socrates didn't really die but went into hiding, that Spain was invaded not by the Vandals but by the Sacks, that Caesar crossed the Rubicon a week earlier than all the authorities report, that the patricians were made of cheese, etc. These kinds of facts do not change because of new scholarship revealing long-hidden secrets; unlike an analysis of Aristotle, these sorts of things are rarely affected by archaeology, and it does not matter what in the last two or three centuries they are cited to.

::Obviously in the rare instance that a new discovery does shed new light on something, then that should be cited—but if the only change is that two scholars differ in their interpretation of something, and the only basis for their disagreement is the passage of time, not the discovery of new and previously unknown material, then it would be irresponsible to claim that whatever the latest opinion is must necessarily be correct, and all other opinions must be wrong. For that matter, changes in the interpretation of anything over time are also noteworthy, and should be mentioned when they fundamentally alter our understanding of those things.

::To be clear, what I am arguing against is not the inclusion of new or recent sources on any topic, but rather the desire, or perceived desire, of some editors to purge cited sources: ancient ones because they may be subject to interpretation—even where the cited passage makes no attempt to do so, and is supported by modern scholarship; and modern ones not because they can be shown to be wrong, but based solely on their age—whether or not a more recent source on the same point is available, or disagrees materially with the cited statement. P Aculeius (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|These kinds of facts do not change because of new scholarship revealing long-hidden secrets}} Accepting that this is true for some facts, I don't know that we can reasonably define the {{em|types of facts}} for which it would be true in a way which would be in any way useful as a guide to editors. I can think of plenty of examples of seemingly basic facts which modern scholarship is doubtful of. Plutarch says unequivocally that Aspasia was put on trial; the majority opinion today is that this never actually happened. Ancient sources absolutely get dates wrong – there's an ongoing scholarly debate about whether the ancient sources are even in the right century when dating Corinna's floruit, for instance. Roman and Greek sources absolutely do misidentify or conflate various groups of people, or indeed the origins of specific people, and they absolutely claim causes for events which modern scholarship disagrees with. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The following is the text of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE (after correction of a typo).

{{tqbm|Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research, and a 2020 discussion found no consensus on whether unsourced summaries of scriptural texts should be allowed under MOS:PLOTSOURCE.}}

Something here could be as simple as the "copy homework" meme. Changing a few words and omitting the (seemingly irrelevant for us) tail:

{{tqbm|Ancient literary sources like Cicero or Plutarch are primary sources only suitable for attributed and relevant quotes in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes those sources should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (such as those in classical studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of those primary sources by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. See also WP:CLPRIM.}}

I also added a see also signal to CLPRIM. I used Livy and Plutarch because they are commonly cited in middle and late republican scholarly works. They need not be pilloried so; a non-history source example might be worth adding. Ifly6 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think this makes sense. Maybe Cicero for another non-history example? And possibly Aristotle, I often see him cited for a lot of claims about prior philosophers that he can't really be trusted on. There's also Diogenes Laertius mentioned above, but I think we *shouldn't* mention him because I worry about WP:BEANS as he's not that well-known amongst people who don't already know better. Psychastes (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I added them to the draft. I'm not 100pc about the long name list but if we want to reduce to two exactly I think I would prefer Cicero and Plutarch now (original was Livy and Plutarch). I also corrected what I think is a sentence structure error in the original text: {{small|{{!tq|only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines}} {{arrow}} {{tq|only suitable for attributed and relevant quotes in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines}}}}. Ifly6 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Put the list in brackets to more clearly set it aside. Ifly6 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:As proposed this suggests that classical authors can be quoted but not cited without quotation. In scriptural matters, precise wording is usually crucial, even in translation; in history it is not. If the reason we know of something is because it's reported by Cicero or Plutarch, it should be fine to cite them alongside secondary sources that verify or comment on the relevant material—though not necessarily each detail, provided the attribution is clear. For example,

According to Suetonius, Vespasian then moved his troops to a high point overlooking the city. Cassius Dio reports that he had two thousand cavalry patrolling the area. He then received a messenger from Bolonius warning of a possible ambush in the pass, and sent scouts to investigate the situation.

:No quotes; just a straightforward account of the facts and where they come from, without being too repetitive. The secondary sources could possibly be cited for each fact, but I'm not certain that's necessary. P Aculeius (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|The secondary sources could possibly be cited for each fact, but I'm not certain that's necessary.}} the problem here is the number of wikipedians who actually know when they could "get away" with not citing the secondary source or not is probably a few dozen or so at most, we can't make policy on that, and it's meaningless in a content dispute. There are numerous places all over the encyclopedia that cite ancient primary sources by themselves, yes, but there are also numerous places that have verifiable claims that aren't cited at all. In both cases I'm not likely to tag it if it's not a Good Article unless I actually doubt it that it's true or plausibly think someone else might challenge it. But for the purposes of "material likely to be challenged" the primary source is worthless. "Suetonius said X" okay , i can verify that in a primary source, but is it true? When I say "West says Hesiod lived and wrote before Homer" with a citation that doesn't just imply that you could go look in West's book and find the claim, it also says something about West, as a classical scholar, making plausibly reliable claims about reality. If you want to challenge that claim, you need to furnish another modern scholar who disputes West (of which there are many). But Suetonius cannot do this, no one should ever weigh Suetonius against Cicero or Suetonius against any modern scholar, and if any claims about reality made by Suetonius that are likely to be challenged (or, known to be wrong) ought to have a secondary citation. Psychastes (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And yes, many biographers will say things like "Philosopher was born in the 85th Olympiad and their teacher was FamousGuy" and if you consult a modern source you learn that FamousGuy lived 100 years earlier and also never had any students. and Philosopher was born in the 78th olympiad. There is no claim trivial or mundane enough that an ancient source can't fumble, and no guarantee even that the greek-illiterate scribe who copied the sole surviving manuscript of their work won't mangle the truth beyond all recognition anyways. Psychastes (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Aculeius' hypothetical passage could well really be this:

::{{tq2|According to Suetonius, Vespasian {{small|[but actually it was Titus because this was in AD 69; the source just uses "Flavius" but the editor read it wrong]}} then moved his troops to a high point overlooking the city. {{small|[which geographers all agree doesn't exist because the only high point in the area is the city]}} Cassius Dio reports that he had two {{small|[but the now-accepted emendation is seven for MS reasons and because Joseph BJ and Tac Hist both say seven]}} thousand cavalry patrolling the area. He then received a messenger from Bolonius {{small|[but now people think it is Epolonius rather than hapax Bolonius]}} warning of a possible ambush in the pass, and sent scouts {{small|[now rendered as "spies", almost like translations are themselves interpretations, because the consensus is now that Titus learnt of the ambush because Smartypants 1917 connected Suet to passages in Frontin Str and Joseph BJ]}} to investigate the situation.<[https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/RE:Flavius_207 Pauly-Wissowa 1909]>

::|style="border-color:maroon; background-color:#f8eaea"}}

::Sure, the possibility that this original research is so egregiously wrong is probably low. But beyond the OR, nowhere in this example did Aculeius engage with the possibility that using Suetonius and Dio as the main sources for this narrative might not be the appropriate weight for {{strike|their testimony}} what some website's translation says is their testimony.

::WP:PRIMARY is not just about whether something is verifiable (and, notably, verifiable ≠ truth). It also incorporates the non-negotiable WP:DUE, which requires presenting historical material in proportion to its acceptance. This cannot be judged by internet-translation-of-primary-source alone or even by flipping through an 181-year-old book. Ifly6 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Something along those lines would probably work. To critique some of the wording, I do have to say that the first sentence sounds a bit as though it's only ever acceptable to cite primary sources for quotes, whereas I think that most editors here agree that citing primary sources in addition to (ie., in the same ref tags as) modern, scholarly sources is acceptable, assuming that those primary sources are the ones cited by the modern source ({{tq|parallel primary source citations}}, as it was called above). On the second sentence, I would probably protest grouping "interprets" and "summarizes" together. While there's perhaps some disagreement here over the degree to which summarising a primary source is acceptable (when only that primary source is cited), I think everyone is in agreement that any interpretation of a primary source must be cited to a secondary source. I would also note that I think {{tq|appropriate scholarly sources (such as those in [...] ancient history)}} could sound as though it's referring to "scholarly sources" from ancient history (ie., ancient works written by scholars). I do also have some thoughts on the content of the proposed text (and, in particular, what might be worth adding), but I'll comment on that separately. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I omitted {{tq|ancient history}} (such a distinction problem also recurs with {{tq|Roman historian}} meaning both the modern one and the ancient ones who were themselves Roman). I also omitted authors not Cicero and Plutarch. I'm not exactly sure how to word exactly what I think the consensus is. Ifly6 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::As an immediate set of thoughts, if I were writing just what I wanted it might be something like this:

::{{tqbm|Ancient literary sources like Cicero or Plutarch are primary sources. Such primary sources may be cited (1) only alongside a reliable secondary source also citing that source or (2) for attributed and relevant quotes. Content that interprets such primary sources must be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (such as those in classical studies). Analysis or synthesis of such primary sources by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. See also WP:CLPRIM.}}

::I would strengthen {{tq|should generally be}} to {{tq|must}} for interpretations: this I think reflects the consensus here. I omitted mention of summaries, but if we are to have two exceptions: (1) dependent parallel citations and (2) attributed quotes you can't write such a summary anyway. If we really want to keep the low quality borderline-OR content that is {{tq|According to Livy, ...; according to Plutarch, ...; according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ...; etc}} we can add "non-synthesising summaries" (or even a whole sentence as to what kind of summaries are acceptable). I'm also not a fan of the density of this language but I think we do want to keep things short. Ifly6 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In general, that version looks better to me, and I think it solves the issues I had with the previous wording. And on {{tq|strengthen "should generally be" to "must" for interpretations: this I think reflects the consensus here}}, yes, I'd agree. As to summaries (or "non-synthesising summaries") of ancient sources, I suppose it depends on how explicit and specific we want to be. I have to say I quite like CLPRIM's mention of "relevance and veracity" for why we should generally avoid citing primary sources on their own. It hints at relevant policies such as WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION, and I think it reasonably allows for primary sources to be treated slightly differently in cases where their veracity isn't relevant.

:::For example, while I'd agree that ancient sources shouldn't usually be summarised without secondary sourcing in articles on history proper (or ever? I don't really edit such articles, so I wouldn't say I have strong opinions on the matter), for mythological articles I can vouch that it can be necessary to summarise ancient sources without secondary sourcing in some places. A simple example would be a scholar analysing a story or passage about a particular figure without summarising that story or passage first. Assuming there isn't another secondary source which provides such a summary, I think it's fine to, for example, summarise that story/passage in the first part of a paragraph (citing just the ancient source) and then include the scholar's discussion of it afterwards. That a scholar has chosen to analyse/interpret/etc. that story or passage in relation to the mythological figure should be sufficient to indicate its relevance, and we don't need to be concerned about the source's veracity. (All of this is of course still subject to the same points about transmission, attribution, DUE, etc., brought up above.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::One of the acceptable cases I wrote in to WP:CLPRIM#cite_note-38 was {{tq|actual non-existence of reliable secondary sources}}. I think the only time this actually came up in my editing, which is mostly late republican political history, was with the Alexandrian war#Battle of the Nile. {{small|(Whether that is due or not wasn't something I considered at the time: it may be sufficient to say "Caesar won; Ptolemy died" as all the sources I checked do. The section aside, at lot of these articles on ancient battles should be deleted or moved to a higher-level article because there is so little coverage.)}} Do you think that is an acceptably restrictive standard? I worry that mere nonexistence would invite irrelevant cruft which nobody other than the transcribing editor cares about.

