Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#rfc 9BC72B4

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745064076}}

There was a previous discussion of this source here.

Use of source: This source is mostly used on "List of destinations" articles to justify inclusion of a current or previous airline/airport route. e.g. List_of_Air_Caraïbes_destinations (3 citations), List_of_British_Airways_destinations (12 citations), and so on. The previous discussion found that it is used in over 807 articles.

Why is it relevant? There was consensus in a Village Pump RfC that any airline destinations included in Wikipedia must have a WP:RS citation.

RFC: What should RoutesOnline.com [https://www.routesonline.com] be designated as?

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

TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Comment.

:* Here is their [https://www.routesonline.com/about-routes/media-centre/| media centre] overview, I can't find any editorial guidelines.

:* The company [https://www.routesonline.com/about-routes/| describes itself] as:

:{{blockquote|text=The Routes business is focused entirely on aviation route development and the company's portfolio includes events, media and online businesses. The company organises and operates world-renowned airline and airport networking events through its regional and World Route Development Forums. They are held in key markets throughout the year in Asia, Europe and the Americas. These events are supported by the online platform for air service development, Routes 360, which provides airports, tourism authorities and aviation suppliers with the ability to promote their market opportunities and acts as the airline industry's central source of market data and route development information. Register with us today, create your free personal profile and start connecting with the route development community online. Visit our events listing for a full list of upcoming events, find out all the latest route development news and analysis in our news area, listen to our latest podcasts and sign-up to Routes 360 for more opportunities to expand your network and join a global community of air service development professionals. Routes is part of the Aviation Week Network and is an Informa business.}}

:Pings: @FOARP, @Jayron32, @BilledMammal, @Oknazevad since you participated in the previous discussion. I also notified WP:Airlines and WP:Airports. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. The references used on wikipedia seem to contain very few or no significant errors. We should remember that the world is not perfect - perfect sources do not exist. We have already decided that neither an airline website nor airport website can be used because they are considered non-independent - but people who want to buy air tickets are happy to rely on airline websites when paying (substantial) money. If we ask too much of a source, we will likely end up with nothing at all - we have to work with the real world, not a theoretical one. Pmbma (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• It looks related to Aviation Week, which appears to be a generally reliable source. SportingFlyer T·C 12:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Not an independent source (option 3 if an option is needed) - This is basically a blog run by a firm whose main income comes from arranging events for airlines. Coverage is always information that comes direct from airline announcements. FOARP (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way, or at least all the references I checked were simple announcements. These wouldn't be independent, but that doesn't make them unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 - It always depends on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and without having a specific edits/cite in view, you really cannot tell. I will say it’s a rather niche topic, so one cannot expect much, and that googling does turn up at least some third-party mentions that look good, in sources such as aviation week or [https://askpot.com/directory/routesonline.com askpot] which seem to show that others think it is reasonable to use. (Though I could also say the same about Daily Mail 8-) ) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Gut feeling of option 3. Just from looking through their About Us and Meet the Team links, it seems painfully generic and slightly unprofessional. This source just doesn't quite feel like a Legitimate Source (TM). (Hello from WP:RFCA!) guninvalid (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option 1 for routes. Reliable trade publication that is part of Aviation Week can be trusted to know where airlines fly. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think the real question being asked here is whether they contribute to notability: the answer is "of course not", because it's industry press. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Know Your Meme being listed as unreliable with the reason that it's user-generated is senseless. There are admins that control and overview everything to make sure there is nothing fake going around, just like on Wikipedia. And KYM is one of the best and most reliable sites to look at when the topic is about memes, which is why it's user-generated. I'd understand a website being unreliable if it's e.g. about politics and user-generated but you cannot compare politics with internet memes and trends. I don't know who decides what's reliable and what isn't, but I'd suggest making KYM a reliable source or atleast the unclear level. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:The issue simply is that just like Wikipedia all user generated sources are unreliable for the purposes of referencing, see WP:USERGENERATED. Know Your Meme is even listed as an example of the kind of websites that the guidance of USERGENERATED covers. So it's not so much that KYM alone is unreliable, but that it's part of a whole category of sites that are not used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Doesn't KYM have staff articles though? Has anyone done WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis on those? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::They do but those always nearly include reliable sources as references which are far better suited for WP to use. — Masem (t) 23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:literally all of what they document is just WP:SOCIALMEDIA chatter and goofy stuff that will be irrelevant in 10 years {{--}} I see no good reason why they need the time of day with WP:ROUTINE coverage. BarntToust 00:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, All Your Base has passed not only the 10-year test, but also the 20-year test, and is now coming up on a quarter century (even its Wikipedia article is from 2002) -- but who's counting? jp×g🗯️ 06:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::yeah, yeah. for every "grumpy cat" there's literal millions of 2-seconds-in-the-spotlight random memes that become a shroud in lost memory in no time flat. BarntToust 11:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::What they report on is irrelevant. They're not a reliable source because they don't have professional, credentialed writers, editorial oversight/policy, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, we established that. I'm talking about how the content of the sources is WP:ROUTINE. It's not like IMDB where something of a goal for factual content exists; this site is just random internet chatter. BarntToust 03:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wrong again. ROUTINE has to do with notability, not reliability. Routine coverage can still be reliable. Regardless, at lease we already have a pretty strong consensus against KYM for the right reasons, so this isn't really derailing things. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Sergecross73, the proposal is clearly failing in a way concerning both aspects of why KYM is not fit for Wikipedia: they of course are looking at questioning reliability, and that is one way to knock it out; they believe that the content within should be cleared for use in Wikipedia articles, and their coverage is largely {{tq|run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out}}. The poster seems to be proposing the concept that Wikipedia should be adding a bunch of dogbitesman stuff (regardless of the editorial capacities being nyet); I could be wrong, but I'm just doing my best to read into OP's motive and thought process. BarntToust 13:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You're perfectly right that WP has consensus against KYM for the {{em|right}} reasons, but I'm observing that the OP is wanting to clear a source known for routine coverage of miscellaneous memes that happen to trend for a day or two; I'm concerned about their understanding of what encyclopedic content is defined as. BarntToust 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Definitely agree that the discussion starter doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards for source reliability. But neither do you if you're citing things like WP:ROUTINE (a subsection of WP:NEVENTS.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::In order for a meme to catch the notice of a user-contributor, does it not have to become popular to a point? Assessing that a meme becoming popular enough (say, a hundred thousand views or around a million) to spread, is that not a routine event to note that a meme got really popular, enough so to catch the interest of some rando? I typically note that contributors write about the amount of views a meme got. Whatever, you'll have one way of appraising the significance of memes, I have another. Don't insinuate I have no idea how policies work, Serge. BarntToust 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That's the other half of the problem - we're not here to "appraise memes". We're here to outline the reliability of a source. In case you've forgotten, we're on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and the question was "Why isn't this source reliable". Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I was attempting to bring up the implication of the OP wanting to bring in content cited to a source that publishes coverage of memes, that happen to get popular randomly. I was looking to assert that what KYM publishes is systematically wrong, and beyond them being of questionable editorial practice{{--}}WP:USERGENERATED{{--}}that Wikipedia doesn't cover much of their offerings. What does the OP's want to use a source that publishes a bunch of content with all the issues I attempted to raise above, say about what the OP believes is content fit for an encyclopedia? Whatever. Clearly my line of thinking hasn't gotten through. Toodle-pip, cheerio. BarntToust 02:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Sure, great, we're on a noticeboard for reliable sources. I'm pretty sure it isn't written in the tablets that God gave Moses, much less anywhere else, that it is the supreme law we mustn't discuss other aspects of sources presented here. BarntToust 02:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:On one hand, on basic principle I'd be inclined to agree that otherwise low-quality sites are a usable source for very limited types of information about memes and web culture. However, KnowYourMeme, specifically, is very frequently incorrect, and people who write entries there often make shit up (e.g. the year of a meme's origin being confidently asserted several years late because the website it came from died many years ago and didn't show up on a quick Google search). Most of the time, I would literally rather cite Encyclopedia Dramatica than KYM. jp×g🗯️ 06:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Being {{tq|just like on Wikipedia}} isn't an argument that helps your case here; Wikipedia itself is considered WP:USERGENERATED under our policies and cannot be used as a source here. That degree of admin-ing is simply not sufficient to qualify them for the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that Wikipedia requires. While RSP isn't absolute, in practice the only real sign that a particular KYM article is an exception and therefore reliable would be secondary coverage, and in that case we could just use the secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:three words. self published source brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 02:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• At the very least, KYM articles that are marked as "Confirmed" may be stated as such (as that specifically requires editorial oversight from KYM staff and is valid per WP:V, since it is describing what KYM says), but the content in a non-Confirmed KYM article should not normally be used as a source per WP:UGC, and it especially should not be used in WP:BLP. Content from KYM should certainly should not be used in WP:WIKIVOICE. But something like {{tq|According to its entry on Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" holds a "Confirmed" status, meaning it has undergone the site's official editorial review process and verification by KYM staff.}} or {{tq|According to Know Your Meme, "Grumpy Cat" originally spawned from a 2012 post on /r/pics.}}, referencing verifiable content with attribution, is acceptable for articles on Internet memes and web culture, provided that the KYM article on the subject is marked as Confirmed. 31.214.141.76 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Simply having "staff" is not enough though. Who are they? What are their credentials? What is their editorial policy/oversight? Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::To be clear, I'm the IP, which was blocked for being an open proxy. The Know Your Meme [https://knowyourmeme.com/guidelines guidelines] state {{tq|Our expert staff and global research community chronicle the internet’s most significant trends and moments.}} and {{tq|Know Your Meme staff review and fact-check content thoroughly. We are careful to cite only reliable sources and strive to provide an impartial and balanced variety of perspectives. We are committed to updating content as new information appears, particularly for evolving stories or trends.}}. Their [https://knowyourmeme.com/news/staff editorial staff] is verifiable on their website. Further, they assert that {{tq|We take errors very seriously and are quick to correct them when they occur. Major inaccuracies, not including minor typos or grammatical errors, are corrected promptly upon discovery and noted at the top of the article.}}
• ::As for how their articles are marked as Confirmed, their [https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/rules-and-guidelines/ Editorial Rules] (under "Entry Submission Guidelines") provides a set of concrete do-and-don't rules before the article is {{tq|properly researched and eventually confirmed}}. KYM confirmation is an editorial process that involves rigorous fact-checking and verification, and that isn't inherently less reliable than any other source. That others in this RSN attest to the fact that KYM is one of the best and most reliable sites for Internet culture suggests that an RfC be opened for confirmed (staff) articles on KYM specifically.
• ::As a final aside, whether or not the RfC passes or not, the statement {{tq|According to its entry on Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" holds a "Confirmed" status}} is still valid per WP:V as it is what KYM is saying, as long as it is used with attribution. Whether that statement is ultimately appropriate for the page (e.g. if the subject is not most strictly known for an Internet phenomenon per WP:UNDUE) should be determined on a case-by-case basis though. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• I don't actually disagree that KYM is "one of the best and most reliable sites to look at when the topic is about memes" but thats says much more about the sites that only cover memes than anything else... Important memes will get coverage from mainstream sources. While KYM's quality has been improving I don't think its to the point where it justifies actually changing their status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I made an RFC below for certain articles marked as "Confirmed" for use in a limited manner. I think it's not fair to group "Deadpool" and "Submission" level articles as the same as articles officially verified by KYM's editorial staff, so some consideration should be made there. Abayomi2003 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should Know Your Meme articles marked as "Confirmed" (i.e. verified by the editorial staff) be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture, when properly attributed?

