Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#.22Foreign opinion is irrelevant.22

{{atop}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2062868381}}

This discussion has been archived, a close request has been made on WP:CR. When it is closed it will be restored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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

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 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)
• Option 2 or 3. As 5Q5 has pointed out, this is not a blog, but a quasi-journalistic outfit with editorial guidelines [https://thedebrief.org/editorial-guidelines/]. Per Feoffer and PARAKANYAA, this source still seems usable for uncontroversial claims like group membership; banning it outright is a step too far. It is obviously not FRIND, but that doesn't make it unreliable for details unrelated to the fringe theories themselves. Toadspike [Talk] 15:26, 31 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)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751804725}} {{rfc|media|rfcid=6E014D6}}

What is the reliability of [https://www.pinkvilla.com Pinkvilla]?

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

(2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC))

:This source Pinkvilla, which mostly posts box office numbers and entertainment gossip, is considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. I'm posting this RfC here because if I post it at WP:ICTF, the result is only going to be in favour of this source. The editors there defend this source with passion. Here is a brief history of the source:

:First thing first, here is the disclaimer they give out at the end of each article, as pointed out by the editor {{u|Black Kite}} in a previous discussion here:

:The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data

:That should say enough but here's more:

:Pinkvilla was previously considered unreliable at ICTF and was moved to the list of reliable sources in February 2022 without proper discussion, as seen [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_7#Reliability_of_Pinkvilla here].

:The Entertainment Editor at Pinkvilla, Himesh Mankad, welcomed the current admin of their box office section and his associate to Pinkvilla in December 2021, as seen [https://x.com/HimeshMankad/status/1469235093612875776?t=8b-mXlRNYb9FfH02fnK-5w&s=19 here].

:In [https://x.com/meJat32/status/1498699613980999681?t=l9JFI_GcsEiEP35b08UqvQ&s=19 this] tweet, the admin of Pinkvilla Box Office confirm that they started the blog Cinetrak and moved to Pinkvilla from Cinetrak. Now Cinetrak is considered unreliable. Although the admin say they have not been involved with it since moving to Pinkvilla, they continue to endorse Cinetrak and call it the "best box office tracking site in South India", even in [https://x.com/meJat32/status/1923531864125386764?t=ltXeGd5hBZrBDwYosPNcig&s=19 this] recent tweet. The box office figures given by Cinetrak and Pinkvilla are also exactly the same for every film.

:Now, it's not as if there aren't other sources reporting on the box office of Indian films. Many sources including newspapers like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc. publish box office figures. And they do this without citing any of these other dubious sources. If a movie has indeed earned a specific amount of money, then other sources will publish about it, as Indian films are often widely covered in the media. 2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've said this before and I'll say it again: people should stop putting box office figure on movie infoboxes in most circumstances. This isn't just a pinkvilla / cinetrack problem Hollywood Accounting is also a thing. We know budgets and box offices are both manipulated by film studios. This simply isn't valuable information - it's too prone to deliberate error. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Couldn't agree more Guy (help! - typo?) 17:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3/4 Wholly unreliable. Yes, Simonm223 is of my mind re. numbers, but this source is, more broadly, just a low-quality tabloid. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4, per nominating IP, Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Simonm223. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: In line with general principle on tabloid sources, Pinkvilla should not be used at all for any claims on BLPs, or for citing anything from its gossip columns. However, when it comes to box office figures, editors familiar with the Indian film industry have increasingly noted that in an environment where studios often pressure outlets to publish inflated numbers, Pinkvilla has, more often than not, demonstrated editorial independence by reporting figures that align more closely with reality. They are already a fairly established name in Indian entertainment reporting. While I sympathize with the broader sentiment here that box office or budget figures probably shouldn't be in infoboxes, enforcing that would require a sweeping policy change which I suspect will not muster consensus. As things stand right now, deprecating a source that is actively challenging studio inflation and publishing comparatively accurate figures would only obscure the issue further. As a consequence of Pinkvilla reporting more grounded figures, we've often seen their data contradict "official" numbers, which has sparked repeated fan-driven disputes on the talk pages of many Indian film articles. {{tq|I'm posting this RfC here because if I post it at WP:ICTF, the result is only going to be in favour of this source. The editors there defend this source with passion. }} The various discussions at WP:ICTF that IP has pointed out often stem from this friction: not from genuine RS concerns, but from attempts to discredit Pinkvilla in order to push promotional or inflated POV figures. Indian film regulars can attest to this pattern. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment: While there is some truth in this, the neutrality of Pinkvilla has also been questioned during several discussions at WP:ICTF, with many users pointing out their favoritism towards films involving certain people. When you check some discussions on Reddit and Twitter, you see that they have also been accused of acting like a PR firm for people like Karan Johar and Deepika Padukone. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: re: 'many users', I will leave {{u|Krimuk2.0}}'s observation from February here (with a link to the archive for that discussion, for editors who might want to see the true nature of the opposition to Pinkvilla): {{tq|We must note that threads against Pinkvilla are being bludgeoned by socks of blocked user {{u|Vax'ildan Vessar}} unhappy about Pinkvilla reporting that their favourite films aren't doing well at the box-office, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kanguva#Box_Office this discussion].}} DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::There are discussions dating back to 2022, that question the source's neutrality, as you can see here. You can find other numerous discussions here and here. Clearly, all of this is not one single user.
• :::In any case, Pinkvilla is only really useful for the box office of Tamil and Malayalam films, as they are not the first preference for Hindi and Pan Indian films (which are covered by Box Office India and Bollywood Hungama). Even for Telugu films, the first preference could be News18 Telugu, Deccan Herald etc. The Tamil and Malayalam industries, which form a very small percentage of the movie business in India, also still get reported by other sources. For instance, Malayalam newspapers like Mathrubhumi, Malayala Manorama etc. have been pretty good at reporting box office numbers of late. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 this discussion is all about box-office figures which are nearly always questioned in Indian sources so there is no need to single out this publication which has a lot more types of content which has been considered reliable up to know. What is needed is an unbiased discussion about how to use and reference Indian box-office figures from all reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Sorry. This discussion is about the reliability of the source in question. Could you elaborate on the other types of content it has, other than film-related content ? 2405:6E00:2821:8C28:3CFA:ADFF:FEA6:BE66 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::As per Pinkvilla it is India's NO.1 source for entertainment stories so it should not be deemed unreliable just because it's box office figures are contested in the same way that they are contested in most Indian sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Per numerous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Can you please elucidate what those discussions were? Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 I figure I should formalize this. I don't think PinkVilla is a reliable source for box office figures. I also think pretty much no source is particularly reliable for box office figures per my knowledge of Hollywood Accounting and associated issues in most local cinema production venues. My opinion is that we should remove box office figures from infoboxes altogether. Barring that, excluding Pinkvilla as a source should at least reduce the frequency of box office figures being added to infoboxes, which would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Like I said, I can respect the take that these figures should not be in infoboxes. But excluding one source is not going to reduce how often they are added, it will just lead to them being sourced to other alternatives. We cannot control this as long as Template:Infobox film continues to have parameters for budget and box office. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per others and discussions at ICTF. Pinkvilla.com, IMO, is only reliable for BO figures as per my assessments in the past few years. It's not an RS for any other stuff due to gossip. — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