::::Hmm... perhaps a sentence such as {{tq|Summaries of primary sources should be short, not synthesise any material, and be avoided: consider adding one only if familiarity with the summarised material is assumed in secondary sources.}}? Ifly6 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hmm, yes, I'm inclined to agree that the non-existence of secondary sourcing on its own probably wouldn't be sufficient, and might end up encouraging the sort of thing we want to avoid (inclusion of irrelevant or UNDUE ancient sources). The additional requirement {{tq|if familiarity with the summarised material is assumed in secondary sources}} might be quite good. The first example that came to mind where I'd summarised an ancient source without secondary sourcing was the first paragraph of Nyx#Early sources, though I seem to remember that was less about actual "non-existence", and more because summaries in secondary sources didn't contain enough detail for the story to make sense to the average Wikipedia reader (so there was probably still some "assumption" happening there).

:::::I also wouldn't have an issue with essentially borrowing the aforementioned sentence from CLPRIM: {{tq|In general, do not add statements based on ancient primary sources without a reliable secondary source establishing their relevance and veracity.}} (I've removed "citations", because I think(?) that was referring to parallel primary source citations, covered by (1) in your "immediate set of thoughts" proposed text.) This would also apply to summaries, though we could make this explicit if we wanted – doing this would give us something like:

:::::: {{tqbm|Ancient literary sources like Cicero or Plutarch are primary sources. Such primary sources may be cited alongside a reliable secondary source which cites the ancient source, or used for attributed and relevant quotes. In general, do not add statements based on such primary sources (including summaries of those sources) without a reliable secondary source establishing their relevance and veracity. Content that interprets such primary sources must be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (such as those in classical studies). Analysis or synthesis of such primary sources by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by WP:NOR. See also WP:CLPRIM.}}

:::::(Note that I've made a few other wording/concision changes.) We could perhaps be more explicit about when exceptions might apply (eg. "Because such primary sources can often be wrong, ...", or even "though in some contexts an ancient source's truthfulness is not relevant"), but probably this isn't necessary. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think this is probably a better start than my adaptation of the existing text relating to scriptural sources. Could you start a new section with that text proposed so we could discuss it more cleanly? It might be that staying closer to the existing text on scripture would be more defensible in terms of a mos maiorum. On the other hand, the existing text on scripture may be more restrictive than what we want. But, as to that kind of framing strategy, I defer. Ifly6 (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Great. I've done so. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. (1) This proposal implies that all ancient literary sources are equal. They are not. Some are more reliable than others. I am under the impression, for example, Polybius is relatively well regarded and, at the other extreme, Geoffrey of Monmoth (not ancient, but I need an exceptionally bad example) makes up total fantasy. (2) [It is questionable to characterise ancient sources written hundreds of years after the events they describe as "primary", as I pointed out before] (3) This proposal seems to imply that recent history books are more trustworthy than primary sources. This is not obviously always true. See, for example, the comments made by G O Sayles in The King's Parliament of England, in addition to those by Betty Radice I mentioned above. You seem to be telling me that, for example, if a recent history book tells me that King Edward's motto was "keep troth", I can cite that history book and the inscription on his tomb, even though Sayles warns me that the inscription was written two hundred years later and has nothing to do with Edward, that contemporary literary sources (which you would have me ignore) say Edward was in reality a cheat, and that the history book is lazily and ineptly copying from lots and lots of earlier history books that all contain the same mistake. (4) This proposal includes restrictions on the use of ancient sources that are not contained in WP:NOR, and which are in fact new and additional restrictions, not applied to contemporary primary or secondary sources. (5) WP:NOR should not be changed in this way without an RfC. (6) These restrictions are not used by historians or history books. If we are going to change policy, we should move towards the historical method used by historians, not away from it. James500 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The historical method is, tautologically, WP:OR. Psychastes (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Deciding whether a particular source is reliable for a particular claim is not, in of itself, OR. James500 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::as the article you linked notes, {{tq|the historian's skill lies in identifying these sources, evaluating their relative authority, and combining their testimony appropriately in order to construct an accurate and reliable picture of past events and environments.}} And we should be relying on reputable modern historians (i.e. peer-reviewed WP:SCHOLARSHIP) to make these determinations. not wikipedia editors. our task is to paraphrase and summarize the "accurate and reliable picture" not to construct it ourselves. Psychastes (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::and really there is no fuzzy boundary here, it's quite clear-cut. Reading Polybius for yourself and evaluating whether or not you can "trust" him is, fundamentally, a different sort of activity from consulting book reviews from sites like Bryn Mawr to decide whether or not a new book on the 3rd century Roman Republic accurately represents the consensus of modern historians or not. Editors who do the former should either be coached on how to do the latter, or encouraged to find other ways to contribute to the encyclopedia. Psychastes (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Regarding "Editors who do the former should either be coached on how to do the latter, or encouraged to find other ways to contribute to the encyclopedia", I have already asked you once to stop making comments that sound like personal accusations that I have actually done something. If you do not stop this, I will refuse to interact with you. James500 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I've rarely interacted with Psychastes and never interacted with you before. I'm unsure as to why this comment is necessary since I don't see any personal attack or insinuation thereof. Ifly6 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Re ancient literary sources not being equal. Even in the example of Polybius there are substantial questions: the tide at New Carthage and the many criticisms of Polybius' description of the Roman army (anachronistic) and constitution (eg, as overly schematic, Mourtisen 2017). Intraset reliability is irrelevant anyway; WP:PRIMARY paints with a broad brush.
• :Re bad modern history books: WP:FRUIT and ... the normal balancing of sources in content dispute resolution. Picking between Holland Rubicon and Gruen LGRR is an easy choice. Re {{tq|historical method}}, operating as if we were historians writing history books free to compare Sall Cat and Plut Cat min is OR and not how Wikipedia works. Last, can you explain what these {{tq|new and additional restrictions}} are rather than vaguely asserting their existence? Ifly6 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::As far as I can see WP:OR does not require that "primary sources may be cited (1) only alongside a reliable secondary source also citing that source or (2) for attributed and relevant quotes." That does appear to be a new restriction. I cannot see in WP:OR (a) any requirement for attribution or quotes (beyond what is required by the attribution guideline, which RSN and RSP are not concerned with); or (b) any requirement that a use of a primary source be backed by a secondary source, in cases where the use is not "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" etc. The proposal does seem to be changing the policy. James500 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Would you object to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE on essentially the same grounds? If not, how are these different? Ifly6 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I would say that RSPSCRIPTURE contains restrictions ((a) attributed quotes and (b) backing summaries with secondary sources) that are not found in WP:OR. In that case, however, there was an RfC in 2020, and RSP only claims that "analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors" is actually forbidden by the policy. I would like to withdraw from this discussion now. James500 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I want to respect your indication of withdrawal. At the same time, thank you for making clear your concerns about going beyond WP:PRIMARY. It does appear to me now that RSPSCRIPTURE's prescriptions are probably substantially more restrictive than PRIMARY, inasmuch as they are: (1) you can use, say, Matthew only for quotes and (2) essentially everything, including summaries, should be – though not must be – cited to secondary sources first. I think we would definitely want to be able to say that the 1915 Tuebner of Plut Vit says what it says. Ifly6 (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Historians and scholars of ancient sources never agree with each other nor do they agree with methodology. It often boils down to a scholar, their sources they select and their argument. I am thinking of Socratic problem as an example of how even scholars cannot determine historical facts between each other even when having decent sources available. Much less between wiki editors like us who tend to be not experts let alone published experts. WP:ATTRIBUTION seems to be the only middle ground solution. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::ah, so historians sometimes disagree, I guess we should just make our own determinations for ourselves on the solutions to the socratic problem? might as well take the opinion of folks on the street, how does anyone know anything about history anyways, it's not like they were there themselves. or maybe if we're going to have an article on an actual academic dispute, we can cite modern scholarship on what the key arguments are? Psychastes (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I was in the middle adding to my response. Attribution to scholars and attribution to primary sources, if used, would be good. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::okay yes, I agree. but please don't say {{tq|Historians and scholars of ancient sources never agree with each other}}, it's rather disrespectful and trivializing. There's certainly disagreement about how much Plato/Xenophon/Aristophanes/Aristotle accurately represent Socrates' actual opinions, but it's generally agreed that he existed, lived in the 5th century BC, challenged the values of his day, was tried for impiety, etc. Psychastes (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::What I meant was that they never agree on all or, in some cases, most details. If they did, then no more work for future historians. I was trying to bouce off of your comment in that historical studies are tautological. And that because of that it should be leaned to experts by appropriate weight, not non-experts like wikipedians. That is why I cited the scoratic problem in that even though you have pretty decent sources, there are divisions on who Soctares really was in scholarship. I never mentioned existence or other basic facts on Socrates. Basic stuff like you mentioned, is not really disputed as far as I can see. I think the parallel wording proposed intially by Ifly6 based on WP:RSPSCRIPTURE was ok as those require careful interpretatrions. But also I am thinking that most editors will never look to RSP for guidance on this. I never even knew of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Most look at WP:RS. Shouldn't this go there in some way under WP:Primary? I think it does address this in borad brush strokes there already, though.... Ramos1990 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I quite agree that we need to base our work on "experts by appropriate weight" - applying WP:DUE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, to put it another way. But let's not be snide about present-day historians always disagreeing for the sake of it or for personal gain. So much great work's been done in the last fifty years by asking new questions, applying new methods, and examining new evidence, and historians do move on from endlessly rehashing unknowables like the Great Rhetra. Disagreement's not new either: consider Dionysius on Thucydides, Thucydides on his predecessors, Plutarch on Herodotus, Polybius on Timaeus, Callisthenes, Demochares, Agathocles, Zeno, Antisthenes and more; the discrepancies between Livy's chronology and Varro's, between Suetonius and Tacitus; the detail lost in Livy's paraphrasing of Polybius. Indeed, part of our problem is that too often, only one account or one side has survived; Xenophon's reputation suffered so badly in the 20th century partly due to more critical reading but partly also because the discovery of the "Oxyrhyncus historian" indicated how selective, biased and even simply forgetful a memoir the Hellenica is. The application of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV requires the use of modern scholarship even more because of the sparseness of surviving ancient sources.{{pb}}
• :::::::So though we do already have footnote (d) to WP:PRIMARY {{tq|Further examples of primary sources include ... medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings}}, I agree we should provide editors with clarity at WP:RSP too. NebY (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This isn't a change to WP:NOR; the inclusion of ancient works in footnote (d) goes back to 2011 at the latest. (We can also note that Herodotus et al were self-published, and so on.) It's entirely appropriate to provide clarity at WP:RSP too. Personally, I'd be open to an argument that we should describe them as "primary for Wikipedia's purposes" or some such, but that discussion should be at WT:NOR and may indeed have already been discussed there many times - there are not only 64 main archives but also 5 archives of a single long discussion Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion. NebY (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I carefully refrained from replying to what I consider an absurd take on my example above, which assumed that everything in the sources cited was wrong, but that no reputable secondary sources were cited; and that this was a reason why Greek and Roman writers should not be cited at all, unless every word is backed up (not uncontradicted, but positively affirmed) by secondary sources written in the last two or three decades. This would be untenable in the field of classics, and greatly restrict the ability of editors to write articles saying anything of value about all but a small fraction of topics. But I'm not going to waste time arguing it point by point, because I believe there's a fundamental flaw in the argument being made for at least some of the proposed language.

:The language proposed prohibits the citation of any historical source for any purpose—not just analysis or opinion, but even just for a statement of what they contain—unless cited alongside a secondary source citing the specific text in question for whatever is being cited. This is a standard not generally applied anywhere else in Wikipedia, except perhaps in biographies of living persons. It sets the bar higher than for articles in general, and creates a new policy that differs from and is far stricter than the general rules about primary sources. It makes no exception for context or the reasons for which a source is being cited; and with this language it would encourage—even be seen to mandate—the deletion of relevant sources, simply because no secondary source addressing the particular point was included or found—something far more likely to be the case when only very recent secondary sources are considered, since the bulk of classical scholarship is older than that preferred by some of the editors crafting this policy.