{{Closed rfc top|1=Clear consensus that Know Your Meme articles are generally unreliable even if they are "confirmed" by staff writers. Most editors expressed concerns that either the content was still ultimately derived from user-generated content, or else even when ignoring the UGC issue the source was still unreliable. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)}}

[https://knowyourmeme.com/ Know Your Meme] (KYM) is a website dedicated to documenting internet memes and viral phenomena. According to their [https://knowyourmeme.com/about About page], {{tq|Know Your Meme's research is handled by an independent professional editorial and research staff and community members.}} The site features different categories of entries, including those marked as "Confirmed," which according to KYM have been carefully researched and verified by the research staff.

Currently, KYM is listed among user-generated content sources considered generally unreliable per WP:UGC. This RFC seeks to determine whether "Confirmed" articles on KYM, which have undergone editorial review and fact-checking by staff, should be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture.

Little discussion has been had about KYM articles marked as "Confirmed" in the past. The last time this was discussed was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#Citing_individual_Youtube_reviews_and_Know_Your_Meme 5 years ago], though this was when there was no information about KYM's editorial process or staff, and the result of the discussion was still unclear. Since then, KYM has developed a more robust editorial process with clear guidelines for verification and fact-checking, as outlined on their [https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/rules-and-guidelines/ Editorial Rules] page. The site now has an established team of professional editors with specific roles and responsibilities, and their "Confirmed" status has become a meaningful indicator of editorial review rather than merely user-generated content.

I propose that KYM articles clearly marked as "Confirmed" or written by staff (e.g. [https://trending.knowyourmeme.com/news/rumored-dan-hentschel-tv-show-on-max-has-fans-on-twitter-excited-but-it-seems-to-be-a-lie]) may be used as reliable sources for limited purposes in Wikipedia, specifically:

• For articles about internet memes and web culture
• When properly attributed (e.g., "According to Know Your Meme...")
• For factual information about the origin, spread, and evolution of memes
• Not for use in biographies of living persons
• Not to be used in Wikipedia's voice (WP:WIKIVOICE)

KYM's editorial process for "Confirmed" articles involves fact-checking and verification by professional staff. Their [https://knowyourmeme.com/guidelines guidelines] state that {{tq|Know Your Meme staff review and fact-check content thoroughly}} and that they {{tq|are careful to cite only reliable sources and strive to provide an impartial and balanced variety of perspectives.}} Their [https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/rules-and-guidelines/ editorial guidelines] clearly state the dos-and-dont's before a submission is {{tq|properly researched and eventually confirmed}}.