• Helen McCarthy: "very useful and easily accessible", "mine of information on the Internet maintained by the owners and members of the Miyazaki Mailing List, an international fan group devoted to spreading information and discussion on the works of Studio Ghibli."{{cite book |last=McCarthy |first=Helen |author-link=Helen McCarthy |year=2002 |orig-year=1999 |title=Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation |publisher=Stone Bridge Press |isbn=978-1-8806-5641-9 |p=235}}
• Susan J. Napier wrote a paper about the Mailing List in 2006 and interviewed several of its participants: "particularly articulate, engaged, and varied group, encompassing a wide range of ages and a fair number of female participants and representing numerous countries"{{cite journal |last=Napier |first=Susan J. |author-link=Susan J. Napier |title=The world of anime fandom in America |journal=Mechademia |volume=1 |issue=1 |date=2006 |issn=2152-6648 |doi=10.1353/mec.0.0072 |pages=48–49}}.
• Raz Greenberg included it in "A guide to further research": "offers extensive information on Studio Ghibli"{{Cite book |title=Hayao Miyazaki: Exploring the Early Work of Japan's Greatest Animator |last=Greenberg |first=Raz |author-link=Raz Greenberg |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |year=2018 |isbn=978-1-5013-3594-5 |url=https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781501335976&pdfid=9781501335976.0006.pdf&tocid=b-9781501335976-FurtherResearch1 |p=157}}
• See also {{slink|Nausicaa.net#Awards and recognition}}

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

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

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

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

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

::::I agree with that too, and I mentioned that the source had been used by experts in the original post. McCarthy's book is a little lighter on inline references compared to the more recent books, but Rayna Denison cites it in a 2008 paper{{cite journal |last=Denison |first=Rayna |author-link=Rayna Denison |title=Star-spangled Ghibli: star voices in the American versions of Hayao Miyazaki's films |journal=Animation |volume=3 |issue=2 |date=2008 |issn=1746-8477 |doi=10.1177/1746847708091891 |page=133}} and you can see Greenberg does a couple times in the footnotes of {{URL|1=https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781501335976&pdfid=9781501335976.ch-001.pdf&tocid=b-9781501335976-chapter1#ftn.b-9781501335976-ch1-fn34|2=this chapter}}. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

::::::: {{smalldiv|1=Did you mean this comment for the RfC above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