:This reminds me of the legal doctrine of "prior restraints" on speech: the notion that certain speech is so inherently wrong that it can be prohibited in advance, without the need to consider the circumstances or justifications that might be made for it. This doctrine has fallen considerably out of favour in American jurisprudence over the last half century. But here the proposal does something similar: it broadly prohibits the citation of relevant and important sources without regard to the circumstances or justifications, or whether they are in accord with mainstream scholarship, or whether very recent scholarship has anything to say about the particular point for which they are being cited.

:That result runs counter to the basic process of verification on Wikipedia: statements may be challenged when they are controversial, removed if they cannot be verified; but editors are strongly encouraged to seek out sources that could verify or refute challenged statements and cite them. When an article lacks sufficient sources, or needs better ones than those it has, the remedy is rarely to delete it or the unsourced contents. The remedy is nearly always to find sources that address the points being made, and revise the article accordingly, adding the missing or replacing the incorrect material. And as AfD makes clear, there are no deadlines for improving articles. So if the only source cited for a claim is say, Livy, the citation to Livy should not be deleted simply because it lacks recent corroboration.

:If a source addressing the point can be found, then by all means, add it. If no source can be found verifying or refuting what Livy says, then the fact that the claim is made should still be cited to Livy if it is relevant to the article. But the statement should not be deleted merely because no recent authority has yet been cited alongside it, or because the authority cited for it is from older scholarship, or because nothing is found addressing the point for which it is cited. That would be consistent with general Wikipedia policy: primary sources—in the non-historical sense—are reliable for their own contents, provided that no attempt is made to analyze the text; that is exclusively the province of secondary sources; and that the source is not cited misleadingly, or presented as inarguable fact in the sense that Wikipedia is somehow endorsing anything beyond the fact that the source says a particular thing.

:With respect to the argument that citing historical writings is itself a form of synthesis or analysis: that is a flawed argument, because it applies equally to modern sources. All articles on Wikipedia are cobbled together using various sources to discuss different aspects of a topic; that is not what is meant by "synthesis", and properly cited facts presented as nothing more than what the sources have to say are not analysis. We should always look for secondary sources to provide or explain what the original sources for anything say; but we should not seek out and destroy citations to those sources because a corroborating source is absent. Rather, find secondary sources that address the point and add them. And there should be a better reason to challenge and remove cited content than that the source is old, or primary—in the historical sense. P Aculeius (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can agree with some of this. WP:Attribution esentially places wieght on the source (ancient and/or modern scholarly) instead of putting something in the wikivoice. There are tags to place where secondary sources may be needed or preferred. And again sometimes primary sources like from Loeb Classical Library have footnotes from modern scholars as you read the classical texts - thus providing modern interprtation as you read the text - and that modern footnote can be mentioned in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Using Ifly's above adaption of RSPSCRIPTURE's text as a starting point, we've discussed a few parts which seemed as though they didn't quite work for our purposes, and I think we agree that the following passage could represent a step forward:

{{tqbm|Ancient literary sources like Cicero or Plutarch are primary sources. Such primary sources may be cited alongside a reliable secondary source which cites the ancient source, or used for attributed and relevant quotes. In general, do not add statements based on such primary sources (including summaries of those sources) without a reliable secondary source establishing their relevance and veracity. Analysis or synthesis of such primary sources by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by WP:NOR. Content that interprets such primary sources must be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (such as those in classical studies). See also WP:CLPRIM.}}

See that discussion for the full reasoning behind these changes. To briefly summarise, the old wording at least sounded somewhat as though primary sources could only be cited when they were being quoted (whereas I think there's agreement here that parallel primary source citations, for example, are acceptable), and we've avoided mentioning "interprets" and "summarises" alongside one another (as these aren't really the same thing, at least in this context). This has led to an explicit acknowledgement that using parallel primary source citations is acceptable ({{tq|may be cited alongside ...}}), and the addition of a further sentence ({{tq|In general, do not add ...}}) – based mostly upon a passage from WP:CLPRIM's lead – which touches on summarising ancient sources. There have also been general changes to the previous passage's wording. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I dig this adjusted version. Seems nuanced, which is how these things should be. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps move {{tq|Analysis or synthesis of such primary sources by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by WP:NOR.}} to before {{tq|Content that interprets...}}? Ifly6 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Sure, done. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is still problematic for multiple reasons. The premise remains that every detail that can be cited to the original source must be duplicated, discussed, and confirmed or refuted by a secondary source, or it may be subject to deletion without further inquiry. This is backwards: if a statement in a primary source is not clearly corroborated by a secondary source, then an attempt to find such a source should be made; and for some statements we may not find any direct comment in recent scholarship: that alone should not result in deletion.

:Further, the relevance of a claim made by any source should generally be self-evident; while we may and ideally would cite Jones alongside Suetonius in discussing the murder of Caesar, we would not ordinarily expect or require Jones to state that Suetonius' description of the murder is relevant to it, nor should the inclusion of Suetonius depend on whether Jones agrees or disagrees with his account.

:The inclusion of "summaries" is vague and unhelpful: if Suetonius spends two paragraphs discussing the attack and mentioning each significant individual and their part in it, is the wording "Suetonius mentions several of the assassins, including Brutus, whom he says struck the fatal blow" a prohibited "summary"? That result would be absurd; it is a plain description of what the source says, and is in no way analysis of it. Again, a secondary source may be useful, desirable; the lack of one—or perhaps the placement of the citation to a secondary source that describes the same event later in the same paragraph—should not lead to the conclusion that the citation to Suetonius should be excised as a prohibited use of a primary source!

:That analysis or synthesis of sources is not permitted as original research is a restatement of a general Wikipedia policy, and in essence says the same thing as the following sentence. Including the "see also" pointing to that essay implies that the essay (written by one of the participants here, whose opinions are much stronger and less accepting of the use of various sources than this discussion suggests we should be) implies that that essay is being incorporated into the policy or elevated to policy status, which should not be the case. P Aculeius (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::This seems to assume a working method of starting with a primary source, then checking it against secondary sources. Isn't that quite contrary to the fundamental idea that Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources? It's certainly not an approach that we want to encourage in new editors, even if we have a long-standing (in Wikipedia years) legacy of articles developed that way. NebY (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm all for citations to classical and primary sources in general, while they may not always satisfy editors in checking the WP:V box for the content i think they are of significant benefit to readers. But also i don't think we should downplay the difficulties here. Take for example {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s example article Ptolemy IV Philopator and the claim: {{tq|so Magas was scalded to death in his bath.}}

::This is easily cited under the PAG's with for instance {{jstor|41289743}} p. 243:{{quote|...he had his mother poisoned and his brother Magas scalded in his bath (Polyb. 15.25.2).}}

::This would probably satisfy editors looking for "secondary" sources to satisfy V, but it is a pretty useless citation for the reader for a few reasons. When i read a passages such as that outside of WP which is cited to a classical source i read into it an implied attribution. According to Polybius' Histories Magas was scalded to death in his bath. But by asserting that content to a WP article and providing such a citation i think naive editors and readers are given an unwarranted assurance that this is a "fact".

::[https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/15*.html#25 Polybius 15.25.2] does not say anything about scalding in the bath (an unlikely sounding assassination to modern readers). Near as i can tell the story is Magas had cauldrons of boiling water poured over him and this is known merely from two fragments:

::*[https://archive.org/details/deproverbiisale00unkngoog/page/n38/mode/2up De proverbiis Alexandrinorum libellus ineditus 13] by an unknown author and

::*a fragment by Phylarchus found in Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

::Well, that seems like pretty limited information to assert something in a WP, especially considering Phylarchus might have been something of a sensationalist writer, Polybius and Plutarch both accusing him of {{tq|carelessness and inaccuracy, unnecessary description of horrors, even insustainable, more suited to the dramatist than the historian to cause violent sensations in the reader.}}[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8042289/#bib0050 fn 10]

::I think creating a rule for everything here which naively satisfies WP:V will generate some pretty ugly looking articles: lots of "according to X..." and a great deal of over-citing. This doesn't really benefit the reader at all. But how would you word this bit of content and how would you cite it? fiveby(zero) 16:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

See also [https://archives.somnolescent.net/web/mari_v3/blog/2020/04/please-dont-use-geocities-ws/ 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22Geocities.ws%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1] 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)

my grandfather got navy cross and nevy star probem was not on his discharge papers how ever i have documents needed back up such clame,

https://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/108110/Boshears-James-Manual-Sr.htm

also note ogianal documents posted on google cloud drive here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1svZBNpgy2olEqR3nZJYbFNf2Ex_vRVOe?usp=drive_link

there was two people who got navy cross who was never named reason was they was working on top secreat projects,

i am his grand son also handle his estate also i have same name

james m boshears lll i ask that with this proof that u update the page thanks u 74.215.230.135 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:You would be better off posting to talk:List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II, as that's the page for discussing edits of that article. But looking into your edits you can't just copy the text from tracesofwar, that's copyright infringement. You have to put it in your own words. That whole page needs better referencing, doesn't the US government list who has been awarded the Navy Cross? I can find [https://valor.defense.gov/Portals/24/Navy%20-%20Navy%20Cross%20List%20-%202021%2002%2002.pdf?ver=d2g_29o48C-uP_kGnci3kg%3D%3D his pdf] but it was lasted updated in 2021 and doesn't list anyone called Boshears.

:I don't think the tracesofwar site is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, it's run by enthusiastic amateur volunteers and it's relying on your grandfather gravestone rather than any official announcement. Your Google drive link is private, so I can't access it to give an opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::i hold the documents and photos , he not listed as two people wich got navy cross was never named do to what they did , 74.215.230.135 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::so data came from me so is the copy right from it 74.215.230.135 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You would need some sort of source for that claim for it to be included in wikipedia. Right now, its just you as a random editor making a statement of fact with some photos. Maybe it is true, but WP:ABOUTSELF may be relevant here. Wikipedia works off of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Could this site be used to support basic information about television DVD commentaries? https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/ While it takes input from readers, the named editors have full editorial control. For full disclosure for the entry for [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/merlin Merlin] (also the article I tried to add it to: Merlin (2008 TV series) I am credited as one of two people who submitted underlying information that was compiled by the editors, but neither me or anyone else credited for [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/Simpsons various entries] have any say in what is published and the editors added additional information, for example in the former case about differences between a U.K. and U.S. release that I had no knowledge of. I don't see any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information. It does disclose the use of affiliate links, though so do many established news websites. newsjunkie (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