This RFC does not propose any changes to the status of KYM articles marked as "Submission" or "Deadpool", which would remain unreliable per WP:UGC. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• {{sbb}} No. Just because their content is "fact checked" by "staff" does not make them a reliable source. It's still user-generated content, at the end of the day. Besides that, I don't really know what exactly we need Know Your Meme for that we can't get from anywhere else. All they really "cite" are social media posts; if something is notable enough to have an article, we can do much better than Know Your Meme. And if they're our only source for something, I wouldn't think it belongs on here. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 22:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|Just because their content is "fact checked" by "staff" does not make them a reliable source.}} Yet, being user-generated content doesn't necessarily not make them a reliable source, e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS. {{tq|And if they're our only source for something, I wouldn't think it belongs on here.}} Yes, agreed; it should not count toward notability. But there are plenty of KYM articles that would be sufficient to supplement Wikipedia pages, e.g. [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/raise-your-dongers], [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dorito-face], which never reached "mainstream" notability but are still being used for List of emoticons. Perhaps I should clarify in the RfC that such usage of KYM should not count towards notability. Abayomi2003 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS}} also states {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}}. Are they subject-matter experts? What qualifications do they have? And have they been published by other reliable and independent sources?
• ::{{tq|there are plenty of KYM articles that would be sufficient to supplement Wikipedia pages}}. Sure, but why include them specifically? If it's notable, surely it's been covered in actually reliable and not self-published outlets. Also within EXPERTSPS is {{tq|if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources}}. If the argument is "we already have sources, but we can also use Know Your Meme", why do we need to supplement already referenced information with an unreliable source? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• No per SmittenGalaxy. And we should generally follow this rule, no amount of "confirmation" can guarantee accuracy when the original author is an amateur. I would apply exactly the same principle, for example, to the recent spate of online Encyclopedia Britannica articles, which are written by random bloggers and "checked" by subject's editorial team. Unsurprisingly the quality is usually several notches below the standard set by the old print Britannica. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tpq|no amount of "confirmation" can guarantee accuracy when the original author is an amateur.}} without commenting on KYM specifically (I don't have enough knowledge of the site to have a reliable opinion), I very strongly dispute the statement I quote. Just because the original author is an amateur does not mean something is incorrect. If someone who is a subject matter expert with no relevant conflict of interest confirms an amateur's work as accurate then we should treat the reviewed work as accurate - they are the experts not us. Consider also that we would unhesitatingly endorse the expert's findings if they came to the opposite conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• No per SmittenGalaxy. Know Your Meme is pretty much no different from websites like IMDB and Famous Birthdays -- it's user-generated content constructed by anonymous contributors, so we have little (if any) chance of establishing whether or not most content on the site passes WP:EXPERTSPS. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Your comment does not answer the question asked. This RFC is explicitly not about most content on the site, but about the subset of that content that is explicitly marked as having been confirmed as accurate by editorial staff. I don't know whether the editorial staff are considered experts, nor what the quality of the review is like, but content written by person A and reviewed and endorsed by independent editorial staff is almost by definition not self-published. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Re: content written by person A and reviewed and endorsed by independent editorial staff is almost by definition not self-published. is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of self-published sources. {{tpq|The opposite of self-publishing is traditional publishing.}} The Know Your Meme corporation is not a "traditional publisher" nor a "news media organization". WP:IDSPS states {{tpq|If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.}} and {{tpq|Examples of self-published sources: Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including: Business websites}}. Despite having employees, authors, and editorial staff, the Know Your Meme website is self-published. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Immediately before what you quote it says  
• :::*{{tpq|Who is the author or creator of the work?}}
• :::*{{tpq|Who is the publisher of the work?}}
• :::{{tpq|If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.}}
• :::The author and the publisher are different, so it is not self-published. There is no employment or similar relationship between the author (contributor) and publisher (KYM staff) any more than there is in a traditional publishing. Indeed, there is less of a relationship than when e.g. a columnist for a traditional newspaper is payed by the publishers of that newspaper to write the column. Even if the columnists work is not fact-checked by anyone other than themselves we do not regard it as self-published. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The concept of "traditional publisher" in relation to WP:SPS comes from the WP:USINGSPS essay, something that does not have full community support. The wording expressed does not come policy or any guideline. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I think(?) we all agree that the Drudge Report publishing a column by Matt Drudge would clearly be self-published. You're saying that if, say, Bill Clinton submitted a article to the blog, and Matt Drudge chose to publish it on his normally self-published blog, that article would not be self-published? That loophole would seem to wildly subvert the entire purpose of vetting sources by if they are self-published. Interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/SPS RfC, thanks for linking. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::No it's not that simple, Drudge publishing Clinton wouldn't make Clinton's post not self-published. However if Clinton submitted it to somewhere with editorial control then it wouldn't be self-published. Even that's a bit simplistic, a lot of this is discussed in the RFC (and the many preceding discussions). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Is your issue in the above scenario with the blog itself or just that particular piece of content not being vetted before posting? Do you think a Drudge Report citation would be not-self-published if the blog published the report of an unknown journalist, with Matt Drudge serving as an editor/publisher/gatekeeper? PK-WIKI (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::A lot of this is covered in the RFC I mention and the preceding discussions it mentions. In short in situations where there is editorial control, and an author can't publish on their own volition, then such a source wouldn't automatically be considered self published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• No per my comments in the above section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :To clarify, that concern is that only a few of their editorial staff have any sort of credentials for writing for other RS's. I don't believe there's enough to provide full editorial control and quality with that, particularly considering how much they'd need to be reviewing of non-credentialed staff submitting content. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Could you clarify what you mean by {{tpq|particularly considering how much they'd need to be reviewing of non-credentialed staff submitting content}}. As far as I can tell they don't attempt to review the vast majority of submitted content, and unreviewed content is explicitly irrelevant to this request. What matters is only whether the content they do review is reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::You're right, I got off topic into a more general assessment of the website. The first sentence is the one relevant to this proposal in particular. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• No Just because the staff or 'confirmed' post aren't purely user generated doesn't mean they are reliable sources. Even without the user generation issue is a rubbish source. Looking at a couple of the past discussions there's this article[https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/who-is-nick-eh-30-and-why-is-he-a-meme-the-nick-eh-30-intro-and-why-tiktoks-calling-him-king-explained], which reads like an advertorial, or this one[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/2022-boyinaband-grooming-and-abuse-allegations] containing allegations that a living person is a pedophile. Outside of what may, or may not be user generated KYM is still a highly questionable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :To be clear as it seems to have been missed the first article is an undisclosed advertorials by a staff member about a meme character, and the second that contains unfounded allegations against a living person is a 'confirmed' entry. Neither confirmed or staff entries should be used, KYM does not have 'a reputation for fact checking or accuracy'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• No per much of the above. This is basically just like Urban Dictionary. It may (sometimes, not always) be informative to a general reader, as what "randos on the Internet" think something means and what its origin in (and even linguists and modern-folklorist might make some use of it for research purpose to get at usage and ideas of folk etymology that are circulating), is is clearly UGC even if some reviewing is sometimes happening, and is not a reliable source under WP's definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• No That even with the editorial control over staff articles, many of their sources are still primary or not appropriate. Its fine to work from usable referencs cited in thse articles to develop content on WP, but not the KYM articles themselves. Masem (t) 04:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• No, although I think most of the people voting "no" so far have not read the RfC statement -- this is not about entries written by random people! -- it is about entries that have subsequently been edited and approved by staff members of the site. The relevant question, then, is whether there is a reason for us to believe that these staff members are qualified to judge whether memes are real, or whether they function as a coherent unit of editorial will. My answer to this question would be a resounding "no": the website is mostly an attempt to provide viral entertainment and in the last decade I cannot recall ever seeing any evidence of more scholarship than a cursory Google search. jp×g🗯️ 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :To be clear, I would be in favor of treating them as a primary source in some limited edge-case circumstances (e.g. if we need to cite an actual meme image itself and there is not a fair use rationale). That is to say, presume that the image at Longcat is DMCAed, or something stupid like that: we ought to be able to give the reader some ability to look at the image. Whether that's KYM, or an archived Dramatica article, I guess is immaterial. jp×g🗯️ 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• No. Just as featured articles on Wikipedia are not reliable. It's user-generated content. I've had a college prof state that featured articles go through as rigorous a process as peer-reviewed academic journal articles. But, they still are unreliable for Wikipedia purposes because they're user-generated. KYM is reliable for research, but it's not reliable for Wikipedia because it's user-generated. Even the confirmed articles are still user-generated.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• No per all above, and recommend WP:SNOW close. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• No. If a meme is deserving of coverage here, good sources that describe important aspects of the subject should be in adequate supply, without concern for a site like KYM. BarntToust 02:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This proposal is about reliability, not notability. Your comment has nothing to do with reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::hey Serge, I don't particularly want MEMECRUFT eveywhere on Wikipedia, and I'll use whatever rationale for refuting it I see fit. I think literally most of the discussion has established that there is NO reliability for KYM, and I would feel like an idiot for just repeating that in my vote. Now, it's been a nice couple of days/week-ish replying to you, but I'm busy with building content and would appreciate it if you would take after Paul McCartney and Let it Be. BarntToust 11:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{small|n.b. I think you mean Let It Be (song)}} SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't want "memecruft" either, but it doesn't change the fact that that "want" is irrelevant to reliability of this website. Luckily, as you say, the consensus has clearly developed regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::IMO, deciding whether content is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia needs to come before deciding that poor sources indexing said content should not be used. Whatever. I'm not interested in propagating this conversation for much longer; I have something going on at GARC and ought to focus on that rather than running circles around my point and your counterpoint. BarntToust 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Everyone's free to their personal opinions. Feel free to think that. But that doesn't make it a valid argument in the scope of how Wikipedia defines and identifies source reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::yes, reliability has been described perfectly well in this discussion. I don't believe that KYM, something that has implications for introducing memecruft here, warrants being discussed as if it is something that ought to be included{{--}}as if we need to consider and possibly accept sources from a site full of WP:INDISCRIMINATE content. Whether the site is reliable for its subject matter falls ahead of discerning whether the subject matter (the most, vast majority of it anyhow) even belongs here. BarntToust 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::INDISCRIMINATE is not a source reliability criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::hey, I'm just thinking different, applying different concepts and principles to other sscenarios. With all our bickering, we're beginning to sound worse than most old married couples, so maybe we oughta just forget we met one another and just move on with our respective WikiBusiness, that sound good? BarntToust 17:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::sheesh, all I want to say is that the vast majority content that KYM presents is not encyclopedic information, so we shouldn't even be going so far as to determine if they fulfill WP:RSPCRITERIA. BarntToust 17:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Simply stop giving opinions that aren't rooted in policy in public forum and I'll stop correcting you. Simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I'll continue to offer unconventional, perspective-subverting insights just as I see fit. Simple as that. BarntToust 18:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::And discussion closers will continue to disregard it if its not rooted in a valid policy. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Yeah, I hope they don't care about our tangent-arguments here, this is awkward. KYM is unusable for several reasons, from the nature/substance of what they cover to the fact it is all user-generated, and citing "staff picks" equivocates to trying to consider a FA on Wikipedia as a reliable source. I will always think that first, rejecting a source because of what it covers being material unfit for encyclopedic coverage comes before discussing whether it satisfies WP:RSPCRITERIA. I really have enjoyed this extended back-and forth with ya, Serge. See ya around. BarntToust 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::If something is indiscriminate in it's inclusion criteria then it will include content about subjects that are notable as well as subjects that are not notable. That means it's not useful for determining whether any entry is or is not notable. However, if we have determined, without reference to KYM (or other indiscriminate site) that a topic is notable then the site's inclusion criteria are completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the content they have about the topic is reliable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::turns out that the 98% or more of random memes whose coverage goes without encyclopedic merit or value are in the same reliability boat as the 2% or less "verified entries" and whatnot. Nobody seems to be voting further and I really wish a passerby could invoke WP:SNOW any day now.
• ::::::::Literally, we're asking about the equivalent of a Fandom[.]com subsite here. I could say the same thing, 98% of entries on Fandom are stuff we reject for many reasons; other stuff fails for many more reasons. BarntToust 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comment. While I don't disagree that KYM isn't a good source to use (and if an article insists on heavily relying on KYM, it could suggest that it does not meet WP:GNG), most of the answers above are not actually answering the RfC. The RfC proposes that the source be used for limited purposes, specifically for information about the origin, spread, and evolution of memes when properly attributed and not for notability purposes. Many above responses seem to focus on KYM's general reliability rather than addressing whether it could be useful in this limited context. The question is not whether KYM should be considered generally reliable, but whether its Confirmed articles could serve a specific, limited purpose in articles where notability has already been established through other reliable sources. To this, I am leaning towards Yes. Madeleine (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Even that usage is not reliable because it is user-generated content.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Confirmed articles are not user-generated in the way we use that term - they have been explicitly checked by editors independent of the author. If the people doing the checking are subject-matter experts and the checking is sufficiently thorough then they are at least as reliable as an expert self-published source or something published in a traditional reliable source by an author with no track record (we generally regard such as reliable). If the people checking are not subject-matter experts or are not thorough, then the content isn't reliable but it is no more user-generated than something published in a publication like the Daily Express. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::As @Thryduulf already mentioned, Confirmed articles are not WP:UGC because they have gone through a staff review and fact-checking process per KYM's own guidelines. Looking through the [https://knowyourmeme.com/news/staff staff list], I see evidence that some editors at KYM have had experience at other reputable organizations like IGN and The Washington Post. Madeleine (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• No per the extensive reasons given to say "no" by others - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745406075}}

What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?

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

An RfCbefore can be found here. The source is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22euromedmonitor.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used 89 times]. FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 As Genabab points out (with reference to points by Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet) the reports by EuroMedMonitor have not been shown to be wrong. There are objections of extraordinary claims (Chess and others), but this is an extraordinary war, and Euromed has connections with people on the ground, unlike most other RS. Isoceles-sai (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) is currently under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{#if:Smallangryplanet. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Generally !votes are supposed to be in chronological order. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@chess ah, thank you for the information. (@chess is currently accusing me of being a sockpuppet) Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: I still think you are, but I've removed the tags (except for this one, because otherwise your reply wouldn't make sense) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285267564] since someone else has told me to wait until the SPI thread is over. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That's nice. We wouldn't want people to think that @Chess was stalking me. Isoceles-sai (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per my previous votes on most other advocacy groups (though I did vote to deprecate the Heritage Foundation, iirc). Like others, most of their content is gonna be op-eds or similar, and those that have hard data are going to frame that data in a way that suits their cause(s). Usable with attribution, considering they seem to be fairly high-profile, but shouldn't be put in Wikivoice unless more "neutral" GRELs back up what they're saying (in which case it'd generally be better to just cite the GREL). The training program mentioned below is questionable, but I'd need to see harder evidence of potential or confirmed disruption to drop my vote any lower. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) This is the answer for every source...context-specific. For wp:ver uses, expertise and objectivity with regards to the item which cited it. For wp:weight uses, generally unreliable because it's an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Every single time I have seen them say something unique, which was not also available in RS, the claim was extremely unlikely. Euro-Med is a blog maintained entirely from Europe with limited-at-best access to real Middle East data or witnesses. When they make a radical claim they never provide a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it. They never retract or correct. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :> a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it
• :I suspect that it is because Israel is finding and killing the journalists in Gaza, and not allowing in outside journalists.
• :https://cpj.org/2025/04/israel-strikes-journalists-tent-in-gaza-1-killed-8-injured/ (this week)
• :https://cpj.org/2025/02/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ (summary)
• :Sometimes the journalists are bombed at home, killing their families as well.
• :https://www.article19.org/resources/israel-killing-of-journalists-must-prompt-independent-investigation/
• :https://rsf.org/en/israel-suffocating-journalism-gaza Isoceles-sai (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::None of those sources mention Euro-Med, let alone address why they would have access to information behind their various extraordinary claims while news organisations don't. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for general content, Option 4 for ARBPIA if technically feasible The EMHRM is mostly cited by news sources who themselves have a strong bias or issues with reliability, such as [https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/02/28/743645/Euro-Med-Monitor-documents-shocking-torture-crimes-against-Palestinian-prisoners PressTV], [https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2024/03/22/ozkx-m22.html WSWS], the [https://www.palestinechronicle.com/110-killed-since-gaza-ceasefire-began-euro-med-monitor-reports/ Palestine Chronicle], etc. Among the (significantly rarer) high-quality citations such as the [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/gazastreifen-fotos-palaestinenser-1.6316864 Süddeutsche Zeitung] often use them with some sort of attribution, such as clarifying an unclear image origin. As such, the case for WP:USEBYOTHERS is mixed at best.