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

::{{outdent|5}} {{Reply to|Z. Patterson}} I'd urge you to reread my original message. I'm in agreement with you that the Ghibli Wiki is unreliable, but I'm not referring to the wiki in this discussion. The Hayao Miyazaki Web is self-published, but not user-generated, since it's not open to general editing and has a [http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/ghiblink/ defined editorial team]. I've provided several other arguments on why I think this side of the site should be considered reliable, do you have any thoughts on those? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|TechnoSquirrel69}} I see. Seeing how it is a fan site, but otherwise is considered reputable by independent, reliable sources, I would attribute statements from that site if they were to be used from that site. I would not use it in biographies about living people, as the front page says it is a fan site.{{cite web |url=http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/ |title=The Hayao Miyazaki Web // Nausicaa.net |access-date= 14 June 2025}} Z. Patterson (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Z. Patterson (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{rlt}}

Since VentureBeat is a bit of a perennial source at NCORP AfDs and the most recent discussion is something like a decade old now, I figured it was a good time to chuck things here for another look. Now, my initial view was that it was pretty much tech churnalism in the vein of TechCrunch, without any significant issues for actual reliability, but a fair few of the recent articles were showing certain telltale signs, and hey, would you look at that, turns out where there is smoke there apparently {{em|is}} an AI-generated fire.{{cite news |last1=Roush |first1=Chris |title=How VentureBeat plans to use AI in its content |url=https://talkingbiznews.com/media-news/how-venturebeat-plans-to-use-ai-in-its-content/ |work=Talking Biz News |date=3 May 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Fingas |first1=jon |title=VentureBeat is the latest publication to use AI in its articles |url=https://www.engadget.com/venturebeat-is-the-latest-publication-to-use-ai-in-its-articles-202514471.html |work=Engadget |date=28 April 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Dupré |first1=Maggie Harrison |title=VentureBeat Using AI to Help Generate Articles |url=https://futurism.com/the-byte/venturebeat-ai-generate-articles |work=Futurism |date=1 May 2023}} Now, a migitigating factor might be that the AI generated text still (allegedly) undergoes human review, however as Dupré points out, other publications have made similar promises. Additionally, said articles are unmarked, which means that we will unfortunately not be able to sort and identify non-AI articles easily. At the very minimum, I'd expect us to start excercising a lot more caution. Whether or not we would consider it entirely unreliable, I will put to editors here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think we shouldn't use this source for notability purposes. It is a good example of churnalism. Gheus (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Just as a note, [https://variety.com/2025/gaming/news/gamesbeat-spins-off-from-venturebeat-gina-joseph-dean-takahashi-1236373682/ GamesBeat now operates independently from the rest of VentureBeat], despite currently still living at the same URL, so we may need to evaluate the two separately. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{mdf|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|— Newslinger talk 20:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

This source is identified here as unreliable because it is self-published. However, the wikipedia page about the source,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

confirms the despite questions about its methodology the source's results tend to be very reliable and consistent with other sources. Time to change the rating? 104.195.222.88 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am attempting to write a full article for Mythos (restaurant) but it is well outside of my expertise. Many sources appear upon a quick Google search. However, many of the sources are formatted as blogs and other, more informal sources. [https://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/chicago-today/exploring-the-universal-orlandos-mythos-worlds-best-theme-park-restaurant/3547806/ This article from NBC Chicago] is the most reliable that showed up, but I am not certain how it would apply to GNG. [https://www.cinemablend.com/theme-parks/universal-orlando-mythos-world-best-theme-park-restaurant Cinemablend] also shows up, posing as a general entertainment website.

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

• [https://thekingdominsider.com/review-of-mythos-restaurant-at-islands-of-adventure-ks/ Kingdom Insider]
• [https://orlandoinformer.com/blog/gluten-free-you-need-to-eat-here/ Orlando Informer]
• [https://mouseplanet.com/mythos-universals-finest-cave-dining/6799/ Mouse Planet]
• [https://wdwnt.com/2024/05/mythos-restaurant-new-lounge-ioa/ Walt Disney News Today]

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

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

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

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

Per WP:NYPOST the New York Post is generally unreliable with the exception of issues pre-1942 and its entertainment coverage which (WP:DECIDER) is "marginally reliable".

Steven Greenstreet -- formerly at the Huffington Post -- has been a video producer at the New York Post for a few years. His critical ("skeptical") reporting on UFOs and UFO subculture has been cited by the Washington Spectator [https://washingtonspectator.org/ufo-tales-falling-apart-after-hearings/], Futurism [https://futurism.com/the-byte/pentagon-whistleblower-admits-photo-fake], WABC [https://wabcradio.com/episode_guest/steven-greenstreet/], etc. He's a potentially valuable reference as there is a dearth of reporting on the sociology of this fringe topic.

My question: what is the group's feeling about Greenstreet's reporting being citable in the narrow category of fringe topics as a subject matter expert as per WP:SPS? Traditionally this isn't "self-published" but, if we're approaching the Post as having inferior or no editorial controls, it might be in an oblique way? Chetsford (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically I was looking into [https://www.superherohype.com/features/603479-doctor-who-poppy-belinda-chandra-weird-abortion-allegory this article], which provides an analysis of the ending of the recent Doctor Who episode "The Reality War" that I was hoping to use both to (eventually) confer notability for the character it discusses and as a point of discussion regarding the character herself. Thoughts are much appreciated!

