Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reason and WaPo on NYT on Slate Star Codex

{{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This discussion has been archived, a close request has been made on WP:CR.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}}

{{RfC top|The consensus is no. Chetsford (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::*::::::Editorial ethics

::*::::::[…]

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

::*::::::[…]

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

::*::::::Contribute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{cait}}

Grok AI:

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

{{pb}}Clarifying the Specific Claim

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

{{pb}}Wikipedia’s Reliable Source Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Credibility and Mission:

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

Handling of Esquier’s Testimony:

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

Wikipedia Reliability Standards:

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

Specific Claim Constraints:

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

{{pb}}Comparison to Other Secondary Sources

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

{{pb}}Conclusion

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

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

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

{{caib}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{RfC bottom}}

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

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

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

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

{{rfc|media|rfcid=B6CA11B}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{rfc|media|rfcid=E56F219}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Generally reliable Attribution is a good opition in general either way. But there is a basis for WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Coverage just doesn't support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See eg. the coverage of its flat misinformation about Truthy.{{cite web|first1=David|last1=Uberti|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=How misinformation goes viral: a Truthy story|url=https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/how_misinformation_goes_viral.php|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}{{cite news|first1=Henry|last1=Farrell|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=No, the National Science Foundation is not building an Orwellian surveillance nightmare|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/22/no-the-national-science-foundation-is-not-building-an-orwellian-surveillance-nightmare/|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=22 October 2014|issn=0190-8286|via=www.washingtonpost.com}} Other sources, like {{cite journal|first1=Craig|last1=Silverman|title=Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content|url=https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8Q81RHH|date=2015|doi=10.7916/D8Q81RHH|journal=Tow Center for Digital Journalism}}, document its place in the misinformation ecosystem, describing how it originated a misleading and unverified claim, stating it as fact. This is not how one would expect coverage to describe a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Its reporting was repeatedly questioned by Politifact [https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/23/hillary-clinton-quotes-Internet-complete/], Snopes [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/], [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eu-jewish-products-labels/], and others [https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-administration-is-not-funding-crack-pipes-heroin-for-drug-use.html] during this period and I could find limited to no instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::To briefly add to my comment here, it was recently reported that the Free Beacon's EIC Eliana Johnson was part of the nominating jury for the 2025 Pulitzer Prize in the National Reporting category [https://freebeacon.com/media/occasionally-we-misjudge/] [https://www.thewrap.com/pulitzer-board-rebuke-juror-eliana-johnson-winner-mosab-abu-toha-mock-israeli-hostages/]. This is another sign that the paper's original reporting has a positive reputation. Astaire (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:For anyone who can't read the cite of Washington Post that Aquillion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1289032846 added] as a reflist-talk at the end of Question #2: it's a for-subscribers blog post by [https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/henry-farrell/ Henry Farrell] from October 2014 i.e. before the editorship of Eliana Johnson. Its first sentence is {{tq|On Oct. 17, Ajit Pai, an appointed member of the Federal Communications Commission, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post making scary-seeming claims that the National Science Foundation was funding a scheme to surveil the Web for "subversive propaganda" that seemed "to have come straight out of a George Orwell novel.}} The mentions of Daily Beacon later in the blog post are "The rumor that it is something scary seems to have started with a discredited and disingenuous article at the Daily Beacon." plus (in a quote from Filippo Menczer and Alessandro Flammini) "A first wave of attacks in August was ignited by a story in the Washington Free Beacon. It made very misleading allegations, ignored our body of research and made no effort to verify the accuracy of the allegations by contacting any of the researchers." They also say the original story was debunked by Columbia Journalism Review. Though they don't get specific, we can see from the dates that the Free Beacon article is [https://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/ Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter]. There were others, as late as November 2014: [https://freebeacon.com/issues/truthy-explained/ Truthy, Explained], which includes some response to the Post criticism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::{{tq|significant academic coverage}}

::::* Let's not overstate the case here. This "significant academic coverage" consists of two throwaway comments both from a single person, Melissa Zimdars. "Significant coverage" would be analyzing one or more of the Free Beacon's stories in detail and showing how it contains factual inaccuracies.

::::* Your summary of the first comment is not even correct: the quotation in full is {{tq|propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively}} (emphasis mine). So Zimdars is calling the Free Beacon "propagandistic", but not "conspiracy-oriented" or "unreliable".

::::* Moreover, this first comment is describing the Free Beacon as it was in May 2017, before Johnson became EIC in September 2019. And the comment is taken from a book published in February 2020, which - given the speed of book publishing - could very well have been written before Johnson even assumed the EIC position, and at any rate is not very far into her tenure.

::::{{tq|"somewhat distorts" adequately summarizes their position}}

::::* No, it doesn't. I am familiar with the Crimson piece referred to here [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/] and nowhere does it suggest that the Free Beacon "distorted" the facts. In fact the Crimson article serves more to verify them: {{tq|Some [passages] appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.}}

::::* The closest thing to a "distortion" would be this part, which confirms that the Free Beacon has a standard corrections process: {{tq|The Free Beacon initially reported that Schwartz was not cited in the paragraph at all, when in fact, his work was cited at the end of the subsequent sentence in Gay’s article. The publication corrected the error after being contacted by The Crimson Monday night.}} Astaire (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - Many articles are well researched. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable They have been putting out good investigative pieces in the last few years. -Bruebach (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable/additional considerations. They do some original reporting to reasonably high levels of journalistic professionalism. We'd want to make that easy enough for WP editors to use, while at the same time cautioning editors that they need to keep an eye out for the other content. They are conservative and they make that clear. Perhaps because of their conservative convictions, they might take on stories that others would miss or not think to investigate. We wouldn't want to miss stories like that. Novellasyes (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable Although they have a partisan/ideological bent they seem relatively well respected among the wider journalistic community. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The persistent, negative factchecks I cited in my comment in the previous section pretty much evaporated around 2018. Moreover, we can find numerous examples of recent WP:USEBYOTHERS like Staten Island Advance [https://www.silive.com/politics/2025/05/is-pope-leo-xiv-a-never-trump-republican.html], NPR [https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/03/claudine-gay-s-resignation-highlights-the-trouble-with-regulating-academic-writing/], the Wall Street Journal [https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/gop-senator-drops-hold-on-stopgap-spending-bill-over-drug-pipes-11644963036], Washingtonian [https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/15/the-nra-declares-bankruptcy-will-keep-offices-in-fairfax-for-now/], etc. Combined with the more perfunctory elements like an obvious gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be liable for its publications, this should be sufficient. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The complaints about it are primarily that it's opinionated, and shares opinions editors here disagree with, but that's never been a reliability issue; many progressive and liberal publications are considered reliable. And WFB has published significant stories that have been picked up by other, mainstream publications, as detailed above.Hi! (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:A couple caveats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE NOTE: the above "Wall of text" is well worth reading. Paul August ☎ 12:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::I think you've laid out the argument for restraint in WP:Creeping out a new sourcing caveat--at least to the extent of using a light touch--quite effectively above, Aculeius, but I feel you are falling into a bit of epistemological trap here: the extent to which we judge a given source to be an accurate rendering of past events is not itself subject to the function of whether it is likely to be disproven. So, to illustrate that point: say we are considering some claim Suetonius makes about the death of Geramnicus, which for some point of historiocity or general skepticism, we (either as modern interpretors generally or a subset of the Wikipedia editors working in this area in particular) feel a cause to take with a grain of salt. Now you're suggesting we will not typically be faced with a situation where new evidence is likely to disrupt the standign weight we give to the statement of that fact, beyond the extent that it was already in doubt by logn established conflict with another source or the influence of long centuries of critical analysis. Which I think we can grant is true (at least for a large number of cases), but which is also kind of to the side of the arguments you were responding to, if I interpret them correctly. Because the point that we cannot count on their being further disrupted does not directly influence how reliable they were as its own matter. {{pb}}So I'm not altogether indifferent to the notion that it might make sense to qualify the use of classical sources a little more than we currently do. But I share your skepticism of some of the arguments that have been advanced as to particulars. For example, I am definetely not in favour of the proposals below, which seem very reductive and problematic to me in a number of respect. To begin with, attempting to copy-paste our approach to biblical sources as a starting point seems to me a very hamfisted and in-apt starting point. classical historians may not have had access to the fraction of the knowledge and methodologies of their modern counterparts, but they largely had some sense of histioricity and what we would regard as a sense of editorial discretion as to their sources. At a bare minimum, they are certainly qualifiably different texts than those produced for liturgical purposes, so this transplant of polict language feels very ill-advised. As is any proposed new policy language that attempts to paint all "classical" texts with the same brush in terms of basic reliability. I have to think whatever the proper solution here, it's got to be more restrained than that which has been proposed so far, and likely also more nuanced as to the particulars. Now, I grant that this is a tall order; I honestly hesitate at where to even begin. It's certainly one of those situations where I appreciate that there is WP:NORUSH. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::On a separate procedural note, if the below is being considered as a serious WP:PROPOSAL, then the the discussion should be moved to the talk page of the relevant polcy namespace, or else to WP:VPP. Or at a minimum, notices should be placed in both those spaces and relevant WikiProjects. Actually, I think this would be a substantially relevant enough change in the sourcing policy to warrant a listing as WP:CENT as well. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would note that I don't think the following "proposals" (or "suggested starting points", depending on how you want to label them) yet represent anything particularly set in stone. As to {{tq|the discussion should be moved}}, the suggestion here is (and I think has always been) to add something to WP:RSP, so I'm under the impression that this is the relevant place for this discussion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh, I see: that makes sense. Notices probably still would not hurt though, once discussion has moved on to well-refined proposals. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Sure, that seems very sensible to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::This gets to the heart of the matter. Aculeius' claim of harm (or, in my mind, really a mere inconvenience) is essentially only realised if an editor started writing an article by paraphrasing Suetonius or some other source. I think the consensus of participants here is that we don't want someone to do that. That's all: the spectre of "purging" older secondary sources like they're the four olds and trampling over editors' First Amendment rights is an impressive exercise in alarmism. Ifly6 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's not the situation I'm describing: what I'm saying is that a missing or deficient secondary source for some particular detail should not result in the deletion of the fact cited to a primary source, and as currently written the proposal seems to recommend that instead of attempting to cure the deficiency by locating an appropriate secondary source. Let's suppose that a paragraph about a battle was based on "Williams, 1917", citing Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and that the article is written with the specific details from Livy and Dionysius cited to the passages in each, as both mention certain things but each also mentions details that the other does not. Williams describes the account as given by Livy and Dionysius, whom he mentions, but he says nothing specifically about whether either is "relevant" or "truthful". Does this mean that the relevance and veracity of the passages has not been established, and therefore the citations should be deleted?

:::At some point the description of the battle is expanded, and the citation to Williams is no longer obviously connected to the details cited to Livy and Dionysius. Or somebody comes along and decides that Williams is too old a source, or disagrees with Williams' expertise for reasons having nothing to do with the account of this battle, and replaces him with some other secondary source that may not mention all of the details in Livy or Dionysius, though it does not contradict any of them, or at least does not contradict how they are presented in the article. The proposed language now seems to say that whatever is cited to them must be deleted to whatever extent the secondary source is either disconnected from the text it formerly supported, or the details are no longer corroborated by a secondary source, even though no secondary source disputes them either.

:::To repeat: I'm not recommending building articles beginning with primary sources and only then finding secondary sources. But the remedy for inadequate sourcing is to find more sources. I'll also clarify that my objection has nothing to do with the First Amendment; it has to do with the notion of placing preconditions on all citations to historical sources that could be used as justification to delete them, without considering what they've been cited for, how they're cited, or whether they can be corroborated using secondary sources. P Aculeius (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::That's not ideal, no. But the story remains relevant even if it's not strongly supported; and if a secondary source mentions it, it should be included as something that some sources report, and cited to them, albeit with whatever the secondary source has to say about whether it is likely to have occurred, and whether other sources agree with it or fail to mention it at all. And any source that is mentioned in the article ought to be cited.

:::How would you word this content? Let's assume that a secondary source (Fooson) mentions all of what you state: he notes the anecdote from Phylarchus and the unknown proverbs, but states that it isn't mentioned by Polybius, and that Polybius and Plutarch describes Phylarchus as sensationalistic and frequently inaccurate.

:::Say all of that: "Phylarchus and a source of unknown authorship mention an anecdote that Magas was scalded to death by having cauldrons of boiling water poured over him. This detail is not mentioned by any other sources, including Polybius, who along with Plutarch describes Phylarchus' accounts as sensationalistic and frequenly inaccurate." P Aculeius (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sounds like a lot of work to get there, i think diligent editors are probably willing to do that—and know how to do that. As a reader i wouldn't like to see such editors hamstrung by a rule which requires source shrubbery, useless citations to "secondary" sources such as that JSTOR article which only mention the subject in passing.

::::On the other hand look at the citations provided: #9 {{tq|Polybius 15.25.2; Plutarch, Life of Cleomenes 33; Pseudo-Plutarch Proverb. Alexandr. 13}} is obviously simply cut-and-pasted from [https://instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/magas_ii.htm #4]. This doesn't show a great deal of diligence. I see that quite a bit, references to classical works just copied from another source w/o examining them or attempting to clean up the citations. These are the type of editors that need some rules to help them out.

::::I would take a different tack here: the "Legacy and reception" section already has some discussion of the accounts of Polybius and Phylarchus. Move that up front to alert the novice reader as to the basis and trustworthiness of the sources used to reconstruct the life of Ptolemy. If that is done i don't think it really necessary to say "according to Polybius" or always include additional citations for all the statements in the article. fiveby(zero) 16:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Passing mentions are usually not helpful to readers, though one might make the case to keep one if it is the only corroborating material one can find. That wouldn't be a good result, but it might be better than deleting it! I don't think that anyone here is advocating that sources that are repetitive or cumulative need to be added; but two varying accounts in different historians (or the fact that a sensationalistic one describes something that a more conscientious one omits) may be relevant.

:::::Presumably only one secondary source is required to support the discussion, if it covers the subject well, but two or three that do so in differing ways or with different authority might be cited together. Additional sources that merely allude to it but add nothing of significance can be safely omitted, or pruned if the citations are already cumulative (I note that one way of dealing with the appearance of excessive numbers of inline citations is to group the sources, which there are various ways of doing).

:::::I am not particularly worried about copypasta citations, since they are easily checked and pruned if the sources are available online. For Polybius or Plutarch that should be fairly straightforward; locating English translations of the letters of Cicero or the complete works of Valerius Maximus can be trickier, but once someone is able to do so—or read the citated material in Latin or another language they have been translated into—then they can also be cleaned up.

:::::I don't see any objection to a "legacy and reception" section or something similar discussing the trustworthiness of various sources. My concern in this discussion has been about creating a policy that actively discourages citations to historical sources, even when they might be desirable, or which leads to existing citations being deleted irrespective of their usefulness, or the context in which they're used, based entirely on whether they're "primary" in the historical sense, or potentially dated among modern sources. P Aculeius (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

After leaving the matter for the night and turning over a few ideas in my mind, I decided to try writing something from scratch that I hope will address the main concerns here. I've tried to avoid proscriptive language ("do not"), and incorporating or elevating essays into policy, but I have tried to make clear that modern secondary sources are expected whenever primary sources are cited. I've also included a cautionary note concerning older modern historical writing. Here's what I've come up with:

{{tqbm|In a historical context, primary sources include the works of ancient, medieval, and other pre-modern writers, even when they were not participants in or witnesses to the events they were chronicling. They are described as "primary" because their writings form the body of texts from which modern historians write about the past. These writings can, and in many cases should be cited alongside modern secondary sources that discuss the same topics or events. However, editors must take care not to present the claims of historical sources uncritically. Statements made by these sources should be clearly attributed to them, rather than presented as objective fact. Whenever possible, authoritative scholarship from the modern era should address the same subjects.

As with all other articles, editors should not attempt to analyze or comment on the topic (original research), nor should articles include novel theories or conclusions not clearly stated in and attributed to the cited sources (synthesis). Editors should also remember that modern scholarship is the product of continuing research and development. In some cases, recent sources will incorporate new discoveries that were unavailable to earlier generations of historians; and opinions concerning matters such as politics, social conditions, race, sex, or religion have changed over time. As a result, older modern writing, while still acceptable to cite for many purposes, may not always be the best choice; or in the case of evolving views, it should be cited alongside more recent works.}}

I'm aware that to some participants in this discussion, this may seem too wordy or too permissive. But because all articles are still subject to the basic editorial standards of Wikipedia regarding verifiability and neutrality, I think we should avoid a tone that is too proscriptive, and which would encourage the overly-aggressive pruning of sources. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Statements made by these sources should be clearly attributed to them}}. Would that always require attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation. Take for instance: Battle of Thermopylae#Prelude{{quote|Leonidas took with him the 300 men of the royal bodyguard, the Hippeis. [Herodotus VII, 205]}}

:Doesn't the citation itself clearly attribute the statement to Herodotus? Must this sentence begin with "According to Herodotus..."? fiveby(zero) 17:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it's always necessary to name the authority in addition to citing it, but it may be desirable to do so at or near the beginning of a passage that cites the source, especially if it's being cited multiple times. The important things about attribution are (1) that the reader is made aware of the source, and (2) the reader isn't misled into thinking that Wikipedia is endorsing something about which there could be some doubt. That won't necessarily mean that the words "according to ..." or similar words are always required, or that they have to come at the beginning of a sentence. Context will help determine the best way to attribute something, and I expect that editors will sometimes disagree on whether an attribution is explicit enough, but that kind of debate is normal in Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd say the leading "Sources" section along with the citation to Herodotus would be sufficient here, though could always be improved. But whatever you add here as a policy or guideline needs must serve a variety of readers and control a horde of editors all with differing levels of competence. Just thinking about those editors who will take this as a "rule" and that there always must be in-text attribution, or those which take it to mean anything goes for inclusion as long as it is attributed. More often i see the debates which take more of a facile and overly literal view of the P&G's rather than those of reasonable editors trying to exercise good editorial judgment. fiveby(zero) 18:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's literally what I'm trying to avoid here: I see the other proposals as too proscriptively worded. I suppose if you think it should be even looser, maybe I've hit the sweet spot in the middle. But I'm under no illusion that my suggestion will be universally lauded—if anyone thinks it's good, or that it just needs a few tweaks, I should probably be happy. P Aculeius (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think this describes what we do now, when we are doing good work, and therefore I like it. The earlier proposal seemed intended to change how we work generally and I don't think that's warranted. Furius (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::One of the core issues here is whether such a thing is or isn't good work. There are some WP:GA-rated articles which are essentially paraphrases of Livy, Plutarch, or Appian. A lot of editors, myself included, are of the view that this is not good work and have expressed this regularly in good article reviews. Simple questions like "what year did Veii fall?" are not really answerable with Livy alone. ({{!tq|According to Livy... 396 BC}} would be an anachronistic fiction probably inserted by editors with overconfidence in the number of the edition before them; the "correct" {{tq|In the year of the consular tribunate of Lucius Titinius, Publius Licinius, Publius Maelius, Quintus Manlius, Gnaeus Genucius, and Lucius Atilius, per Livy}} is not really helpful for readers.) I think serious editors would agree that "good work" under such circumstances would require reading the secondary literature on chronological problems and a modern determination of absolute BC.

::Among other examples, what that means for this discussion is that there are places where editors cannot trust what appears before them. This is why some editors want primary sources to be used in WikiVoice{{tm}} with secondary sources only. {{tq|In WikiVoice}} is a distinction here which I think is somewhat confused. WP:PRIMARY says {{tq|A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make (1) straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that (2) can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but (3) without further, specialized knowledge.}}

::* An unattributed claim in WikiVoice that Veii fell in 396, cited to Livy, would fall on its verifiability: in this instance it's certainly straightforward but does not meet either of the latter since Livy can't use a dating system that didn't exist yet.

::* An unattributed claim in WikiVoice that Leonidas brought just 300 men (from above) falls on whether Hdt said it and whether (when he said it) it is reliable. The troop numbers that Hdt reports are, frankly, not reliable. Both number and precision indicate against it. And in just this case, it is the consensus that Hdt is deliberately suppressing the existence of the {{circa|700}} Lacedaemonian perioikoi.

::* An attributed claim, which would put the claim outside WikiVoice, that Herodotus says that Leonidas brought just 300 men falls just on whether Hdt said it. (Setting aside the fact that Hdt later implies that there were 1000 Lacedaemonians in the epitaph. Roel Konijnendijk has done some excellent public history on this topic.)

::These are issues that most commonly, almost only, crop up when editors write articles by paraphrasing primary sources (or bleating their uncritical WP:FRUIT) with a careless disregard towards modern scholarship. {{u|fiveby}} raises a reasonable concern above that {{tq|anything goes for inclusion as long as it is attributed}}: I think that's a question relating to WP:NOR rather than our here reliable sources noticeboard. But I doubt anyone wants that would stretch PRIMARY into a ban on the claim that the XYZ edition of ABC says what it says.

::Aculeius' suggestion seemingly differs from Michael Aurel's in only minor ways. The core is {{tq|Statements made by these sources should be clearly attributed to them, rather than presented as objective fact. Whenever possible, authoritative scholarship from the modern era should address the same subjects}}. This seems to direct essentially the same things as Michael Aurel's: (1) no WikiVoice claims to primary sources; (2) no primary-source-only passages. Two substantive notes, however: a note on the primary sources is not the place to address the question of obsolete sources; if it is intended that this wording would create only optional recommendations, that would be in contravention of WP:PRIMARY's "may be used on Wikipedia only" wording. Ifly6 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::By this logic, an article about Leonidas or Thermopylae could not cite Herodotus because modern scholarship concludes that his description is inaccurate, and Livy could not be cited for when Veii fell, even if the article cites secondary sources clarifying what parts of Herodotus' account are unreliable and why, or why the chronology employed by Livy—at least how we render it in modern terms—is probably off by about four years. That would be an absurd result; citing a source and reporting what it says is not the same as endorsing it uncritically. No reputable history would cover these events without citing Herodotus or Livy; if that's how our policies are to be interpreted, then we should give up the pretense of being an encyclopedia.