:The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/clare-short-at-risk-of-arrest-in-israel-warns-defence-minister-moshe-ya-alon-a828401.html] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.

:On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982 claims regarding organ harvesting], considered by the ADL to be [https://www.adl.org/resources/article/unfounded-claims-organ-harvesting-reignite-embers-decades-old-hospital-scandal reminiscent of blood libel] (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5953/International-investigation-must-be-opened-into-Israel’s-absurd-narrative-about-Al-Shifa-Medical-Complex claim] that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).

:::For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says {{tq|In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes.}} Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group], Wafa[https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/143531], New Arab[https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials], Palestine Chronicle[https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-stole-organs-from-bodies-of-palestinians-gaza-authorities/], Middle East Eye[https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/israel-hands-back-stolen-palestinian-bodies-missing-organs-report] who have covered allegations of missing organs.

::::Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Vice regent the ADL described it as {{tq|Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread}}, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?

:::::For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.

:::::Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FortunateSons#c-Vice_regent-20250320223300-Unhelpful_comment here]. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/20/what-israels-video-of-hamas-tunnel-under-al-shifa-tells-us Al-Jazeera] and [https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/assessment-israeli-material-icj-jan-2024 Forensic Architecture]. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including [https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/White20140929-CTCSentinel.pdf historical alleged use]), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were [https://forward.com/opinion/626749/adl-wikipedia-ban-jonathan-greenblatt/ factually incorrect]). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews}}: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the survey section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per The_Kip above (and my own comments in this section).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is a biased blog Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per finding raised by multiple editors
• False statements or WP:EXTRAORDINARY statements without strong support from high-quality, independent sources
• Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians [https://archive.is/OkJE8]
• Organ harvesting topic (debunked by BobFromBrockley see below)
• Link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization (see the photo in [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/]) Michael Boutboul (talk)
• :bias isn't enough to deem a source as unreliable — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::If argument given by FortunateSons are correct, IMO it is sufficient for Option 3 Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::In addition to @FortunateSons arguments, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees. [https://archive.is/OkJE8 Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians]. The more I am looking for this site, I found significant evidence that the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor acts as a pro-Palestinian advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as [https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524 ABC], [https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf Amnesty International], [https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245 AP News], [https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo BBC], [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html CNN], [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/31/gaza-search-and-rescue-teams-forced-to-leave-their-own-fami/ The Telegraph], [https://www.dw.com/en/gaza-migrants-embarking-on-a-dangerous-journey-to-europe/a-66940196 Deutsche Welle], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war The Guardian], [https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-top-headlines/ap-mass-funeral-in-gaza-draws-tears-rare-criticism-of-hamas/ The Hill], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hamas-ap-turkey-istanbul-ismail-haniyeh-b2257090.html The Independent], [https://theintercept.com/2024/08/01/israel-military-drones-charity-donations-xtend/ The Intercept], [https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/israel-target-civilians-gaza-fetterman-rcna123890 MSNBC], [https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/mass-funeral-in-gaza-draws-tears-rare-criticism-of-hamas National Post], [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abandoned-babies-found-decomposing-gaza-hospital-evacuated-rcna127533 NBC News], [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israel-separating-families-in-gaza-taking-men-to-undisclosed-locations-in-mass-arrest-campaign-activists-say PBS], [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/ Reuters], [https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3256906/israel-gaza-war-us-vows-plough-gaza-airdrops-despite-deaths-hamas-plea-stop South China Morning Post], [https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/gaza-s-children-are-calling-on-us-to-speak-up-20231105-p5eho2.html The Sydney Morning Herald], and [https://www.timesofisrael.com/everyone-is-hungry-desperate-gazans-fight-for-food-as-crisis-deepens/ Times of Israel], just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the [https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor UN]. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: {{tq|widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability}}.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Here [https://archive.is/OkJE8 Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians]. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been [https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/ covered] [https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250210-israel-using-torture-sexual-assault-with-dogs-in-prisons/ by] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims other] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67581915 outlets] - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.
• :::::::::Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.
• :::::::::A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."
• ::::::::::And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.
• ::::::::::::This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
• :::::::::::Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx the] [https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29 UN] and [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament European] [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions parliament], is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4], [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear]).

:I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "[https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/ fact sheet]" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about [https://ngo-monitor.org/topics/richard-falk/ Richard Falk] who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being [https://www.webcitation.org/5dViuhEdA?url=http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462!OpenDocument appointed in 2008] by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.

:This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13600826.2019.1640189][https://books.google.com/books?id=LTTVDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6][https://books.google.com/books?id=xt7YAZOioLQC&pg=PA206][https://books.google.com/books?id=LHYPnxwPnlwC&pg=RA1-PT127] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of [https://euobserver.com/foreign/142973 spreading misinformation] and having a [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/3/ politically motivated agenda]. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/#activities section], and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5962/Israel-conducts-executions-in-Shifa-Hospital,-uses-its-staff-as-human-shields (link)]. The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67453105], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/gaza-hamas-biden-hospital-israel-b2449165.html], [https://aje.io/yu4f6n?update=2492059], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/], [https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231122-al-shifa-hospital-what-do-we-know-about-idf-videos-of-a-tunnel-under-the-hospital], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/03/hamas-gaza-israel-alshifa-tunnels/], [https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics/us-al-shifa-intelligence-assessment/index.html].

:The [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B organ harvesting article] cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group][https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178236/][https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/a/Rx1n5A/our-sons-are-plundered-of-their-organs][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs][https://www.haaretz.com/2005-09-26/ty-article/abu-kabir-head-only-reprimanded-for-illegal-organ-removal/0000017f-f41d-d5bd-a17f-f63f85690000][https://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/index.html][https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34503294][https://www.972mag.com/i-witnessed-a-whole-system-of-deception-regarding-the-death-of-a-palestinian/][https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/news/2016/2/28/%d8%a7%d8%aa%d9%87%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d9%84%d8%a5%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a6%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a8%d8%b3%d8%b1%d9%82%d8%a9-%d8%a3%d8%b9%d8%b6%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%a1?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp][https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence/20191022_hcj_greenlights_holding_palestinian_bodies_as_bargaining_chips][https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-state-entitled-to-hold-bodies-of-israeli-terror-suspects-for-negotiations/][https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-822542] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.

::Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by [https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence/20191022_hcj_greenlights_holding_palestinian_bodies_as_bargaining_chips B’Tselem] (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/supreme-court-allows-israel-withhold-bodies-palestinians Middle East Eye] (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/clare-short-at-risk-of-arrest-in-israel-warns-defence-minister-moshe-ya-alon-a828401.html] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::See here [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a [https://www.facebook.com/DrArafatShoukri/photos/t.100053795191625/356066831115475/?type=3 delegation] visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.
• ::::::Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I did some digging and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20110918111933/http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:delegation-to-gaza-july-2011&catid=15:delegations&Itemid=40 this summary] of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as {{tquote|a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government}}. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Alaexis that article does not {{tq|establish[es] the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas}}. Shin Bet makes a claim that there is a connection between the two, but the organisation says it plans to take legal action to show that it is an independent organisation. The Independent only provides Israeli intelligence agency sourcing for this claim, which as you might imagine is hardly WP:DUE for allegations of this nature. (Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, so if Shin Bet's claims were true, Clare Short could in theory be at risk of legal consequences in the UK, let alone Israel.) Not only that but Ramy himself is not mentioned in the article. Did you mean to send a different link? (We can also talk about how NGOs work with agencies and governments on the ground – even the UK government's proscribed organisation laws include [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operating-within-counter-terrorism-legislation/for-information-note-operating-within-counter-terrorism-legislation#proscription legal comments] suggesting that 'genuinely benign' meetings may be allowed.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't think you're interpreting the text of the article correctly. It says "Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations." The part between dashes is not attributed to Moshe Yaalon, it's the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis_¿question? 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::In that case I'm not sure how we can possibly come to any conclusions - let alone deprecate a source - because of an unsourced and unverified comment! Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: per Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet. It's cited by the following (among others):

https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524

https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/

Furthermore, they also work with the UN and the EU parliament and are cited by Amnesty International:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf