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

:It looks like it is written by super fans [https://www.superherohype.com/about-us]. It seems like user generated content. It may not be usable on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia had recently deprecated and blacklisted a Hong Kong-based English-language news blog [https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/ Dimsum Daily].(See :zh:維基百科:可靠來源/常見有爭議來源列表#DimsumDaily) The decision is due to its ongoing publication of fake news (e.g., according to FactWire, they fabricated a quote from a Czech TV interview with a scientist who claimed that COVID-19 was created in an American laboratory, but this interview did not exist and the scientist denied making those statements[https://www.factwire.org/investigation/fact-check%E6%8D%B7%E5%85%8B%E5%B0%88%E5%AE%B6%E6%8C%87%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E6%BA%90%E8%87%AA%E7%BE%8E%E8%BB%8D%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97%E5%AE%A4-%E8%A8%AA/]), poor journalistic practices (e.g., they admitted to "always troll people" and "flattered" for being labelled as a fake news outlet in one of their apology statements after publishing a misleading report[https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/clarification-to-quash-rumours-with-regards-to-ownership-of-dimsumdaily-and-our-pro-beijing-stance/]), a lack of editorial independence and oversight (e.g., most contributors are students rather than journalists[https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/clarification-to-quash-rumours-with-regards-to-ownership-of-dimsumdaily-and-our-pro-beijing-stance/]), and a controversial background (e.g., it was founded by a wanted Malaysian businessman and is controlled by a Chinese-funded marketing agency with ties to a social media influencer[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3030378/controversial-hong-kong-website-dim-sum-daily-linked-company][https://web.archive.org/web/20190916102543/https://twitter.com/selina_cheng/status/1173542313320046592]). I did a cleanup in late May to replace all 160+ articles that cited this source with better sources, during which I also found some discrepancies between the source and other reliable sources. But after my initial cleanup, this source continued to be added to various articles over the last two weeks, and its extensive usage worries me about whether we should take action against this news blog to prevent editors from unknowingly citing it, which might perpetuate misinformation. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

::Not every terrible source needs to be blacklisted as that would be an endless task. As it stands the site is used in zero articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22dimsumdaily.hk%2F%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1], so there's no compelling needs to do anything (unless I missed something). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::ActivelyDisinterested, yes, I have already mentioned that this source was originally cited in 160+ articles before I cleaned them up with better sources (you can check my edit history from 26 to 27 May[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Prince_of_Erebor&target=Prince+of+Erebor&offset=20250527150213&limit=250]), but it continues to be added to Wikipedia on a daily basis (I just cleaned up an article citing it yesterday: Special:Diff/1294519606). So quite the contrary, this source has been cited extensively on Wikipedia and I believe requires some degree of attention, as manually cleaning it up myself is definitely not an effective solution. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 21:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

:::::There is also an article from Radio Free Asia that debunks its misinformation regarding COVID-19,[https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/huanjing/hc-08022021103033.html] and South China Morning Post[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3030378/controversial-hong-kong-website-dim-sum-daily-linked-company] and Free Malaysia Today[https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/09/26/hk-website-under-fire-over-protest-coverage-linked-to-1mdb-fugitive] have reported on its controversial reporting methods and management background. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 22:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Hey,

I am seeking input on the reliability of several Moroccan media outlets, particularly:

- Hespress

- Morocco World News

- L’Opinion

- Telquel

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

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

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

Thank you for your time!

Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

::* Telquel: Covering his trail and imprisonment in 3 article [https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2024/10/23/des-militants-amazighs-portent-plainte-contre-le-youtubeur-ilyas-el-maliki-pour-incitation-a-la-haine_1900185/ 1] [https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2024/10/30/retour-a-la-case-prison-pour-le-streamer-ilyas-el-maliki_1901659/ 2] [https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2024/11/20/le-youtubeur-ilyas-el-maliki-condamne-a-quatre-mois-de-prison-ferme_1905199/ 3]

::* Hespress: English site has 15 articles about him [https://en.hespress.com/tag/ilyas-el-malki] covering mainly his trails and prison, and his Kings League role,[https://en.hespress.com/110465-ultra-chmicha-team-targets-kings-league-world-cup-club-glory.html] award as the Streamer of the year,[https://en.hespress.com/102290-ilyass-el-maliki-named-moroccan-influencer-of-the-year-at-les-imperiales-week-2025.html] etc. Arabic site has 12 articles on him [https://www.hespress.com/tag/%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%8A] French site has 5 articles [https://fr.hespress.com/tag/ilyas-el-maliki]

::* L'Opinion: Kings League role [https://www.lopinion.ma/Kings-League-Ilyas-El-Maliki-va-participer-a-la-Coupe-du-Monde-des-Clubs-avec-une-nouvelle-equipe-en-tant-que-Wildcard_a63917.html] and trail [https://www.lopinion.ma/Le-streamer-Ilyas-El-Malki-condamne-a-quatre-mois-de-prison-ferme_a60386.html]