:::The wording I proposed is not intended to suggest that editors are free to disregard the need for secondary sources; but it is intended to prevent the purging of sources already in articles simply because secondary sources are deficient or absent (or as suggested above, because primary sources contain biases or inaccuracies that could be and perhaps already are addressed by secondary sources); elsewhere on Wikipedia the preferred remedy for inadequate or missing sources is to locate and cite them. The remedy for a source incorrectly being presented as authoritative when it is not, is to edit the article to change how it is presented, and cite reliable sources explaining why it's unreliable in this respect or that.

:::Lastly, with regard to the contention that sources should be avoided or deleted because they are "obsolete": the contention that sources become "obsolete" when they reach a certain age, irrespective of what they say about a topic or whether it is accurate, or that it is "obsolete" because its author held views that are no longer deemed acceptable about matters that don't affect the thing for which the source is being cited, or because the author was unaware of some detail that also doesn't affect the point for which the source is cited, should be discarded altogether.

:::Classical scholarship has advanced considerably since the days of Gibbon, Niebuhr, or Mommsen, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be regarded as uncitable, irrespective of the purpose for which they're being cited. If a specific point for which sources such as these have been cited is called into question, or shown to be erroneous, then add or replace the source with another; if it's still accurate, or the veracity of the opinion remains an open question, then the citation shouldn't be removed just because the source is old. P Aculeius (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have no idea from where you've conjured the idea that Herodotus cannot be cited under, seemingly, any circumstances. A notice on the reliability of Herodotus and his bookshelf companions is not the place to discuss the reliability of obsolete sources. Ifly6 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::All of the cited cases are dealt with by WP:Primary without a further policy. The facts you mention are not in fact straightforward. Good article reviews are already catching articles (new or old) that are misusing primary sources. Everything's working. So, why is new verbiage required? Furius (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not convinced that it is, but if there is a rewrite, then I want to make certain that it doesn't imply that primary sources (in the historical sense) can't be cited appropriately, or that they should be removed either automatically, or because the secondary sourcing in an article is inadequate. I also read some of the discussion as taking issue with the use of modern sources that aren't very recent (i.e. 19th, 20th century scholarship), but which may be perfectly accurate with respect to the basic facts for which they're being cited, and the implication that citing to them might also be prohibited or strongly discouraged without regard to context. But it sounds to me like the present wording is satisfactory and no new restrictions are imminent, and if so then I'm happy to leave things as they are. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unlike what has been implied by some editors, nobody is changing, adducing, or furthering policy. WP:RSPIS:

::::{{tq2|

::::* {{tick}} a list of sources whose general suitability for most purposes has been discussed repeatedly

::::* {{tick}} a very brief and simple summary of the consensus found in such discussions}}

::::This is meant to summarise the consensus as to the general suitability for most purposes of ancient primary sources. That is intended so that editors have somewhere to point to when other editors demand proof of consensus for such things as "Herodotus isn't a primary source" and "You can't use Herodotus to say only 300 Spartans went". If your contention is {{!tq|you can back the conclusions that are reached here out of WP:PRIMARY so there's no need to state the conclusions}}, I think that's more a challenge against RSP's existence than it is relevant to this discussion. Ifly6 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Very few articles are ever assessed as Good Articles. Wikipedia has and needs a constant influx of new editors; they need accessible guidance, not text buried in footnote [d]. Even editors who have been around a while venture into fresh areas of the encyclopedia without knowing everything already; they need accessible guidance, not text buried in footnote [d]. My watchlist is sad and depressing; I want accessible guidance I can cite, not a footnote. This is not the best of all possible worlds; not everything works and the encyclopedia that everyone can edit will always be in flux. NebY (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Would this apply to works like the Twenty-Four Histories and Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty as well? I admit I have not read all of the arguments and counter-arguments presented above, but I have mixed feelings on disallowing the use of these sources for anything but directly attributed quotations. For one, they are pretty clearly secondary sources and, despite having clear biases, were often compiled with fairly rigorous scholarly standards. For many basic facts, they are (in my view) reliable sources. Also, a time-period based definition like "classical" or "pre-modern" might not adequately include these, if that is the intention. Toadspike [Talk] 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know enough about these histories, or the nature of historiography in China and Korea to give a definitive answer, but given that all but the last of the Twenty-Four Histories predate the 18th century, which I would say is on the cusp of modern historical writing—at least in the European tradition—I expect that the entirety would probably be considered a "primary source" for Wikipedia purposes, along with the majority of the Veritable Records, most of which (if I understand correctly) significantly predate the last portion, from 1865. I just don't feel competent to judge the reliability of Chinese or Korean historical writing from the 18th and 19th century, so with caution I would still probably treat them as "primary sources" in the historical sense.

:That said, I don't believe that the policy as written limits the use of such sources to quotations. As long as editors make clear what the source is, and it's not being accepted uncritically—that is, spoken in the voice of Wikipedia, as if the article simply adopted whatever they said—it should be fine to cite them for what they say. And they should still be backed up by secondary sources that describe the same topics, and include context or any commentary or analysis of those histories, indicating things such as where they might be inaccurate or incomplete, or what might have influenced the tone of their writing. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that for Wikipedia's purposes those are also probably primary sources. Re their reliability, I have a bad feeling in my gut, but that is based only on generalisations of pre-modern histories' loose treatment of numbers, melodramatic details, and teleologies. Between the possibility of differing interpretations of what "basic facts" are and my complete ignorance of their transmission, I wouldn't want to comment. Ifly6 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think I agree in principle with both of you, P Aculeius and Ifly6. The Veritable Records of Joseon and other dynasties are primary, being compiled by their own governments. Most of the 24 Histories, dealing with the regime immediately preceding the author's, could be considered primary too. However, some are technically not primary. Take, for example, the Shiji, which does (in part) cover the author's own dynasty and the dynasty immediately preceding it, for which it could be considered primary or at least potentially biased. But it is hard to imagine any reasonable definition of "primary" that applies to the rest of the work, which cover events hundreds or thousands of years before the author's time and is based on primary or secondary sources itself (see Shiji#Source_materials). This puts it far outside the bounds of WP:PRIMARY as written. If the intent is that it should only be used for attributed quotes (which I think I'd agree with), we're gonna need a new guideline. Toadspike [Talk] 05:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In terms of Wikipedia, I think such sources would be considered primary sources: {{tq|Further examples of primary sources include: ... medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings}}. Such a thing is not unprecedented: one of the "primary sources" for the return of the Heracleidae is Thucydides, writing maybe 700 years after the events are said to have taken place. (Notably, almost nobody believes this "return" or the associated Dorian invasion are real.) Separately, I don't think anyone is seeking to restrict usage of primary sources to attributed quotes: the most maximally restrictive position seriously advocated is merely requiring people to cite the secondary literature when citing primary sources in WikiVoice™. Ifly6 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This was a question I was eventually going to ask on Asian, indigenous, Mayan, Aztec sources etc. Many of the sources from archaeology globally are also primary sources. Would the rewrite account fo all of these? I think that the rewrite, if to be used at all should be very generic and universal across cultures and time. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think anyone is suggesting we rewrite WP:PRIMARY. Just in the same way WP:RSPSCRIPTURE concerns itself only with scriptural texts, rather than every archaeological report to come out of the Levant, there's no reason to suppose that a notice on classical sources like Cicero or Plutarch also needs to scope-creep into every archaeological report on the classical world (let alone globally). While Aculeius' version does drop the examples that suggest a limitation to those ancient primary sources commonly cited in the field of classical studies, I don't read into his comments above any intent to expand the scope in such a manner. But, of course, for final clarification you'd have to wait for his reply. Ifly6 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Similarly, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#What this page is not. Ifly6 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In my opinion, all historical sources should receive a similar treatment, in the sense that historians refer to them as "primary sources", and in that they were not subject to the same standards, expectations, or approach that modern history is. But because they are the foundation of modern historical writing on the topics that they cover—and often the only substantial sources for the details of history—citing them, in the sense of naming them and providing references that readers can use to locate relevant passages, is essential to articles about the topics they describe.

:::::As far as quotations go, I don't read anything in Wikipedia policy requiring passages to be quoted word-for-word, as long as what's cited to them accurately represents what they say. Obviously some passages will be ambiguous, and others may be cited erroneously. These are things that can be addressed by finding discussions in secondary sources (which should be cited anyway, even if there's no obvious ambiguity), or through the normal editing process.

:::::I tend to quote sources when the language is relatively brief, strongly or colourfully worded, or particularly lucid and memorable (bearing in mind that sometimes this is at least partly the work of a translator, which may also be subject to criticism). But in general, a summary or paraphrase that conveys the meaning of the original text with reasonable fidelity is consistent with Wikipedia policy and should be fine. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::From the linked page: {{tq|Sima Qian was a methodical, skeptical historian}} well, that certainly needs some attention! I would go as far as to say the Shiji is an *unreliable* source. Many of the biographies are basically folk legends, and there's supernatural stuff reported as fact in there, which to my mind is an automatic disqualifier for anything other than bare attribution. Also for a more sober note see this lower down on the page: {{tq|It was commonly maintained that Ssuma Chhien [Sima Qian] could not have adequate historical materials for his account of what had happened more than a thousand years earlier}}

:::Outside of East Asia and the Mediterranean I'm not aware of any other places where this would apply though. There aren't surviving contemporary histories of India for most of its history, for example. Similar with Maya, Aztec, other indigenous sources; we're generally dealing with oral traditions, not texts. Psychastes (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not on the basis of their post-medieval date. So far as these sources were written after 1500 (and their WP articles say that at least some parts of them were), they are not medieval, let alone ancient, within the meaning of the policy. RSN cannot rewrite NOR. James500 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :yeah, agreed. the post-1500 ones don't apply here at all. Given that they're official imperial histories and also not academic scholarship from the past century, that's going to be a WP:NPOV judgment. Psychastes (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::In fact, there was [https://doi.org/10.1017/jch.2023.19 a huge scandal] in the academic history world just recently about using the Twenty-Four Histories uncritically, that largely revolved around treating the Qing imperial histories (as in, the 1600s-1900s) as fact. So I would say "these are not reliable sources" and "this is totally unrelated to the issue of using classical sources" Psychastes (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It largely revolved around, amongst other things, cherry picking and misrepresenting sources, as you are cherry picking Qiao's article. James500 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I agree that histories written prior to the adoption of modern historiographic standards aren't reliable sources for their claims, but I would still maintain that they can be cited for the fact that they make those claims. To borrow from the example above, without any additional background: "Much of what is known of this period comes from the accounts of Sima Quian. Sima's writing contains numerous instances of folk legends and supernatural occurrences, and modern historians are skeptical that he would have had access to sufficient records to compile an accurate account of events occurring a thousand years earlier."
• :::As for New World records, it's true that we don't have indigenous narrative histories of whole nations or empires. But there are fragmentary narratives from codices and carvings in native languages—at least, that's my understanding as it relates to the Mayan civilization. Their contents should be citable, provided that it's clear that what's being reported is just what a particular source says, and that these accounts aren't necessarily accurate.
• :::That's why we want secondary sources: to provide context for and analysis of what surviving writings say. On the one hand, there's not much reason to doubt "here lies buried the Lord of Z, who died on the 15th day of the Month of the Jaguar in the 24th year of his reign." But context would be needed for claims about his rule, deeds, and legacy, irrespective of what was written about him during or shortly after his life. That context requires a source with more distance and modern analytical methods. P Aculeius (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:To address the specific question asked ({{tq|Would this apply to works ...}}), that's essentially our choice, but I would prefer we restricted ourselves to Greco-Roman literary sources. I think this was the original intention of the discussion ({{tq|Classical sources (Herodotus, Plutarch etc)}}), and I think that most of the editors who've been involved here edit mostly on topics related to classical history. Looking at other entries at WP:RSP, most of them are quite specific (many relate to a particular website or news outlet), and the category of all ancient (or pre-modern) literary sources seems very broad in comparison. While I can see that some considerations would indeed apply across the board, trying to write anything substantial which applies universally seems considerably more difficult, and would prevent us from writing something tailored more specifically to classical sources. There would also be quite some increase in the number of editors and WikiProjects we would need to consult. Plus, I think the category of all ancient literary sources would include the kinds of texts covered by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE (and presumably there shouldn't exist entries at WP:RSP which "override" other entries). As to archaeological sources, I would exclude them, as at that point (to echo what Ifly said above) I think we're getting closer to a rewrite of WP:PRIMARY. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Having given the matter consideration, I oppose treating ancient literary sources (or Greco-Roman sources, or medieval sources, or early modern sources, or any similar grouping) as I group. I think they should be evaluated one at time, on a case by case basis. If I wanted to, I could use all the credulous news stories about the alleged existence of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, or the alleged link between the MMR vaccine and autism, to argue that all 21st century newspapers are unreliable; and I could use people like Jan Hendrik Schön and Andrew Wakefield to prove that all 21st century academics are unreliable. That is the problem with selectively cherry picking particular errors from particular sources, and then applying them to them to an entire class of sources. James500 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think this suggestion is borne largely from ignorance of approaches common in ancient history. Yes, historians do analyse things source by source, but they also generalise: ancient literary sources as a class require critical scrutiny because of shared structural features in a culture where invention, rhetoric, and ideology shaped how events were described.
• :Insufficiently critical reading of ancient literary sources is a common criticism in reviews. There books on the topic, eg Grant Greek and Roman historians (1995), Morley Writing ancient history (1999), or, more provocatively, Gill and Wiseman (eds) Lies and fiction in the ancient world (1993). There is an entire literature, stemming from Wiseman Clio's coemstics (1979) and Woodman Rhetoric in classical historiography (1988) which takes the view that they are as a class relatively unconstrained literary inventors. Indeed, that literature is extensive enough to warrant polemic – eg Lendon "Against Roman historiography" in Feldherr (ed) Cambridge Companion to the Roman historians (2009) pp 41ff – accusing the Wiseman-Woodman-following scholars of undermining ancient history as a project with compelling counterargument.
• :Even among defenders it is well established that scepticism of ancient literary sources as a class is warranted. This is a basic lesson for undergraduates: {{small|eg ex [https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001.09.37/ review Morley 1999] {{tq|there is no harm in having written a published version of the sorts of comments one might make on a student essay}}}}. Scholars defending their reliability still must justify their acceptance of detail against a default reference of unreliability. If we turned up new material from the Herculaneum papyri such an approach that would still be the default. The idea no generalisations could at all be made is fringery posing as scruple. Ifly6 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I did not say that no generalizations could be made. I said I do not trust you to make them. I would not have any objection to RSP quoting Michael Grant et al verbatim and in context. James500 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::You said {{tq|[you] oppose treating ancient literary sources... as I [one?] [a?] group ... they should be evaluated one at time, on a case by case basis}}. This precludes generalisations. I think there's little else to be said inasmuch as your response is essentially disconnected from the self-evident record of this discussion. Ifly6 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I am sorry if you did not understand what I said. I admit that, with hindsight, it probably could have been more clearly worded. I only intended to object to "unreferenced" generalizations advanced by Wikipedians (not to generalizations made by Michael Grant et al). James500 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Wikipedia articles need citations. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are different. They are formed in discussion with reference to appropriate scholarship, style guides or whatever else may be pertinent but also considering what is appropriate for Wikipedia. We document the outcomes in our policy and guideline pages, on some pages such as WP:RSP footnoting the discussions but not citing the scholarship etc. employed in the discussions. In short, our policies and guidelines consist almost entirely of {{tq|"unreferenced" generalisations}}. NebY (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::For the avoidance of doubt only: It is not normally in the interests of Wikipedia's readers for editors to include ideas they have invented themselves in Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines (or essays). I can see that there is no policy or guideline forbidding the inclusion of ideas invented by Wikipedians in policies or guidelines (or essays). But there is equally no policy or guideline that says that Wikipedia's policies or guidelines (or essays) must include ideas invented by Wikipedians, so I am entitled to !vote against the inclusion of such ideas. James500 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Have you read Michael Grant's Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation? As well as examining the most prominent ancient historians in a number of ways, he introduces and summarises the overall situation; for example
• :::::::"A tendency to deviate from strict truth in the interests of a good story";
• :::::::"methods and devices ... in complete disagreements with these modern requirements" such as accuracy and objectivity;
• :::::::"used their sources in manners which we find inadequate and surprising";
• :::::::"the borders between fact and fiction are overstepped in many ways which seem to us inexcusable";
• :::::::"they do not tell us enough, and some of what they tell us is wrong"
• :::::::"it is necessary to repeat, once again, that ancient history was understood not as history, according to our meaning of the word, but as literature. There is no doubt that this is detrimental to their value as historians";
• :::::::"Mommsen was not far wrong when he classified historians among artists rather than scholars" and quoting Mommsen "'A historian had to entertain, and for that purpose he did not need truth as much as wit' 'In the end, the demands of artistry gained precedence over those of science'"
• :::::::Grant spends some time, as you might guess, asserting that the ancient historians are still well worth reading. For example,
• :::::::"That is precisely what makes the task of today's historians, attempting to reconstruct ancient Greece and Rome, so interesting. There is no need to repeat here all of the arguments in favour of our learning about the classical world. We ought to learn about it, and yet the task of doing so is difficult and must be recognised as such."
• :::::::For the avoidance of doubt: these are not {{tq|ideas invented by Wikipedians}} or in any sense Fringe theory; all the above was published in 1995 and Professor Grant died, at age 89, in 2004. NebY (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::This view is itself the fringery posing as scruple. Scepticism of primary sources as discussed here is a common lesson for undergraduates. The epistemology of Wikipedia policies is well settled in the manner NebY describes. You are entitled to your opinions: you may need new ones if they are not to be discarded in the consensus process. Ifly6 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::To be clear, footnote (d) to WP:PRIMARY, part of our policy document Wikipedia:No original research, says {{tq|Further examples of primary sources include:... medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings}}. It has included ancient works since 2011 at the latest. NebY (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Please stop twisting my words, and putting words into my mouth, on purpose. You know perfectly well that I did not say any of that. You know perfectly well that posted my [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1291496750 original comment] before Grant's book was [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1291519411 mentioned]; that I was not aware of Grant's book at the time I posted that comment; and that I would not have posted that comment if I had been aware of Grant's book. Further, you know perfectly well that [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1291716782 this comment] did not refer to anything said in this discussion, but was merely a description of what I would do in a hypothetical scenario not connected with this discussion, prompted by [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1291615836 this comment], which was so misleadingly worded (probably on purpose with the intent of entrapping me into saying something that NebY would be able to twist), that it appeared to me to be refering to a hypothetical scenario not connected with this discussion. You know perfectly well that I did not suggest that anything in Grant's book was a fringe theory. You know perfectly well that if I had meant to refer to anything in Grant's book I would have done so in express and unambiguous words naming Grant by his name. You know perfectly well that [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1291716782 this comment] does not mention ancient or medieval sources at all, that the comment is not talking about ancient or medieval sources, and that if I had meant to refer to ancient or medieval sources in that comment, I would have done so in express and unambiguous words. You know perfectly well that I did not suggest that there was anything objectionable about "scepticism of primary sources", and you know that I have in fact expressed skepticism of ancient and medieval sources above in this discussion. You know perfectly well that I did not at any time suggest that WP:PRIMARY is not policy. Now please stop. James500 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::May I respectfully suggest to both sides at this point that it is pointless to keep arguing over who misunderstood whose words. I don't think we have any substantial disagreement at this point: primary sources may still be cited, but with care to distinguish between what those sources say and what modern historians have to say about them. That's how it should always have been, and if we occasionally err by failing to provide a secondary source to back up, explain, or dispute the accounts of the ancients, we should look for and supply those sources when we find anything that seems to require them. Surely nobody here can object to that. And if we're all on the same side, it doesn't do anyone any good to keep arguing about who's mischaracterizing whose remarks. P Aculeius (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Yes please. Paul August ☎ 12:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that we've had a number of other discussions on the Korean Veritable Records and currently list its reliability as no consensus on WP:KO/RS. See WP:SILLOK for a listing of discussion on the Veritable Records. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This is based on Aculeius' text earlier:

{{tqbm|Greco-Roman literary sources,{{efn|More specific and avoids "primary sources"}} such as the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, and Plutarch,{{efn|Listed a few more to ensure that the scope is not thought too narrow or wide.}} must be used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY: editors may not analyze or synthesize material found in them.{{efn|Everyone agrees on this and PRIMARY itself is clear that such sources are covered by it. The portion after the colon is also from PRIMARY.}} Editors must take care not to present the claims of such sources uncritically.{{efn|This is verbatim from Aculeius' suggestion, except that "historical sources" is replaced with "such sources".}} Statements made by such sources should be clearly attributed to them, rather than presented as objective fact.{{efn|This is verbatim from Aculeius' suggestion with a link to WP:INTEXT added.}} An entire article, or large parts thereof, may not be based only on such sources.{{efn|This is almost verbatim from WP:PRIMARY.}} Whenever possible, editors should consult and cite modern published scholarship on the same subjects.{{efn|This is from Aculeius' suggestion, replacing "authoritative scholarship from the modern era should address" with "editors should consult and cite modern high quality reliable sources on", to be more consistent with Wikipedia terminology. I read Aculeius' text to imply that HQRS should be consulted and cited; I strengthened it to make that explicit. {{small|Edited.}} Per {{tq|Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible}} in WP:RS, strengthened to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.}} }}

These notes explain each text choice and are not intended as part of the final text.