: It's just a fan site. https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/contact explicitly says that it's run by three "fans", and there's nothing whatever to indicate that it's any more reliable than any other fan site. JBW (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes it is a fan site with commentaries on shows. I think that a better source would be wiser to use as this can be challeneged by anyone and I don't think this can be defended as somehow reliable. Seems like user genreated content. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It doesn't have any actual commentaries, it's just saying that these are the commentaries that exist on certain DVDs. To what extent does context matter in that what is being verified is very uncontroversial and not an exceptional claim? In some ways I think it could be considered either like a Vendor/Affiliate link or convenience link in that it's just compiling the information that is available on the DVDS themselves in question similar to individual listings on a vendor website. Is external recognition by a another source the only way to verify accuracy if there is also no evidence of inaccuracy? There is evidence of disclosure in terms of the affiliate links and that there is some editorial oversight (not just a page where anyone can register or post something) newsjunkie (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not even sure what this would be used for if it does not even have commentaries on DVDs. What exactly do you mean when you say DVD commentaries? Do you have example of an artcle edit using this source? Iam trying to see what claims have been used with this soruce on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ah I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merlin_%282008_TV_series%29&diff=1290160901&oldid=1288802549]. Its just on what actors, producers, etc have episode or movie commentary on DVDs right? I see other fan sites like [https://poetryincamelot.tumblr.com/merlin-audio-commentaries] there too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think this page is actually more reliable the the first one, because this one can't be edited by anyone, only the editors. And it's across multiple different series, not one in particular. newsjunkie (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It compiles in list form for each [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/merlin show] which episodes of a series on DVD have audio commentaries and who is speaking on those audio commentaries (actors/writers/directors), which is information that is of course on each individual DVDs but but not broadly accessible otherwise, so it just verifies that the commentaries exist and provides further information on them. It also has an overview of actors/speakers providing commentaries across different shows, so like showing that Thomas Schlamme has provided commentaries on DVDs for several different series.https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/commentator/schlamme-thomas newsjunkie (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Considering that the tumblr blog [https://poetryincamelot.tumblr.com/merlin-audio-commentaries] is on the Merlin article already and the other refs for the commentaries is amazon UK, I don't think there is much I can object to using this as a source. I suppose this is better than nothing. But if there is enough push back, then it is best to leave it out. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would consider replacing the Tumblr one with this one, the Merlin entry was added to the database more recently, and the database page is at least definitely one that not just anyone can edit. newsjunkie (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree with you. I think that DVD listings from sellers provide some decent material. Also sometimes IMDB is ok for this basic info [https://www.imdb.com/find/?s=tt&q=61%20(2001)%20-%20Commentary], but it not seen well in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, I know IMDB is tricky because anyone can register and edit, which is the one of the reasons I think this page should be seen as somewhat more reliable since it does not have that option. newsjunkie (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Re: {{tq|Considering that the tumblr blog [111] is on the Merlin article already and the other refs for the commentaries is amazon UK, I don't think there is much I can object to using this as a source.}} That would appear that you're making a determination that [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com this] is a reliable source based on "there are other bad sources on this article already"? A source isn't considered reliable simply because bad sources already exist in the article. This source is a blog/fan site, which is a self-published source and on that basis, it should not be used. The Tumblr blog you noted should not be used for the same reason.

:::::::This noticeboard is for determining whether a source is considered reliable. This source does not meet our standard of measure. Suggesting "this isn't as bad as that" isn't a reason to use the source. It's a reason to find a useable source or remove the content. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Cool. But on the same post you quoted I did say that leaving it out would be good if others agree it is not a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Duly noted, thanks for clarifying. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The reliable sources guideline emphasize that context matters and reliability is on a spectrum and that "no source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything." There is also the suggestion on the informational page about perennial sources that "Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources" newsjunkie (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Context does matter, but you can't take the "context matters" concept out of context. A self-published blog and/or fansite is not citable, with the obvious exception of a site published by "recognized experts". There is no recognized expert at the helm - just three "big fans of TV shows on DVD" - that's the context. Why would we cite this over some-tv-fan-blog.com? There is nothing about this source that establishes it as qualified. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Having some of DVDs in question for several of the shows cited the listings appear to accurately and correctly reflect the information on the DVDs. That is something anybody with access to any of the DVDs for the shows in question covered by the site can verify. (since the DVDs are also published and available as public sources, in case that raises original research questions.) And there is also reference on some pages to them making corrections based on input from readers. https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/Simpsons newsjunkie (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Accurate ≠ Reliable. These are not interchangeable terms. Just because some-tv-fan-blog.com has accurate information, that does not mean it is a "reliable source". Accuracy is necessary, but that's not the criteria. Who are Carol, Paul and Emily? Other than being "big fans of TV shows on DVD", what qualifies them as reliable sources (or any of the other unnamed masses that have evidently contributed to the site)? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Are there no circumstances where accuracy and no evidence of any negative reputation can show reliability or is external validation the only mechanism for that in all situations? newsjunkie (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::When the source is someone's personal website, there has to be some qualification that makes the person a reliable source. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Newsjunkie, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. We have already explained why the source you are talking about is unreliable, but you keep egging it on. It is clear that you are WP:NOTLISTENING to us, and this has been consistent from you for the past 2 months. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason to use https://bookauthority.org as a source or include it in External links sections? It is currently found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22bookauthority%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 37 articles].

The main page of the website claims to list "books recommended by thoughts leaders and experts"; the [https://bookauthority.org/about About us] page says "We meticulously search the web daily for the most recommended books, then review them and categorize them by subject", which sounds all well and good, but their [https://bookauthority.notion.site/BookAuthority-Author-Help-e0c72e2664834fdd8ac7a42ba79e8855 help page for authors] is much more honest about what they actually do:

BookAuthority operates through a fully automated process. Our AI and algorithms scan the internet, analyze recommendations, and determine which books are featured. To maintain impartiality, we have no editorial control and cannot manually add, feature, or review any books.

Oh, and also all book links on the website are Amazon affiliate links. Any objections to removing the link from where it can be found in article space? --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:With that admission of theirs, I think it should be removed across the project. (I've removed it from several places in :Jennifer Cook, including inline attribution.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can't see any reason to include it, if the reviews it aggregates are relevant they should be cited directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ditto to what ActivelyDisinterested said - it's an aggregator (albeit a well put-together one), so citing what it is pulling from is better, much like any news source that is actually noting another article - it's better to cite the original article than the reprint. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, if it is extracting from a better source, it may be better to cite the better source. That will at last reduce objections to the material being inserted into wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, yes, obviously, but bookauthority does not extract information from sources and present it – it is almost only used in Wikipedia articles as a primary source for claims like "Her book was listed as one of the 20 best books about topic Z", meaning that it was included in an autogenerated list at bookauthority.org. And that is clearly not a relevant piece of information, even if it is picked up by another source like [https://chitraltoday.net/2020/04/18/dr-zubaida-among-authors-of-three-best-of-all-times-books/ here] (which is pretty clearly paid promotion anyway).

:::What might be possible to do is use bookauthority like one might use a Wikipedia article, going to the sources and reading them to see if they are useful, and what information they contain. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The quality of what it generates is.... well... one of the links currently being used as a source points to [https://bookauthority.org/books/best-selling-nigerian-biography-books this page] of the "best selling Nigerian biographies of all time", the second of which is not a biography but a system for using AI to generate a biography. Slop slop slop. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is economist Edward Glaeser's blog post[https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/] 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15-minute_city&diff=prev&oldid=1187017004]. 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. 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. **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:**

- {{cite web |url=https://www.pakistantimes.com/maryam-nawaz |title=Maryam Nawaz |website=Pakistan Times |access-date=13 June 2024}} (Corroborates her KEMC attendance).

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 {{t|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 {{tl|RFC}} template, as this isn't a WP:RFC. It's difficult not parse you post but {{tq|"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)

{{atop|status=Closes|reason=Self published sources by subject matter experts can be used as reliable sources per policy, see WP:SPS. Closing this as it's just going round in circles with OP unable to accept what they are being told. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Christ myth theory

There is a reference to a blogpost in the beginning, reference "a"

Larry Hurtado (December 2, 2017), [https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/ Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars]

It is a blog on wordpress and shouldn't be used to claim things about consensus in academia, which the wiki article does. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seems to be a subject matter expert, so seems OK with attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::You are biased. This is a blog post. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Larry Hurtado was "an American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, and Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology at the University of Edinburgh (1996–2011). He was the head of the School of Divinity from 2007 to 2010, and was until August 2011 Director of the Centre for the Study of Christian Origins at the University of Edinburgh." So it seems a fairly reasonable case can be made for him being an expert on Christian origin and its scholarly discussion, and thus suitable under WP:SPS. That doesn't mean that other, also reliable sources that present differing information can't also be used, of course. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::So why reference a blog post and not any of his academic writing? A blog post can be used for private, non academic matters to and it's not peer reviewed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::The article is also about historical Jesus and sourced for that should be provided. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes as a subject matter expert it would be reliable per WP:SPS, and bias does not mean unreliable WP:RSBIAS. How and if it should be included in the article is a WP:NPOV matter, but the source is reliable according to Wikipedia's policies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

::This is what wiki says.

::"Exercise caution when using such sources." This shouldn't be used on claims of academic scholarship. It's dishonest. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{xt|Anyone can create a }}—

:::Hurtado isn't "anyone". That's the point. You're being deliberately obtuse and seemingly talking past the points being made. Remsense ‥ 论 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, I agree that he is an expert. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't find academic sources that he has written, rather than blog posts. Why not find an academic source he has written on the matter? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::How about you engage with what the actual policy you copy-pasted says, instead of copy-pasting it and then going on as if it agrees with what you said? It is difficult for me to accept you read, copied, and pasted the above passage without realizing it clearly addresses questions you've asked over and over by now. Remsense ‥ 论 15:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you can find a better source please do, but just because content is sourced to this website isn't a reason to remove it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm well aware of the wording. Your idea that this means they can't be used isn't the correct interpretation. This is a specific exception to the rule to allow such sources to be used, that they should be used with caution does not mean that they can't be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::But why not use his academic references rather than a blog post? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Better sources are always preferred but that doesn't exclude this source -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is dishonest to use it and he doesn't mention the word "fringe," so in anyway it is incorrectly used. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Does the word "fringe" have a concrete definition? If it does, then the mere title of the article should clearly be understood as an equivalent statement already. If "fringe" didn't have a concrete definition, then we wouldn't be using it in an encyclopedic context. It is required to synthesize our sources, not parrot them word for word save in very specific circumstances where quotation is the best option. Remsense ‥ 论 15:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It doesn't contribute to academic reliability to reference blogs even by experts. It is not peer reviewed. Fringe means not accepted by mainstream scholarly. There are other mainstream scholarly sources that have a different opinion, and there can be found a lot of them. It is dishonest to include this blog post. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{xt|It doesn't contribute to academic reliability to reference blogs even by experts.}}

:::::::::We already demonstrated this is not the case, so stop saying that. I'm going to stop replying if you insist on saying the same wrong things after being told they're wrong over and over.

:::::::::{{xt|Fringe means not accepted by mainstream scholars}}

:::::::::It means "on the fringes of mainstream scholarship".