::* Morocco World News: they wrote about 20 articles about him mainly covering Kings League role [https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/tag/ilyas-el-maliki/] and influence on sports ([https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2025/02/175024/achraf-hakimi-scores-brace-celebrates-ilyas-el-malikis-style/ Hakimi])

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

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

::::Got it, thank you for your time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. Can [https://www.cbr.com/resident-evil-where-to-play/ this source] be used as an authoritative source to support the claim that the mentioned games from the Resident Evil franchise are the main ones in the franchise? Actually, the subject of discussion is the inclusion of these two - Resident Evil 0 and Resident Evil Code Veronica. The source does not explain or discuss why these two games are included in the list of core games along with the numbered ones, but since this source is at least directly dedicated to the topic of "core games" and I agreed to at least discuss it, I am wondering whether this source can be used both on its own and in a bundle with any other. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:The site is run by Valnet so WP:VALNET might be of some use, which says it's reliability is situational. I've left a notification on WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see if anyone has an opinion on this particular situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you! This will be a great help because right now the article about the newest entry are under edit war because of this and any comment, source or discussion of the source would be very helpful while the edit war or page protection request is ignored. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say no. It's entry at WP:VG/S generally only supports the pre-2016 iteration of the website, which was run quite differently. As a general rule of thumb, if a VALNET website is the only website to verify something...that's not a good sign. They're not good for contentious things. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:: I'm sorry, could you please explain why this type of site is now considered unauthoritative in the first place? I've used CBR a few times in other articles and I might have to remove them. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Because they publish AI shit. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Ah, I see. Then what sources could be used in the mentioned topic? A quick search in Google gives either general guides and TOPs, where the media simply list all the big games, or fan-made content in thematic wikis and social networks. Friends have given me some comments about this, but I obviously cannot refer to friends as authoritative sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you cannot find reliable sources the confent just doesn't go in. Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::: The problem is that right now the article is in a slow edit war, as a result of which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_Requiem&diff=1294761636&oldid=1294760701 this text has already been returned to the article] several times despite several attempts to create a compromise version. I even tried to leave a source request to motivate other users to find the necessary sources, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_Requiem&diff=1294767709&oldid=1294763262 it was simply deleted and that's it] (at the same time, the user deleted the mention of the official numbering of the game). Of course, I created a request to protect the article, but at the moment it has led to nothing. So at the moment I am simply afraid to provoke a new edit war by trying to delete it again or return my source request. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You should avoid edit warring then. Simonm223 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I avoid it. As a result, the article currently retains the original research, but removes the official game numbering. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Since 2016? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, that's when Valnet bought them out and completely changed the website. It's a recurring problem in the video game journalism works, as seen with WP:VALNET. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Is this confirmed? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Cquote|Resident Evil Requiem is the ninth title in the mainline Resident Evil series.|source=https://www.residentevil.com/requiem/en-uk/}}

: You'll laugh, but after checking the official website again, I found that the necessary phrase had been there all along. That is, the solution to the dispute had been right under my nose all along. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The transcript on Operation Sindoor Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India{{Cite news |title=Transcript of Special Briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 07, 2025) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39474/Transcript_of_Special_Briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_07_2025 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250510234544/https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39474/Transcript_of_Special_Briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_07_2025 |archive-date=2025-05-10 |access-date=2025-06-04 |work=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India |language=en-US}}
• A document hosted by Consulate General of India in Istanbul{{Cite web |title=Ooeration Sindoor: Media Brief DGMO |url=https://www.cgiistanbul.gov.in/content/BRIEF-MEDIA-DGMO.pdf |website=Director General of Military Operations (India) |publisher=Consulate General of India, Istanbul}}
• Briefing on Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos by Inter-Services Public Relations of Pakistan military{{Cite web |date=12 May 2025 |title=Marka-e-Haq - 22 April 2025 to 10 May 2025 The conduct of Pakistan Armed Forces Operation "Bunyanum Marsoos", on 10 May 2025 as part of the military conflict Marka-e-Haq, was in response to Indian military's dastardly attacks that began on the night of 6 & 7 May 2025, resulting in the loss of innocent civilian lives, including women, children, and the elderly. |url=https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=7283 |website=Inter-Services Public Relations}}
• Another briefing by ISPR{{cite web |last1= |first1= |date=9 May 2025 |title=Tri Services Joint Press Conference - 9 May 2025 {{!}} ISPR |url=https://youtube.com/watch?v=ax0FBm8jazs |website=YouTube |publisher=ISPR Official |language=en |format=video}}
• Another transcript by Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India{{Cite news |date=10 May 2025 |title=Transcript of Special briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 10, 2025) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39486/Transcript_of_Special_briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_10_2025 |access-date=10 May 2025 |work=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}
• Another transcript by the same{{Cite web |title=Transcript of Special briefing by MOD on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 10, 2025) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39491/Transcript_of_Special_briefing_by_MOD_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_10_2025 |website=Ministry of External Affairs of India}}
• India's Press Information Bureau{{Cite news |date=14 May 2025 |title=Operation SINDOOR: The Rise of Aatmanirbhar Innovation in National Security |url=https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2128746 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250516170223/https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2128746 |archive-date=16 May 2025 |access-date=16 May 2025 |work=Press Information Bureau}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::I don't see why they'd be useful for that purpose. Different style guides, most books being too indifferent to follow any style guide at all... I know that [https://xkcd.com/1167/ Wikipedia editors take capitalization deadly seriously] and want to believe in numbers that settle everything, but I just can't imagine that n-grams are at all viable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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