{{notelist-talk|30em}}

This is meant to avoid the red herrings related to defining "primary sources", the suitability of secondary sources, and the scope of the entry. The entry would be on the page WP:RSP. This is a long quote therefrom:

{{tq2|

; What this page is

• {{tick}} a list of sources whose general suitability for most purposes has been discussed repeatedly
• {{tick}} a very brief and simple summary of the consensus found in such discussions

{{-}}

; What this page is not

• {{cross}} a policy or guideline
• {{cross}} a list of pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing
• {{cross}} a list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight
• {{cross}} a list of biased or unbiased sources
• {{cross}} a list of sources that are guaranteed to be correct regardless of context
• {{cross}} a list of every source that has been discussed
• {{cross}} a list of sources that have never been discussed, or whose reliability should be obvious to most editors
• {{cross}} a list of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources
• {{cross}} a list of independent or affiliated sources
• {{cross}} a list of self-published or traditionally published sources
• {{cross}} a representative sample of all sources used on Wikipedia or all sources in existence}}

It is my view that nothing in what I suggested directly above is anything beyond a summary of the WP:CONSENSUS of repeated discussions on primary sources, including those here. The only live issue that remains, I think, is about in text attribution. While I do not like Aculeius' example, it does show how someone can write an acceptably lucid narrative while also scrupulously doing in text attributions. Indeed, if we accept Furius' contention that a statement that the Lacedaemonians sent only 300 men, cited to Herodotus, violates PRIMARY because that claim is itself not straightforwardly derived from Herotodus, PRIMARY would require that in text attribution. Ifly6 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{small|{{ping|P Aculeius|Furius}} Pinging you to ensure that I did not misstate your positions. Ifly6 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I would also add the following:

{{tqbm|

Some editors believe that it would be undue weight to cite one of these sources without a corresponding secondary source demonstrating its relevance. Some editors also emphasise that old or public domain editions and translations of these sources may not reflect current scholarly readings or views.

}}

I think the problems of undue weight and obsolete translations should warrant mention. Even if you disagree with these position, I think this discussion demonstrates that some editors hold these beliefs. Ifly6 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, except for the sentence about attribution. This version is much closer to what PRIMARY actually says. James500 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{edit conflict}} This comment was removed in an edit conflict. I restored it. Due to the time it was made, it must have been directed towards the upper portion only. The edit conflict created a longer OP. Clarification may be in order. Ifly6 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am striking my !vote because the proposed text has changed. No comment on the new version, and I am not going to !vote again until I am satisfied the proposal is stable. James500 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't find anything particularly objectionable in this proposal, but I think the language should be clarified in a couple of places:

:* In the first line, insert "such as" before the list of authors, to make clear that it's not intended to be comprehensive, or treat the named writers differently from other classical sources.

:* I might substitute a prominent Greek writer (Homer, Hesiod, Polybius, perhaps a philosopher) for Appian, who seems less likely to come up than the others named (I've cited Appian many times, but I think the others are much more likely to be encountered).

:* "May not be based only on these sources": substitute "such" for "these", since again we mean all such sources, not the ones listed at the beginning specifically.

:* Also in the same clause I strongly recommend substituting "should" for "may", not because it's a "suggestion", but because we know that this often happens, even though it shouldn't. This choice of wording points to the solution: look at what is said, determine whether a particular instance is really problematic, and then find a secondary source to back it up, add context, or refute it.

:* Delete the words "high quality" before "reliable sources"; the phrase links to "reliable sources", which provides a great deal of guidance in choosing sources of high quality, but does not define the phrase or have a section about it. Including the phrase might encourage quibbling over which otherwise reliable sources are "high quality" and which aren't, without necessarily addressing what they say in a specific instance and whether it's accurate. I'm not arguing that we don't want high-quality sources; I'm saying that we don't want to treat something that isn't a term of art as though it were one. We should just supplement or replace inferior sources when possible, instead of having lengthy debates over whether a particular source meets the definition of "high-quality". P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Such as: {{tick}}. Appian → Aristotle. These → such. I'm not sure what changing "should" to "may" does other than weaken something which we are essentially all on agreement on. I would strengthen directly to WP:SCHOLARSHIP regardless, which is on that page: {{tq|Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.}} Classical studies is fortunate enough to be a field with scholarship. Ifly6 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Suggest deleting the words "those of" in the first line, or else change it to "the writings of". Possibly change "Graeco-Roman" to "Greek and Roman" (isn't the usual spelling "Greco-Roman", or is "Graeco-Roman the UK variant?). Readers might associate the phrase "Greco-Roman" chiefly with wrestling, not classical scholarship. I still think that "should not" is better than "may not"; "should" does not make it optional, but ought to make overzealous correction (i.e. deleting sources that have been cited, instead of adding those that ought to be cited) less probable. P Aculeius (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The spelling Graeco-Roman is BrE. See one of our articles. Spelling correction, however, is well taken. Much of the RSP list is in AmE, so I'll adopt that spelling. Are you discussing "may not" in {{tq|editors may not analyse or synthesise material found in them}}? Ifly6 (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Those of → the writings of. I think "Greco-Roman" is sufficiently common that one wouldn't confuse it with wrestling (especially so in the contexts where this would be linked). Ifly6 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We could link Greco-Roman to Greco-Roman world, for clarity and even to avoid having to explain later that this does include Alexandrians, Josephus, Martial .... NebY (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sure, let's do that. Ifly6 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} I think this is better than previous versions. It makes use of some of the toned down language from the "Suggested rewrite" version, it stays directly on topic, it makes the scope of the guidance clear ({{tq|Graeco-Roman literary sources ...}}), and I think it accurately reflects the views of editors in this discussion. One specific point on wording: with the addition of "such as" (which I agree with), the first sentence isn't a complete sentence. Maybe "Graeco-Roman literary sources include writings by figures such as ..."? We could also link "synthesise" to WP:SYNTH if we wanted. I would argue we should strengthen our language in the {{tq|Editors must take care ...}} sentence (eg. "cautious", or even "very cautious"; cf. WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says {{tq|When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised.}}), though I understand others may disagree.

:I'd agree with the inclusion of the {{tq|Some editors believe that ...}} sentence (with the missing word fixed). We could also try to find a less strong version of the statement that can be agreed upon: there isn't agreement (and there won't be) that the presence of an accompanying citation to a secondary source is necessary to indicate the relevance of a claim from a primary source, though I do think our existing policies (specifically, WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION) already require that the weighting (and perhaps, depending on your reading, the inclusion) of claims from primary sources should be at least based upon secondary sources in some way (even if those secondary sources aren't necessarily cited after each statement). To put it another way, what might be missing from the {{tq|Whenever possible, editors ...}} sentence is the awareness that claims for which it isn't possible to find secondary sourcing are often those that shouldn't be mentioned at all. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for noticing the fragment. Altered to such as → {{tq|include, but are not limited to,}} which maybe will satisfy everyone. I agree with you on both points (due weight needs to be based on secondary sources; secondary sources ignoring or dismissing a primary source define how we should frame our coverage of that same source). A broad consensus {{small|notably not unanimity}}, however, would probably be necessary to note something like that latter element down as the "orthodox" interpretation of PRIMARY point #2 {{tq|do not put undue weight on [a primary source's] contents}}. Ifly6 (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I meant to note the sentence fragment, but wasn't sure whether it followed from something else, and forgot to check. However, instead of changing "such as" to "include, but are not limited to", I suggest merging this with the following sentence by deleting "use of such sources". The key verb here is "be limited", not "include"; our chief concern is the manner in which sources are cited, not which sources are included among the examples.

:::With respect to the "may not", I mean the second instance: "may not be based on" should read "should not be based on". The change in wording does not make the use of secondary sources optional, but it ought to leave the remedy less open to misinterpretation: editors running across a section or passage that is missing secondary sources for whatever reason might interpret "may not" to require that the text in question be deleted, without attempting to locate and cite the needed secondary sources. P Aculeius (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've gone ahead and merged the first two sentences, along the lines of your suggestion. I've also added a link to WP:SYNTH (not sure if we're agreed on this, but if anyone disagrees they can remove it). No real opinion on the "may" vs "should" dispute. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, that's better. I may have mistyped what I meant by the "key verb", but you understood what I meant anyway. Thank you! P Aculeius (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No objection to your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1291599521&oldid=1291594598 changes here]. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would like to refocus on to the latter portions I proposed above. Are there any meaningful objections to it as a summary of views held? Ifly6 (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::If the text we were just discussing and refining is what you're referring to, I think it's a formulation we can all live with. P Aculeius (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::To echo what I wrote above, I'd support the addition of the {{tq|Some editors believe that it ...}} sentence, though I'd prefer a (less strong) version which doesn't rely on the "some editors" wording. Something which states that the weighting of ancient sources should be determined by secondary sourcing, without imposing new (or at least new, overly tight) restrictions. For example, something along these lines could work:

::{{tqbm|The weight given to one of these sources should be roughly proportional to its treatment in modern, published scholarship on the same subject, and this scholarship should be cited when possible.}}

::This language is mostly taken from WP:PROPORTION, and the statement hopefully doesn't imply anything not already implied by that policy. The last part is intended as a simple rephrasing of the {{tq|Whenever possible, ...}} sentence, connecting the two for the sake of brevity (if anyone thinks the phrase is saying anything beyond the original sentence, it can be reworded).

::A stronger version of this would also cover the inclusion of ancient literary sources. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that secondary sources need to be included alongside every citation to a primary source, that content cited to a primary source should be deleted if editors can't see a relevant secondary source in the article, or that it's necessary for scholars to spend paragraphs on a primary source to justify its inclusion (for example, citing the source would be perfectly fine). In my view (and others may disagree), this is already implied by policy: if there is zero coverage of an ancient source in reliable, published scholarship on a certain topic, then it would be "proportionate" for us to have zero coverage of it in the article on that topic.

::I wouldn't say I have strong feelings on the second sentence. If we include it, I'd suggest removing the "Some editors also emphasise" part (as I don't think anyone disagrees with the unqualified statement?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::Okay, thank you all! I have posted it at the page for suggested blacklist additions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{added}} to spam blacklist in Special:Diff/1291263348. Thank you for requesting this. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Fram (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Will work on removing this as a source. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking of using [https://thechinaproject.com/2020/10/09/how-fujian-was-once-an-lgbt-mecca/ this] in Tu'er Shen in the future. Is The China Project reliable? KnowDeath (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's going to very much depend on what it is going to be used for. The article on Tu'er Shen could be reliable, although academic sources are preferred when dealing with the past, but it's advertising page[https://thechinaproject.com/advertising/] shows it offers 'native content' (undisclosed advertorials). In fact that's the only type of advertising it appears to offer. So I would suggest treating anything that's sounds overly promotional as if it was promotional. That would likely apply more to companies and individuals than articles about LGBT issues in historical China. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I imaghine there would be some academic source of that deity - somewhere. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750672868}}

{{RfC|media|rfcid=FE5F401}}

Rediff.com has been discussed at least 4 times previously ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dimple_Kapadia/archive2#Source_review],[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mallika_Sherawat#Mallika's_age_and_actions_by_user_Shshshsh],[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171#Rediff.com_News?],[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#Rediff.com]). It is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22rediff.com%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 12,826 articles]. The website is https://rediff.com.

What is the reliability of Rediff.com?

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

KnowDeath (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ICTFFAQ lists it as generally reliable, though I don't think this is a consensus derived decision. KnowDeath (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've left notifications on the WikiProject India and ICTF talk pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• I clicked on the four previous discussions linked in the RFC opening statement and didn't find anything substantive with [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171#Rediff.com_News? this trivial exchange in 2014] being the only one focussed on Rediff as a whole. {{u|KnowDeath}} can you explain what motivated you to start an RFC and why you believe that WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSORGINDIA don't sufficiently cover the issue? I can imagine reasons based on my personal impression but would prefer them to be researched, backed up by reliable sources, and spelled out in a discussion instead of us all jumping into an RFC. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The first discussion I linked did focus on rediff more than any other source. I've seen rediff referred to as a "portal" rather than a news website, and parts of the website are seemingly not news or opinion, so I thought a proper discussion and a listing at RSPS would probably be useful, since it's used in almost 13000 articles. KnowDeath (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{reply|KnowDeath}} Thanks for pointing that out. The discussion at the FAC, especially between {{u|Shshshsh}} and {{u|Nikkimaria}}, is indeed very useful, with both presenting sources and reasons to back up their arguments. I believe it is that kind of evidence-gathering that is needed before an RFC is started here because while independent voices at an RFC are very valuable in evaluating evidence, you need knowledgeable editors to gather and present it in the first place. Note also that the question of reliability of Rediff may very well depend upon the topic of interest (say, politics vs films) and type of articles (bylined, news agency, listicles, etc) cited. So I would recommend closing this RFC and putting in the requisite hours to research the portal and how it is cited and described by other reliable sources; the latter can be done in user space or projectspace in collaboration with other interested editors. Then an RFC can potentially be started if there is reason to believe that Rediif as a whole or parts of it should not be regarded as generally reliable. Abecedare (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It's fairly customary to include awards and decorations of public servants and military officers, however, these are not always encyclopedically cataloged by secondary sources.

Is it an acceptable use of WP:BLPPRIMARY to use (in the United States) Part D of the Official Personnel File (which typically includes an exhaustive list of decorations) of a public servant or military officer just to cite awards and decorations received similar to, for instance, this when such information is otherwise lacking in secondary sources?
As this is basic, rote, vital statistics and not "viewpoints" or "perspectives" as described by DUE/UNDUE my thought is it would be fine to positively cite it ("John Dow received the Distinguished Service Cross") though negatively citing it ("John Dow did not receive the Distinguished Service Cross") would probably be proscriptively interpretive. But I wanted to get a sense from the group. Chetsford (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:There was some intense discussions regarding the decorations of JD Vance, he has some "he was there" ribbons. There were editors who wanted to put them all in the article (per user uploaded primary doc), and others who wanted to stick to those noted by secondary sources. I was the latter and that was pretty much how it turned out. Some of the discussion at Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_3#Military_Medals.

:That said, if you wanted to insert a Distinguished Service Cross (United States) in a BLP with a primary source, I'm unlikely to oppose it. Secondary source would likely be available too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is a split issue. Are the primary sources reliable to show the awards were made? Yes. Do primary sources show the awards are relevant? No. Awards and decorations should usually be sourced to secondary sources to show they are due inclusion. Outside of the Vance article it's an issue with BLP being stuffed with non-notable awards. Some awards would be so notable that a primary source wouldn't be controversial, but secondary sourcing would be preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Gråbergs Gråa Sång and ActivelyDisinterested - great points, both. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reliability of an award and notability of an award are two different things. Except in unusual circumstances, the notability of an award doesn't depend on the person awarded it but is an intrinsic property of the award that can be established by sources about the award. If it is very famous, such as a Nobel Prize, we can assume its notability has already been established. Once we decide that an award is notable enough to warrant mention, appearance of the person on a list of awardees published by the awarding organization is usually the most reliable source. Feel free to add a secondary source as well, but don't let the primary/secondary distinction lead you to only cite a less reliable source. Zero^talk 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Taking the Vance example, Iraq Campaign Medal is notable in the WP-sense, it has an article. The argument for not mentioning it in the Vance-article is based on WP:NPOV via WP:PROPORTION.

::At least I thought it wasn't in the article, but I see JD_Vance#Awards_and_decorations was added at some point. I have not checked if all the ribbons are mentioned in the refs given. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• One caveat - “Stolen valor” is a thing, so we should be cautious when it comes to ABOUTSELF primary sources (by the “awardee”). Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Taking this out of the context of military awards, and thinking about it generally, one approach is to say that whether an award is notable can independently be discerned. Are Emmy Awards notable? Yes, and this is discerned by looking at facts about the award itself. You could then go on to think, "Since the award itself is notable, it's something that could be added to any article about a person who received it, even if no RS has been written about Jane mentioning her Emmy as a significant part of her life, as long as some reliable source says that she received it, such as a [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/news-emmys-winners-list-2022-1235229678/ list like this]. The question of whether she actually received it would depend on various contestable judgments, but the question of whether it is due/notable would (in this view) depend on facts about how the award itself is regarded. This is the approach that Zero's comment brought to mind. Novellasyes (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::: That said, there could be cases where a combination of the award and the person is needed to establish notability. Consider an award which many people win and maybe isn't all that notable in general. It could still be notable that someone is the first person from country X to win it, the youngest ever recipient, or something like that. It would need to be cemented with a source making that point. Zero^talk 12:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::But, IMHO, that source should be independent from the awarding body, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I generally agree with Zero's take here. Inclusion in a list of awardees by the awarding authority is sufficient (and probably preferred) as a citation for the fact that someone received an award. Whether to include that information in a given article is a question of WP:DUE, which will be obvious in some cases, determinable by local consensus in other cases, and determinable by appealing to reliable third-party sources in borderline cases where local consensus doesn't exist. The fact that a source is WP:PRIMARY is not in itself sufficient reason to exclude mention of an award, but if there are other good reasons to think an award is WP:UNDUE, third-party sources can be brought to bear to resolve the issue. -- LWG ^talk 14:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe a good way to look at this would be that although the awarding body is usually a reliable source for this, the more contentious the inclusion, or minor the award, the more helpful it is to provide secondary sourcing to show it's worth inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

THis may be more of an wp:undue issue, yes an official list would be an RS, but if they are wards every soldier gets, what makes their inclusion encyclopedic? Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a (signed) copy of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries, OUP, 11th edition. It says published 2026. I assume I ignore that and put 2025. Its author tells me this isn't unusual: "That way a book appears to be newer (and more up to date) than it actually is. I believe publishers think this lengthens the shelf life of textbooks."

So I presume it ignore that and put 2025 so we don't have any problems with time travel, right? Doug Weller talk 13:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:So it says it was published in 2026, as such how do you know it was not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Presumably because he is in possession of a copy, and it is [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/frauds-myths-and-mysteries-9780197757796?cc=us&lang=en& available for purchase] now, and it is currently 2025, so unless Doug Weller acquired the book from a time traveler it must have been published prior to 2026. -- LWG ^talk 15:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::LOL, then that does not, inspire much confidence as to its reliability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Nah, this is a pretty normal practice and is a byproduct of the many moving parts of the scholarly publication process, in addition to the more cynical reasoning identified by the author in correspondence with Doug. Provided there's no other reason to doubt reliability, the source is fine to use. As noted by fiveby at FRINGEN, the publisher appears to have already corrected the error for their website and Worldcat, the most relevant bibliographic authority, has followed suit._signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is pretty normal in the publishing industry. Like all over it. For instance by-monthly magazines that are dated January / February usually arrive on your doorstep in December. This not an indication of unreliability of publication so much as unreliability of supply trains in publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{oclc|1495097821}} and {{lccn|2024059284}} both have 2025. fiveby(zero) 21:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

: Unfortunately this practice is quite common. It should run afoul of laws against misleading advertising in most countries, but publishers continue to get away with it. Our problem here is to be sure that the correct edition will be identified if someone wishes to find it in the future. Writing a year different from the publisher's year might make that difficult, though it is less of an issue if the isbn is given. Zero^talk 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:This happens very, very often. Much to my chagrin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Both {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} are available in {{tl|cite book}}, maybe this is an instance where the latter is useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is (of course) the big issue, this makes verifying it difficult, and could lead to exactly the kind of statement I made above. So seems to me best to keep the "official" date. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, but I can't use a book as a reference with a date next year, it would either be deleted or changed if someone notices. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And the same might well happen if someone else notices the books stated publication date, so it might be best not to use it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Best not to use what? Doug Weller talk 11:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What we are talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I thought you might be talking about the book, but I am not sure. In any case there is the ISBN number so we can ignore that date. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes, the book we are talking about. Why not use another source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As an aside, if it is an issue and is common practice, then we might want to amend Reliability in specific contexts to note this issue and that both books and magazines may have a publication date that differs from when it is actually published. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• My advice: wait a few months and then add the source with the “as printed” date (2026). Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That is of course, then the other option, wait until 2026, then add it. Does what it says need to be added now? Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Blueboar@Slatersteven AsI am updating the book's article and will use it as a source, it does. I'll just leave the date out as I said. We wouldn't avoid writing about a new car called a 2026 model but released this year, would we? Doug Weller talk 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it's ok to add the source now with the publication date (2026) and the access date (whatever day you add it as a source). Books are like cars--newer models can come out a year prior. 2026 is in fact the publication date, but you are in possession of the book now. If you want to avoid anyone coming along and removing the source, perhaps add a hidden note or post something about it on the article's talk page. Marquardtika (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. We don't ignore experts because there is something odd about the date in their book. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::As someone with experience in publishing my recommendation is to just use the source and put 2025 for the publication date. Forward dating is common practice and it's rather silly to wait half a year to use a source just because it would otherwise cause a minor template issue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::In any case it’s clear that reliable sources, ie Worldxat, the LOC, have it right. Just someone’s mistake. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:There's absolutely no issues with using that book, @Doug Weller.