:::::::::{{xt|There are other mainstream scholarly sources that have a different opinion}}

:::::::::Why are you so precious about specific words being used, but we're supposed to nod and work off of what you characterize scholarship to be. Who are you? Don't mess with claims by experts you agree are more qualified than you unless you can demonstrate the counterclaims are better verified. Remsense ‥ 论 15:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::A blog is not academic. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::We're not required to agree with you. Remsense ‥ 论 16:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In any case, the caution advised regarding WP:EXPERTSPS is more along the lines of ensuring that it isn't used to make claims regarding living people, ensuring the expert subject is who they are presented to be and ensuring that their statements are not contradicted by their published work where available. None of these really apply here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This keeps getting deleted, I think we should be able to have a proper discussion. So a blog post can be used to make claims about academia? No. Why not find academic texts by him? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes blog posts by experts can be used, this is Wikipedia's policy and this source complies with it. More traditionally published sources are preferred, but that doesn't mean this source can't be used. If you can find an academic text to replace it with please do, but for the moment this source is fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Why not find academic texts by him? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You can if you want to, but it is not required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You cannot use blog posts for academic, historical claims. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Site policy does not agree with you. Stop wasting our time. Remsense ‥ 论 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No it actually says that better sources should be found if possible and it is possible. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Yup, that's different than what you insist it should say instead. Stop wasting our time. Remsense ‥ 论 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::On Wikipedia you can because that's what Wikipedia's policies say, you just have to accept that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Where does it say you can do that? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{cite MW|can}} Remsense ‥ 论 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Because the topic is so fringe that virtually no academic scholar bothers to engage it, or even takes notice of such ideas. :Historicity of Jesus:

::::::::::::{{talkquote|The historicity of Jesus is the scholarly question in Biblical criticism and early Christian history of whether Jesus historically existed or was a purely mythological figure. "Debate on the existence of Jesus has been in the fringes of scholarship [...] for more than two centuries," and the question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century [...] The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has a fringe status in scholarly circles and has no support in critical studies, with most theories on it "remain[ing] unnoticed and unaddressed."}}

::::::::::::Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The topic is not fringe at all. I don't doubt that there are historical sources about Jesus. This is well-known. I don't believe he is purely mythological so please don't say things I didn't say. We are talking about the use of a blog post instead of academic sources. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Larry Hurtado published magnificent, groundbreaking studies on early Christian devotion to Jesus; the idea that Jesus had no historical existence obviously was not worth an extensive study, or even a journal article; but he was kind enough to give it some thought in a blog. And from Hurtado, that's relevant. Now, the policy has been explained to you multiple times by multiple dditors; take also notice of WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=WP:NOTDUMB|reason=I left this open even though the OP was blocked, as there was maybe reasonable discussion still to be had. Unfortunately this is either socking or someone trying a Joe job against the OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Concerns the lead of :Christ myth theory. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press

This book is firstly used in an incorrect way in the article, see reference number 3. The book doesn't actually says what the wiki article says that is says, something which I have brought up on the talk page but it is not corrected. Secondly it is a book published by a religious publisher, therefore heavily biased. I have suggested other sources such as Brittanica, but it seems that some editors prefer this book, even though it is not accurately referenced even. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:William R. Herzog II was formerly Sallie Knowles Crozer Professor of New Testament Interpretation, seems to make him a reputable source, as to verifiability, a different issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::So he's not a historian. This is bout historical Jesus. And this wasn't written in a journal or similar. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Err, he is an expert of religion, Jesus is a religious figure. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Are we going to ignore that it is not representative of whole mainstream historical scholarship? Are we going to ignore what he actually writes in the text to? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The first few pages of the boom are available as a Google preview[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BHXMZ_V9zyQC&pg=PA1], it certainly seems to back up the idea that the historical Jesus existed in the first century CE and was crucified. As an academic in the specification field he is writing on he would appear to be a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is what the wiki says:

::::::"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in 1st-century-AD Roman Judea"

::::::In the book he doesn't mention anything about a "mainstream scholarly consensus," which is claimed on wiki. So it's incorrect. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia is a summary of sources not simply requoting them, and this is not the only source for that statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But the only similarity to what is written is that he make claims about a historical Jesus but it cannot be referenced to make this generalised statement. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Why have you opened a second thread about the same exact topic? Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Which is the second thread? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Same article different source, I tried to rename this section to avoid this confusion but was reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Multiple references can be used to back up a claim, with different references supporting different parts of the claim. This isn't the only reference for that statement, it is there in partial support of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::To be fair, this is a separate source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It's also a different claim, the section headers have caused confusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The first one is about whether the Christian myth theory is fringe, this one is about whether the Christian myth theory is theainstream view. These appear as different claims in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::But the source is incorrectly referenced, please show support for the claims on wiki. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Not an RS issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::IP needs to drop the stick. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It's not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The show where it says what is claimed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No, as I have said that is not required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Misrepresenting sources is not correct. It should be required to be correct. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It's not being misrepresented, it's one reference that is being used to support a larger claim. This is a standard practice on Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::But it doesn't make sense in relation to the source. It's wrong. Explain why this source is used in this way. The justification? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::There were three quests. Bssic knowledge, explained in the article. Jesus existed, three references, plus a long list of quotes in the notes. Why is it so long? Because some people think they know better than each and every expert, and don't notice when they WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::There are other sources that says Jesus existed. This book also says Jesus existed, although he doesn't make the claims that are made in the wiki article. It should be better adjusted.

::::::::::::::::::I don't think I know better than experts, but it should be attributed correctly don't you think?

::::::::::::::::::"Jesus existed, three references,"

::::::::::::::::::This is not the dispute.

::::::::::::::::::This is what wiki says now:

::::::::::::::::::"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus"

::::::::::::::::::It just doesn't have support in the book. He doesn't mention mainstream consensus at all. Please make a narrow page reference then because 6 pages for that small sentence seems excessive. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I understand it doesn't make sense to you but maybe if many different people, including people uninvolved in the article, are saying your wrong then maybe you are. WP:1AM has some useful thoughts non this situation.
Of course maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong, but that won't help in this situation. Wikipedia is built on consenus amongst editors, and sometimes no matter how right you are that consensus will be against you. In that case all you can do is move on to a different subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I agree with the OP, I don't think this is a proper reference to use, so there's not a consensus 2A02:AA1:1040:582C:9559:A103:5A92:D692 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I don’t think the source is reliable 114.46.147.190 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I don't think the source is reliable either, so there seems to be many who doesn't think it's reliable. 110.77.200.120 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Outdent}} This should probably be closed. It's clear the consensus is against the OP, but also, this noticeboard is for determining the reliability of sources. This appears to have been brought as an issue of whether the source supports the claim it is being cited for. That has nothing to do with reliability of the source, and is instead suited to discussion at the article's talk page regarding whether the source is appropriate for the claim is supposed to be supporting. Those are entirely different things. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with the OP, I don't think that it's a good reference to use in this context. So there's not a consensus. 2A02:AA1:1040:582C:9559:A103:5A92:D692 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:The source should be deleted, it is biased since it's published by a religious publisher and more academic sources should be used 114.46.147.190 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am a third party that have been following the debate and I've checked the source myself, it doesn't say what is claimed so it should be changed or deleted, otherwise there is a heavy bias 110.77.200.120 (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Note as well that single-purpose IP's are not going to swing the issue. Second, a call to snow close. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hey, just wanted to get a look at this one. Long story short, The Schlock Pit is a genre website that tends to focus on Z grade horror films and the like. I saw it pop up while looking for sources for a somewhat obscure film and I wanted to see if this could be usable.

The site is run by two people, Matty Budrewicz and Dave Wain, who have been writing for the site for about 10 years. The two seem to be pretty well thought of in the horror genre - they were brought in to curate a box set for Arrow Films and were highlighted in [https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/enter-the-video-store-empire-of-screams-blu-ray-review/ this article] by Slant Magazine and [https://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/456536/enter-the-video-store-empire-of-screams-is-a-blast-arrow-video-review/ this one] by Dread Central. It looks like Arrow has also brought them on for audio commentary for some of their movies - so far I can see that they did commentaries for Arrow's releases of The Wolf of Wall Street and Critters. They were also brought on for commentary on [https://bloody-disgusting.com/home-video/3640347/88-films-slashes-know-last-summer-trilogy-blu-ray-box-set-uk/ this boxset of I Know What You Did Last Summer] by 88 Films. They have also been cited as a RS in books by [https://www.google.com/books/edition/C%C3%B3mics_en_pantalla/kuRtEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=https://theschlockpit.com/&pg=PA327&printsec=frontcover the University of Zaragoza Press] (by :es:Héctor Caño Díaz) and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Adapting_Stephen_King/7RTYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=theschlockpit.com&pg=PA214&printsec=frontcover McFarland] (by Joseph Maddrey). I think there are more, as their name comes up in relation to "It Came From the Video Aisle!: Inside Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment Studio" through Schiffer Publishing, but as it has no snippet view I can't tell what relation they have to the book. I've got a copy somewhere so I'll try and find it to see. Other than that, they seem to have run a video store that got covered by [https://www.fangoria.com/the-last-video-stores-physical-media-comeback/ Fangoria].

I think this would establish the two (and more specifically their site) as a RS on Wikipedia. Arrow is a very well thought of company and given the lineup at their film festival FrightFest (it's the largest and most well known horror themed film festival in the UK), they can pick and choose as they please for commentary. That they would choose these two is pretty telling.

This passing as a RS probably won't save the article in question, but it would be extremely useful for some of the more obscure films out there, especially as the two tend to go into some depth with their reviews and commentary. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:BLOGS: {{tq|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.}} Budrewicz and Wain are recognized as subject-matter experts by other reliable publications; and they have contributed material to other projects because they are considered to be subject-matter experts. That meets the standard, IMO. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd concur. This sounds like an expert SPS. I'm also familiar with the outlet through my work as an art critic and would personally support the idea this blog is made by people who know their stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sweet - I figured it'd be usable, but always good to get some consensus just to CYA. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just remember the limits on expert SPS means don't use them for any BLP statements. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not a worry on my end - I'm going to use them more for themes and review sections in articles. But still good reminder to have, since of course some of those films are sometimes the focus of controversy. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This company provides (or at least has historically provided) ranked lists of 'Best' things relating to higher education in the USA, including 'Best Professors', apparently based on student feedback etc. although I am not clear on the methodology used. Appearing in those rankings is cited in a few articles e.g. Karl J. Niklas. Do we have a view on whether it's (1) enc/noteworthy and (2) a cite-able source please? My initial feeling is 'probably not' to both, but keen to get further input. YFB ¿ 16:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:If anyone replies to this, please @ping me. I can't cope with checking this page in my watchlist due to the ludicrous WP:FRINGE UFOstuff battle that's happening in the topic below. YFB ¿ 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Article: Luis Elizondo
• Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601110803/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111
• Source link on article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo#cite_note-Bender_Politico_Dec_2017-6

Passage directly from source:

{{blockquote|Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program.}}

It is used to support this in the article lede:

{{blockquote|In 2017, the Pentagon confirmed to Politico that the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program was run by Elizondo.}}

And this in the section named Luis Elizondo#Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program:

{{blockquote|Elizondo was confirmed as an AATIP leader by Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White to Politico.}}

Is this suitable sourcing for these two passages? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Like I told you: {{tq|if you ask the question without its context and without explaining the problem, the answer is worthless.}} I asked VPP to revert themselves, but they refused. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is this more UFO stuff? Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Simonm223 They aren't done yet, see Luis Elizondo. Polygnotus (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Is this more UFO stuff?}}

:::No. This is explicitly non-WP:FRINGE and cannot be in any logical way framed as such. It's a question of whether Politico with that specific source is WP:RS to the statement from the The Pentagon that this WP:BLP served in the described government job. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::But that is not what the debate is about. Polygnotus (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok so I've looked at the page and I'm still somewhat mystified as to the missing context. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Simonm223 Yeah that is why I asked VPP to revert. Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|A little bit more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::One user has without evidence asserted the Politico reporting is in error, for unclear reasons. Another (Poly) seems to believe for this specific passage it is not WP:RS, because we--as Wikipedia editors, if I understand correctly?--have no transparent means to independently validate what Politico reported. I think. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Very Polite Person Please stop misrepresenting what I said, and think. It is annoying. I was really hoping we were getting somewhere and then you do this. Very disappointing. Polygnotus (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please stop responding to every single comment I make. I want third party views of this. We are at an impasse. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Very Polite Person How can you request 3rd party views before you have even comprehended what I mean? Normally the idea is that you first (try to) understand eachothers positions, and maybe ask for clarification, have a debate and then if it doesn't work out then you can ask for 3rd party views. What you don't do is, without even understanding what is happening, post on a noticeboard, ignore a request to revert yourself, and misrepresent what the dispute is about and what the other side thinks. It is impolite and counterproductive. Polygnotus (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You know what, I give up, at least for now. I got more rewarding things to focus on. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think we should both stop and let independent eyes adjudicate the validity of this WP:RS for this context. I frankly still don't understand your position of why this source is problematic for the used 100% non-WP:FRINGE statement and claim. Perhaps you might outdent a clear, concise explanation backed by policy of why we shouldn't use this, because it doesn't make any sense. We don't need the readers here to wade through the massive forest of tiny replies on the article talk page over multiple sections. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::But the dispute is not about adjudicating that. So that is irrelevant, and a waste of time. And like I said, for now I give up explaining things to you. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:::{{ping|Simonm223}} Yes, this 100% is {{Tq|more UFO stuff}}. This is a case where reliable sources are in conflict - some pentagon officials have denied the claim while others have supported it. The article lead used to explain this better, but the current version doesn't seem to be summarizing the article properly. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Non-UFO parts of the article are not "UFO stuff".