:::: So how about [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Berlin+airlift&year_start=1940&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true this] for showing that Berlin Airlift needs to be renamed to Berlin airlift ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

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

:::::As others have said, Ngram is not an appropriate source to cite in an article but can be useful in discussions. They are frequently invoked in renaming (requested move—WP:RM) discussions, including capitalization and other spelling and usage issues. The article's title is Berlin Blockade, with Berlin Airlift and Berlin airlift as redirects. Ngram can also be useful in discussions of appropriate capitalization in article prose. For the record, I agree with Nat that the Ngram shared does not appear to support lowercase. Contextual Ngrams (like these: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+Berlin+airlift%2C*+Berlin+Airlift&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3][https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Berlin+airlift+*%2Cthe+Berlin+Airlift+*%2CThe+Berlin+airlift+*%2CThe+Berlin+Airlift+*&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3][https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Berlin+airlift+was%2Cthe+Berlin+Airlift+was&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3]) may provide more insight, as can an actual assessment of usage in reliable sources (as opposed to this aggregate Ngram view). Any concerns about the article title or its content should be raised at Talk:Berlin Blockade. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pulitzer/lVLUlgEACAAJ?hl=en this biography of Joseph Pulitzer], and I was wondering how reliable it would be to use on Pulitzer’s article (it uses it currently, but it’s a C article). I don’t think the writer is an academic, but the book has a notes (references) and bibliography section at the end. Perhaps I’m being excessively cautious, but I remember seeing someone here criticize non-academic biographies on here and wanted to be sure. Thank you! -- Dantus21 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Dantus21 According to WP, "In 2010, Morris published Pulitzer: A Life in Politics, Print, and Power. The Wall Street Journal deemed was one of the five best books on American moguls and one of the five best books on American newspaper publishers while Booklist placed on its 2010 list of the ten best biographies of the year."

:Should be generally reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so much! -- Dantus21 (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The book, History of Medieval India: From 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D.

By Radhey Shyam Chaurasia is used on the article Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. Google Books link:[https://books.google.com/books?id=8XnaL7zPXPUC&dq=tughlaq+jat&pg=PA50&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tughlaq%20jat&f=false]

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

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

:Atlantic seem like a reputable publisher[https://atlanticbooks.com], and Chaurasia appear to have an academic background in history[https://atlanticbooks.com/products/history-of-medieval-india-from-1000-a-d-to-1707-a-d?_pos=1&_psq=History+of+Medieval+India%3A+From+1000+A.D.+to+1707+A.D&_ss=e&_v=1.0]. oweverreading some the book I'm left very uncertain of its quality. Maybe avoiding anything exceptional and finding a better source when possible is best. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

We use it quite a bit. However, it publishes Airbursts and Cratering Impacts [https://www.scienceopen.com/collection/9aae92f3-66ba-4b71-a74b-51b9995c56e5] which is published by the Comet Research Grouphttps://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/ACI.2025.0003]ee] which is very fringe. See [[Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Comet research group Doug Weller talk 16:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:That seems to be a repost of their article published in Scientific Reports that had to be retracted[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3]. Given that and the language in the Editor’s Note, which seems deep into a galileo fallacy, I wouldn't use it for anything exceptional unless backed up by another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Destructoid articles need to be evaluated based on the author's credibility. Does [https://www.destructoid.com/super-mario-odysseys-pauline-is-on-her-way-to-mario-tennis-aces/ this source] have a reliable author? Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

• {{Cite book |last=Harvey |first=A. D. |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Body_Politic/LKghEAAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA42 |title=Body Politic: Political Metaphor and Political Violence |date=2007 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |isbn=978-1-5275-6649-1 |language=en}}

I know of one [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#Discussion_(Cambridge_Scholars_Publishing) previous discussion] concerning Cambridge Scholars Publishing, but its outcome was rather questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:A print on demand service masquerading as a reputation publisher. The author A. D. Harvey has an interesting past that might explain why he's now self-published. The link in his article is now dead but here's [https://archive.is/0fOfv an archive]. A self published work from someone known for carrying out elaborate hoaxes should be handled with due care, even if they might otherwise have an appropriate academic background in the subject area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

: UPD. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elements_%28Ave_Mujica_EP%29&diff=1295378052&oldid=1295371630 I've already put a couple of genres in the article mentioned based on the English language review I found], but the question still stands due to the difficulty of finding authoritative enough reviews for Japanese releases. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Article Baronage of Scotland presents a long list of supposed holders of Scottish baronage titles. The list previously used WP:BURKES and WP:DEBRETTS to establish who holds a certain title, both of which are perennial RS. However, beginning in April, these sources were removed from the table almost entirely, and instead [https://baronage.com| baronage.com] and more specifically the [https://roll.baronage.com/| "Authoritative Roll of Barons"] (the Roll) are now used.