:But I wonder if course syllabi cited in the article are WP:RS? A course syllabus is self-published, doesn't undergo any kind of review, and often contains factual, grammar, and spelling errors, as they're meant to be given to a class as a guideline and aren't meant for public consumption. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::@TurboSuperA+ Not sure what you are referring to. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Three of the sources in the article are syllabi from university courses: [https://web.archive.org/web/20210126202848/https://people.clas.ufl.edu/kgrillo/files/ANT2149-Lost-Tribes-Spring-21-Grillo.pdf] [https://web.archive.org/web/20221006170202/https://ininet.org/myths-and-mysteries-in-archaeology-anth-3821-dr-susan-johnston-v2.html] [https://web.archive.org/web/20150911210720/https://www.sjsu.edu/anthropology/docs/fall2010/Anth_160_02.pdf]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::They are reliable for information about themselves. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I found where the sources are used: {{tq|The book is required reading in many archaeology courses.[5][6][7]}} Is this WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Not accusing, but genuinely asking, as I thought we need a RS to say it before we can. Or is this similar to WP:CALC where it is an acceptable bit of OR? Would it make a difference, w.r.t. use of sources, if the claim was "some" archeology courses, rather than "many"? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes. It should not say many.. And maybe "has been" Doug Weller talk 09:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to be concerned or alarmed here, given that there is an rfc about The Debrief website just above here. I am sure someone from that site will notice this discussion and within 7 days that site will have a complete and irrefutable explanation of how the book was transported back in time. Then that explanation can be used for the rest of this year, and the problem will disappear next year anyway. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

: I've cited academic sources that were post-dated because they were released online by the publisher (the final version, not a preprint) before their official publication date. This is slightly different because it's a physical copy, but post-dated publication dates have no bearing on whether the source is reliable. The 11th edition of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries is still reliable for the subject matter as a Oxford University Press publication. Editors can use their discretion to exclude the date from the citation template if it causes a dispute, although I would personally leave it in until a dispute actually happens. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes I have experienced this with a textbook. I was able to use the textbook PDF many months before it was published on paper. Online pre-relases do happen. Could alos be a typo. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thinking about this some more… yeah…just cite the source with the 2026 date. Chances are, no one will even notice … and in a few months it won’t matter. IF it causes a dispute (which I doubt) we can deal with it then. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Any chance anyone can do a copy of the books cover I can use for the article? I gather it has to be low resolution? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

: I've uploaded a scaled-down version of the book's cover from Amazon to :File:Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries cover (11th edition).webp and added it to the article.{{bcc|Doug Weller}} — Newslinger talk 06:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fantastic, thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm reaching out to get the opinion of the board on whether or not the site [https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/home UNITED Fleet Website] is a reliable source for the number of aircraft in the United Airlines fleet. The site doesn't say who runs it, it appears to be an enthusiast/fan site. It doesn't list where it gets any of its "publicly available information". This site is starting to get used heavily for source of United Airlines fleet and related items such as individual number of aircraft, which have been upgraded, the status of individual aircraft etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:As if poor sourcing isn't already a problem for airline fleets. There's a lot of information on there that looks to be publicly available only in the sense of "I flew on all the aircraft and took a lot of notes". - ZLEA _T\^C 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah. A lot maybe coming from spotting websites like Planespotter etc which are already ruled as unreliable user generated sources. This feels like an extension of all the other sources that have been deprecated over the years. And from those just because a plane appears in the livery of an airline doesn't mean it belongs to the airline. It feels to me like someone's passion project that cannot be backed up, and if it can be backed up then why aren't we using those sources? Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a lot more information there than can usually be found on spotting sites. For example, the site has a comprehensive schedule for business class upgrades for the fleet. I would assume only United employees have that information readily available. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately it doesn't disclose where the information is coming from or who is publishing it. It claims all the information is publicly available, so there should be better sources out there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is by far the most reliable source of any airline's fleet in the world. Each and every aircraft in the UA and UAX fleets have a FlightAware hyperlink that enables you to know its actual current position. Each and every modification of every aircraft is updated within hours of it rejoining the fleet. The site also tracks UA and UAX orders and retirements more accurately than any source I have found. Norco3921 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Can you show us where the website was described as the most reliable? If it is, this should be a non-issue, but I've never heard of it, and it doesn't even have its own domain name. I have no doubt a lot of work went into it, and it may even be correct, but Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's about WP:Verfiability. The fact that it still has placeholder text ("Add Headings and they will appear in your table of contents.") suggests there is limited if any editorial oversight, and the lack of transparency around who operates the site is not reassuring.

::::::I am aware that its spreadsheets cite Flightaware.com, but that makes this at best a WP:PRIMARY source, which is disprefered. I've worked with large data sets before; it's REALLY easy to make a mistake somewhere, which is why we want our WP:RS to have editorial oversight. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is FlightAware a reliable source? Norco3921 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It doesn't matter if it is or not for this discussion. We're not citing Flightaware. I could write whatever I wanted and cite RS, but that doesn't make my work a RS. If you want an answer to that question as anything other than a rhetorical device, I suggest starting a new thread. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, it does as each and every plane on the site includes a hyperlink to FlightAware which allows you to not only see where the aircraft is, what flights it is/has operated, but also to corroborate that it is indeed in the United fleet. Norco3921 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No, as we aren't citing Flightaware. Even if it were trusted, we don't and can't know if the United Airlines Fleet team(?) made mistakes, cultivated their data, etc. Also, please read WP:RSSELF. In the interest of not WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I'll restrain myself from further comment. I suggest you do the same. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::FlightAware gets their data from a wide array of sources including ground ADS-B, space-based ADS-B, air traffic control systems and data feeds from airlines and datalink providers along with FLIFO data, flight planning information and schedule information.

:::::::::::https://www.flightaware.com/about/datasources/ Norco3921 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Please point out some data on the site that is incorrect. Norco3921 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If as you say, "Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's about WP:Verfiability" then the FlightAware hyperlinks for each and every aircraft in the UA and UAX fleets do just that and quite elegantly. Hit any N number for any aircraft and the FlightAware hyperlink will take you to more current and historical data than you ever wanted and even more hyperlinks to United's reservation system with even more information. Norco3921 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I quote myself, {{tq|q=y| If you want an answer to [whether Flightaware is a RS] as anything other than a rhetorical device, I suggest starting a new thread.}}. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No thanks as it is not a rhetorical device, but an integral part of the site in question that more than fulfills WP:Verifiability. Norco3921 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Not true. This discussion is about the United Airlines Fleet website. Just because it links out to Flightaware for some things doesn't mean it's reliable and accurate. There could very well be errors of omission. Plus not every aircraft in some airline's use and livery is part of the airline. Additionally only the actual tail is linked to Flightaware, and most of the rest of the information on that sheet isn't sourced. Plus it disagrees at times. For instance [https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N823UA this aircraft] is claimed by that website to be UA Mainline and owned by UA, however Fightaware disagrees and it has an unknown owner. Who is right? If not Flightaware where does that website get its details from on that? Is it UA owned or not? Is it leased or not? Is it operated by someone else in UA livery or not? It doesn't say. Aircraft ownership isn't a simple matter, it's not that common anymore for airlines to own all their planes, but they may not disclose who has all ownership of it. Just because they register it and paint it doesn't mean they own it, the data isn't telling us properly on that. Flightaware is only a small part of it, there is no source or indication as to where all the other information comes from. It's an enthusiast site with no evidence it is reliable, all the rest of the data could be randomly generated for all we know. Canterbury Tail talk 00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Where on the site does it claim that plane is owned by United and why would that matter as that information is nowhere to be found on the United WP article? Also, none of the following WP airline articles have any reference for the fleet total in the info box: DAL, AAL, JBLU, Alaska, Frontier, JetBlue, Air France, British Airways, JAL. Some of these WP articles reference the static 2024 10K filing in their fleet paragraphs, but their fleet totals have updated with no applicable reference. The United fleet Google page with the FlightAware hyperlinks is superior to any of these other airlines' WP pages, but you all are concerned about it. And none of those WP articles have the 'better source needed' annotation. Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::As an example let's look at the Delta Air Lines WP article. The 2024 DAL 10K reference has a fleet total of 975 airplanes, but the WP page says 985 total, 10 more with no other references and no 'better source needed' annotation in the info box which has NO reference at all. Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can you show us where exactly you saw "I flew on all the aircraft and took a lot of notes" on this web site? Norco3921 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I never said I saw that on its website. The site doesn't say where it got its information, but only claims that it is "publicly available". My point was that the sheer level of detail to the information far surpasses anything I've seen United release. Therefore, it appeared to be "publicly available" in the sense that you can fly on the aircraft and take notes about their configurations, not that United, the FAA, or anyone else associated with them publicly reported the information. With no way of verifying where the information came from, there's no indication that this is any more reliable than a typical WP:SPS fansite. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to post on here with a question about this. By large most of the site is unusable for any type of sourcing, but I vaguely remember someone saying that reviews on this site can sometimes be used to establish notability. I can't remember what the qualifications were. The site almost never comes up in a search for sourcing, but recently a review popped up in relation to a film from the 90s. I tried finding some sort of mention of when, how, and if the site is usable, but can't find anything. I feel like the rule of thumb is that it was usable only if the review was written by certain people and only for films and games. A really common element of criticism was that in most cases the "review" didn't actually review anything and was typically just members screwing around, hence why only specific people were OK to use.

I don't really anticipate anyone really using the site to source anything other than as a primary source about the site itself (and even then alongside a better source for whatever the claim may be), but I thought it might be good to have some sort of discussion about this. But there are some interviews on there so I suppose it might be worth discussing here.

Myself personally, I don't know that I would see the site as usable for reviews. The site is mentioned in various academic/scholarly type books but more as a topic in relation to something else as opposed to being a RS, if that makes sense. I did find one or two things like [https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Theatre_Performance_a/eC-nDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=www.somethingawful.com&pg=PA189&printsec=frontcover this] and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000/GAoPEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=www.somethingawful.com&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover this], but they're in the minority. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think they'd be usable for reviews, but maybe be more careful. I don't think the bar for being a 'reliable source' for reviews is as high unless it is a scientific book - what is more significant is that the opinion is by an organization or on behalf of an organization that carriers some sort of significance, which I would say they do. The only article I've ever seen them be used on is the GA The Wiccan Web, which I think is a fine usage of it for reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ambox|type=style|image=File:Appointment.svg|text=ATTENTION: This inquiry about the reliability of certain sources has remained unanswered for {{age in days|May 20, 2025}} days. If you are able and willing to provide a helpful response, please do so.|date=May 2025}}

File:Balochistan Flag.svg

Three sources are currently used at Operation Herof 2.0:

• Arab News: {{Cite web |title=Pakistan blames ‘state patronage’ from Afghanistan as separatist insurgency intensifies in southwest |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/2600823/amp |access-date=2025-05-17 |website=Arab News |language=en}}
• :Used in the infobox to support Pakistan accusing Afghanistan of supporting separatists in Balochistan, which Afghanistan denies.

• News18: {{Cite web |title=Balochistan Trends On Social Media As Activists Declare Independence From Pakistan, Back India |url=https://www.news18.com/world/balochistan-announces-independence-from-pakistan-republic-of-balochistan-mir-yar-baloch-social-media-trends-india-pakistan-tensions-9336215.html |access-date=2025-05-15 |website=News18 |language=en}}
• :Used to support the sentence "{{xt|On May 9, the BLA announced on X, through one of its spokesmen and activists, Mir Yar Baloch, that they were unilaterally declaring the independence of the Republic of Balochistan.}}"

• The America Times: {{Cite web |last=Times |first=America |date=2016-09-12 |title=US Respects Territorial Integrity of Pakistan, Shuts Door on Baloch Independence |url=https://www.america-times.com/us-respects-territorial-integrity-of-pakistan-shuts-door-on-baloch-independence/ |access-date=2025-05-17 |website=The America Times |language=en-US}}
• :Used to support the sentence "{{xt|On May 12, U.S. State Department spokesperson John Kirby told journalists, “The US Government respects the unity and territorial integrity of Pakistan" and that the nation would not "support independence for Balochistan.”}}"

The rest have only been cited in Republic of Balochistan when it was still an article:

• {{Cite news |title=Baloch separatists declare freedom, seek recognition from UN and India |url=https://arunachalobserver.org/2025/05/11/baloch-separatists-declare-freedom-seek-recognition-from-un-and-india/ |work=Arunachal Observer}}
• {{Cite web |date=2025-05-09 |title=Baloch writer claims independence from Pak, urges UN for recognition |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/baloch-writer-claims-independence-from-pak-urges-un-for-recognition-glbs-2721889-2025-05-09 |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=India Today |language=en}}
• {{Cite web |last=Mukherjee |first=Srishti |date=2025-05-08 |title=Baloch Separatists Declare Push for Independence; Seek Global Support Amid Rising Conflict |url=https://www.newsx.com/world/baloch-separatists-declare-push-for-independence-seek-global-support-amid-rising-conflict/ |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=NewsX World |language=en}}
• {{Cite web |title=BACs Tara Chand backs Indian strikes, calls for support to free Balochistan from Pakistan |url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/bacs-tara-chand-backs-indian-strikes-calls-for-support-to-free-balochistan-from-pakistan/ |access-date=2025-05-10 |website=The Tribune |language=en}}

The only reason I can mention these four is because I had made a source assessment table for that article before it was deleted. Unless older versions of this redirect are somehow restored, I can't recall exactly what these had been cited for, but the titles alone do seem to suggest a match with the facts I remember being present in the article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Peter-Gabriel-Classic-Albums-So-Blu-ray/50184/ Just wondering if Blu-ray.com’s reviews listed at the above link are reliable. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's listed as unreliable by WikiProject Film, see WP:FILMSOURCES. I've left notifications with the project to try and generate some more input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just to clarify, that listing at WP:FILM is for Blu-ray.com's database, it doesn't mention reviews. --Mika1h (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:There seem to be two types of reviews: the "Blu-Ray review" and "user reviews". The latter would be WP:USERGENERATED and so generally unacceptable. The "Blu-Ray reviews" are detailed and at least some of the reviewers appear to be writing professionally. The ownership of blu-ray.com is opaque. They seem to have some relationship with the studios ("Blu-ray.com receives free screeners from different content providers")[https://www.blu-ray.com/legal/], and I wonder how they have managed to keep a domain name that is a trademark, so I'd be wary of there being an incentive for the reviews to be unduly promotional. On the other hand, they seem happy to publish some negative reviews. Overall, I'd be inclined to treat the "Blu-Ray reviews" as adequately reliable for straightforward facts, such as the audio format of the film, or whether a commentary track is included on the disc, but the due weight of any opinion expressed in the review would depend on the notability of its author. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would consider the reviews reliable insofar as they discuss the details of the release; for their opinion of the film itself that would be attributable per WP:RSOPINION. In my experience the reviewers are critical when the situation calls for it, particularly on technical details of the film's presentation. Mackensen (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I recently raised iNaturalist here, after which it was added to RSNP. I now notice that a similar site, bugguide.net, is used on 25000 articles. The homepage[https://bugguide.net/node/view/15740] makes it clear that this is another wiki. Should this be added to RSNP as well, considering the sheer number of times it has been used? Fram (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blimey that's a lot of use! Probably a good candidate for RSP yes. Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Certainly appears to be to UGC. Listing every UGC site on the RSP would be messy, but with so many many articles already using the source maybe it's necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Bugguide information pages are not UGC. They are edited by an approved group of editors and not users in general. The photos and comments on Bugguide come from users in general, but the information pages are maintained by knowledgeable editors. Bob Webster (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is that group just self-selecting or do the contributors have professional backgrounds in the subject area? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I suspect that a lot of the 25000 "uses" come from automatic transclusion in {{tl|Taxonbar}}, and/or External links sections, and External links do not necessarily need to be RS. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Using an 'insource' wouldn't pick up the taxonbar, as it would be transcluded. Look at the search results [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22bugguide.net%22] although some do appear to be in the 'External links' sections most as being used in references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A large number of those citations will be leftover extraneous citations from numerous bot-created (or human curated, script-generated) stubs created by {{U|Qbugbot}} or its operator or other prolific stub creators who tack on a handful of tertiary databases attesting to "X is a species of Y found in North America" (:Category:Articles created by Qbugbot has over 20,000 entries). See for instance initial state of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xylosandrus_crassiusculus&oldid=837594565 Xylosandrus crassiusculus] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goniaceritae&oldid=836029256 Goniaceritae] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javesella_pellucida&oldid=447264795 Javesella pellucida]. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Buguide is different from iNaturalist in some important ways. As a well established online resource, BugGuide does attract professional entomologists, grad students, taxonomists, and expert amateurs who have created, curated, and edited most of the taxon pages. While anyone can contribute photographs, not anyone can create or edit the guide pages. Per [https://bugguide.net/help/guide], status of "contributing editor" is by request or invitation only, and I believe only these users can create and edit pages. The initial creator, and subsequent editors, are listed at the bottom of each taxon page. So it is possible that WP:SPS may apply in some cases. However, the taxon pages themselves are usually tertiary sources, even if authored by an expert, often referencing salient journal articles, books, field guides, etc. So in most cases, any content on the taxon pages should already be found in scientific literature, and any unique expert commentary and/or primary photographs are probably WP:UNDUE for inclusion. I don't see previous discussion of BugGuide on this board, so it may be premature to add it to WP:RSPS, but as I said during the last iNaturalist discussion, it may eventually be warranted to have one single umbrella RSPS entry covering all similar citizen science/online encyclopedia projects such as iNaturalist, eBird, observation.org, Project Noah, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I recently saw Pixelkin used as a source on some Wikipedia articles and used it as a source in a debate. I haven't seen any consensus on whether or not it is reliable, though. So is this a reliable source? Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like it should be reliable for non-controversial details about games, which seems to be the area it reports on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Seems kind of iffy to me. Looks like the entire "team" is just [https://pixelkin.org/about/meet-the-team/ two people], so its dangerously close to self-publishing. Looks like one of them did freelance for Polygon (website) and PC Gamer, which are reliable sources, at least. [https://pixelkin.org/ethics-statement/ They have an ethics policy] too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Retro page uses boxoffice numbers from Pinkvilla and Pinkvilla copied the data from source called Cinetrak (already considers unreliable, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Reliability_question_on_Cinetrak this discussion]).

On 12 May 2025, Cinetrak posted "Retro in France registered 9,800 entries so far at the end of its second weekend and will aim to hit the 10,000 admits marks through the final run."

"#TouristFamily hits 5,000 admissions in France through '11 days', with second weekend alone registering 2,000 entries."https://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1921919812999188674

On 13 May 2025, Pinkvilla published "Tamil superstar Suriya Sivakumar’s Retro, directed by Karthik Subbaraj, has now registered 9,800 ticket sales in France by the end of its second weekend. The stylish period gangster drama is expected to breach the 10,000-admit mark by the end of its theatrical run."

"Tourist Family, which quietly crossed 5,000 ticket sales (admissions) in France in just 11 days, with 2,000 of those entries coming over the second weekend alone."https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/box-office-retro-and-tourist-family-perform-well-in-france-over-their-2nd-weekend-read-on-1387421

Hence it is clear that Cinetrak's data was copied and published by Pinkvilla. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Using a source's figures is not a copyright violation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::But Cinetrak source is unreliable per discussions. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ahh, that is irrelevant, then they are an RS we assume they checked the information before publishing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See box office of Retro, other three reliable sources mentioned collection over ₹200 crore. Only Unreliable source Cinetrak and it's copy Pinkvilla mentioned ₹97 crore. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:This sounds like both sites are quoting the same press release or data source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

What film are we talking about, as there seems to be 2 mentioned here. Also note that Expected is a prediction, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Im talking about film called Retro (film). 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Then what have the ticket sales for Tourist Family got to do with it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ahh I see, you are saying "look how similar these are". Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Both of their data and expectations are same clear that Pinkvilla copied Cinetrak. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Or they got their date from a third source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@User:Slatersteven It seems to be copied from Cinetrak considering published dates. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Don't put box office figures on movie pages then. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Means it is unreliable for box office figures? 103.166.245.77 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

There have been disputes at the above page regarding the reliability of LiveMint for covering the conflict. In 2020 RS/N found the outlet to be generally reliable although some editors expressed concern about international reporting stemming from its broad and undisclosed use of syndicated feeds. However the reliability has been questioned by some editors now on the basis that LiveMint is closely aligned with the Modi regime and cannot be trusted for accurate reportage of an in-process military conflict involving India. LiveMint's parent, Hindustan Times has been identified by WP:NEWSORGINDIA as an example of an outlet that has undisclosed paid reporting however LiveMint is not mentioned by name in that document. Bias in an otherwise reliable source is not cause to treat a source as unreliable but undisclosed paid reporting certainly is cause to treat it as unreliable, as would be factually inaccurate statements involving Indian foreign relations, if they exist.

I felt this particular outlet was questionable enough that a reasonable course of action would be to get a sounding from RS/N about it. I should note that I don't currently have a strong opinion either way on this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Totally unreliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. HT media owns both Hindustan Times and LiveMint and is known for colluding with the Modi government.[https://thewire.in/178102/hindustan-times-bobby-ghosh-narendra-modi-shobhana-bhartia/] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20170925065451/https://thewire.in/178102/hindustan-times-bobby-ghosh-narendra-modi-shobhana-bhartia/ archive link]) It is just another Godi media outlet. Orientls (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• There are broader issues with this source. Yes it is unreliable for the conflict, and even outside this conflict, one will have to be very careful with using this source given the various instances where it has published false claims and disinformation,[https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/slain-lawyer-misidentified-as-hindu-leader-chinmoy-krishna-das-counsel-27073][https://www.altnews.in/misleading-ani-pti-reports-omit-us-state-depts-statement-on-internet-shutdown/][https://www.altnews.in/indians-do-not-have-genetic-protection-against-coronavirus-published-research-incorrectly-interpreted/] and also used misleading headlines.[https://www.altnews.in/fact-check-india-jump-16-places-un-world-tourism-rankings-claimed-bjp/] Wareon (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note - Both the above users have attempted to discredit this source in other discussions using rationale that are completely unsupported by WP policy - Namely, by declaring sources to be "Godi Media" {{efn|text = The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.}} and then arguing that such a characterization makes them unreliable by default. Inspite of being informed that such a rationale (using user-assigned labels to declare sources unreliable) was not in line with WP policy, one of the the editors has repeated the same rationale above. The other editor has produced some examples that, contrary to their characterisation, show that LiveMint is less likely to publish false news, with [https://www.altnews.in/misleading-ani-pti-reports-omit-us-state-depts-statement-on-internet-shutdown/] showing an example of [https://www.livemint.com/news/india/us-backs-india-s-new-farm-laws-says-peaceful-protests-hallmark-of-a-democracy-11612412938613.html reliable reporting] where other media omitted relevant information. [https://www.altnews.in/indians-do-not-have-genetic-protection-against-coronavirus-published-research-incorrectly-interpreted/] was an op-ed, and [https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/slain-lawyer-misidentified-as-hindu-leader-chinmoy-krishna-das-counsel-27073] is for an instance where Reuters-published false information was reproduced by other media. None of these is by any stretch a valid reason to call it "unreliable".