::::A summary of it (the conflict) was sourced to an otherwise reliable WP:RS that I removed graciously at the request of Poly this week. That left this specific hole. Are we allowed to unsourced in a BLP for this context summarize the conflict between sources? I'm unclear. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is a claim that the BLP subject was in charge of a program that investigated UFOs for the government. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::And does Politico actually say the Pentagon said this guy was in charge of this program? Again I'm at something of a loss as to the locus of the dispute beyond the "has run / was run" language specifics, which seems resolved. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|And does Politico actually say the Pentagon said this guy was in charge of this program?}}

:::::::Yes, 100%. Go here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601110803/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111

:::::::Control-f for this: "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, but WP:FRINGE does not ever tangential issue related to this. As I mentioned elsewhere about Harald Malmgren, WP:FRINGE is irrelevant on that article, EXCEPT for the very last sentence in it. The same thing applies here. The question is: was this person employed in this role? Politico says yes.

::::::Is Politico, for this statement, from this source, valid, on this WP:BLP's government job? <-- that's the only question that matters. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My point is that it is incredibly disingenuous to say this isn't "UFO stuff", it clearly is. When different sources are in conflict, the status of one source is not 'the only question that matters'. It seems like this is an effort to frame the debate in a way that leads to a particular conclusion - but others always have the option to reject the premise of your question. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm just making sure we keep this on the appropriate level and don't let this devolve into yet another FRINGE UFO circus. It's a simple question set: Is Politico RS? Is this Politico article RS about if this person had this government job or not? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Given that this person's biography would be a stub if you took all the UFO/UAP/AATIP stuff out, it's obviously FRINGE. So it's a BLP and a CTOP; better be getting this stuff right, folks. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq| So it's a BLP and a CTOP; better be getting this stuff right, folks.}}

::::::::::Yup. That's exactly why I brought it here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So are there other sources that dispute what Politico reported? Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|So are there other sources that dispute what Politico reported?}}

::::::::::I am unaware of any WP:RS that specifically addresses that 2017 Politico article and it's statement there. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::But I'm sure you're aware of [https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ this 2019 article] from the Intercept who quotes a pentagon spokesperson saying the exact opposite. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Ok so I would suggest that Politico and The Intercept are of roughly equivalent reliability. I would suggest both should be afforded roughly equivalent due weight. Which means we should probably mention the two sources and that they had oppposite findings together and should not say in wiki voice that this BLP did or did not run this department. And WP:FRINGE is always relevant when discussing the biography of a WP:PROFRINGE blp but neither source is making fringe claims so this is just a normal disputed fact. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Given that the Politico journalist turned out to be involved in the film involving Elizondo, and the Pentagon says they cannot confirm that statement that White supposedly made to that journalist, I'd suggest we shouldn't be giving them equal status here. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That is a detail I did not know and rather changes things. I'll strike my comment below. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::"Documentary" series, and he became a speaker at UFO conventions. Dude made a new career out of a single claim that someone said something and no one can verify it. Impressive. We do have an email conversation but it is not in there. https://x.com/blackvaultcom/status/1791506410163093516 And Bender later completely downplayed what AATIP was and did. https://www.ufojoe.net/bender-aatip-was-a-sideshow/ Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::You may want to check the subsection below. The most prominent source actually puts Elizondo in AATIP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No, it does not. Obviously. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{tq|No, it does not. Obviously. }}

::::::::::::::::Why would you do that?

::::::::::::::::I literally quoted Keith Kloor there: "When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)."

::::::::::::::::User:Black Kite, don't take my word for it. Read what Kloor wrote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Wait a second, {{u|Black Kite}} is a source confirming {{tq|the Pentagon says they cannot confirm that statement that White supposedly made}}? If the Pentagon are saying this didn't happen it rather changes the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@ActivelyDisinterested https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ search for "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana" Polygnotus (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::That's a serious problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I've added to my statement below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:How about people who've already discussed this at lengthy on the talk page and here step back to allow uninvolved editors to weigh in without adding another tomats of text to what they have to read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm more than happy to stop editing this damn section if User:Polygnotus also concurrently backs away to let other non-UFO involved people weigh in. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Very Polite Person I am {{tq|non-UFO involved}}, unlike you. Polygnotus (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your editing history disagrees, and literally all I've done is try to get two articles to BLP correctness and add sources. How about this. You don't reply again in this section and neither will I, and we both abide the opinions of people here who have never touched Luis Elizondo. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::My editing history shows that after years of non-UFO related editing and thousands of unrelated edits I stumbled upon a UFO article which was terrible and tried to improve it, but then you got blocked for various reasons. I didn't want to be seen to be taking advantage of that so I waited until the block expired before returning to the article. You 15th edit is to spacerelated stuff, and much if not most of your edits are to topics related to either space or government secrecy (based on a quick skim, too lazy to count). Polygnotus (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You can step away regardless of what they do. At the very least, I suggest that the two of you pretend that you have an Iban, as the continuing bickering is counterproductive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly greater weight should be given to the more recent source - but not by much. I mean it's the US government in the first Trump administration. I fully expect both outlet accurately reported the contradictory statements of a disorganized regime.

Struck based on the point made by Black Kite that the Politico journalist was not fully independent of the BLP while the Intercept was. While both sources may be reliable, based on this context, the greater due weight should be given to the independent source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tq|Although Elizondo is confirmed to have worked in the Department of Defense until retiring in 2017, Pentagon spokespeople have repeatedly denied that he ever played a role in a UFO research program, much less led one.}} -- https://www.science.org/content/article/why-is-harvard-astrophysicist-working-with-ufo-buffs Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

In 2019 Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood said "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017."

{{tq|The Pentagon has denied Elizondo had any information on UAP investigations.}}https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/where-ufos-from/

Department of Defense spokespersonhttps://thehill.com/homenews/4841812-ex-pentagon-official-alleges-us-has-recovered-nonhuman-specimens/ Sue Gough said: "As we have stated previously, Luis Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) while assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security".

Polygnotus (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand what this debate is about. There are RSs stating that Elizondo headed AATIP for some unknown period of time, and other RSs stating that he never headed it. We report both. Is the debate about whether there was (dis)confirmation from the Pentagon? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::As near as I can tell the user you are replying to disptutes the two sources that confirm Elizondo in the role, as far as I can tell, on the basis the editor does not believe the journalists could know that information, and they simply wrote down whatever Elizondo told them. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Very Polite Person I asked you to stop misrepresenting my POV, right? Would you be so kind to not speculate on my opinion? Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd appreciate your explaining your perspective re: what this debate is about. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is one tiny part of a much larger (and even more complicated) debate about the entire article and how Wikipedia deals with UFO stuff. Because journalists do not always specify which claims they 100% factchecked and confirmed to be true, and which claims they didn't it is pretty easy to cobble together a bunch of sentences that misrepresent how reliable sources deal with a topic. Pretty boring stuff, but it is not treated as such. Polygnotus (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You: {{tq|Because journalists do not always specify which claims they 100% factchecked and confirmed to be true, and which claims they didn't it}}

::::::My best guess of you: {{tq|the editor does not believe the journalists could know that information, and they simply wrote down whatever Elizondo told them.}}

::::::Can you please -- I beg you -- to explain the difference between the two, in as few words as possible in one sentence? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think explaining stuff to you is a very good use of my time. But the discussion has shown that your viewpoint is in the minority, which is good. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Do journalists ever specify which claims they have and haven't 100% fact-checked and confirmed to be true? Not in my experience.

::::::Clearly the RSN cannot resolve a debate about the entire article and how Wikipedia deals with UFO stuff more generally. But RSN can help with whether a given article is an RS for specific content. Is the issue that you object to Politico specifically, because of the relationship between the author and Elizondo? If so, it's not hard to find other GREL sources from around the same time that also identify Elizondo as having been in charge of AATIP for some unspecified period of time. I don't understand what the problem is with noting that some sources X and some sources say not-X. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Given that the Pentagon have said they have no record of White every saying what Politico are reporting I don't think it's that simple, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250515215000-ActivelyDisinterested-20250515211100 my comment] below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think "Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me that he 'cannot confirm' White’s statement" = "they have no record." For all I know, it only means that they're neither going to confirm it nor say it's false.

::::::::Even if you ignore Politico and drop the question of whether it was/wasn't confirmed by the Pentagon, there are GREL sources like the [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html NYT] saying "the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program .... was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo." I don't think it should be in the lead (given the conflicting info), but I don't see what the problem is in noting that some sources say he did, and some sources say he didn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The problem is that both are spokespeople for the Pentagon, so this isn't "he said - she said" - it's the Pentagon saying it has no record of the Pentagon saying that Elizondo led the AATIP. As I said in my comment below maybe a sentence could be made from that, but it's definitely not the one proposed at the beginning of this section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|it's the Pentagon saying it has no record of the Pentagon saying that Elizondo led the AATIP.}} That's not what the cited source says. It says {{tq|Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me that he “cannot confirm” White’s statement.}}

::::::::::The Pentagon is saying that they cannot confirm that Elizondo ran AATIP, not that they cannot confirm that {{em|Dana White said that Elizondo ran AATIP}}, and it's certainly not the Pentagon affirmatively saying that they have no record that White said that.

::::::::::Is Politico a reliable source for this? Given how disputed the whole thing is I would like to see other sources picking up on these claims (especially one weighing all of the various claimed official statements), but it's certainly reliable at the minimum for a claim like "Politico reported that Pentagon spokesperson Dana White said ..."; whether that is WP:DUE and how we should balance it against contrary claims is another matter out of scope for this board. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Your correct that's my misreading, however one way or another Politico is unreliable in context for the content as proposed at the top of this section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately we're here because you've been unable to plainly explain what your issue with the two sources are. Could you do that in ten words or less? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{talkrefs}}

:I have said this elsewhere, but the balance of most of the research I have done on this subject which involves a lot of speculation is that it was likely that Elizondo was not at the head of anything and that the Politico claim is either a misquote, a misstatement, or fabricated. But I don't think there is a solid source that definitively shows this is absolutely the case. I don't think anyone is arguing that we WP:ASSERT Elizondo's position was that of a head of AATIP (or some other obnoxious acronym), but I do wonder whether it makes much sense to give WP:WEIGHT to any attributed assertion as to his importance while he was employed by DOD. Everyone can agree he was at least an employee. Beyond that, there is little agreement. jps (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately it gets more complicated now that User:Polygnotus and User:MrOllie have introduced Keith Kloor. These are all sources today on Luis Elizondo, and by bringing up Keith Kloor, it opens the door to question Kloor's own status as WP:RS.

• 2017-12-16 -- Bender, Politico: Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program.
• Spring 2019 -- Kloor, Issues in Science and Technology ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190404113127/https://issues.org/ufos-wont-go-away/ link]): When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
• 2019-06-01 -- Kloor, The Intercept: Yes, AATIP existed, and it “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017.”
• 2022-01-27 -- Kloor, Science (journal): In recent years, Elizondo has appeared widely in the media claiming to be the former director of a secretive Pentagon UFO research unit.

We have Kloor explicitly saying in 2019 in the most prestigous/notable source that Elizondo was asked to take over AATIP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:...AATIP that according to Bender consisted of nothing. https://www.ufojoe.net/bender-aatip-was-a-sideshow/ Polygnotus (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm pretty sure whomever "UFO Joe" is, is not WP:RS? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is irrelevant, because we are not using UFO Joe as a source. You seem to believe Bender is such a great source. Polygnotus (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Does Keith Kloor writing for Issues in Science and Technology for the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine say this?