https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx

https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions

Their extensive use and citations means they are a RS and no one has shown or linked any point where they were wrong about something or anything that would indicate that they are unreliable. Just because they are critcial of Israel where there is evidence Israel has committed abuses, doesn't mean they should be listed as unreliable. Genabab (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm curious how you can square Option 1 for an advocacy group, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable%20sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1248262682 you've previously said] option 3 for a WP:NEWSORG solely because of bias. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per the sources mentioned by Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet, but acknowledging it as an advocacy group (so not option 1), Huldra (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2, which Mark outlined the reasoning for above nicely. Regardless of how they describe themselves, they're essentially an advocacy organization and should not be cited without in-text attribution. I do not think other editors have outlined an actual pattern of falsehoods or deception, however, and other editors have noted their use among other RS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3. Euro-Med is an extremely partisan advocacy group in the I/P space. This would put it in the same categroy as CAMERA, NGO Monitor and others. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli NGOs of this type easily fulfil WP:USEBYOTHERS in that they are frequently cited in RS, typically by RS with a bias towards "their" side. However Wikipedia should never take the claims made by such groups and put them into its own voice, and should wait for those claims to be filtered through RS before repeating them with attribution. Given that this source makes extraordinary claims for which it seems to be the only source (e.g. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B claiming that Israel recently legalised organ theft from Palestinians]), and that no one seems to have pointed to any clear editorial processes or history of retraction, I am shocked that anyone is advocating Option 1. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4, or Option 3, first choice would be Option 4, but Option 3 would be a decent minimum place to start if Option 4 does not have clear consensus. I agree with the reasoning for why provided by FortunateSons. This source has no proximity to reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, as Lf8u2, Genabab, and Smallangryplanet stated, Euro Med is used by many reputable sources and works with many international bodies & human rights group like Amnesty International and the United Nations. No evidence has actually been presented to prove they spew false information, they're simply gathering testimonies of abuse and advocate for investigations (in many countries such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc., not just Israel). I would believe anything other than Option 1 sets a bad precedent. Geo (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Israel training police dogs to rape Palestinians is a bizarre and obvious conspiracy theory. I am surprised that editors here are defending it as truth. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Just because you personally don't believe a source, that doesn't make it unreliable. (Argument from incredulity)
• :This is also hardly an extraordinary claim. Confer this [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPE6vbKix6A&pp=0gcJCR0AztywvtLA Oct 2024 Al Jazeera documentary] at time 1:04:20 where the allegation is made by a Fadi Bakr of Gaza, who [https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7276854 per the CBC] was "a law graduate from the University of Palestine, was searching for food for his wife and kids in Khan Younis on Jan. 5 when he was caught in the crossfires of fighting between Hamas militants and the IDF. He was shot and took refuge in a nearby building, [...] Then, he was arrested."
• :This allegation/testimony was also reported by +972 Magazine: "Multiple media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times, have reported on instances of rape and sexual assault at Sde Teiman. In a video circulating on social media earlier this week, a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed multiple rapes, and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/?utm_source=972+Magazine+Newsletter] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim. He's the same person cited by Euro-Med Monitor and all of the other sources.
• ::Going from a single prisoner saying he {{xt|witnessed individual Israeli soldiers using dogs to sexually assault Palestinians}} to {{!xt|Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians}} is the problem with that source. Most sources do not take a single individual's testimony and use their own voice to say the Zionists are training rape dogs to abuse Palestinians. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::You apparently haven't read the source, which says "Euro-Med Monitor received horrific testimonies from recently released detainees confirming the brutal and inhumane use of Israeli police dogs to rape prisoners and detainees". Fadi Saif al-Din Bakr is the only named witness. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{re|IOHANNVSVERVS}} I did read that. No other news outlet has been able to interview someone other than Fadi Bakr, and Euro-Med Monitor doesn't provide any other testimony from other detainees. The closest is this:
• ::::{{tqb|Thirty-six-year-old Hassan Abu Raida, another released detainee, stated: “They moved me and the other detainees to a prison. They threw us to the ground and made the dogs urinate on us [as we lay there]. In addition, one of the soldiers struck my right knee with an iron pipe, and I am still recovering from that injury.”}}
• ::::That's not rape. It's wrong and is prisoner abuse, but I think Euro-Med Monitor is stretching the definition of "rape" (which usually requires penetration) here to fit their POV instead of presenting the facts accurately, because implying penetration by dogs is much more scandalous than urination by dogs. Similar to how Israeli civilians being mutilated was exaggerated into beheaded babies by ZAKA, which also isn't reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Chess you are misrepresenting the source. This is now the second time I have seen you do this in a short period of time, as you did with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#c-Smallangryplanet-20250323220500-Chess-20250321232800 the Bloomberg article here]. This assertion was initially made by Boutboul, who also claimed that Euro-Med Monitor reported Israel was "systematically" training dogs to rape Palestinians. Euro-Med Monitor has not stated anywhere that Israel is systematically training or using police dogs to rape Palestinians. The [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape actual report] explicitly states that Israel is systematically using dogs to attack Palestinian civilians—not to rape—and bases this on cited testimonies, with the specification of "at least one reported rape". Not systematic rape by dogs, not training dogs to rape, but at least one reported case of rape, and then they cite the testimony for that which other RS have also cited as @IOHANNVSVERVS and myself have noted.
• :::::{{tq|Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim}} - no he is not. [https://www.newarab.com/analysis/new-palestinian-testimonies-reveal-horrors-israels-prisons Here is another testimony] saying he witnessed the use of dogs to rape prisoners. Not only that, but EMHRM does not treat this claim as verified but calls for an investigation.
• :::::Criticising a human rights organisation for documenting and reporting victim testimony of alleged abuses—and for urging further investigation—is certainly an interesting position to hold. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::“Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians”: I didn’t make it up — that’s the actual title of the article. And I completely agree with you that it’s absurd, which is precisely why this source isn’t reliable. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That's not what the article says, though. WP:HEADLINES makes it clear we should look at what the body of the source text says. {{tq|Palestinian Territory – The Israeli military is using police dogs to systematically attack Palestinian civilians during military operations in the Gaza Strip. The dogs are also used to intimidate, beat, and sexually assault prisoners and detainees in Israeli detention facilities.}} (Emphasis mine.) I do not think we should deprecate or downgrade a source because of a poorly deployed comma splice in a headline on a single article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::That's a big move of the goalposts. You said "not stated anywhere", now it's "stated in the headline, but that doesn't count". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Goalposts remain firmly in place, because the headline has [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape been updated], to a version which reads {{tq|Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack Palestinian civilians, with at least one reported rape}}. The [https://archive.is/OkJE8 archival version] of the piece that @Boutboul is citing was taken on 28 Jun 2024 05:38:44 UTC. The updated version was itself first archived [https://web.archive.org/web/20240628143044/https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape roughly 9 hours later], at 28 Jun 2024 14:30:44 UTC. So not only did they have accurate content in the body from the get-go, but they very quickly moved to update to a more precise headline that same day. The updated version [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape is still live to this day]. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Pick one argument. At the start of this discussion, you said {{tq|Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect.}} Now you're saying that it has been repudiated, but EMHRM corrected it.
• ::::::::::So, what factual position are you currently endorsing?
• ::::::::::# Israel systemically uses dogs to rape Palestinians
• ::::::::::# Israel has raped one person with a dog
• ::::::::::# One detainee said they saw another detainee be raped by a dog, but it's unconfirmed whether that is true
• ::::::::::I think 3. is a correct assessment of the situation. EMHRM said 1. initially, then silently changed it to 2 without a public correction. The vast majority of sources that do cover the alleged canine molestations go with option 3: quoting Fadi Bakr but without endorsing his claims as true. However, EMHRM says they "confirmed" this based on one person's uncorroborated testimony. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Repudiation is "the act of refusing to accept something or someone as true, good, or reasonable". There has been no repudiation here, just a routine editorial improvement of a headline to better align it with the content of the article. The original headline could have been read in 2 different ways and now it is clearer. Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Agree with @Isoceles-sai on repudiation. I am not endorsing any factual position, other than that I am correctly interpreting an old initial headline. None of the three options you listed, @Chess, are correct interpretations of the headline. The original title does not make the claim that dogs are being trained to systematically rape Palestinians. They put {{tq|attack, rape}}. If they had been making the claim that position (1) is correct, then they would have said "attack and rape." In any case, it was quickly clarified and, again, WP:HEADLINES. The content of the article reports what EMHRM has been told ({{tq|testimonies...confirming...}} is a standard formulation used by plenty of RS for all manner of things) and then they call for an investigation, which is perfectly reasonable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::https://archive.is/OkJE8 Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Advocacy. Can be used with in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - should be attributed, but its well cited and their reports are cited by reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see what the fuss is about with PIA topic area? If the only reason we are knitpicking supposed errors {{small|(that some of their reports weren't reposted by other groups)}} is because a human rights org is saying there are human rights violations in Gaza, some of these votes should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 or if necessary Option 2 - In practice, labeling a source as 'advocacy' is too often misused to selectively cast doubt on that source. The line between advocacy and journalism is much, much too blurry to be a convenient pass/fail test for Wikipedia editors. As for the "police dog" issue, the [https://archive.is/OkJE8 article itself] is somewhat ambiguous about what exactly happened, because the testimony it discusses is somewhat ambiguous. Per the source Israeli attack dogs were used against Palestinian civilians. This doesn't qualify as an extraordinary claim. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :What about [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B the claim that the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft from Palestinians]? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Highly partisan advocacy group that we should not use without attribution. Use by RSs with attribution suggests it is a source we can cite, but at least one egregious example of highly inaccurate reporting on an inflammatory topic (organ traffic, where they eg made a false claim about an Israeli court decision, documented above) indicates we should not cite it without extreme care and caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 or at least Option 2, since they regularly published unverified reports (i.e. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B 1]) as news reports. See 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. At the very least, we need a strong distinction between news and opinion, as most articles on the site fall squarely into the latter. --FeldBum (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's important to note that Euro-Med runs [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/projects/5/WIKI-Rights Wiki-Rights], which "trains" Wikipedians with what appears to be a desire to change the coverage of certain topics to allign with their values. I believe that any participant is at minimum obligated to disclose their COI if they choose to participate in this discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@FortunateSons while I see your reasoning, I think WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAP might be better targets than WP:BATTLEGROUND there. ADVOCACY covers trying to shape Wiki articles to fit certain beliefs or narratives in violation of WP:NPOV, while BATTLEGROUND moreso constitutes general aggressiveness and incivility (sometimes in pursuit of advocacy, but not always). The Kip ^(contribs) 18:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ah, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Jesus fucking christ... — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Wow, they've been running this program since 2015! Considering that I've never seen anyone disclosing this, there are definitely WP:COI/WP:CANVASSING issues here, however they should probably be discussed elsewhere. It's definitely a biased source, with their founder and chairman being [https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1710979802717372844 really] [https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1711014615885185265 happy] about the October 7 attack. Alaexis_¿question? 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The political views of Jeff Bezos have zero impact on the reliability of Washington Post, so long as he doesn't interfere in the newspaper in a way that would undermine its accuracy. Same applies here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Vice regent If I recall correctly, though, statements made by Jonathan Greenblatt outside of his role as head of the ADL were partly used as rationale to rate the ADL as GUNREL; there's also been other instances where the views/statements of a publication's main or sole owner/editor/etc were similarly used as points of unreliability, such as The Grayzone and Max Blumenthal's other outlets. That's not to say Abdu's had direct effects on EMHRM's reliability/lack thereof, but from a hypotheticals standpoint I don't think the argument that his views have impacted their publications is that out there.
• ::WaPo's a bit of a poor comparison as well, considering it's a large newspaper with an editorial process and (at least formerly?) fairly robust fact-checking; EMHRM, like the ADL, is an advocacy group, which aren't usually run to those same standards. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Don't forget the Jewish Chronicle, unreliable due to right-wing ideologues taking it over.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#RFC_Jewish_Chronicle] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Of course, newspaper owners have influence over their publications! That’s true for Jeff Bezos and many others. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The views of a proprietor have no bearing on the reliability of the publication they own, correct. But the false statements of an editor do, I think, have bearing on the reliability of the publication they own. It’s not comparable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Did the proposer of this just think there wasn't enough happening in the world? They should not be wasting people's time dragging up again without some good reason. None was provided. NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The original discussion wasn’t an RfC, this is. The source comes up in discussions regularly, and is cited within many contentious articles, so a clear consensus on reliability is beneficial. FortunateSons (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding the lack of reliability, here is a good example [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5962/Israel-conducts-executions-in-Shifa-Hospital,-uses-its-staff-as-human-shields]