:I'll be adding a longer response here in some time, but found it necessary to add this context for now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Please focus on content. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I accept that I could have probably reworded in a way that avoided mentioning editor conduct, but the points raised are still valid. There's been an lot of arguments used by editors to classify sources arbitrarily as "unreliable", arguments that have no basis in WP policy. The second portion regarding specific sources is also relevant. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::For what it's worth I agree that references to "Godi Media" are, at best, unproductive. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't use LiveMint much since I prefer print newspapers. But I haven't found any serious problems with LiveMint on the occassions where I had to use them. {{U|Wareon}}'s comment is trying to hang LiveMint for putting out ANI/PTI/Reuters news releases. Practically all news outlets do that, perhaps some more than the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:NEWSORGINDIA primarily relates to overly promotional material for individuals and companies, rather than overt bias in politics. If anyone can show they are posting paid propaganda from the Indian government then they would be entirely unusable, but I don't think that is shown by past discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, you know I don't like over-using news sources much. As such I'm a bit of a hanging-judge when it comes to news source reliability and I find the ambiguity about who is paying a news organization to write its content troubling. As I said at article talk the reason I consider NEWSORGINDIA relevant to HT in this context is precisely because we don't know if they've been paid to post propaganda. In fact, in this regard, I kind of trust outright state media more because that ambiguity is resolved and we can, at least, understand where their positions are coming from. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You would need to proof separately that it applies to political matters as well as what has been previously discussed, using NEWSORGINDIA to completely block the source isn't appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that Hanlon's razor applies. I have found that the more I know about a subject the worse the media look, which suggests ignorance and laziness rather than bias. Of course, that does not rule out bias as an additional factor. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::And, again, bias should not be our concern here but rather reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• General comments: Hindustan Times and Mint are among the better news sources in India, which is not to say that they are free from issues that plague Indian media or that have not or cannot be incentivized/[https://thewire.in/178102/hindustan-times-bobby-ghosh-narendra-modi-shobhana-bhartia/ pressurized]. But I would suggest discounting any editor who throws around the term "Godi media" for these news organizations willy nilly, since that's more name-calling than argument, especially since for the recent Indo-Pak conflict the flaws in Indian media reporting are likely more a result of nationalism than political partisanship. For similar reasons, WP:NEWSORGINDIA is unlikely to play a role here.

:That said, the Indian and Pakistan media's coverage of the conflict has been [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/world/asia/india-news-media-misinformation.html pretty flawed] and should be handled carefully. For example, by checking if the reports are based on government/military statements or named experts, which then should be attributed appropriately as their claims; the publication's own on-the-ground reporting; or, just mere assertions, either unattributed or attributed to generic "sources", which should be deeply discounted or even ignored.

:In order to enable such an analysis, can someone point to the specific HT and Mint articles whose reliability is to be evaluated and what they are being cited for? Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::As far as I know, Indian english digital media hasn't published inaccurate stories other than one instance [https://x.com/the_hindu/status/1920023186151739452?t=fx5KN_FRUSwL9mNvjcKvXQ&s=19] from The Hindu, which was later deleted. However can't say the same for Indian broadcasting media, they were indeed found in serialising poor updates but we are not even citing them to begin with. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• HT has been cited more than [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=search&search=%22hindustan+Times%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 20,000] times. If you wish to challenge this source as unreliable, the first step should be starting an RfC at WP:RSN. Given there are no major instances of misinformation by it, I'm not sure how you intend to justify declaring the source as unreliable or deprecated. Al Jazeera, in comparison, has been caught publishing more fake news [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#Al_Jazeera_reliability], yet that alone hasn't been enough to label it an unreliable source. I've already explained on that sources can have a WP:PARTISAN point of view, and it's not up to us to start a CNN vs Fox or right vs left kind of debate. Claiming it leans toward the 'Modi regime' is a weak argument, especially when the other source leans toward the "Qatar monarchy" and effectively acts as its mouthpiece. I've asked Orientls and Wareon to present their case at RSN and establish a consensus as to why these sources should not be used. The WP:BURDEN lies on them and anyone who wants to remove thousands of citations from a widely used outlet. Again, 'Godi media' is not any metric for dismissing reliable sources. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - This section has been titled LiveMint for the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict. So can the comments be restricted to that source please? It is owned by HT Media, which is not the same as Hindustan Times. Hindustan Times is not under discussion here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Indeed, but HT Media owns both, and it would be unusual for two parts of the same media empire to have widely differing biases, especially in Indian media. Having said that, we need evidence that LiveMint has a BJP/Modi bias and some evidence of unreliability before this discussion can go anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:*: Yes. And fwiw, the industrialist family/group that ultimately controls the two publications has traditionally been closer to the Congress (I) party rather than the BJP. See for example, Christophe Jaffrelot's [https://www.google.com/books/edition/India_s_First_Dictatorship/4LklEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA328&printsec=frontcover India's first dictatorship] in which the he discusses Indira Gandhi's links to K. K. Birla; the latter even wrote [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indira_Gandhi/-4hDAAAAYAAJ a book] in memory of the former. Although even then, HT's slant was more nuanced than being a Congress party mouthpiece; see for example [https://books.google.com/books?id=OjEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59& this column] by Inder Malhotra.

:*:In short, we should stop painting with a broad brush and actually examine the particular articles and claims they are being cited for. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::{{ping|Abecedare|Black Kite}} I have already provided a report from The Wire showing how one of the editors of Hindustan Times (HT) had to leave after the outlet got the calls from Modi government over the coverage of 2016 Indian Line of Control strike, which is also a part of India-Pakistan conflict.

::::Here is [https://caravanmagazine.in/media/history-repeating-shobhana-bhartias-hindustan-times a report] from The Caravan which said that the things for HT "{{tq|changed by September 2016, when the government was trumpeting its disputed “surgical strikes” against targets in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. That, the former executive said, was when Bhartia began receiving calls from the prime minister’s office and Amit Shah.}}" It adds "{{tq|a leading newsroom role told me. “Ministers did not like Bobby very much, and half the job of the editor of the Hindustan Times is to court ministers. He upset people like Smriti Irani”—the minister of information and broadcasting at the time—“and these ministers were complaining to the PMO”—the prime minister’s office.}}"

::::It is also addressing the last points of Abecedare by saying: {{tq|“While the other regimes asked for reasonable restraint, this regime asks for absolute restraint,” the editor who spent years in the editorial leadership said.}}

::::As for LiveMint, it frequently published the false claim that India had downed F-16 during 2019 Balakot airstrike.[https://www.livemint.com/news/india/i-witnessed-wing-commander-abhinandan-shooting-down-pak-s-f-16-aircraft-squadron-leader-minty-agarwal-1565883522060.html][https://www.livemint.com/news/india/indian-air-force-promotes-balakot-air-strike-hero-abhinandan-to-group-captain-rank-11635939050855.html] Sources on the Balakot strike article shows how this claim was false.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/17/did-india-shoot-down-pakistani-f-back-february-this-just-became-big-deal/][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Balakot_airstrike#cite_note-markey-asia-policy-balakot-6] HT even published a dubious report[https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/not-aware-pentagon-on-pak-f-16-count-after-feb-aerial-dogfight-with-iaf/story-Rw4gSknuuSBnMc2EyYe62H.html] claiming that the Foreign Policy magazine making a false claiming by [https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/04/did-india-shoot-down-a-pakistani-jet-u-s-count-says-no/ publishing this report]. This report on "US government’s position" couldn't be supported by any third-party sources. Instead of questioning the Modi government, HT and LiveMint were instead finding ways to repeat their false claims. Orientls (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{reply|Orientls}} Thanks for the link to [https://caravanmagazine.in/media/history-repeating-shobhana-bhartias-hindustan-times the Caravan article]. I am not surprised that HT/Mint are pressurized by the government as are other media in India (and, unfortunately, now in US), and therefore such sources need to be treated with care. I have thoughts about the previous HT/Mint reporting you link to but since they are not of current interest, can you please provide the links to the specific articles currently under dispute and what claims they are being cited for? Afaict, that hasn't been mentioned in this RSN discussion. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Abecedare}} We are here discussing whether HT and LiveMint are reliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. Their reporting of the other recent conflicts absolutely matters. Even during this conflict, they have engaged in promoting the agenda of pro-Modi government as it can be seen with this [https://www.livemint.com/news/what-weapons-did-india-use-to-strike-pakistani-terror-camps-11746596528754.html random article] where is using biased terms like "{{tq|Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK)}}", added a totally false claim that the "{{tq|operation saw the deployment of air, naval, and ground forces, making it India’s largest cross-border precision strike since the 2019 Balakot airstrike}}". It added "{{tq|attackers were reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group}}", but provided no subsequent rejection by the group and is providing "the list of nine terror facility locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that have been successfully neutralised" without attributing it as just a claim from the Indian government. This is the problem with all of the articles of HT and LiveMint.Orientls (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• General media reliability of news sources should not be assessed based on their coverage of conflicts in which their home market is directly involved, otherwise cases of NYT-WMD-Iraq abound. For Indian news sources (and generally as well) this scale serves as a helpful guide from low to high reliability: Broadcast (TV and radio, the former is where the "Godi media" label originated for and is still mostly applied to, radio news in India is under state monopoly); Websites (unless otherwise known to be notable/reliable non-notable sites should be avoided, I would apply this to the websites of newspapers and magazines and where if the need is still felt to use them we should look for bylines et. al. and even then prefer the print versions of those articles); Print newspapers/magazines (which are generally the most reliable news sources in India).

:Mint falls in the last of these and to discount it as RS, we would need to show a sustained pattern of unreliable coverage which I believe hasn't been shown (instances here and there of online fake news shouldn't really affect its general reliability). Hindustan Times (which owns Mint) is a legacy Indian newspaper (along with others such as The Times of India) which is widely used on enwiki and a much higher bar would be needed to discount it and subsidiaries overall. Though it has been known to have aligned with various governments at times due to pressures or otherwise this doesn't affect it overall reliability; we can on a case-by-case basis discount articles where unreliability has been shown.

:Press freedom in India is a concern but that does not mean we use that as a cudgel to bar all Indian news sources, we don't do this for any country. Of course for conflict articles we prefer academic, non-involved, and in-depth RS but that isn't a say on the general reliability of sources from countries with limited press freedom (which are nonetheless suspect of government parroting and nationalism). News sources in the end are the bottom end of RS, when the fog of war here clears for this conflict and [uninvolved] academic sources become available the article should be in a much better shape. Gotitbro (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with everything you say, except to add that the news websites attached to newspapers/magazines cannot be expected to be of the same standard as the print newspapers. LiveMint falls in that grey area. So does the India Today website. The corresponding print publications are of high quality. But the websites are not. That means that some of their content is questionable, but not all. What I generally do is to look for corroborating information from other sources and use them in conjunction with the others.

::Websites attached to TV channels. e.g/. News18 or NDTV, should be treated on par with the TV channels. They seem to have the same editorial policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I say as much above "I would apply this to the websites of newspapers and magazines and where if the need is still felt to use them we should look for bylines et. al. and even then [meant wherever possible] prefer the print versions of those articles". Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• These are unreliable Indian media sources that report the claims made by the BJP government as truth. They are mouthpieces of the Indian state engaging in misinformation campaigns like they have done in the past; Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. They should not be used for neutral analysis in this conflict, third party sources are the only thing we can cite here. The objections to use of the term "Godi media" are also unfounded given India ranks at the very lower ranks of press freedom despite being a democracy, these biased indian print and newspapers are actively functioning as mouthpieces of a certain political party that has much to gain from this conflict; (e.g swaying Bihar elections with nationalist rhetoric). Shankargb (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:for what it worth Livemint should only be considered for business reportage cause that's their main area of focus. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Notelist-talk}}

In light of the New York Times report titled [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/world/asia/india-news-media-misinformation.html How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War], which discusses misinformation and bias in Indian media coverage during the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• NYT seems to be referring to the Indian sources that are often described as Godi media. Yes they are not reliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. I would urge you to merge your thread with the one already opened above at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint for the 2025_India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That thread appears to focus specifically on LiveMint, whereas the New York Times article addresses a broader range of outlets. Some editors are attempting to include information from Indian sources that is either not fully corroborated by third-party sources or is contradicted by them. I need to clarify my own thinking on this as well—should we prefer third-party sources over Indian sources when covering the India–Pakistan conflict, particularly in cases where third-party reporting either does not support or directly contradicts Indian media claims? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There is also a discussion immediately above regarding the use of LiveMint on that very page. See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint_for_the_2025_India-Pakistan_conflict Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::SheriffIsInTown: Yes that thread is about Hindustan Times and LiveMint, however the dynamics are the same. I am sure that discussion will benefit if you convert this thread into the sub-thread of the former.

:::Yes, Indian media sources cannot be used for anything other than stating the position of the Indian government in the India-Pakistan conflict. Whatever has been corroborated by the third party sources should be given more weight. Orientls (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I wholeheartedly agree with this, but some editors are promoting the view that Indian media sources—currently considered reliable and not listed as questionable or unreliable at WP:RSP—should be treated on par with third-party sources such as The Guardian. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes that kind of comparison is totally misleading. The Guardian is a reliable third party source for this conflict. Shankargb (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{U|Orientls}} is correct. This particular New York Times article is of little value for us since it doesn't name the sources it is complaining about, but statements like this: "{{tq|Some well-known TV networks aired unverified information or even fabricated stories amid the burst of nationalistic fervor}}" suggest that it is mainly complaining about TV channels. The Economist was more honest in pinpointing "[https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/05/15/indias-broadcast-media-wage-war-on-their-audience India's broadcast media]". We rarely ever cite TV programmes for anything. Even when we do, perhaps via their associated websites, they have long been flagged up as unreliable sources even outside this topic area. The Godi media page itself is an example of this. There is nothing new for us here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• This has been raised multiple times on the Talk page of the concerned article and shot down. As I point out above, and as have other editors on that very Talk page, we simply do not blanket ban sources just because they come from particular countries. Yes we tend to prefer those from uninvolved parties for conflict-related articles but since this is an RS issue, particular sources will have to be taken up on a case by case basis. The original attempt (and here still) to bar Indian sources but to still make way for Pakistani sources [claiming that the latter are reliable simply on accord of not having been brought up RSN is also very partial] (the pressures of the government/military on news media in these countries are not exactly unknown). Indian TV news media, what the term Godi media is meant for and what recent articles about the conflict highlight, should not be genericised for all Indian media (PS: we already barely tend to use Indian TV news media in our articles on account of the same). Gotitbro (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Can you think of any Indian media outlet which is capable of questioning the Modi government over their exceptional claims about their own involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict? If you know any, then just show their relevant article here. Orientls (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:That (sources critical of governments) is not something that determines or has ever determined RS, factual reporting is the criteria for news media. For the implication see my above comments about press freedom in the Mint thread above. There is not a dearth of news media, including mainstream, which is regularly critical of the government in India and can be easily listed here but that is not relevant to our discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::Wikipedia editors have been arrested for editing the Sambhaji wiki page. Of course the media can't question the narrative without risking hard time. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:On a completely unrelated note I don’t understand why discussions about controversial topics related to India on Wikipedia always bring up past debates. There are suggestions for a blanket ban on Indian sources, and some people on the ANI talk page have even proposed that Wikipedia should block access from India altogether. Neither of these ideas aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, whether it's a blanket ban or blocking Wikipedia in India. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would suggest that all Indian and Pakistani sources be barred from being used in the context of WP:CT/IPA. While both sides media has outlets that are considered generally reliable, these outlets assume a view that heavily supports their own governments agenda during their conflicts with Pakistan/China, as well as on any controversial subject. An exception can be made for all of these sources so that they are considered generally unreliable in controversial topics. Ecrusized (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::This whole RfC would be slightly mnore convincing if the OP themself didn't use edit summaries such as {{blue|Pakistani source supporting Pakistani claim, what’s wrong with that}}. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've said this on the talk page and I'll say it here, I don't support this blanket ban unless the same standard is applied to every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::You are not making any sense with that false equivalence. Read about World Press Freedom Index, and see how Pakistan and India have a poor ranking there. The ranking of the US in press freedom is many times better. Orientls (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can't remember a few fake and unverified news circulated by Indian digital media during this India-Pakistan conflict. It's baseless to put such a proposal. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would support banning both Indian and Pakistani sources, but we should not use RSN to take sides. So would oppose any ban on just Indian sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::That wouldn't make sense, a blind carpet ban is unnecessary. Point out the sources and we can specifically discuss their credibility. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't support blanket ban we could discuss individual sources though. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::It already exists for many years. The Indian and Pakistani publications can be used only for stating their own government's position in the India-Pakistan conflict. If you want to specifically discuss any source, then you should first point out which source from India is capable of questioning the claims and actions of the Indian government over the recent military conflict? Orientls (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No such broad consensus exists or has existed for India-Pakistan conflict articles. We tend to go for 3PARTY in conflict articles and that is what the local agreement for the 2019 Balakot airstrike was limited to. Gotitbro (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That broad consensus exists since the Balakot strike dispute and has also been followed on the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict page as well. That's why this thread was opened because some editors are now refusing to comply with that long-term standard but not telling why. You are also not providing any Indian news publishers who can be termed reliable as a whole for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Rather than repeatedly claiming a broad consensus exists why not link that broad consensus here then. You won't be able to though as none has ever existed. The only broad consensus that emerged in India-Pakistan articles post 2019 was for handling Kashmir related leads and infoboxes. No such discussion blanket banning domestic sources has taken place, beyond ad-hoc handling of those sources on particular articles (that includes Balakot and the recent conflict).
I think others here have already shown those RS, though the burden is on those asking for blanket banning of sources for which no precedence exists. Gotitbro (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::From claiming "local agreement for the 2019 Balakot airstrike was limited to" you have expanded the scope to "consensus that emerged in India-Pakistan articles post 2019 was for handling Kashmir related leads and infoboxes". That is actually self-explanatory and is only proving my point that there has been consensus not to use Indian media sources for anything more than the position of the Indian government in this conflict. There have been many discussions throughout the recent years to confirm this standard.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_3#Refutation_of_:_US_Report_contradicts_Indian_claims_of_any_F16_shot_down.][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_1#Fake_News][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_Balakot_airstrike/Archive_1#Sting_Operation][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes/Archive_2#India-POV_pushing_on_this_and_daughter_pages][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict/Archives/_1#The_Indian_media_reference_spamming_of_this_article_needs_to_stop] Which part of those discussions makes you think that their scope was limited? Nobody including you has provided any Indian news publishers that can be termed reliable as a whole for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::* {{ping|Gotitbro}} It seems you are misleading the other editors here. In 2021, you were against Indian media sources so much that you believed "they shouldn't even be in the body"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020%E2%80%9321_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes&diff=prev&oldid=991006214] on the article like 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes even though I was only using Indian media sources as representative of Indian claims. You wanted only "an official press release from the Indian Army"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020%E2%80%9321_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes&diff=prev&oldid=991098854] to be used for Indian military claims and removed the Indian claims supported by Indian media.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020%E2%80%9321_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes&diff=prev&oldid=990622422] What made you supportive of Indian media outlets all of now? I would like to hear a proper explanation. Shankargb (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:You are bungling uo two different issues here. That discussion was about using unnamed sources and portraying them as official Indian claims in the infobox and body which is obviously a no go. This dicussion is about blanket banning Indian news sources. Simply not the same thing. Gotitbro (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*:A source does not become unreliable only because it is citing unnamed source. You are only confirming your distrust over the Indian media sources that they used unnamed sources and portrayed them as official Indian claims. You are in fact taking a more extreme position than those who still allow using Indian media sources for the official stance of the Indian government. Seeing the rest of the messages of yours, you are just contradicting yourself. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*::There should be no ban on Indian or Pakistani sources as long as they're in WP:RSP and please don't put words in other editors mouth if they're saying that they don't want a blanket ban then accept that instead of misrepresenting what they've said previously. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You are misrepresenting this discussion as a whole. The above discussion is about why a user who evidently distrusted Indian media sources and won't use it for stating even for the stand of the Indian military is now opposing the factually strong objections to the use of Indian and Pakistani sources on India-Pakistan conflict. Nobody is asking for a total ban on Indian and Pakistani sources but only for this particular subject. Orientls (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• The first and most important check on reliable sources is meant to be editors own good judgement. Is a source offering a obviously biased view of a situation? Then maybe you need to find other sources to balance out the situation. Intext attribution can also help, make sure claims and positions are stated as such - especially in situations where the actual facts are clouded or contested. Editors who can't edit in a balanced way should try taking a brake and editing a different are for awhile, there are always other editors who can take up the slack. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :My opinions more or less. Even if a proposal wasnt about a one-way ban, a blanket ban on media based on nation of origin is pretty hard to justify. If there are sources that are peddling misinfo, they can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• I am quite opposed to a blanket ban of any kind. The Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS etc. are more than enough to take care of disparity in the sources. Reliability mainly depends on a source's long-term conduct. It can't be applied willy-nilly on a topic by topic basis. I also wonder why only one side is asking for a ban of the sources on the other side. It is all fishy to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:*If you don't want to maintain such a prohibition then you should first cite the Indian media sources that are questioning the handling of the Modi government of this recent conflict like the rest of the world has done. Who is that {{tq|only one side}} that {{tq|is asking for a ban of the sources on the other side}}? Asking because it looks nothing more than baseless aspersion. Orientls (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Because the NYT article cited at the beginning mentions only one side as being problematic in handling the facts during this conflict. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We do not blanket ban sources. Editor judgment for any conflict would be: prefer third party sources and use reliable domestic sources only when no alternative exists for the info sought to be included (which though ultimately may or may not be due). Judgment also tells us to avoid broadcast media and random websites (I see that you cited Samaa TV in one of your edits, and replaced it with an unknown Azerbaijani website calibre.az in another saying it is third-party; though Azerbaijan appears to be directly involved in this conflict and of course unvetted websites are always a no go); better just cite known [Pakistani] print media.