::::{{blockquote|When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).}}

::::I think that's WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::How is it relevant? If the AATIP is a one-man band, how can Elizondo not be its head if he is the only employee? He'll be the cleaner, trainee, and boss all in one. Also, what does it matter? Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|We have Kloor explicitly saying in 2019 in the most prestigous/notable source that Elizondo was asked to take over AATIP}} do we? I do not think that {{tq|asked to take over security for}} and {{tq|asked to take over}} are the same thing. Head of Security for an organisation is generally not the same role as Director/CEO. (And contra the section heading, "was asked to" is not the same as "did"!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|That's enough ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::::::We have two sources from each 2017 and 2019, one extremely notable, that put Elizondo in a leader role at AATIP. We can't lift up two Kloor pieces with attributed remarks that Elizondo had no role, when writing for the National Academies, boldly, and plainly, he says that Elizondo ran AATIP security--directly says it. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::How can a source be notable? We have multiple Pentagon spokespeople denying it and someone who works for the DoD denying it. Does Keith Kloor have a high level job in the DoD? If not, how can he confirm who does what in the DoD? Unless Kloor hacked their HR department, how can he know? All he can do is write down what he's told. And he did. Polygnotus (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::News Nation is not allowed as a source for UFO matters; irrelevant source.

::::::::We have 1x Pentagon person saying Elizond is AATIP. We have 1x saying he no responsibility in AATIP while working in other org. We have another repeating the original statement that Elizondo had no role while working elsewhere. We have a reporter who is notably hyper critcical of Elizondo flat out declarying he ran AATIP security. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What rule supports us demanding reporters who are otherwise WP:RS to show their homework for basic employment claims about subjects they report on? I asked you before, and your answer quite literally boiled down to WP:IAR. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::How is that relevant, the same stuff is available via other sources.

:::::::::{{tq|What rule supports...}} Again, irrelevant. And also doesn't that prove my point? If they don't have to do their homework to confirm employment claims...

:::::::::We have at least 3 against one. And that reporter who is "hyper critical" does not say: "I have definitive proof that he was the head of this and it was an actual department of significantly more than one person who actually did worthwhile stuff". He just wrote down what he was told. And I am still unclear how it all is relevant because being the boss of nothing is the same as being the employee of nothing. Polygnotus (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|He just wrote down what he was told.}}

::::::::::Based on what knowledge are you saying this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Try calling the DoD and asking them. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|Try calling the DoD and asking them. Good luck.}}

::::::::::::This is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by you. Please stop. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::What are you even talking about? Polygnotus (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|If they don't have to do their homework to confirm employment claims...}}

::::::::::Answering separately as a very separate point, and I'd prefer you stay on the narrow lane here. You are changing the reply I wrote: I said they don't have to show the public -- or us -- their homework. They are, or are not, WP:RS on an article by article basis. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I didn't change the reply you wrote. Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You have no policy basis. We don't gauge sources on vibes. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Again, what are you even talking about? Polygnotus (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Also, why insist on using a biased source like that in a WP:FRINGE BLP? Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|Also, why insist on using a biased source like that in a WP:FRINGE BLP?}}

::::::::::Are you suggesting we deprecate Keith Kloor on all UFO-related matters given his public hostility to the topic and actors on social media? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The fact that you think that anyone who investigates UFO related claims is "hostile" shows your bias. Journos investigate claims, and may even make jokes about the silly stuff they uncover on social media. Is that hostile? Polygnotus (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Perhaps you and I should take our hands off the keyboard and let other editors weigh in. We are adding nothing of value, and I will not further indulge your suboptimal and ineffectual attempts to apparently get a rise out of me. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You misinterpret the situation. There is nothing to weigh in on. My recommendation is that you, because you have a minority viewpoint, allow others to edit the articles and accept that they also have the goal of improving it, even if you disagree with them. Polygnotus (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::This discussion will determine the minority viewpoint. Certainly not you, and certainly not me, has power to make that determination. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::People who believe in extraterrestrial/inter-dimensional UFOs are in the minority on Wikipedia. So are people who want to use biased sources in BLPs. Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

• These would likely be reliable for attributed statements. Whether they should be included is not a matter of reliability. I will say both parts are worded in a very odd way. The pentagon confirmed that she ran the AATIP until 2012 when it was closed down, but the sentences say this in a very convoluted way.
  If there are multiple source that disagree about tn details, then I suggest removing it from the lead (as the lead is a poor place to discuss complex situations) and discussing the disagreement in the body of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yeah, it should be moved to the body of the article, and the lead should be used for the more important stuff. But I am not sure if everyone will agree with removing the claim that one person reported that another person allegedly confirmed Elizondo's claim from the lead. Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Ok scratch my prior statement, given the [https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ Intercept article] ([https://archive.is/mgfwv archive]) the Politico article is not reliable for the statement as is. The point isn't about which spokesperson said what, but what the Pentagon is saying. At the most this should be "In 2017 Diane White, then a Pentagon spokeswoman, supposedly said that Elizondo led the AATIP before it was closed down but the Pentagon have no record of the statement." and I can't see that as being due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yeah, on top of the weird formatting and contradiction of the current working, why is it in the lead at all? Seems like it needs to be reworded and moved. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :* Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo.
• :* When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).

{{hat|Not constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• :May I ask in what way are these worded oddly? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::For starters, the first claim is not attributed, despite being disputed by 3 reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Politico literally attributed it to "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Bender made the claim, POLITICO published it. Polygnotus (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I don't suppose you'd be willing to cite any guideline or policy that... supports this unique and possibly novel interpretion of how to gauge WP:RS? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::That has nothing to do with gauging WP:RS?? Attributing text is not novel or unique WP:INTEXT. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

• ::I was thinking more about {{tq|"Elizondo was confirmed as an AATIP leader by Pentagon spokeswoman"}}, which should really be "A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed Elizondo led..." The subjects are back to front. Had Elizondo just been comfirmed by senate, what is an "AATIP leader" etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yeah above he was just head of security, now he is a "leader", whatever that means. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I was once a "team leader", I was the only person on the team. It's a ambiguous way to word something, so it should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Did you at least get a raise for managing such an unruly employee? Polygnotus (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Ok, wow, so, to summarize: in 2017 an author who was not entirely independent from the subject reported that Dana White said the subject headed a UFO department. In 2019 a fully independent author wrote at the Intercept that the Pentagon denied this involvement. As time went by, leading to 2022 this author became more assertive in this position. Both authors worked for publications with good reputations.
• ::::::Leaving the UFO of it all aside I'd say that greater weight should be given to more recent sources and to more independent sources. Source reliability is always contextual. Within this context I would say use both sources and claim neither in wiki voice but give greater weight to the Intercept. Simonm223 (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Good grief. If nothing else, this stuff definitely needs to come out of the lead paragraph of Elizondo's article, and be discussed in the relevant section. The claim that he led the AATIP is too disputed to be stated in Wikivoice, even attributed. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If it's discussed in the lede it should be done so in a way that demonstrates the disputed nature of the claim.Simonm223 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Article: Vishwananda and Bhakti Marga (organisation)
• Source: https://ipsnews.net/business/2024/10/17/rui-patricio-the-famous-portuguese-goalkeeper-has-revealed-his-secret-to-staying-at-the-top-of-his-game-yoga/
• Claims: Multiple, including nearly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_Marga_(organisation)#Religious_practices the complete section on Atma Kriya Yoga].

This is only about the content under https://ipsnews.net/business and not their general reporting under https://ipsnews.net. The latter is unquestionably reliable. The two sites are kept distinct, with different archives.

I strongly suspect the content at https://ipsnews.net/business to be advertorials generated by untrustworthy and not neutral third parties, not by the Inter Press Service itself.

Further examples:

• [https://ipsnews.net/business/2020/03/31/smartcard-marketing-systems-inc-smkgotc-announces-expansion-partnership-with-white-prompt-collaboration-for-brazil-and-argentina-markets/] Advertisement for Smartcard Marketing Systems
• [https://ipsnews.net/business/2023/06/15/birth-month-flowers-and-their-meanings/] Advertisement for a flower delivery service in LA
• [https://ipsnews.net/business/2021/11/30/indium-tin-oxide-ito-market-2021-industry-analysis-segment-forecast-to-2027/] Advertisement for fusionmarketresearch

Without any exception, all of this content is labeled as "Content Marketing".

See also the (short) Terms of Use: https://ipsnews.net/business/terms-of-use/

In an effort to raise more funds to support our independent news service, IPS has started redistributing newswire content to the site IPS News Business, in partnership with a few selected sources.

We may, from time to time, monitor the content posted to IPS News Business, but IPS cannot monitor or thoroughly review all the information that is submitted to IPS News Business. Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sites that repost material don't change it's reliability. As an example MSN.com repost news reports from other news organisations, the reliability of those reports come from the original publisher and not MSN. So if ipsnews posts news wire content, it should be handled as if the original source published it and not ipsnews.
In this case the original source is unclear, so it should be treated as being from someone involved with Paramahamsa Vishwananda or Rui Patricio. Such a source can be reliable for certain limited details, see WP:ABOUTSELF, as it's basically a press release. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://ourculturemag.com/2025/05/15/laufey-announces-new-album-a-matter-of-time-shares-new-single/] Here's what I found. In that article, there's both author's name and date. But I think it's too fast to determine that the source is reliable just because it includes both author's name and date, so I wanted to ask about it here. I'm trying to use this source on singer's albums or songs. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know where you got the idea that including "author's name and date" made a source reliable, but it doesn't. Not on its own. Not remotely. The website appears to be a platform for paid promotion. Not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@AndyTheGrump: Hello! Appreciate your reply, but

::{{tq|The website appears to be a platform for paid promotion.}}

::could you please tell me how to determine this fact? I read reliable sources criteria of cource, but I still have a trouble defining WP:RS. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::See [https://ourculturemag.com/contactus/]: "Our platform allows for a variety of different advertisement opportunities for companies and individuals. From social media posts to sponsored posts, we will do our best to make sure your marketing strategy goals can fit ours." They are engaging in marketing, not journalism. As for identifying WP:RS more generally, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I see. I tried to find another source and checked "About" section to see whether the source is independant or not, then [https://www.russh.com/about/ this source] seems reliable because they said

::::{{tq|RUSSH Magazine is an independent fashion magazine showcasing innovators in fashion, beauty and the arts.}}

::::I hope I'm doing it right. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::A statement on a website that it is independent is in no way sufficient to establish it meets WP:RS criteria. A moments inspection of the website's 'contribute' page [https://www.russh.com/contact/contribute/] demonstrates that they are taking payment for contributions: "We consider both donated submissions in exchange for bylines and backlinks, and paid submissions".

::::::If you are having difficulty establishing the reliability of sources, I suggest you stick to only citing major publications already frequently cited by Wikipedia in the relevant topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Because of the paid advocacy, it's not reliable as an independent secondary source for what it covers.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a question about using a Youtube source in an article I'm currently working on.

Here is the context:

The video is an interview with a well-known musician. It's clearly two real people (not AI fakes), with standard editing (i.e. trimming in post to make it watchable). The interviewer is a reputable member of an established music supply company, and the channel has 248,000 subscribers and 1,200 videos.

During this interview the subject provides a lot of interesting information -- including material that a lot of people haven't heard yet. So we're talking about new, interesting information provided directly from the subject himself (not filtered secondhand).

My feeling is that maybe a video like this could qualify as a reasonable exception to Wikipedia's Youtube policy, with respect to usability. By utilizing this source, we can get this information out to the world via Wikipedia. Whereas NOT using this video is equivalent to depriving the Wikipedia-reading public of the only current source of this information -- and maybe the only source where it will ever be shared.