Since this falls under WP:BLP, I have concerns about the Roll as a source. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page without a clear resolution; I would appreciate community input. For the record, my concerns stem from:

• The owners of the page and the administrators of the Roll (i.e. those who are in charge of making or checking the entries) are unknown and not given on the website.
• No information about the entity who runs the site is known since they are neither a registered company nor a registered charity.
• The Roll includes both supposedly "verified" and "unverified" information. It is not clear how both are distinguished, who's doing the distinguishing, or why "unverified" information is included in the first place.
• Most significantly, the source has not been referenced or used by any independent sources outside of Wikipedia. Searching "Authoritative Roll of Barons" produces 4 results - the site itself is the first, and Baronage of Scotland is the second.

— Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:They're a private group who maintains a list, as per their about us page[https://baronage.com/#about] {{tq|"Since 2004, there has been no legal requirement to record baronies in Scotland"}}. It seems there main things is being against the sale of titles, but the have no jurisdiction or authority in the matter beyond saying that they do.
If other sources treat them as the official list then so should Wikipedia, but they have no standing to just say so themselves (or at least no more than any other private group). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::no, it doesn't seem that anyone outside certain editors on Wikipedia "treat them as an official list". A search finds the only links to this "roll" or mentions of it are on Wikipedia and the website itself. Nayyn (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe that wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that they should be treated as official. I left the other half unsaid, If there aren't sources treating them as the official list then Wikipedia shouldn't treat them as the official list either. My point was it would depend on how other sources treated them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Since 2004, Scottish baronies are no longer attached to real estate and transfers are therefore no longer publicly recorded. The Scottish Barony Register records transfers since 2004, but its information is private and it does not guarantee completeness.

:I would just use Debretts or Burkes and mention the information was correct at the date of last transfer. TFD (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I have mentioned on the talk page of the Baronage article, this publication seems to me to be an acceptable WP:RS. It has transparent inclusion criteria and there is no indication of self-promotion or bias. The critique seems to be based on (1) that it includes some entries marked as unverified, and (2) that we don't have independent proof that they follow their published verification process.

:As to the first point, the site obviously cannot be used as a source for any entries they themselves mark as having failed verification. This really goes without saying and is unproblematic to handle from a WP:RS perspective.

:As to the second point, this is very much the case for the majority of secondary sources on WP. As primary sources are generally not accepted, we must rely on secondary sources having processed these. For a secondary source with a published editorial standard, such as this site, the presumption should generally be that they adhere to these until there are any indications to the contrary.

:In the case of this site, no one has yet actually managed to point to any mistakes or erroneous listings. Given this, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and consider it a WP:RS until I see any proof that the data is not reliable.

:That being said, just because it is a WP:RS does not make it an authoritative source. It should be weighed and checked against other sources, such as Burke's and Debrett's. If these sources do not concur, further investigation is probably required, and if facts can't be properly verified, the information should be left off WP. Charliez (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's a members club that reports on the details of it's members, so it's a primary source. It also has, as has been previously noted, no WP:USEBYOTHERS. If other reliable sources disagree with it, those other sources should be used. It has no authority to define baronages beyond details of it's membership. No entry in the article should be marked as {{tl|failed verification}} because of anything on this site, especially if it's involves living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don’t agree it’s a primary source. Any source compiling data from other sources would be a secondary (or tertiary) source. I think you’re misreading their website when you say it’s a members’ club. They have published a set of criteria for verification (just like the Roll of the Baronetage), but I cannot see that membership is required for inclusion on the Roll.

:::As to “failed verification”, no entry should ever be marked like that. It’s absurd, and I have repeatedly said so on the relevant talk page. I’d welcome your support there. This discussion is about the baronage.com website as a WP:RS, though, and I think it meets those requirements (but in no way at the exclusion of other sources). Charliez (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::By what measure is it a reliable source, what can you show that it has a {{tq|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. Thier method of verification seems to disagree with what baronages may actually be legally because of limitations they believe in.
If you read their inclusion guidelines[https://roll.baronage.com/guidelines.pdf] it's very clear that inclusion in the list only happens if a claimant send them details and agrees to their principles, so not being on the list is meaningless as it's possible whoever claims a particular baronage just doesn't want to deal with their group. Also in their guidelines are a load of requirements about inheritance that have no relation to the laws about who owns a particular title. So they may say that a person isn't the a baron, but that person my legally be a baron. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree; perhaps I was unclear. Not being on the list (or being on the list as “unverified”) is not a meaningful indicator. But if we believe their published inclusion criteria, being on the list is. As such, it is a useful positive indicator. A source doesn’t have to be complete to be a WP:RS. Not every famous footballer has an article in The Times, but if a footballer does, it’s a “strong positive” and a useful source for WP editors. Charliez (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