{{cquote|After failing to find any evidence of a military presence in the medical facility, the Israeli soldiers went crazy and deliberately carried out a series of executions, eliminating and directly shooting a number of the wounded in cold blood.}}

: They published it in November 2023. It's hard to prove that this didn't take place but we can check whether anyone else has reported on this ever since. Amnesty International said nothing about summary executions of the wounded in their [https://www.amnesty.org.au/israel-opt-israels-raid-of-al-shifa-hospital-is-a-devastating-attack-on-human-rights-in-gaza-crisis/ piece] about the Al-Shifa raid, which is otherwise quite critical of Israel's actions. I searched for other reports and found none.

: It's possible that their reliability varies and sometimes their bias doesn't prevent them from publishing valuable information that is then re-published by reliable sources, as demonstrated by some editors. In that case we should use those reliable sources. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::"It's hard to prove that this didn't take place" - then this is in no way "a good example of their lack of reliability". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This concerns LGBTQ themes in Western animation where I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_themes_in_Western_animation&diff=1284405222&oldid=1284396662 removed] contents from the article, and the other editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_themes_in_Western_animation&diff=1284411681&oldid=1284405222 restored] it. I thought this is an insignificant information from reddit r/Arcane, while the other claimed it's not because it's a comment by the show's creator.

The discussion took place here on my usertalk page. It did not go well, so I'm bringing the case here to ask others' opinions. I still think reddit can't be used as a reliable source. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reddit is a crap source in general. For AMAs sometimes people take the time to verify the author. For contributors, not really. Even if we knew this was the correct person, it's still primary, and if a primary source is the only source, then that raises issues with WP:DUE. It would be different if PCGamer or whatever picked up on it and wrote about it. Otherwise we're not in the business of compiling social media posts, or this project would just end up being a glorified twitter feed. GMG^talk 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:If the account can be 100% confirmed as the author, an accounting claiming to be a specific person is very insufficient, then it would be reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF way or WP:EXPERTSPS as it's a writer talking about the show they write for. Whether something someone said should be included in an article is a matter of NPOV rather than reliability, just because something being reliable sourced doesn't mean it should be included. The discussion on whether it's due inclusion is something best discussed in the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Reddit is 200% not an acceptable source for anything. Even if this is a confirmed account, it's undue because it comes from a primary source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If all information from that was undue then why would we bother having the WP:ABOUTSELF carveout? Not saying the case here is appropriate but provided the account is legitimate it's not worse than any other social media. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly. That's the reason I included it. It did seem, [https://web.archive.org/web/20211119082359/https://twitter.com/leeloo104/status/1461611154753523717 from Overton's tweet], that the account IS genuine. I think this whole discussion is rather silly, to be honest because Reddit is only cited TWICE on the entire page, and the rules, as I understand them, say that these sources CAN be cited if they are done minimally, and they ARE cited minimally on the page as a whole. Historyday01 (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you can confirm that the account is genuine, they could be considered a reliable source for information about work that they specifically were involved in. So long as the claims are not unduly self-serving.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Okay, but how can I confirm that if I don't even have a Twitter account (I deleted mine earlier this year) and the tweet cited has since been deleted? She [https://x.com/leeloo104/ still HAS a Twitter account], however. Most of that type of stuff isn't accessible anymore if you don't have an account. It's infuriating. Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::An archived version of the link is fine. I would say that since that account, which is known to both you and her to be genuine, that confirmation is sufficient to confirm that the Reddit account is hers.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, so does that mean that the compromise text that I put in the article, which another editor on here reversed is OKAY? Or not? I really, really don't want to get into an edit war, and another user on this forum already accused me of starting one. Because this is how the Reddit link, in question, would be used:

::::::::

In the series, Caitlyn Kiramman, a recurring character, is attracted to Vi, a woman from the undercity, despite their different circumstances. Show writer Amanda Overton said that the relationship between Caitlyn and Vi is "naturally developing," with writers honoring the lived experiences of both characters.{{cite web|last=Overton|first=Amanda|url=https://old.reddit.com/r/arcane/comments/qumn0d/arcane_does_femalelgbt_representation_perfectly/hl9kbpi/|title=I know this won't change the frustration you've felt over the many years of investment in Vi and Caitlyn, and I'm sorry it made you so tired, especially when you seem to love them so much...|website=/r/Arcane|publisher=Reddit|date=November 19, 2021|access-date=November 21, 2021|archive-url=https://archive.today/20211121054622/https://old.reddit.com/r/arcane/comments/qumn0d/arcane_does_femalelgbt_representation_perfectly/hl9kbpi/|archive-date=November 21, 2021|url-status=live}} She confirmed that this is her account [https://web.archive.org/web/20211119082359/https://twitter.com/leeloo104/status/1461611154753523717 on Twitter]

:::::::::It's reliable for that, again if Twitter account is genuinely hers and not that of an imposter. That doesn't necessarily mean that the content should be included.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Bluethricecreamman}}, I think that archived tweet is reliably sufficient for confirming that the Reddit account is the genuine person. What do you think?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::still arguably WP:UNDUE. if it were an important detail a secondary source would have reported it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that it might not be due. I was specifically asking about whether you think that the tweet can reliably confirm that the Reddit account is the same person.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There are some situations where WP:ABOUTSELF applies; WP:PRIMARY sources have to be used with caution to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, and they're not generally usable for exceptional things because in that case giving them any attention at all risks being OR, but they're not rigidly banned in all situations. For Reddit, the most likely parts that are usable via ABOUTSELF are confirmed AMA interviews, for, say, basic uncontroversial biographical details or the like. It's important to be cautious about due weight, sure, but usually one sentence or so is fine unless there's some context that makes it controversial. (Though, I believe the quality of AMAs has slipped since Reddit fired the official person who handles them - but in its hayday it was definitely been used by other RSes, so WP:USEBYOTHERS applies to that specific narrow case, even if it's still ABOUTSELF.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:agree with GMG. if it was WP:DUE, another reliable secondary source would have reported this.

:as is, we can't even confirm the redditor is the actual show creator. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Historyday01|p=,}} would you come over and explain the part where you think the redditor is the creator? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Please see my comment above in reply to PARAKANYAA. Since you did not include it in your description, which sadly is not surprising coming from you, I called Overton a key series writer and noted that I would cite Reddit "if that's the only place the information can be found" and called Overton as "someone important to a show," adding "I'm not going to cite some random fan analysis. For those reading the article, it is important to add information coming from one of the show writers." That is the key thrust of what I said. I will admit that I may have overstated it a bit to call her a "key series writer" but she IS credited with writing four episodes for the show ("Everybody Wants to Be My Enemy", "Heavy Is the Crown", "Pretend Like It's the First Time", and "Killing Is a Cycle"). So, I stand by inclusion of this material. I would be willing to cut down the section, even to just one citation, but I do NOT support removing it. Historyday01 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I never said that it was a comment from the show creator. It was a comment from a show writer. That is different. Please correct your comment to update that. Otherwise, you are twisting what I said. Historyday01 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::A writer is a creator. I don't see the point of the distinction considering this is about sourcing a reddit comment from someone who worked on the show. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The distinction is important, especially when it comes to animated series. I do not understand why you think this is an issue worth bringing to this forum. I have already said my piece here, in many comments, and in order to facilitate discussion, {{strikethrough|I do not wish to participate in this discussion after this point, as it does not appear to be going anywhere productive. I ask that all participants on me do not ping me about this topic. Thanks}} Whatever the decision is about Reddit following the end of this discussion, I will use it as a guide for further editing going forward.Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC) Okay, I guess I basically violated this now, so I'm striking this last statement. Anyway, I do hope this discussion ends soon, sigh. It seems we are just going around in circles.Historyday01 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Historyday01 Wikipedia is not a forum, an neither is this noticeboard. (Sorry for the ping but, but I though I should inform you of that.) Sheriff U3 02:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I feel that this comment is pretty unnecessary. Why did you even ping me? I don't get it. You could have just left a comment on my talk page to this effect. How is your comment relevant, in any way, shape, or form, to what we are talking about here? Historyday01 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You stated in the above comment: "I do not understand why you think this is an issue worth bringing to this forum." That is why I notified you through the above comment about WP:NOTFORUM, and I pinged you so that you would notice it. (I don't know what your notification settings are for talk page discussions.) Yes I could have told you through your talk page, but this way if someone else decided to notify you too, then they would see that I already told you about it. (Not everyone checks the talk page before starting a discussion unfortunately.) Sheriff U3 16:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I hear what you are saying. I understand why you commented on here. That's all I'll say on that. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Update: I reduced my number of comments on here, as I found there were a number of comments on here which were unnecessary. I do not plan on commenting or replying to any other posts on here. The content has already been removed from the page (by one of the users in this discussion), so I'd say this issue is mute, and further discussion on this topic is wholly, and completely, spurious. Following this discussion, if this happens again, and I'm called to this forum by another user for this discussion, or any discussion about reliability of sources, I will decline to participate.Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Historyday01}} I'm not expecting a reply based on your above statements, but as to this statement - {{tq|Whatever the decision is about Reddit following the end of this discussion, I will use it as a guide for further editing going forward}} - : Reddit in general isn't reliable at all. However, if an account can be verified as a specific individual, their comments may be reliable as a source for verifying information about them or something they were closely involved in. If there's a dispute about whether or not that information is worth being included, the relevant Noticeboard would be Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I came here because my comment about WP:RSPREDDIT was not addressed earlier. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