I would like to know if: a) this could indeed be an exception; or b) if not, why not?

Thank you in advance for providing as much detail as possible, so I can best understand the rationale, and be better informed for next time.

Thanks for your help and happy editing! Chillowack (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what part of our WP:YOUTUBE guidelines you are concerned about. Plenty of YouTube videos can be used, the real question is who put the video up. Is it published by a reliable source? If Rolling Stone magazine put it up, it's fine for statements about the subject. If the article subject themself put it up, it's also usable for statements about himself. If it's some individual who is not the subject, then it's a problem, under our guidelines for use of self-published sources for biographical information about living people (I'm assuming the subject is alive, as many musicians are.)

:But yes, many things published on unreliable sources are full of interesting information... we just can't rely on it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Re:{{tq|By utilizing this source, we can get this information out to the world via Wikipedia.}} - That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Youtube is already doing that, in which case, we do not need to duplicate it. We are not a tool for promotion. Further, regarding the idea that we'd be {{tq|depriving the Wikipedia-reading public of the only current source of this information -- and maybe the only source where it will ever be shared}} - We are not "depriving" them of the only current source - it already exists openly on a publicly accessible site. Further, if it's likely this is the only source where it will ever be shared, then that calls into question whether it is notable for inclusion. That would seem to cross the line of what Wikipedia is not, most specifically, that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::They are also full of wrong information. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It sounds like the OP wants to use Youtube for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Which is probably fine. Just remember that an interview in a self-published source absolutely cannot be used to make a statement about a living third party. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you all for your input, it's very helpful. Chillowack (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Simon, that is a good point, and I had been wondering about it for a while. WP:YOUTUBE is in the external links page. But is there any explicit guideline anywhere that states something to the effect that: "If in a Youtube video, professor X states that statement Y is true , then we can state that according to professor X statement Y is true". Of course if professor X makes that statement to the NY Times, we can use that as a WP:RS item. But can we use the Youtube video for the same purpose, given that statement Y may not be ABOUTSELF and may state that Quantum computing is at least 50 years away? Please clarify. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is WP:EXPERTSPS. If the person in the video is a subject matter expert in the field who has previously been published in other reliable sources, then there self-published works could be considered reliable. So if a professor, who has had books published by reliable publishers in the field of quantum computing, publishes a YouTube video about quantum computing then that video could be reliable.
There are limitations, such sources wouldn't be enough to support contentious or exceptional statements, even if they are attributed. If the video contained the claim that the best quantum computers are made of cheese then it wouldn't be reliable, as that would be an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It's also important to remember that you can't use attribution to say anything you like. No matter the source you shouldn't add an attributed statement to the Earth article containing the claim that it's flat. Attribution isn't a get out clause to ignore everything else.
They also must never be used for any claims about living people, you couldn't use such a video to support "Professor X says that Professor Y is an idiot who knows nothing about quantum computing". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Actively, thank you. I think you have done 2 things. One is that you clarified the issue for me, and others who read this board. Secondly, you indirectly answered the question about any explicit guideline. The fact that you had to type your explanation rather than provide a link to a guideline means that no explicit guideline is present. Your explanation is well written and needs to be added somewhere beyond this board. You or someone else who knows the issues (yours truly excluded) must add that somewhere. It would be a very useful thing to do. Please do so. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::erm.. I mentioned the explicit policy in my first sentence, it's WP:EXPERTSPS. The rest of my comment was trying to put that policy in context with the other relevant policies and guidelines, as it's a limited exception to otherwise WP:QUESTIONABLE sources that would normally not be considered reliable.
Someone could write further documentation if they wanted to, but any preexisting documents only exist because editors stepped forward to write them. There are very, very few instances where editors "must" do or not do something. Writing documentation is not one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

For Mehzeb Chowdhury, is [https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946 this article] a reliable independent source? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's heavily promotional, it might be reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF details (as it contains so many quotes) but I doubt it's independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

We have 123 articles which use min.news/en as a source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22min.news%2Fen%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=86acuo5ef6177mqdqczyxn1m6]. It looks to be computer-generated rubbish. It has no byline, the "date" given is always the current date, and the contents are worthless. Sources used in articles here include things like [https://min.news/en/entertainment/ee0db7a82cf73123025ff4e53ec69dfa.html], [https://min.news/en/auto/1dc8a3bb230cfda90e1b169e704f327d.html] and [https://min.news/en/history/d789b6687846ef6633af742b3aeded89.html]. Is there a reason to keep these links or can I remove them all? Fram (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like internet scrapping fed through a LLM. I can't find any use by others, or anything to indicate it should considered a reliable source. I would remove or replace it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:AI rubbish, it should be blacklisted. 206.83.102.59 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blacklist. Non-notable sites that almost exclusively contain AI-generated content, such as min.news, have no valid use case on Wikipedia and should be added to the spam blacklist when there is a pattern of inappropriate use. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Similar to the discussion above on classical sources (and WP:CLPRIM), it's unfortunately common for colonial sources to used in articles on the African colonial period. For anyone unfamiliar with the context, see African historiography#History, I've also written an essay on this. What's an absolute showstopper for me is that they completely exclude African perspectives, so no matter how alive an editor is to the source's positive bias, it will always result in a partial and very POV account.

Having a guideline or adding something to WP:RSP might be an idea? I'd like a near blanket ban on colonial sources pre-1940 (the '40s were when African history separated from colonial/imperial history and when the SOAS started producing Africanists) as it'd be easy to enforce, but that may be an oversimplification (a bit of qualified language and a couple caveats might address this?). Kowal2701 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think your essay makes some strong points about reliability of colonial sources for history, cultural and anthropological topics. A blanket ban doesn't make much sense to me though as that would catch, for example, a lot of geographical and scientific content (e.g. on flora and fauna) originated by colonial entities, that is much less likely to be subject to bias due to colonial attitudes and prejudices. In many cases these are the earliest documentary records for whole blocks of important articles. YFB ¿ 11:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Are government census which are recorded in 2001 or 2011 unreliable? A certain user in this article Bangladeshis, keeps removing the amount of Bangladeshi in India directly from the infobox just because the census by government is too old.. According to several reports, there are approximate of 2Million to 3Million Bangladeshi born people in India [https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/187870/indian-govt-data-proves-number-of-bangladesh Source1] (states 3.7M), [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273337748_Immigration_from_Bangladesh_to_India_Based_on_Census_Data Source2], [https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-is-not-being-overrun-by-immigrants-1564334407925.html Source3]. Now given with the data, its clear Bangladeshis diaspora are largely present in India, yet is it wise to remove India from infobox just because the census source is "old"? Next, if we add a analysis from BBC, it would state even higher https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51575565 bbc. So how wise is it to directly just ignore the 2001-2011 census and remove the whole country from a infobox diaspora? WinKyaw (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are reliable for saying that the figure was correct in 2001 / 2011, really all census data should be presented with the year they were taken (as censuses are snapshots in time). That they are old doesn't make them unreliable, old sources are made unreliable by new sources that contradict them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::An infobox should be based on (and cite) the most recent census… and is not the correct location to mention historical population data. The historical data can be mentioned in the article text. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If there is a more recent census it should definitely be used, but the entry shouldn't just be removed because the source is old. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Assuming the new census is considered at least as reliable as the old one in regards to what is being cited. Government censuses do change what they ask or change who they ask (if for instance there is a change in policy on whether or not to count immigrants or to record where they were born) or change because of external circumstances (e.g., war making it impossible to gather information in occupied areas). I note that 2011 is the most recent Indian census; the next census has been postponed repeatedly. Erp (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:As long as it's clear that the data is from 2011, it shouldn't be a problem. KnowDeath (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Again… an infobox isn’t the right place for out of date info. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::According to what policy? KnowDeath (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is it misleading to include it, even if clearly dated? For example, do we have later estimates which indicate it's seriously wrong - and if so, why don't we use them instead? Alternatively, is it misleading to exclude it? This is a list of the numbers of Bangladeshis in different countries; completely omitting India makes it look, at least to the naive reader, as if there aren't any Bangladeshis in India, but there might even be more there than anywhere else, bar one or two other countries or bar none at all. NebY (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The latest census data is 2011, it's not out of date or historical. The 2021 census details won't be released until next year, due to delays causes by COVID. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Population counts on any sizable place are always out of date. People are being born, dying, moving in or out, or cloning or fusing themselves even while the study is taking place. That doesn't mean population is unimportant, and if we have the latest reliable source and date the source, we're good and clear. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Heres the government data, the news outlet is from Bangladeshi media itself stating Indian govt census of 2011. [https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/187870/indian-govt-data-proves-number-of-bangladeshi] WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:They are reliable for the year they were made (and should be denoted with said year when used in text). The information cited to them should only be changed when a newer reliable source is added. Just removing the information with no replacement is pretty close to blanking vandalism, in my opinion. Silverseren^C 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:If consensus is reached I'd prefer someone to restore the stable version before the edit reverts, currently I can't do it cause that will be WP:3RR. Also I'd like to highlight another claim by the same user on Indians in Bangladesh and it's talk page. WinKyaw (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've restored the datils and added a second reference for the Pakistani numbers, as the first source uses Bengali rather than Bangladeshi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR: Would Rohingya Refugee News be a reliable source for Rohingya-related topics?

Hello,

Rohingya Refugee News is a [https://www.rohingyarefugee.news/ substack] page ran by Shafiur Rahman.

Rahman is a journalist who had his work noted in the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05l5xy6 BBC]. He also wrote for [https://english.dvb.no/tag/shafiur-rahman/ Democratic Voice of Burma] and [https://www.dhakatribune.com/author/shafiur-rahman Dhaka Tribune]. He criticizes the Bangladeshi government, the Myanmar anti-junta National Unity Government, the Myanmar junta,BROUK, ARSA, RSO, and the Arakan Army in the RRN Substack. In contrast, a lot of Rohingya and Burmese publications are slanted towards one side. Many anti-junta Burmese publications are either pro-Arakan Army (Narinjara News and Development Media Group of Burma News International for examples) or mostly hesitant to cover Rohingya issues. Battlesnake1 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Because Rohingya Refugee News is a self-published website (with Rahman being its sole author), the WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS policies severely limit the content from this website that can be directly used on Wikipedia. Specifically:

:* WP:BLPSPS: {{xt|"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published {{strong|by the person themself}}."}}

:* WP:SPS: {{xt|"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}}

:— Newslinger talk 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

BTVA is currently listed as generally reliable with restrictions regarding notability. A previous RFC in 2022 here determined it to be generally reliable. I don’t want to challenge that result, but rather clarify what the reliability applies to.

According to their [https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/faq/ FAQ], the results properly verified by their fact-checking process get a green tick, which includes a corresponding screenshot of the credits. Therefore I'd like to propose to limit reliability of role-credits to ones with a green tick.

Additionally, I would like to challenge the general reliability of statements about BLP content other than role credits—such as birthplace or date of birth. Firstly, this is because no source is ever provided for such claims. Secondly, in their FAQ they list their usual ways of verifying data, none of which typically include such information. Overall, I get the impression that this type of information is not part of their fact-checking process, but rather a courtesy to their users.

Please note that my two proposals are independent of each other and can be approved or disapproved separately. ~Squawk7700 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently compiling sources for an article about Avi Shlaim's Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, and came across an article from this magazine/journal that reviewed the book. The last discussion on this source's reliability dates back to 2010, and that's a lot of time for it to drastically change. I would not mind using this source, as it is run by [https://www.wrmea.org/about-us/about-us.html experts in foreign policy], but I am somewhat hesitant to do so (possible WP:UNDUE issues), as it tends to cover the the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am posting this in order to see other people's comments on this before I proceed any further. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 17:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)