:::::Russian invasion of Ukraine and Gaza war which are much larger and significant than this relatively minor [border] skirmish have not lead us to blanket ban domestic sources from the parties involved, even though their issues are far more widely covered and known (media coverage of the Gaza war and media portrayal of the Russo-Ukrainian War). We are not going to do break precedent here based on a single news report.

:::::PS: Another issue with seemingly only relying on 3PARTY sources is the determination of what sources are truly independent of a conflict (as shown by the Azerbaijan example above). That is to be left to editors but no source comes without bias. Ultimately we need to rely on academic sources. Gotitbro (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Note It would appear that editors who have Indian flags on their user pages, as well as those whose account contributions are entirely focused on editing Indian-Pakistani conflict, and other subjects related to India have arrived in this discussion to oppose the ban on Indian media outlets. Respectfully, I don't think these users should be allowed to comment on this since they are evidently biased towards their own country/government.

I am yet to see a single editor so far, who is not Indian that has supported using Indian media sources. I also want to add that I am neither Indian nor Pakistani, nor have I ever been to one of these countries in my life, nor do I ever intend to visit them... I believe both countries media should be barred from being used in this topic. (I am pointing out that I am not from this region because I've had baseless accusations made by some Indian editors against me who have accused of being Pakistani). Ecrusized (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:First and last warning to all future posters. Singling out other editors based on there ethnicity or nationality has a name, and it's not acceptable. Additionally discussion of any editors behaviour is not appropriate on this noticeboard. Disruptive editors should be deleted with by the normal methods regardless of where they come from, see WP: DISRUPTIVE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your comment is quite clearly violative of Wikipedia:PERSONALATTACK. No we don't care what your nationality is nor whether you have travelled to or are connected to the countries you wish to edit content about. For someone who has been here for years such a comment is beyond the pale. And for someone who is focused on conflict-related articles, why does no precedent exist from other conflicts for something that you propose here (blanket ban on domestic media); it is because that is not simply something we do. Editor judgment based on policies and guidelines to determine RS is what we rely on and this board exists to determine other contentious cases. If these are to be thrown out the window, might as well do away with the entire wiki project. Gotitbro (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have tried to rephrase this the best way I can. What I'm trying to point out is WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST. Ecrusized (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is not what conflict of interest is about, not even close. See WP:NOTCOI, being from a place is not a conflict of interest in articles about that place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, it isn't a conflict of interest. At all. Remotely. What you are doing is {{tqq|Singling out other editors based on [their] ethnicity or nationality}}, it does indeed {{tqq|[have] a name}}, and that name is "racism". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Man don't do this at this point you're beign rude I don't throw the "r" word around casually but it seems you want to earn it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

does the work [https://books.google.de/books?id=a75XEAAAQBAJ&newbks= Muslims under Sikh Rule in the Nineteenth Century] by Robina Yasmin pass WP:RS? Heraklios 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, the source can be cited. However, context matters, so even though it is a published, secondary source, the information to be included from it may not be WP:DUE. I couldn't find any information on the author and the book has been cited two times. That's something to keep in mind. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The author is an assistant professor with a background in economics and human resource management,[https://cust.edu.pk/our_team/dr-robina-yasmin/] which is somewhat relevant as the book studies the social-economic policies of the Sikh rules of the time. Would be nice if she was a historian, but it's published by Bloomsbury and by a professional academic so it's going to be a lot more reliable than a most of the sources used on Wikipedia.
As TurboSuperA+ said context matters, especially if the content you want to add is exceptional. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply| ActivelyDisinterested}} I essentially agree with your conclusions but I believe that you have linked to the wrong "[https://cust.edu.pk/our_team/dr-robina-yasmin/ Robina Yasmin]". Matching the details from the [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Muslims_under_Sikh_Rule_in_the_Nineteent/0mxWEAAAQBAJ?gbpv=1 book's acknowledgement], I believe that the book's author [https://www.iub.edu.pk/author/Rubina.Yasmin Robina Yasmin] is indeed an historian and currently the Chair of the Department of Pakistan Studies at Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Previously she was an assistant professor in History Department, University of the Punjab, Lahore (see footnote [https://archive.org/details/education-system-under-the-sikh-rule/mode/2up here]) and has [https://prdb.pk/author/Robina+Shoeb several other academic publications] under her (maiden?) name "Robina Shoeb" in Pakistani journals. Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well spotted, and my apologies to both Yasmins. The correct Robina Yasmin appears to be an expert in her field for the specific topic that the book covers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Abecedare@ActivelyDisinterested@TurboSuperA+ Here for some context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghan%E2%80%93Sikh_Wars&action=history] of why im asking it. Heraklios 15:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Noorullah21}} is there something we are missing? Yasmin appears to be a qualified historian specialising in this period of history, is it the specific claim that her book is unreliable for? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@ActivelyDisinterested See [https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Muslims+under+Sikh+Rule+in+the+Nineteenth+Century%3A+Maharaja+Ranjit+Singh+and+Religious+Tolerance&btnG=]. My main concern is that this book is only cited by one other publication. Pointing out the author does help though and showing they have a historical background. Noorullah (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Several IOL articles are being used to state some rather inflammatory things on the page for Julius Malema, a BLP. I hadn't heard of the outlet so I went and looked for an about page and they don't have one. With a website with opaque editorial standards I get a bit nervous when it's being used for controversies on a living person so I searched the board here for information about IOL and was concerned to find that, the few times it has been raised here before, the results were inconclusive but a lot of concerns were raised about its reliability. Some of these references include:

• [https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/accuser-enjoyed-sex-with-zuma-432215 Describes rape apologia surrounding a rather unfortunate incident but wherein the other BLP (Jacob Zuma) was subsequently acquitted]
• [https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/malema-sings-the-mokaba-anti-boer-tune-475838 An alarmist article about Malema's use of an historical South African liberation chant that has the farm-genocide types shook]
• [https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/malema-under-fire-for-kill-the-boer-song-475909 another one about the kill the boer chant]
• [https://iol.co.za/news/2011-10-30-malema-faces-arrest/ an article about a spending controversy where Malema was subsequently acquitted.]

I am concerned to be sourcing some rather incendiary information, some of which was not born out in court, about two BLPs to a sub-standard publication but before I started cutting I thought I'd bring it here. I should note that the Malema page is in a rather sorry state and I did raise its general poor condition at WP:BLP/N before I started digging into specific sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please also note that for some of these items there are, in fact, better sources (such as The Guardian) in the article. I would not be seeking removal of mention of, for example, the rape apologia. Just better sourcing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see anything immediately concerning. They don't appear to be pushing rape apologia but reporting on it, the same with the articles about the song. Bias in reporting doesn't make a spurce unreliable. It's a news source, and an online one at that, so use in BLPs should always be handled with caution, but I think your concerns are better handled at BLPN than here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:On the source itself, it is fine. Not the highest quality outlet but probably bog-standard. IMO, better than News24 (which is itself OK) worse than the Daily Maverick. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a disupute being discussed both at Talk:Andy Ngo and Talk:SPLC regarding the status of Hatewatch and whether it constitutes a different level of reliability than that of the SPLC. WP:SPLC describes the SPLC as being generally reliable for matters of the American far-right however the contention is that Hatewatch is a blog and, as such, should not be used for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Hatewatch is not currently described by the SPLC as a blog - it is described as a resource. Its reporting includes both SPLC staff articles and articles by named authors with bylines and it does appear that SPLC claims editorial control over it. A counter-argument has been made that this situation is similar to a Forbes / Forbes Contributor one however this hinges on the level of editorial oversight the SPLC exercises over Hatewatch which may end up being something of a subjective measure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we should be cautions with any content from the Hatewatch section based on several grounds. First, SPLC as a whole is an advocacy organization, not a news media site. It has a perverse incentive to create an US vs THEM narrative in order to drive donations. That concern would apply to the whole organization not just Hatewatch. As for Hatewatch specifically, first it was described as a blog by SPLC for many years. It appears that they quietly changed this (in 2022?) but offered no explanation why or if the change was accompanied by any change in editorial practice. As for editorial practices, it doesn't appear that SPLC was keeping a close watch on what was being published there. The Grayzone [https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/14/anarchist-alexander-reid-ross-cops-cia-dhs/] (a site that is likely to be sympathetic to the SPLC on the whole) reported a whole block of Hatezone content by a writer not employed by the SPLC was removed. That certainly doesn't speak highly of their editorial oversite. Unlike the SPLC reports, much of this seems like opinion/blog commentary, the sort of material we would routinely reject from most minor media sources. It seems very inconsistent to accept this material as factual/green RS from an advocacy organization with the long list of problems that have been raised during previous RSN discussions. Springee (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That Grayzone piece on Reid Ross seems a bit much though - I'll be honest I have had some minor contact with him in my capacity as a writer and I would call that article an open hit piece based on some rather silly sectarian beefing between Marxists and Anarchists. And that sectarian beef is context that, as it's leftist in-fighting, editors who are not engaged with the left more broadly might not be alert to. Basically, on the topic of that particular man, no, Grayzone, which skews Marxist, would likely be quite unsympathetic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I will also note, per WP:GRAYZONE that Grayzone is a deprecated source. And I'll say that, even among Marxists, it's not particularly well respected except possibly for providing a counter-voice on Venezuela. Grayzone absolutely has a vested interest in playing the "anti-imperialists aligned with Russia are leftists" game which was far more likely to get a receptive response from Marxists in 2015 than in 2025. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't put much faith in the Grayzone either. However, it doesn't look good that SPLC let the material go up then later had to pull it down. That suggests limited editorial oversite. Again, we aren't dealing with a news site, this is an advocacy organization. I think a "use with caution" is the best rating we should have for anything they release that isn't supported by a clear RS referencing it first. Springee (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So first off, considering the Grayzone's deprecation was for publishing factually inaccurate statements, I would not trust based on Grayzone alone that SPLC pulled down Reid Ross' articles for the reasons they describe at all. I can confirm that there are no articles by Alexander Reid Ross on Hatewatch but that's about the extent to which I would trust Grayzone for statements of fact in this matter.

:::::Secondly, let's pretend for a second that Grayzone could be trusted, that might indicate why Hatewatch is no longer managed as a blog - if SPLC had a public relations issue coming out of it in 2021 then it would seem to fit the timeline of Hatewatch being redesigned with tighter control in 2022. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Simonm223}} The SPLC published an [https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/ Explanation and Apology] which you can read for yourself. It paints a far less damning picture than the author of that Grayzone article does. It also suggests that there is active editorial involvement in the writing and publication of the articles on Hatewatch. 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Considering what I know of Mr. Reid-Ross this makes a lot of sense. Grayzone is one of the least reliable sources around. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Why would the Grayzone likely be sympathetic to the SPLC? Politically they don't share a lot of ground. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have some sympathy for people who are distant from the left that they may have missed that there are significant political differences between nominally Marxist, pro-Russia, "anti-imperialists" and anarchist antifascists. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|it doesn't appear that SPLC was keeping a close watch on what was being published there. The Grayzone [73] (a site that is likely to be sympathetic to the SPLC on the whole) reported a whole block of Hatezone content by a writer not employed by the SPLC was removed. That certainly doesn't speak highly of their editorial oversite.}} Resisting the urge to respond in my native tongue (sarcasm), I will point out that you just made the argument that the SPLC exercising editorial oversight of Hatewatch demonstrates that they do not exercise editorial oversight of Hatewatch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Only after people outside SPLC complained. Closing the barn door after the horse left. Springee (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ahh, so your argument is that the SPLC is not exercising editorial oversight because they [checks notes] couldn't predict the future wrt the response to Ross' articles. Thanks for clarifying, though that argument is just as vacuous as what I originally pointed out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please keep civil. If the SPLC was exercising editorial oversight why did they miss something so big that the retracted all articles by a given writer? On the other hand if they didn't notice until outside sources raised the issue they aren't doing a good job maintaining quality. What else are they missing? Either version would be an issue if this was actually a media outlet. It's even worse when this is an activist organization. Springee (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Are you arguing that their decision to remove three articles by one author in 2018 somehow impugns everything they've posted? If not, please clarify. "What else are they missing?" assumes that they've missed something else. Do you have any evidence that they published something else that you believe was problematic in some way? I don't see why "It's even worse when this is an activist organization." We use lots of RS that are biased; that only means that we use them with attribution. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{TQ|Please keep civil.}} Please be serious. This is even more ridiculous a statement to make than the arguments above were. If you can't handle attacks on your arguments, you have no business arguing.

::::::{{tq| If the SPLC was exercising editorial oversight why did they miss something so big that the retracted all articles by a given writer?}} Why hasn't this happened more often, if they're not exercising editorial oversight? Even your own unreliable blog source (the irony is not lost on me) implies that was Ross was doing is hardly unusual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd like to dispute the basic premise here. It seems the contention is that some people think Hatewatch should be considered less reliable due to publicly holding the opinion that racism is bad. Would Hatewatch be more acceptable with the same staff and editorial procedures if they were ambivalent on racism? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah the classic twist on if you disagree with me you must be a so and so. Those kind of arguments are worthless. 32.140.33.58 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There is no need to personalize my comment. Would this same staff and editorial processes be less controversial if they were not publicly an anti racism group? That's the question. They advocate for less racism, and the argument here is that this advocacy makes their research on hate groups less reliable. My argument is that the research is sound, and holding an opinion doesn't make it invalid. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think Hatewatch is more or less a news blog and has the same level of reliability as the SPLC which is to say reliable but with signficant qualifications/exceptions as eneumerated by the standing consensus on the SPLC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would note that the arguments I've seen so far centering on the SPLC describing Hatewatch as a blog seem rooted in the assumption that the SPLC and us here on WP use "blog" to mean the same thing. But anyone familiar with jargon from more than one field can tell you that's a baseless assumption. The fact that the SPLC stopped calling it that may be worth noting, however, whether that cessation was accompanied by a change in editorial practices is essentially beside the point. That's an argument over whether Hatewatch is reliable, not whether we should call it a blog or not (which is, itself, distinct from the question of whether or not we should consider it a blog for sourcing purposes).

:I could go either way on the question of whether to describe Hatewatch as a blog when we mention it in article space. There are RSes who do so. The SPLC does not. I would oppose any attempt to add "blog" to every mention of it in article space, and I would also oppose any attempt to remove "blog" as a descriptor, unless and until a consensus is arrived at, because both look to me to have no utility other than POV pushing. For now, my advice is: if the word "blog" in an article has been there for some time uncontested, leave it. If a mention has been made which lacks that word and has been uncontested for some time, do not add it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this approach to article mentions. Springee (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Simonm223, it seems like you have more than one question. A few that I see:

:* Is Hatewatch less reliable than other SPLC publications? (And perhaps: even if it is, is it still sufficiently reliable to be considered an RS?)

:* Should Hatewatch be considered an SPS?

:* Have either of these characteristics shifted over time?

:Are there any other questions that you see underlying the talk page debates? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That seems comprehensive to me. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::OK. I consider it GREL. There's no info about their editorial processes, but Hatewatch addresses lots of contentious issues/people/organizations, and SPLC hasn't faced a slew of libel suits. I can't weigh in on changes over time. As for SPS or not, there is no agreement in WP's editing community about what "self-published" means (see, e.g., this RfC and the BEFORE discussions it links to), but I'm not inclined to view it as self-published. I'd characterize Hatewatch in the same way that SPLC publications as a whole are characterized on RSP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Hatewatch is called a blog because of the one-post-at-a-time format. It is run by a reputable organisation, and it hosts posts by experts, PhDs, recognised and published journalists. I just googled three of the names I saw and two were PhDs in relevant fields and one was a widely-published journalist. Hatewatch is completely fine as a source.

:TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Does the Hatewatch section have any published editorial policy? I know Simonm223 has frequently said they feel basically all media should be MREL vs GREL. I think there is merit to that view. My question is why wouldn't we do the same for advocacy organizations that have a perverse incentive to promote to take in money?[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/][https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center]. It seems inconsistent to, correctly in my view, treat respected think tanks/institutes like CATO, Center for Economic and Policy Research as MREL but treat a the views of contributors to the SPLC as GREL. Do we have any evidence that they actually are reliable? It seems most of the lawsuits against the SPLC are related to inclusion on their hate lists rather than their commentary material. Isn't it at least consistent to treat this content like other commentary material? I think part of the issue is that the SPLC does have very good deeds in its history. However, they also have a perverse incentive to push "hate" to get donations (something respected sources have noted). The articles criticizing the organization are nothing new [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312/][https://www.npr.org/2019/04/17/713887174/after-allegations-of-toxic-culture-southern-poverty-law-center-tries-to-move-for][https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism]. A lawyer working for the SPLC was arrested with other violet activists in Atlanta last year[https://www.newsweek.com/lawyers-arrest-atlanta-protest-sparks-criticism-splc-1785889][https://www.policemag.com/patrol/news/15352183/civil-rights-lawyer-charged-with-domestic-terrorism-in-attack-on-gas-cop-city][https://www.policemag.com/patrol/news/15352183/civil-rights-lawyer-charged-with-domestic-terrorism-in-attack-on-gas-cop-city]. I'm not a big fan of citing Masters Thesis but this paper sees the same issues as many other people, the SPLC has one part that has done noble work and a second part where every problem starts to look like a nail, "Such success can bring about a natural desire for more, but as the relatively small pool of violent racist groups diminished, Morris Dees was forced to expand his definition of “hate group” to include non-violent groups and to include individuals and organizations whose ideologies were diametrically opposed to those of many of the SPLC’s progressive donors." Springee (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::These articles raising concerns about the SPLC are from a previous RSN threads on the topic (compiled from several posts by Guy Macon)

::* [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/southern-poverty-law-center-gets-creative-to-label-hate-groups Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups': Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots.]

::* [https://reason.com/archives/2018/03/23/the-intellectual-poverty-of-the-southern/print The Intellectual Poverty of the Southern Poverty Law Center: Branding dissenters as haters undercuts its effectiveness.]

::* [https://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/the-church-of-morris-dees/ The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance.]

::* [https://www.philanthropydaily.com/guidestar-has-more-to-do-if-it-cares-about-its-objectivity/ GuideStar has more to do, if it cares about its objectivity.]

::* [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?]

::* [https://capitalresearch.org/article/department-of-defense-purges-splc-information-from-its-training-material/ Department of Defense Purges SPLC Information from its Training Material.]

::* [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shocked-anti-defamation-league-slaps-fbi-diss-on-hate-crimes The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.]

::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?]

::* [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals?]

::* [https://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/the-southern-poverty-business-model/ The Southern Poverty Business Model ]

::* [https://reason.com/archives/2018/01/16/the-southern-poverty-law-center-scam/print The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam: A "hate group" list loved by the media is bogus.]

::* [https://www.wnyc.org/story/southern-poverty-law-center-anti-hate-slick-marketers-both/ The Southern Poverty Law Center: Anti-Hate Activists, Slick Marketers or Both?]

::* [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/19/the_hate_group_that_incited_the_middlebury_melee_133377.html The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee.]

::* [https://www.ocregister.com/2018/06/18/southern-poverty-law-center-pays-3-4-million-says-sorry-over-description/ Southern Poverty Law Center pays $3.4 million, says sorry, over description.]

::* [https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-poverty-law-center-maajid-nawaz/ Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong]

::* [https://www.city-journal.org/html/demagogic-bully-15370.html A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes respectable political opponents as "hate groups" -- and keeps its coffers bulging.]

::* [https://capitalresearch.org/article/young-conservative-flagged-on-splc-hatewatch-list/ Young Conservative Flagged on SPLC "Hatewatch" List.]

::* [https://www.weeklystandard.com/king-of-fearmongers/article/714573 King of Fearmongers.]

::* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html Hateful speech on hate groups.]

::* [https://capitalresearch.org/article/splc-wont-label-antifa-as-hate-group/ SPLC Won’t Label Antifa a Hate Group: To the SPLC, targeting conservatives and giving Antifa a pass is good for business.]