: Reddit, Quora, Stack Exchange and forum posts all fall under WP:UGC. It should not be used other than for uncommon case-by-case exceptions, such as when activity on Reddit is the subject of reliable mainstream media coverage and you include the link to the Reddit thread talked about in the reliable mainstream media outlet. As a matter of general sourcing practice, forum posts and other bloggy junk should rarely be cited. Graywalls (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I generally agree, but in some limited cases, Reddit can be fine. I would argue this is a limited case, especially if one of the links is removed. I just limited it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_themes_in_Western_animation&diff=1285416154&oldid=1285415795 in a recent edit], to ONE link, rather than two, since both were from the same discussion. It is only ONE sentence in the entire article and now there is only ONE link to Reddit on the ENTIRE page, which is very, very minimal. It does not count as "undue weight." To say so, based on the text in my recent edit, seems silly and untrue. I also cut down another related comment by Overton.Historyday01 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It still falls under WP:UGC. If you have to rely on bloggy junk source like Reddit, Stack Exchange and like to source it, it likely doesn't belong. If it's worthy of inclusion, it will likely be covered by reliable secondary sources. Please do not continue to edit war. Graywalls (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Reddit and similar forums are not RS. There is no oversight on the quality of the material they produce. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{U|Graywalls}} and {{u|Ramos1990}}, forum posts can be reliable sources by a source about things they were closely involved in, if the account can be verified as genuinely that of the individual in question. See this recent discussion. Now, whether including that content is due weight, that is a different question. If there's dispute over that, I'd recommend that the question go to the neutrality noticeboard.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|3family6}}, just noting you were a major participant in that discussion, and not necessarily of neutral position. When it comes to ABOUTSELF I see it as sourcing to cover something that's universally acceptable to include and the sources are to only serve as verification of facts. If we were to assume authenticity of source is certain, it's still an absolutely unreliable source to substantiate justifiability of including what's said in it and should not be used to flesh out contents from it. So, where they were born, date of birth and sort of thing would be ok. However, things written by an individual tend to contain what the _individual wants to say about themselves_ and Wikipedia articles are not a webhost, so covering those things would be undue. This is because anything self published is almost universally a terrible indicator of inclusionworthiness. Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq| just noting you were a major participant in that discussion, and not necessarily of neutral position.}} Why does that need to be noted? And opinions on here aren't "neutral", they're the specific judgments of specific editors. As you can see from that discussion, I sought opinions from other editors because I was not sure of the reliability of a source in an unusual situation. You can see their responses. Do you take issue with it? If not, why bring that up.

::::::I agree that with ABOUTSELF, it works for verification but does not mean that the content is worth including. As I stated in the comment above, whether the material posted by the character writer on Reddit is worth including is a different question, for a different noticeboard. But in terms of reliability, Reddit posts and similar forum posts can be reliable sources about an individual if about themselves.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::As I mentioned above, at a bare minimum AMAs by confirmed individuals reach the threshold of WP:ABOUTSELF. There's substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS for that specific case, and they have an established method of confirming identities that is clearly treated as reputable by high-quality secondary sources, so if we're not going to accept them then what ABOUTSELF stuff would we accept? Of course, ABOUTSELF comes with a lot of important restrictions (not exceptional, not unduly self-serving, nothing about third parties, etc) but it's still usable. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reddit should not be used as a reliable source, as it is user-generated content. If you can't find any other sources (that are reliable) then it most likely should not be included. Social media platforms don't have any sort of oversight. (Except for moderation of content posted, but that is different then what we want for Reliable Sources.) also we don't allow forums and wikis as Reliable Sources for the same reason. (Wikis are worse though cause the content can change from when it was originally cited.) I suggest that you try looking for a RS, then if you don't find any you just don't add the content. While you are looking though the content should not be on the page. (You can have it in your sandbox so that you have it available for it and when you find a RS.) Sheriff U3 05:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::In this case, it's an editor wanting to use a particular Reddit post as a primary source statement by a source about themselves. Which, if it's actually the individual in question, would be reliable. Whether it's worthy of inclusion, that's another matter.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If the article subject is a chef and they like your steak well done and that's what it says on their official page or verified Instagram, it passes the factual reliability of the claim. Oh and he's a cat dad and likes purple cars. It's an absolute unreliable source of indicating such statement is even worth a mention.

:::However, if an intellectually independent writing is done by reliable secondary sources that discuss his penchant for well done steak and his culinary creation, that source can be seen as a reliable indication of inclusion worthiness. Graywalls (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That's all part of WP:DUE (NPOV), not WP:RS (V). Whether something can be reliably sourced, and whether it should be included are different subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It depends on the context. "reliable" isn't just factual accuracy. It's about reliably establishing inclusion worthiness as well. ANY Reddit post is a reliable indicator of the fact that the said account xx made a post on subreddit on time day month year. Graywalls (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|"It's about reliably establishing inclusion worthiness"}} could be used as the short description of WP:NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Who says there can not be some overlap between NPOV and RSN relevance? Writing a "persuasive" piece would be a POV issue even if all the sources fully pass RS criteria. A source that can reliably show that this and that company was established in 1985, but can be a non-RS for "to produce high quality widget" Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::This has gone very far off topic, social media posts are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF details. If those details should be included or not is a matter of NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You're conflating reliability with neutrality here. A source could be reliable, but the content not included because doing so would violate a neutral point of view in some way. And this noticeboard isn't about the latter issue. This noticeboard is for evaluating if specific sources are reliable or unreliable for specific usages.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The easiest solution is to find sources that no one will argue is not reliable (e.g. secondary sources, not Reddit). It may result in someone else contesting it again in the future. The content that was removed seems like it would be covered in another some secondary source about the character development. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I agree that secondary would be preferable, in this case, it seems that it doesn't exist. To be clear, using it as a primary source would not be citing Reddit, it would be citing the primary source that used Reddit. As I've said above, the information might not be due. But there's nothing necessarily wrong with verifying material with a primary source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reddit, in general, is WP:UGC and unusable as such for factual information. However, that is in general; if an account is readily confirmed to actually be some real person's account, and that real person is making a comment that would be acceptable in an WP:ABOUTSELF context, I don't see what makes this different than Facebook/Instagram/X/LinkedIn/any other social media platform. That context is extremely narrow, however; I'm not quite convinced that it applies in this exact case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

If it can't be used as a source, can Reddit be used as an external link instead per WP:EL? George Ho (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we FINALLY have an RFC and admit that Fox News Isn't News and Isn't Reliable, It's Just Propaganda? https://www.ft.com/content/7aaea62c-f9f4-4f09-b474-f79edba09a94 73.206.161.228 (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:that's more or less reflected in current consensus around WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. There is nothing wrong with a source being biased, though increasing bias often means more likely to be undue. And further demoting Fox News for politics probably means WP:DEPREC. Please also see WP:DEPS, but it would mean there is absolutely no editorial control, and the news stories are always on the level of breitbart, oann, national enquirer, and RT, in terms of being categorically wrong. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Unless there is some active dispute about a usinh Fox as a source then there is no need to revisit anything. Are they being used somewhere in an article and talk page discussion on the article's talk page hasn't been able to resolve the situation, or are they being used in a way that wastes editors time having to deal with clean up? Discussions are meant to be about evaluating sources for Wikipedia's purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Consensus shows that fox news can be used for local topics (like the store fire in town or the school shooting.) It just can't be used for topics related to politics. I doubt that there would be support for a complete ban, just the political reporting would likely be banned for being used as a RS. (Which it currently is already for the most part.) So a RFC is not necessary I think. We already have plenty of consensus for previous discussions to show that it should not be used as a RS political topics. It would likely be a waste of time to open a rfc and find out in the end that the consensus is roughly the same as it was in 2020-2023. (That is when there was a bunch of discussion about it's reliability.) Sheriff U3 05:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::"It would likely be a waste of time to open a rfc and find out in the end that the consensus is roughly the same" - I disagree. At least then we'd have an updated consensus. And Fox has clearly gotten worse over the past year. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Fox does appear to be even worse. But I agree that Fox RfCs require an inordinate amount of editor time and it is unlikely that the result would be different. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The fact that something would take time and effort to do is not an argument that it's not worth doing. And with how much worse Fox is today than it was even a year ago, the guidance needs updating. The only way to test if there is enough movement in consensus to change the rating is to actually do the work and not be lazy, and it would not be a "waste of time" to have updated discussion since the last RFC was over two years ago and Fox has become exponentially worse in that time. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There is something called EIN Presswire, and they publish press releases. Nothing wrong with that. They are sometimes re-published like here [https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/802561526/california-governor-candidate-sharifah-hardie-removed-from-2026-wikipedia-gubernatorial-candidate-list/] at fox40.com, and so to Google it's "news". It has some presence on WP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22EIN+Presswire%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1]. Some of these cites may be fine per WP:ABOUTSELF etc. Some may not be. For one thing, it's probably never relevant in the WP:N context. Disclaimer from the fox40 article: "EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable for ABOUTSELF statements, with obvious care for unduly self-serving details, and definitely not independent for notability. Republished press releases are still pressing releases, but I'd bet most of the problematic uses are naive good faith additions. Using 'insource' highlights some more uses in articles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22EIN+Presswire%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1], and searching for 'fox40.com/business/press-releases/' shows press releases from other agencies as well.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Ffox40.com%2Fbusiness%2Fpress-releases%2F%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::AP, and probably others, re-publish them too:[https://apnews.com/press-release/ein-presswire-newsmatics/wellness-stephanie-cirami-iaotp-television-queens-03061e0f67ad6e6530860f54b8911464] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Can be marginaly used based on WP:ABOUTSELF but only briefly about purely claimed facts - skip all adjectives. Else we will get long advertising items. And I would avoid reprints. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:These are more or less just standard press releases, and should be handled accordingly. Sometimes these get reposted by legitimate news sources and are labeled as such (Reuters and Bloomberg, for example, do carry a bunch of business press releases; this is something that can be helpful for readers of business publications/investors checking in on their held companies/etc). But just because Google decides to put it in the "news" filter on its search tool when they get reposted like this doesn't change them from being labeled press releases. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The 'Sports Reference' (SR) family of websites ([https://www.sports-reference.com Sports Reference], [https://www.Baseball-Reference.com Baseball Reference], [https://www.Basketball-Reference.com Basketball Reference], [https://www.Pro-Football-Reference.com Pro Football Reference], [https://www.Hockey-Reference.com Hockey Reference], etc.) are widely cited on Wikipedia across multiple sports.