:I think it might be this magazine (this link is not safe for work) [https://www.justusboys.com/magazine.html], {{tq|"We currently print 125,00 copies each issue and distribute to the largest gay centers in North America"}}. This appears to be volume 3, issue 5 as (again I very much doubt this is safe for work) [https://www.justusboys.com/assets/pdf/JustUsBoys_3_5_web.pdf a pdf], but I haven't downloaded it to be sure. Given it's small circulation I'm not sure it's a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd like some greater consensus on whether IFLScience, which "posted misleading information and was not a credible science site" and "has come under criticism for plagiarism, unlicensed use of intellectual property, reporting false and misleading information, and rarely issuing corrections", can be used as a source in articles (indeed, it's already in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3Aiflscience&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 several hundred]). DS (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:It took me a moment to find, but these quotes come from Elise Andrew (the person originally behind the site). The criticism comes from multiple sources; [https://time.com/4258291/30-most-influential-people-on-the-internet-2016/ Times.com], [https://web.archive.org/web/20130423205816/http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2013/04/23/facebooks-i-fcking-love-science-does-not-fcking-love-artists/ Scientific America blog], [https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/elise-andrew-science-popularizer-with-a-spotty-attribution-record-gets-a-pass-from-cjr/ Knights Science Journalism], [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/03/dont-trust-that-facebook-page-you-love.html New York magazine], and there's more detail at Elise Andrew#IFL Science. It does appear to be a case where verifying and citing the original source might be suggestible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:It should be deprecated. IFLScience has [https://www.iflscience.com/1782-the-year-a-caterpillar-outbreak-terrified-london-79615 sensationalist articles], it [https://www.iflscience.com/with-quantum-entanglement-and-blockchain-we-can-finally-generate-real-random-numbers-79601 reports on unpublished papers] and [https://www.iflscience.com/expanding-earth-the-strange-pre-tectonics-hypothesis-that-the-earth-is-expanding-like-a-balloon-79596 research from Arxiv]. It is better to use another source, and if no other source is reporting on something that IFLScience is, it probably isn't notable or verified. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

What are the reliabilities of Geeky Hobbies [https://www.geekyhobbies.com/] and Fun Board Games? [https://funboardgames.com/]

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

:Geeky Hobbies is run by Eric Mortensen[https://www.geekyhobbies.com/author/mortee50/], who is also the author of the article used in Free Parking[https://www.geekyhobbies.com/free-parking-card-game-review-and-rules/]. The site is probably a self-published blog but if not the article should be considered so, as Mortensen is both the owner and writer. I can't find any use by others for geekhobbies.com or Eric Mortensen.

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

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

::* Geeky Hobbies is most likely a self-published source.

::* No consensus on Free Board Games.

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

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

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

Despite being considered an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_240#militaryfactory.com unreliable] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_371 source] in previous noticeboard discussions, militaryfactory.com is used as a citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22militaryfactory%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=bjz0pmce6bdsd06aw64mku705 600+ times].

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

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

Is the Zambian Observer considered a reliable source?

For example, [http://zambianobserver.com/north-korea-pledge-to-provide-military-support-to-iran-amid-looming-war-with-israel this article] says North Korea has offered military support to Iran following the Israeli airstrikes. However, I could find mention of this in Google News; the only other sources that mention this are Twi-, err, X and Facebook accounts, and it goes without saying that social media is not considered to be a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: This article is edited once every 100 years, and in the past, the threads I opened were ignored even when it came to much more popular pages. It would have simply been lost in history, not to mention that such a question would have been a good precedent for other similar cases. Just last month, there was a controversy over fan translations of interviews from Japanese. Also, I notified the other party, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASonic_Phoenix&diff=1295721950&oldid=1295718838 they just deleted the message]. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2023 an expedition to climb the highest point in Uzbekistan took survey measurements of Khazret Sultan (widely described as Uzbekistan's highest point) and also of a nearby peak called Alpomish, and reported that Alpomish is approximately 25 meters higher than Khazret Sultan, making Alpomish the true high point. This was published on [https://www.countryhighpoints.com/alpomish-uzbekistan-highpoint/ the expedition leader's personal website], which was rightfully rejected as non-RS for an exceptional claim of this nature. However, the same claim [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201216908 has now been published] in the 2024 edition of the American Alpine Journal, in an article submitted by the expedition leader. The question: is publication by the AAJ sufficient validation of the claim to justify changing what we describe as the Uzbekistan high point, even though other online sources like the CIA World Factbook have not yet responded to the report by changing their articles? -- LWG ^talk 19:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)