::* [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals?] --The New York Times::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?] --The Atlantic

::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/ The Unlabelling of an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist'] --The Atlantic

::* [https://www.theweek.com/articles/759498/sad-hysteria-southern-poverty-law-center The sad hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center] --The Week

::* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k41PI54ExFc The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam] --John Stossel

::* [https://reason.com/2019/05/06/poynter-institute-splc-retracted-list-media/ Poynter Institute's Retracted List of Fake News Sites Was Written by SPLC Podcast Producer: Media watchdogs should not outsource their fact-checking to the Southern Poverty Law Center.] --Reason magazine

::Springee (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse|

:::Did you read these links? Do you really think it is controversial not to call anti fascist beliefs hate? You linked a really whack article that says that. So let's be clear, Springee, is being an anti fascist protestor the same as being in a racist group in your opinion? You linked a source to support that argument. Do you really believe that fighting racism is as bad as being racist, or did you not read what you linked? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Antifa is a group that practices political violence. It is extremist - comparisons are moot. Riposte97(talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC) | WP:NOTFORUM}}

:Yes, Hatewatch is a blog. Yes, it is still RS as under SPLC oversight. No, we should not insert blog for inline attribute to it in our articles. The attempt to question Hatewatch usage on enwiki appears to be to deligitimize SPLC and its content rather than a serious review of it as an unreliable source. I saw similar attempts at Homeland Party (United Kingdom) for Hope not Hate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

One example of a factual error in the Grayzone article is that they claim Reid-Ross is responsible for the idea of the red-brown alliance. This is not the case. Martin A. Lee described the term many years before Reid-Ross started using it and Lee's description was based on the origination of the term in post-Soviet Russia. So, right here, we can see that Grayzone is making stuff up because the author was too lazy to do even a 5 minute google check on a key term. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I can't possibly think why some editors appear desperate to have Hatewatch described as a blog. Oh, sorry, I can, it's so that they can continue their interminable attempts to have material from the SPLC described as unreliable. As I mentioned before, the SPLC (like HopeNotHate in the UK) shines a light into some pretty nasty crevices of far-right bigotry, and is quite often the only - or one of very few - resources to report on these groups; without them, we would quite often not be able to report on some of the things that these groups would rather we not know about them, which mainstream sources are often afraid to print. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If the SPLC is the only source for a claim, is the claim actually DUE? Springee (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: Case-by-case basis, obviously, but my last sentence is pertinent here. Also, SPLC material is often cited not because it's the only source, but because it's the most detailed. Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes. It's sort of ridiculous to think otherwise. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• A blog is a format of website where "posts" are displayed in reverse chronological order. They're typically built on top of user friendly software that simplifies the process of publication. There are connotations of unreliability on Wikipedia because they are often self-published sources, not because of the format. It's unclear to me whether Hatewatch uses a blog format, or how we should even conceptualize the meaning of a blog in today's web (where does "blog" end and "online news magazine" begin?). Going around and adding "blog" to undercut its credibility seems utterly unnecessary (it is hard to see it as anything else, as I don't see the same people going around to dozens of articles to add "blog" every time Ars Technica, Gizmodo, or Business Insider are mentioned, too, or to add "newspaper" to New York Times or "magazine" to Sports Illustrated). The only thing that matters is whether it satisfies WP:RS. It has a good reputation, it has paid staff, there are many authors, authors are typically either staff or reputable researchers, and -- following the argument above -- when the credibility of one of its past authors is called into question, there is enough oversight to go back and remove their posts (which is a good thing). I'd regard Hatewatch as below SPLC's annual reports in terms of reliability, but still pretty reliable. All that said, even if it has a good reputation, SPLC is nonetheless an advocacy organization. That doesn't mean adding "blog"-like qualifiers, but does mean some caution is still necessary to attribute extraordinary claims that aren't also made by other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Considering the claim in question is an interview with Jason Stanley, who is seen as an expert in these matters (I have critiques but they're OR LOL), and that nobody disputes that Stanley said what he said nor the factual contents of his statement I don't think anybody is trying to source extraordinary claims here. I do think that the concerns that adding "hatewatch blog" to copy is likely to be a foot in the door for subsequent removal of SPLC content seems somewhat apropos considering that Springee has, above, attempted to use the Grayzone smear piece on Reid-Ross as a basis to question the reliability of the SPLC in general. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• I concur with Black Kite. Various comments in this discussion seem to be more focused on re-littegating the previous RFC on the reliablity of SPLC, than on discussing Hatewatch's reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Where is the previous RfC? The RSP list doesn't show a RfC tag and I didn't see one about the general reliability of SPLC or Hatewatch in the list of previous discussions. I think there was a previous RfC but it was about the use in article leads. Springee (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::You're quite correct. I was mistaken. The previous RFC was about whether a designation by SPLC that an entity was a hate group meant that should be covered in the lead.
• ::Given there appears to have been extensive discussion previously, perhaps it's time for a RFC on the question:
• ::{{tq2|What is the reliablity of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?}} TarnishedPath^talk 05:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That particular question has been the topic of multiple discussions. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_(again)_&_Rousas_John_Rushdoony] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_208#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_on_Debbie_Schlussel's_Anti-Muslim_stance] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_230#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_As_Source_For_Labeling_Someone_a_White_Supremacist] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232#Is_an_SPLC_report_a_reliable_source_for_List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials?] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_245#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_247#SPLC:_not_a_reliable_source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_260#Is_the_SPLC_reliable?_It_is_reliable] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#RSP_wording_for_SPLC] (this one looks like a bit of WP:RFCBEFORE work) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_347#When_can_SPLC_be_treated_as_a_3rd_party_RS_vs_a_primary_source_that_needs_to_be_first_mentioned_by_a_independent_RS?] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#SPLC_at_ALEC] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::SPLC is already listed on WP:RSP. Maybe it is time for Hatewatch to be listed there as well? After an RFC, of course. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Seems perfectly reliable and has an established editorial policy and control over the content, with SPLC writers and states guest writers who themselves are experts on the subjects being used. Springee's use of conspiracy pseudoscience sites and other known unreliable sources as an argument above seems more concerning to me, personally. Silverseren^C 03:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Bloomberg, Politico, the Atlantic, the NYT... conspiracy pseudoscience sites? Really? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The Grayzone, Capitalresearch.org, Reason Magazine, John Stossel and so many right-wing think tanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Springee pointed out they were including any sources they found in old discussions. Better to be over-complete and include any they found than to miss some reliable ones in the name of trying to curate them at this point. Trying to focus on the unreliable sources is attempting to deflect from and ignore the actually reliable sources, which cover the whole spectrum. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Contrary to your opinion, Reason Magazine is a RS with a strong history of journalism. Springee (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Silverseren, since you said it has an established editorial policy, can you link to it? I searched but was unable to find it. Springee (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I found this: {{tq|Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center.}} [https://medium.com/hatewatch-blog/about] The Intelligence Project is a recognised reputable organisation that has existed since the 70s. Their historical data is archived at Duke university, directors have testified in front of Congress, their reports are covered by RS, and so on. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is reaching [WP:1AM] and [WP:BLUDGEON} territory, with Springee being the only one trying to get Hatewatch removed as a source. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That is a highly inappropriate perversion of what occurred above. Riposte97 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• From what I can tell it might still be considered a blog, especially considering Turbo's link above from another source describing it as that. It can certainly still be used since I would consider it an expert opinion in its field. It just needs to be labeled as such, that its their opinion and not statements of facts since there may or may not be editorial oversight for that part even though it is under the Intelligence Project section. Just like any other WP:NEWSBLOG. PackMecEng (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why is it critical to people reading an article to know the source publishes individual articles instead of a monthly edition? I don't understand what you think readers will gain here. We don't usually specify book, magazine, video, etc for other sources. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::We call it out not because of its format but because of its editorial oversight, or lack there of. That is what a contemporary blog is. Not a individual article vs m9nthly edition. Also we call it out because that is the consensus of the community. This has been discussed so many times that is has its own link WP:SPLC PackMecEng (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Hatewatch could only be considered a "blog" in the sense that it publishes in chronological order; it's clearly not self-published since it consists of articles written by others and posted by SPLC. We don't know exactly when or why they stopped labelling themselves as a blog but I would speculate that they realized the confusion and decided "blog isn't a clear descriptor of what we are" rather than suddenly changing from blog to not-a-blog. The fact that they're transparent about corrections indicates strong editorial oversight.

:It seems that using "hatewatch blog" everywhere it's cited only serves to cast undue doubt on its reliability and for that reason we should refrain from labelling it as such. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see any proof that this claim is accurate {{tq|Hatewatch could only be considered a "blog" in the sense that it publishes in chronological order}}. We are fairly sure that they removed that word from their description sometime in 2024. The issue comes in with WP:SPLC which states that anything from SPLC should be attributed to them, if it is from their blog section, that should certainly be spelled out. Has nothing to do with casting doubt. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If it is merely attribution that you are interested in then that can be achieved by stating "... the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch said ...". Adding blog after Hatewatch is not necessary for attribution purposes. TarnishedPath^talk 03:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have yet to see evidence that Hatewatch is subject to the same obscure editorial policy - or in fact any editorial policy - as other publications of the SPLC. So until there's evidence that it is, then yes, it needs to be attributed in a way that makes clear it is not just a "part of SPLC". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It has the same URL as the rest of the SPLC, why would you think this section is different? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Berchanhimez see this comment. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That comment does not identify an editorial policy. It simply provides a source that says they're staffed with people from elsewhere. It's entirely possible for people to work on some stories/information for a source/platform which has editorial control, but also work for another part of that source/platform that does not have editorial control. For example, the NYT allows its reporters to submit opinion pieces under their own name for consideration to be published. That does not mean that those reporters are subject to the normal editorial control that they would be for their normal news stories when they do so.{{pb}}And that said, I haven't seen anything about SPLC's editorial policy to begin with. I don't doubt they have one, but there's a reason we attribute their designation of an organization as a hate group, for example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::True, and yet {{tq|"The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States."}} If Hatewatch is run by the SPLC then I don't see why Hatewatch can't get the same treatment: GENREL for extremism in the US, attribution of statements and evaluation on a case-by-case basis. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thats basically WP:NEWSBLOG, generally reliable sources can also run less reliable subsections. Again this is the reliablity of Hatewatch, not of SLPC, even if its hosted by SPLC. PackMecEng (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The issue wirh that is basically whitewashing, trying to make a less reliable source look more reliable than it is by not giving the reader all the information to know that there is no evidence of editorial oversight. PackMecEng (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We really need clearer guidance on when, where and HOW to use think tanks and other advocacy sources. My feeling is that advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion. Do this and the focus shifts from being a question of reliability to a question of proper attribution and DUE weight. The opinion of a very prominent advocacy group (such as the SPLC) can be given a lot of weight… less prominent advocacy groups - not so much. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm divided here because I'm very sympathetic to Black Kite that violent far-right extremists, especially in the current American political climate, are groups that many people are simply afraid to write about. In this regard the SPLC does necessary and irreplaceable work and excluding them as a source would be harmful to public knowledge of these political extremists. Springee's protests are risible to the point of near disruption in this case. But, if I'm being wholly fair, I dislike over-reliance on advocacy groups, particularly when academic sources exist. And if I'm going to make that comment about right wing advocacy groups then I would be inconsistent if I didn't apply the same standard to those advocacy groups I personally value.

:And I do personally value the SPLC. My educated opinion regarding far-right extremist groups is that a fondness for rhetorical games and outright lies is a key part of their discursive toolkit. As such the work of advocacy groups like the SPLC and HopeNotHate is pedagogically valuable. They cut through the bullshit these groups tend to put out. Many of the more mainstream articles shared in this thread attacking the SPLC are American liberal outlets who are distraught that the SPLC is highlighting reactionary political statements from self-described "liberals" such as Majid Nawaz. I actually believe that long list of opinion pieces above is informative for showing the value and significance of the SPLC frankly.

:I do think that advocacy groups should always be attributed at use and that we should avoid using them alone to make statements in Wikivoice. But beyond that I would say that each advocacy group should be assessed on its merits, particularly based on its reception by academia.

:In the specific case of the SPLC and of Hatewatch I would say my personal stance is that it is reliable for use with attribution and with a preference for academic sources where available. From a broader perspective I would say that the maximum level of reliability for any advocacy group should be the same: reliable for use with attribution and with a preference for academic sources where available. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am definitely NOT saying SPLC is a “bad” source. They are (in fact) a very important source. However, they do have their bias and when they label things (especially BLPs) we need to tred with caution. Perhaps we need a new category in RSPS specifically for advocacy? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Simon, once again I think we agree though you suggest otherwise. The SPLC's view on actual violet groups is almost certainly going to be DUE and likely covered by independent RSs. Where I have more concern is when we use commentary published through the SPLC to makes claims of facts about groups/BLPs. We agree that such content should be attributed, treated as expert opinion. The question would be how often is such opinion due in an article. Another question is if we should accept them for statements of fact? I do see a concern when the SPLC starts looking at topics that aren't about violent extremists and are instead related to groups that are clearly non-violent etc. In this regard my concerns are similar to those raised by the Washington Post. Springee (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"The question would be how often is such opinion due in an article" makes no sense as a question. What kind of answer are you looking for (e.g., "it's DUE 57% of the time")? Whether a given piece of information is DUE has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, as it cannot be determined out of context. "Another question is if we should accept them for statements of fact?" Are you suggesting that they're never reliable for statements of fact? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Andy Ngo is not "clearly non-violent." When you do a ride-along with a violent right-wing group selectively filming them to make it look like antifascists attacked them when that's not actually what happened there's a bit of an asterix next to non violence. [https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2019/08/26/27039560/undercover-in-patriot-prayer-insights-from-a-vancouver-democrat-whos-been-working-against-the-far-right-group-from-the-inside] Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You are inventing facts. There was no "ride-along" and the source you cite is by a person who later tried to out Ngo to her twitter followers at a protest. She isn't exactly an uninvolved observer. Conversely, Reason, a source that had been nominated for over a dozen Southern California Journalism Awards this year [https://lapressclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SoCal-2025-Finalists-0519025-1500.pdf] ran an article questioning that narrative [https://reason.com/2019/09/03/andy-ngo-video-antifa-patriot-prayer-attack-media/]. Clearly this is a disputed fact. To then suggest that Ngo is "violent" in context of "violent far-right extremists" is, well risible. Springee (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Come on. This is getting ridiculous. You can't call every source critical of Ngo "disputed" just because he denies everything. He threatened to sue the paper and they told him to go ahead and try. There was no correction or walk-back. That's not a thing you expect to see from a paper on tenuous factual ground. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please stop with the hyperbolic claims. You are the one who brought up the topic. You made the claim that Ngo is "not clearly not violent". You provided a source. I provided a source that refutes the claim. Springee (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You provided a far-right opinion magazine to counter local investigative journalism. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What?! Reason isn't a "far-right opinion" magazine. Per Adfonts they are more centrist than sources like The Atlantic, NPR News Hour, CNN, NBC News and the NYT. The claim of "opinion" is more valid thought they are still in the 'green box' of most reliable sources.[https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=adfontesmedia&utm_medium=website] Springee (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Adfontes is not a reliable source. And it's frankly very deficient for understanding how non-Americans view the American media landscape. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Based on what? It's used as a reliable source in a number of peer reviewed articles. The RSN discussions about such sites have generally said their ratings are not DUE for inclusion in articles about media companies etc. However, while some editors don't like their various methods, they are used as reference sources by scholars. So we have a source that scholarship likes saying Reason is no where close to "far-right". Springee (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::First, they say that anyone applying to be a reviewer must live in the US, the vast majority of the sources they assess are US sources, and they say that "The line between 'Most Extreme Left/Right and Hyper-Partisan Left/Right' is defined by the policy positions of the most extreme elected officials significantly relevant to the scope of the issue being considered," where they're presumably talking about elected office in the US. But en.wiki is not a US wiki, and there is zero reason to believe that the views of Americans are representative of the views of people in other countries (quite the opposite). Second, there's no way of assessing whether they've chosen a representative sample of articles/segments from a given source. I bet that if I dug in, I'd find other issues, but that's a sufficient start. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This is getting way off topic so let's just leave it as, yes, Adfontes is not a RS for use in Wiki article space. It is a source that is used as a reliable reference in scholarship. They put Reason as, well, far from "far-right". Simon of course can have their own opinion on the source. Springee (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Please do cite research from other countries that uses it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::OK...

::::::::::::::Here is a paper with contributors across the US and Europe: Grant MD, Markowitz DM, Sherman DK, et al. Ideological diversity of media consumption predicts COVID-19 vaccination. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):1-15. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-77408-4.[https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=ad443d7f-b53f-4d41-9579-c483e1f89a54%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=181066026&db=a9h]

::::::::::::::This one is from Germany Michael H, Werner V. Hybrid News (in the) Making: A Content and Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis of Political Live Blogs on the 2020 US Presidential Debates. Journalism Practice. 2025;19(4):896-922. doi:10.1080/17512786.2023.2215254[https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=f2a1a429-fad3-4c71-a056-03575604a556%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=184162596&db=ufh].

::::::::::::::This one is from the Philippines, Panao RAL, Gache AJL. Level field? Sports, soft power and the liberal democratic bias. International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics. 2024;16(4):675-691. doi:10.1080/19406940.2024.2356590 [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=40a566e7-1fce-4a29-8323-8b747605ed75%40redis].

::::::::::::::This one is from a land down under Abid A, Harrigan P, Wang S, Roy SK, Harper T. Social media in politics: how to drive engagement and strengthen relationships. Journal of Marketing Management. 2023;39(3/4):298-337. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2022.2117235 [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=d231e31f-10be-4824-baf3-222ac854a763%40redis].

::::::::::::::These authors are from Japan and Poland Szwoch J, Staszkow M, Rzepka R, Araki K. Limitations of Large Language Models in Propaganda Detection Task. Applied Sciences (2076-3417). 2024;14(10):4330. doi:10.3390/app14104330[https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=d92b53e3-020f-4f5c-81b6-c68d1c400b77%40redis]

::::::::::::::I found quite a few more and I will grant that the degree to which the papers use Adfontes varies. In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference. Springee (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Your first and fourth citations are for research carried out in the US. Your second citation is research about reporting on US presidential debates. Your fifth citation merely mentions it without using it in any way. Congrats: you came up with a single article (the third citation) where the researchers were not focused on the US and used Ad Fontes as a reference, and oh, look, it was mentioned briefly with respect to a grand total of one news source. So let me be clearer: I'm not asking about researchers in other countries carrying out research focused on the US (e.g., using Americans as subjects), and I'm not asking about researchers who simply mention it without making significant use of it in their actual research. I'm asking about researchers in other countries doing research on other countries and using it in a significant way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I think you are moving the goal posts. People say AdFontes isn't reliable so we show it's used as a reference in scholarship. Then the claim is it's only used in the US. Then I show researchers outside of the US using it. Now you are trying to find nits to pick with that. Look, using the Wiki library I found 65 hits for peer reviewed papers that used it. Are all of them good? I suspect not. I think I even said as much, "In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference". If you want sort through and dismiss all 65 hits, be my guest. Springee (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I'm simply clarifying what I was asking for when I said "Please do cite research from other countries that uses it." I wasn't looking for researchers from other countries using it for research about the US. I was not asking for researchers from other countries who mention it without using it. "using the Wiki library I found 65 hits for peer reviewed papers that used it." Unless you read each of them, you have no idea whether they used it or if they simply mentioned it without using it. I already pointed out that one of the five references you cited fell in the latter category. Contrary to your claim "I even said as much, 'In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference,'" in that article, it was not "a supporting reference." It appeared nowhere in the references. If you think that I'm going to go through other WML articles on your behalf to investigate your claim, you're kidding yourself. I already told you two reasons that its bias ratings are not reliable from a global perspective. You couldn't bring yourself to address either one of them. Here's a third: there is no objective way to establish where "neutral" is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I'm sorry I'm unable to navigate the rules you wish to apply to show that a source is used in peer reviewed scholarship in a way that you find acceptable. Springee (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I didn't say that its use in research was "unacceptable." I pointed out that (a) Ad Fontes is US-centric, (b) it does not provide sufficient information to know whether they've taken a representative sample of reporting (or even what it would mean for the sample to be representative), and (c) the way in which it mathematizes subjective judgements has significant problems. These issues exist notwithstanding that some researchers focused mostly on US-related research use it, perhaps never having considered these issues. You haven't attempted to address any of them. Feature (a) alone is reason not to use it on en.wiki, because en.wiki is not a US wiki (in the sense that neither the subjects nor the editors are limited to the US). FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I thought Reason was centre-right / libertarian? Void if removed (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Adfontes is a pile of crap that is just regurgitating US popular opinion, but saying that Reason is not far-right (unless it's reporting has taken a severe turn since I last looked at it). Definitely right wing, don't get me wrong, just not far-right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::A paper out of MIT found they were pretty good, Lin, Hause, Jana Lasser, Stephan Lewandowsky, Rocky Cole, Andrew Gully, David Rand, and Gordon Pennycook. "High level of agreement across different news domain quality ratings." (2022). Other peer reviewed sources have used these rating groups as references in their research. Springee (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::OK they have been used in research in a way that regurgitates US public opinion. In a lot of research that's fine, if it's about US politics for instances. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Adfontes is garbage but it shifts the Overton window to correspond to a world view where the Democrats are "center left" and the Republicans are "center right" so lots of Americans like to use it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why would you exclude advocacy organizations as sources for statements of fact? Consider, for example, the Innocence Project, which is used as a source for multiple entries in List of exonerated death row inmates. Why would you reject them as a source for that factual information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would not exclude something like Innocence Project… but I would use in-text attribution when we take factual info from them. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you wouldn't exclude the Innocence Project, then how would you modify your proposal that "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact"? As for in-text attribution, that list doesn't have in-text attribution for any of the information. What would you say: "According to the Innocence Project, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were convicted in 1985 and exonerated in 1995"? Why do you think that needs to be attributed? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wouldn't there be independent RSs that could back back the claims? Springee (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's irrelevant to my questions to Blueboar. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps I am overly skeptical, but I don’t trust any advocacy org to present data without massaging it to better fit their stated goals. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think you're overly skeptical. I don't even know how one would massage the year of conviction and exoneration. I don't think you're going to get very far in changing other editors' minds if you first say "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion," then say that you'd accept a specific advocacy organization for some statements of fact as long as it's attributed, but then won't clarify what you're actually advocating. If all you're advocating is something like "we should be skeptical about statements of fact that come from advocacy organizations and should determine that on a case-by-case basis," I think that's already the case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As far as reliability goes… I don’t think we should choose on a case by case basis… I think we should use in-text attribution for all advocacy groups (regardless of their advocacy). Shift the discussion to DUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Of course we have to make reliability assessments on a case-by-case basis. That's what WP:RS requires.

::::::::If all you're saying is "we should use in-text attribution for all advocacy groups," OK, but that's very different from "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion." Attribution does not imply opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Conflating acquittal and exoneration is an obvious response. But in any case, it’s irrelevant. Our porcine friend is speaking sense. Riposte97 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Often not. The topic area of far-right people has a paucity of other sourcing, when it comes to modern people atleast. Even the academia on the subject often just treats SPLC stuff as gospel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's extremely common for advocacy groups to be leading sources of factual data and also publish opinionated commentary. One does not detract from the other, just as a newspaper's opinion columns do not detract from its news reporting. A local historic preservation organization might maintain an architecture database while also lobbying the city to reject modernist building proposals, or a wildlife organization known for its annual volunteer bird survey might push for habitat restoration projects. Like any reliable source, we should cite them for facts in wikivoice and use in-text attribution for opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :My concerns are that advocacy groups are prone to “spinning” (or manipulating) data… downplaying or ignoring data that does not further their agenda and highlighting data that does. This can be quite subtle. Their conclusions (opinion) can often be very important to mention… but we should look for unbiased sources for raw facts. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::What about Hatewatch specifically? Does Hatewatch manipulate data? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Probably (and no I don’t have “evidence”). However, I would be surprised if they didn't. They are an advocacy website. It’s the nature of the beast. I assume that they ALL do (no matter what the cause of their advocacy might be). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Now we have a starting point. Can you provide examples of Hatewatch manipulating data, or is it just a vibe? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|My concerns are that advocacy groups are prone to “spinning” (or manipulating) data… downplaying or ignoring data that does not further their agenda and highlighting data that does.}}
• ::This is no different than many mainstream media sources which are considered to be generally reliable. Per WP:POVSOURCE having a bias, which includes on what data is more pertinent, does not speak to a sources reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:The thing is with far-right people there really isn't much other coverage in many cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::As someone who edits in this topic area a lot, I would oppose any attempt to always require in-text attribution for the SPLC. For specific claims that are especially contentious, yes, but that isn't unique to them, and for "hate group" status. But while they come from an explicitly against the subject matter angle, that is also the case for almost all academic sourcing on the matter, so the SPLC isn't any worse. I do not think it has an impact on their factual accuracy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Entirely agree. I also edit a far bit about subjects on the far-right and it can often be a challenge finding sourcing which goes into depth on the politics of such subjects. Often mainstream reporting will only go into detail on the subjects in regards to the events that they are involved in. That sources which do go into detail about subjects' politics have a bias against hate doesn't make them any less reliable. This is clearly covered in WP:POVSOURCE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• My 2c is that advocacy sources as a category - by which I assume we mean think tanks and NGOs that have a demonstrable political POV and tend to fall into a partisan lean - which could, in my view, also include sources that claim or aspire to be nonpartisan - are less reliable than journalistic sources that have oversight, and less reliable than academic or expert books, journal articles, and other publications. Even a magazine article in the New Yorker will undergo a lot of fact checking and editing and a corrections process. A blog on an NGO or think tank could have a single author and no oversight, no different than any other blog except for a higher level of presumed prestige and funding. But nonprofits, charities, etc., do not necessarily have a reputation for accuracy. Some do, and those should be treated that way on a case-by-case basis. When challenged or for controversial matters, I tend to think that the category of groups like SPLC and Hatewatch should not be treated as academic unless a specific piece of content from them is cited by a reliable expert academic and that academic also has a high reputation for accuracy. In terms of bias, a reliable biased source should be attributed and not used in Wikivoice, and it should be contrasted with other POVs. Disclaimer: I have no idea what this particular thread is really about as pertaining to specifics. In my experience SPLC is generally reliable but if there is something controversial coming from there it should be attributed, balanced, and maybe omitted if other RS are not talking about or citing it. Andre🚐 22:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Advocacy sources"? Every publication has an agenda. Some hide it better than others, but every news outlet out there is advocating for something. This thread is becoming unwieldly quickly, we should have an RFC on Hatewatch and be done with it. Litigating Wikipedia policy regarding classification of sources is offtopic and beyond the scope of this discussion. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What would the RfC do? We've had quite a few on the SPLC already. And what is an RfC if not a timesink that will make this even more unwieldy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::This isn't about the SPLC, which is listed at RSP. This thread is about Hatewatch. From the OP: {{tq|the status of Hatewatch and whether it constitutes a different level of reliability than that of the SPLC}}. There are editors who think it does and there are editors who think it doesn't. How do we overcome the impasse except with an RFC? This discussion satisfies RFCBEFORE. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::As a clerking issue if a RFC is started can we please do so in a separate section. The board is rather bloated at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No, a RSN RfC should be on the RSN page. It should not be on a separate page where people who watch this page won't see it. Springee (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Just to be clear I only said separate section not a separate page. Having a separate section allows this discussion to be archived without having to wait 30+ days for the RFC to be closed. I'm not opposed to having it on a seperate page, or on RSN in a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::OK, I'm 100% in agreement on making the RfC a separate section from this discussion. Springee (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Yeah I have no problem with that, we just don't need to keep this pre-discussion on the board for the whole time. I'm going to remain neutral on whether it's should be here or on a separate page as long as proper notifications go out . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Labelling sources as advocacy to filter out which content to attribute to them inline is quite a task and such a broad policy/guideline/precedence will be hard to implement. Focusing on [advocacy?] sources (like SPLC) which we already deem RS or acceptable, we already do attribute (contentious) labels to these sources especially for BLPs. To say that we need to put this into overdrive and attribute every statement coming from these sources is untenable. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: I think you are onto something here, but I don't think it's as easy as saying advocacy group = opinion. For example, [https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/antigovernment-leader-ammon-bundy-loses-pandemic-era-court-case-idaho/ this article] contains the sentence {{tq|Bundy and others were charged with misdemeanors for trespassing and resisting and obstructing officers.}} which seems straightforwardly factual (I haven't attempted to verify it; I know nothing about this case and only picked this article because it was top of the list on their homepage). So an advocacy source should, in principle, be usable as a source of facts. In practice though, we know that advocacy groups exist to manipulate public opinion, and so using them as a source requires a high degree of media literacy to sift the fact from the framing. They should not be used to support use of contentious labels or value-judgements. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Part of the issue there would be that the Murdoch owned media exists to manipulate public opinions in favour of Ruperts own believes, that behaviour isn't something limited to such groups. Saying that I like attribution would probably be for the best in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center#RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think those are quite the right questions. Can we pull the RfC back and workshop the questions first? Springee (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, why isn't that RfC on the normal RSN page? Is it a new thing to put RfCs on a separate page? Springee (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Springee, the RFC is own its own page because of a comment above by @ActivelyDisinterested. One which I happen to agree with. TarnishedPath^talk 12:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not agree that RfCs should be on some page other than the RfC home page. That isn't a thing and it tends to hide the discussion from those who aren't already involved or who are just watching this page. Springee (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::RFCs being on subpages is specifically discussed at WP:RFCOPEN which states:

:::::{{tq|In some situations, such as when you expect an extremely high number of comments or there is no obviously relevant talk page, you may instead place an RfC discussion on a subpage of an appropriate, relevant page}}.

:::::It's not about hiding discussion, it's above making it easier both for other users of this page and for the closer. Besides which I've pinged everyone from this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is not the same thing as some of the super long RfCs we have had in the past. Also, everyone in "this" discussion isn't the idea. The idea is to get the widest input possible. Hiding the discussion off the RSN page doesn't serve that end. Springee (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ps, the questions don't have to dictate the direction in which the discussion goes. Any decent close should evaluate consensus on the basis of the discussion, not on the basis of !votes or the question. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::However, in a case like this it would be good to propose the questions to the group first. I agree with looking at the Hatewatch articles separate from the reports/statements of the SPLC but it also might be useful to ask about their use in things like BLPs cases. Springee (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::People can cover that in their comments if they wish. If for example there was consensus of participants who stated that it should not be used in BLPs, even if that is picked up by the option 1 to 4 !votes, I would expect a close to reflect that and I'd say it would be open to challenge if it didn't. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Move RFC to RSN page What is the correct process for moving that discussion to this page (as a new topic)? ActivelyDisinterested's valid concerns about section size would be addressed simply by making the RfC a new topic on this page. Having the RfC on a separate page is problematic since, if this discussion is archived before that RfC closes, there will be no RSN topic on or link to what is supposed to be a RSN discussion. It's also not clear where such a discussion would be archived since the RSN auto archive would have to merge that subpage into this primary page. Springee (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::(Again neutral on whether it's on RSN or in a new section) If this is put on a new page I'll add a section stating such and make sure it's not archived before the RFC is closed. I think it was the heritage RFC that moved to a separate page once it grew to several tomats, and I did the same for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}, were you initially asking to split the RFC into a new section or a new page? I took it as the former and I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding? –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes I only meant a new section, maybe I could have been clearer. Personally I'm not opposed to having the RFC on RSN or on a separate page. Notification can be sent and maintained either way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I’d prefer that it be kept to this page, when it’s ready. However, I don’t think the RfC as formulated by TP is particularly close to where the discussion above has moved. Riposte97 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Since it seems like nobody actually wants it on the separate page, let's just move it back here before it gets any more responses. I'd do it myself but I'm away from my PC at the moment. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've just moved the RFC. It is now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::IMO close that premature RFC and when one does open, open it here and stick to what this is about, ie the difference between SPLC and Hatewatch. Doesn't make sense to have a new RFC on SPLC suddenly with no RFCBEFORE. Void if removed (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There has been plenty of discussion on SPLC previously. That some editors have called into question its reliability above speaks to the need for an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|TarnishedPath}} Thanks for getting the RfC started and for the ping. I agree with others that it's a bit premature to open it, however, so will not be !voting at this point. I think the questions need to be workshopped a bit more, and ideally this would be an RfC that encompasses more than just the SPLC and its reliability - such as expanding it to cover "if advocacy-based sources are used, do they (and if so when) need to be attributed in text". There can be subquestions about the SPLC specifically, but I'd like to see it be expanded. If people don't want it expanded, I still think the questions should be workshopped some more. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::FWIW, I'd identified the following questions earlier, when I was trying to understand what Simonm223 was hoping to resolve in starting this RSN discussion:

::* Is Hatewatch less reliable than other SPLC publications? (And perhaps: even if it is, is it still sufficiently reliable to be considered GREL?)

::* Should Hatewatch be considered an SPS? (for purposes of BLPSPS)

::* Have either of these characteristics shifted over time?

::Another issue that several people have discussed is:

::* Should Hatewatch be identified as a "blog" in the body of an article that uses it as a reference, and has that changed over time?

::I think the first question that TarnishedPath asked is a good replacement for the first bullet above. TarnishedPath also proposed a question about SPLC more generally:

::* What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

::I, personally, would oppose asking about advocacy organizations overall. If you want to ask about that, I'd create a separate RfC for it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think questions along the lines of "if advocacy-based sources are used, do they (and if so when) need to be attributed in text?" are broader and separate questions and I'd suggest perhaps questions that need to happen on the talk pages of the relevant policies. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I found [https://www.askbd.org/ask/2024/12/31/violence-against-religious-minorities-jan-dec-2024/ this] statistics by a human rights organization called Ain o Salish kendra. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I wanted to know whether it can be used as a source on wikipedia.

Thanks! Ffmyfydtfdtf (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:They should be reliable, but it might be useful to include inline attribution (e.g. "According to Ain o Salish Kendra such and such ..."). Is there something specific you want to use the source for? It would help with giving a more specific answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Seems good for inclusion, but statements in an article should be clearly attributed to the organization whether they are controversial or not. Orientls (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that there have been quite extensive debates about reliability of high-profile state news agencies such as Associated Press (US), Agence France-Presse, Anadolu Agency (Turkey), TASS (Russia) etc. but basically none about the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (German News Agency), or DPA. Even though DPA is cited in a lot in English Wikipedia articles.

Here is a short list of examples where Deutsche Presse-Agentur is currently cited:

• Kim Jong Un and his statements regarding reunification of Korea, 31 December 2013
• Oktoberfest bombings: DPA's claim that the bombings were Germany's deadliest since 1945, statements that 1980 investigation closed in Nov 1982 and that the case reopened in 2014 after public campaign led by relatives, victim representatives, lawyers, journalists and politicians
• M. M. Warburg & CO and tax evasion court cases
• Digital goods: court case UsedSoft GMbH v. Oracle International Corp.
• Halle synagogue shooting
• WhatsApp and threats to block by Irani government
• 2008 Sichuan earthquake and interview with Australian seismologist Gary Gibson
• Murder of Ursula Herrmann: perpetrator Werner Mazurek apparently scheduled for release in June 2023
• 2009 swine flu pandemic and claim that in Hong Kong an entire hotel was quarantined with 240 guests
• War in Somalia (2006-2009) and interviews with Somali officials about summer 2009 incursions
• Qatif conflict and activist Faisal Ahmed Abdul-Ahad’s alleged murder by Saudi forces
• War crimes in the Gaza war and the UNOCHA spokesperson's evaluation of Rafah evacuation
• Gaza Freedom Flotilla and claim that about 2/3 of the medicine was long expired
• Catholic Church sexual abuse cases: apparently in Italy over 300 cases were opened with 150-170 convictions
• AfD pro-Russia movement and statements that parts of AfD spread Russian narratives which contribute to expansion of right-wing extremism
• Anastasia Baburova and her investigation of Russian Neo-Nazi groups
• Haenel MK 556
• 2015 US Open's prize money
• 2010 FIFA World Cup final and Lionel Messi's complaints about vuvuzelas
• That Adolescence (highly popular British TV series) is a psychological drama

Again, this is just a sample, and as you can see, it is really large and there are all sorts of topics. I tried to point out rather high-profile topics, but as you can see DPA is used in articles about politics, sports, entertainment, sensitive and non-sensitive topics, within Germany and international, you name it.

Now, at first glance it seems to be a no-brainer, and there is no reason to question its reliability. And in general, news agencies from Western Europe seemingly have a solid reputation. However, this section of the article about DPA makes me question this, as apparently there have been accusations of agenda-pushing, potential non-transparency and not-so-good fact checking. That makes me question how freely can we cite articles written by DPA, especially when it comes to sensitive topics.

Nonetheless, I'd like to know what is the opinion from the more experienced Wikipedia editors, and whether we could consider DPA reliable for:

• politics within Germany, Europe and worldwide
• wars and terrorist attacks happening within Germany, Europe, Africa and Middle East
• other high-profile incidents within Germany and internationally
• sports and entertainment, whether it's Germany-exclusive or of international merits

Kacza195 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{moved from|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751169671}}

{{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=417C126}}

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC for WP:RFCBEFORE.

Please also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&search=southern+poverty+law+center&ns0=1 this search] for discussions involving SPLC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging @PARAKANYAA, @Gotitbro, @ActivelyDisinterested, @AndreJustAndre, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Berchanhimez, @Black Kite, @Blueboar, @Dlthewave, @FactOrOpinion, @TurboSuperA+, @PackMecEng, @Springee, @Simonm223, @MjolnirPants, @Rhododendrites, @Horse Eye's Back and @Riposte97 as editors involved in the discussion over on the main WP:RS/N page. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

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

11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1.5 generally reliable, should always be attributed, prefer academic sources when available. The SPLC is an advocacy group and should be handled accordingly but I would suggest it represents effectively the gold standard for advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• 1 generally reliable, should only be attributed in the circumstances where any source should be attributed (e.g. it conflicts with other known sources) or in opinion-based designations like hate groups. Always requiring attribution would make it useless for actually providing information besides x is a hate group which already requires attribution. A substantial portion of modern academia on the far-right is just laundering SPLC reports and is just as advocacy oriented, so judging them for that seems absurd to me. They're going to be advocacy sources because of the subject matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - since they are frequently used to support contentious labels about living people and groups with BLP implications, of course there needs to be additional considerations per BLP and NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I still think this RfC was undercooked and I would like for it to be beyond this one advocacy source.. but since that's probably a pipe dream to get a consensus on (not saying this is the opener's fault at all, it would just be unweildy)... The labels that SPLC provides are contentious, as Isaidnoway points out above. They should be attributed at all times. The SPLC is reliable for what the SPLC says - they are not reliable to unilaterally apply a label to an organization for us to say it in wikivoice, even if no other source has even addressed the topic. In other words, SPLC-based information should always be attributed, at a minimum. But for their view on an organization/person/event/etc. they are of course reliable for their view on that topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• This RfC is undercooked. The discussion is continuing to advance on the main page. This should be closed for now (and probably copied to the parent page). Riposte97 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

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

11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1.5 generally reliable, should always be attributed, prefer academic sources when available. This has been my position throughout this discussion and nothing in the discussion above has really moved the needle. There is no substantial evidence that Hatewatch is differently reliable from the rest of the SPLC. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• 1 generally reliable, should only be attributed in the circumstances where any source should be attributed or in opinion-based designations like hate groups. A substantial portion of modern academia on the far-right is just laundering SPLC reports and is just as advocacy oriented, so I see it as mostly comparable, if a bit less rigorous. They're going to be advocacy sources because of the subject matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. I have seen zero evidence that the Hatewatch portion of the SPLC site is subject to the same academic/investigatory rigor as is other things the SPLC publishes. And bluntly, there's a reason things are published on Hatewatch rather than being published as SPLC statements/views. Until there is evidence otherwise, we should assume it's being published on Hatewatch because it wasn't suitable to be published elsewhere by the SPLC. In other words, pending any legitimate and rigorous editorial policy for Hatewatch being presented, we should not allow it to "assume" the status of reliable that SPLC has. During the BEFORE discussion, there was ample time for people to produce evidence of Hatewatch's editorial policy/how "connected" it was to the SPLC as a whole. As of yet, there has been no such evidence provided. In other words, it should be treated as no different than any other blog or any editorial that comes from an otherwise reliable source until we have evidence otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• To be clear, if this results in anything other than "generally unreliable", it should still be attributed in text, even more so than general SPLC views/statements should be attributed. It would be doing a disservice to our readers to state things as fact that were published on a lesser portion of the SPLC site without making it abundantly clear that it's their view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"we should assume it's being published on Hatewatch because it wasn't suitable to be published elsewhere by the SPLC".... why should we assume that? It's just the title of a specific kind of post they make. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::So OpEds by the NYT should be considered "just the title of a specific kind of post they make"? Obviously not. There's a reason they're posted on a blog rather than as a fully SPLC-backed publication. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::A blog is a type of website with posts in reverse chronological order. Post order has no impact on reliability, unlike opinion articles. There is no evidence that Hatewatch is positioned as a lesser venture in any way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I have seen zero evidence that an article is {{tq|1=being published on Hatewatch because it wasn't suitable to be published elsewhere by the SPLC.}}
  {{tq|During the BEFORE discussion, there was ample time for people to produce evidence of Hatewatch's editorial policy/how "connected" it was to the SPLC as a whole. As of yet, there has been no such evidence provided.}}
  That isn't entirely true. This comment was pointed out to you, but you dismissed it as proof of only "that they are staffed from somewhere else". But that "somewhere else" is the SPLC:

::* {{tq|"Shortly thereafter it initiated the Klanwatch project (later renamed the Intelligence Project) to monitor organized hate activity, including antigovernment militia movements and political extremist groups."}} [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Southern-Poverty-Law-Center]

::* {{tq|The Intelligence Project is a department of the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)}} [https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/intelligence-project]

::* {{tq|Heidi Beirich leads the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which publishes the award-winning Intelligence Report and the Hatewatch blog. She is an expert on various forms of extremism, including the white supremacist, nativist, and neo-Confederate movements as well as racism in academia.}} [https://www.aspenideas.org/speakers/heidi-beirich]

::{{pb}}And here are RS and academic sources to establish the Intelligence Project as a reputable organisation: [https://www.mpbonline.org/blogs/news/the-southern-poverty-law-center-finds-seven-hate-groups-in-mississippi-in-2024/] [https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=clr] [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center] [https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/imo/media/doc/corke_testimony_field_100322.pdf] [https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/splc] TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Option 1: Generally reliable for topics about right-wing extremism and fascism in the United States. In case of BLPs, their statements should be attributed. Same designation as for SPLC over on WP:RSP. My reasoning is in this comment where I have shown that: 1) Hatewatch is run by the Intelligence Project, which has been a part of SPLC since the 70s; 2) the IP and HW are both recognised as "award-winning"; 3) the person who runs it and those who write for it can be considered experts (on account of their PhDs and/or being published in other RSs; 4) director of the Intelligence Project has been called to testify in Congress on matters of right-wing extremism in the United States.

: TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• As so often happens with advocacy sources, we are focused on reliability when we should focus on DUE WEIGHT… I suspect most people would say that the opinions of the SPLC should be given a fair amount of weight… but does that carry over to their Hatewatch website? Not so sure. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

At Arum cyrenaicum, I have used this 2024 source to provide this rare species with a morphological description. It is the {{emphasis|only}} such description made to modern standards, and for parts of the plant the only description ever published. There has been a discussion on the talk page of the article between myself and @Headbomb. The allegation is that, because Beall identified the publisher of the journal as potentially predatory about a decade ago, the source cannot be cited. The editor in question initially removed the source less than a minute after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_Sleepers&oldid=1291979805 a similar edit], and at that pace may have understandably missed an evaluation of the authors' work. [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GEFPPvAAAAAJ Salih] and [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4qMlGucAAAAJ Abdulrraziq] are both plant physiologists at Omar Al-Mukhtar University, and have been cited in BMC Plant Biology,{{cite journal |date=2023-11-16 |first=Hang |last=Zhou |display-authors=etal |title=Transcriptomics and physiology reveal the mechanism of potassium indole-3-butyrate (IBAK) mediating rice resistance to salt stress |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12870-023-04531-1 |doi=10.1186/s12870-023-04531-1 |journal=BMC Plant Biology |issn=1471-2229 |volume=23}} Izvestia KSTU, and many other indisputably non-predatory journals. More importantly, it is not being cited for any evaluation made in the paper. Only for the morphological description of A. cyrenaicum. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}} Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)