The SR sites appear to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:TERTIARY sources and have been previously discussed on this noticeboard, but don't yet have an entry at WP:RSPS (which perhaps they should).

This discussion will focus solely on these sites's treatment of "Redshirt" seasons in college athletics.

Consider Gonzaga's Kelly Olynyk. He played two mediocre years as a true freshman and sophomore, then [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/sports/ncaabasketball/gonzagas-olynyk-needed-an-unusual-redshirt-year-to-blossom.html took a redshirt season] to work on his strength and conditioning. He was still on the active roster of the 2011–12 Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball team, eligible to play and suited up, but his coach did not play him in any games. The next season he returned to log game minutes as the star player in 2012–13. But [https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/kelly-olynyk-1.html Olynyk's Sports Reverence profile] does not have a row for his 2011-2012 season. Looking at the SR page, it's as if he was not even on the team.

Same for Cam Martin, who joined the 2021–22 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team as an immediately-elegible grad transfer. [https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/cam-martin-1.html His SR profile] does not contain this season, though, as [https://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article255748646.html Martin's coaches chose not to play him] to strategically better their team in the subsequent seasons. Martin remained an active, eligible, suited-up player on the bench during this entire "redshirt" year.

Sports Reference denies Martin the "NCAA Champion" banner that it displays for his 2021-2022 teammates such as [https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/ochai-agbaji-1.html Ochai Agbaji]. This is despite Cam Martin [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brOc9cvZ4PA&t=173s receiving an NCAA national championship ring] as a member of the team and [https://www.koamnewsnow.com/sports/college-sports/cam-martin-returns-as-a-national-champion-helps-teach-and-inspire-local-athletes/article_ecf4c97c-93c5-56a0-a1d9-f876f191c733.html reliable sources calling him a "national champion"].

The Sports Reference website's choice not to display seasons for which a player does not have any recorded in-game statistics is resulting in Wikipedia editors treating the player as if they were not an active, eligible, full member of the team for those seasons. From a recent discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball:

• {{tpq|Despite the USA Today article, I'm quite sure SRCBB is not going to put "2025 national champion" on Rioux's profile page.}}
• {{tpq|Curry's SRCBB profile does not list "NCAA champion". Are there other sources that call them champions?}}
• {{tpq|Seth Curry not having national champion denoted in his Sports-Reference profile speaks volumes. This alone is evidence that Rioux is not a national champion as provided by the single most reliable, third-party college basketball source out there.}}
• {{tpq|And, you obviously don't know anything about Sports Reference LLC if you think they're as unreliable as you claim. A blog - lol.}}

Sports Reference's treatment of these redshirt seasons differs from that of reliable, independent, secondary sources. For example:

• Sports Illustrated, 1982, [https://vault.si.com/vault/1982/09/01/this-year-youre-going-to-see-red This Year You're Going to See Red]: {{tpq|The redshirt gets to practice like the other players, gets chewed out like the other players, goes to sleep in meetings like the other players and takes his lumps like the other players. He does everything like the other players, except he doesn't play in games. Which is to say, he gets everything football has to offer but the fun. By doing this the player preserves a year of eligibility for later use and presumably not only learns a whole bunch—talk to a few coaches about the pass-blocking ability of an average offensive-line recruit if you want to know what's to learn—but also grows up physically. [...] The rub is that each redshirt counts against the 95 football scholarships (90 in the Pac-10) that a school can give out at one time.}}

• The New York Times, 2024, report on an intended "redshirt" player [https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5347945/2024/03/20/longwood-ncaa-tournament-trey-hicks/ stepping in to the conference championship game at a time of need for his team], thereby "burning" his redshirt season in one of the final games of the season. According to this reliable source, "redshirt" players are active and eligible members of the team who can step into the game at any time.

• Kansas awarded national championship rings to all four redshirts on their 2021–22 national championship basketball team. Reliable sources [https://www.koamnewsnow.com/sports/college-sports/cam-martin-returns-as-a-national-champion-helps-teach-and-inspire-local-athletes/article_ecf4c97c-93c5-56a0-a1d9-f876f191c733.html subsequently call] these redshirt players "national champions".

• 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes football team awarded a national championship ring in football to redshirt player T.J. Downing. This ring became a central focus of the Tattoogate scandal a decade later and the ring's existence [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-marion-star-tj-downing-national-ch/170017612/ is] [https://media.cleveland.com/metro/other/cicero-complaint.pdf well] [https://www.landgrantholyland.com/2013/6/7/4406590/ohio-state-terrelle-pryor-tattoo-for-memorabilia-scandal-auction-pictures#0 documented].

Seeking opinions on if Sports Reference websites are a reliable source for players' redshirt seasons and awards/honors received during redshirt seasons. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:i would suggest that the question of whether a 'redshirt' should be called a 'champion' or not is something better discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball, or the relevant article's talk page.
The about us page of Sports Reference shows that although they were started by one person back in 2000, they are now a company with multiple employees. So not a self published source, or at least not what most editors would consider a self published source. They also appear to have WP:USEBYOTHERS in works on sports by academic publishers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::The website Know Your Meme is also a [https://knowyourmeme.com/news/staff "company with multiple employees"]; it's still a self-published website. (As is currently being discussed in a topic above.) Sports Reference is perhaps a usable self-published source because it's {{tpq|produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}} but it remains self-published. WP:USINGSPS: {{tpq|If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.}} PK-WIKI (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The recent discussion is about KYM being user generated content, not self published. The arguments about 'self-published' are in regard to whether entries by recognised experts could be used per WP:EXPERTSPS. The wording in USINGSPS (an essay) goes far beyond the wording at SPS or how the policy (WP:V) is commonly interpreted. There's a very long discussion about it somewhere, but I think you may have taken part in it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think I'm mistaken about you taking part, I must have mixed up your username with someone else. Anyway the discussion was at WT:Verifiability/SPS RfC, unless it's closed in favour of the 'traditional published' concept then it's contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll let others have a say, as otherwise it will just be the two of us disagreeing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:The sports reference family appears to be more of an info warehouse sort of operation than something which is really usable as a WP:RS. In general I would go with what long form souces say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable as clearly meets WP:USEBYOTHERS and is a subject matter expert, whether or not it's (debatably) self-published. If reliable sources conflict, then reach consensus through dispute resolution (e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject College basketball) on how to handle it. There seems to no objective college sports standard on how to label team sports players on a team which collectively win a national championship, even moreso with redshirts. —Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• It's not entirely clear what the purpose of this post is. It seems to be an extension of the ongoing WT:CBB dispute. As demonstrated by that project discussion, the claim in question about redshirts being champions is a subjective contested assertion bound by the conditions set forth in WP:WIKIVOICE, so whether it's "right" or "wrong" by consensus has no bearing on reliability from an WP:RS standpoint. My understanding is that the Sports Reference group of sites is generally reliable for objective statistics, but the matter in question is a bit more nuanced than that. If this noticeboard is being used to try to score points in the underlying content dispute, that's unhelpful in achieving consensus or ascertaining the reliability of anything. This should be deferred back to the project talk page. Left guide (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This is a discussion about the overall reliability of the SR sites for this particular information. Multiple editors reference SR as if the site is a reliable source on the matter of redshirt seasons. I contend that it is not a reliable source on the matter, given that it contradicts every other non-self-published secondary reliable source such as Sports Illustrated and The New York Times. Our overall display of redshirt seasons across all of Wikipedia seems to be largely based on SR's coverage, so examining the matter is important beyond that particular CBB thread. {{tpq|My understanding is that the Sports Reference group of sites is generally reliable for objective statistics, but the matter in question is a bit more nuanced than that.}} - agreed. This noticeboard thread is to determine if their treatment of redshirts is included as an "objective statistic" in that that "generally reliable" bucket. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is strictly a YouTube channel and Facebook page, its owner is anonymous, there is no discussion anywhere of its editorial policy or professional standards, and AFAICT it has not been used by any real news media. I would think this would fall squarely under "user-generated content" and thus be non-RS, but I've encountered two experienced editors who insist it is reliable and that interviews on it are notability-contributing for BLPs.

Thoughts? JoelleJay (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:A YouTube channel with 400 subscribers and no apparent presence other than Facebook? It certainly looks to be WP:UGC. In general unless editors can make a very good case for it I don't see why it should be considered reliable.
Interviews are not independent, which usually makes them unusable for notability purposes regardless of where they are published. But they can be reliable in a WP:ABOUTSELF way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:The source wouldn't be notability-contributing either way, since it would count as a primary source (it just does interviews with the subjects of those articles) ApexParagon (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, that is my understanding as well, but there are several editors who somehow consider such interviews to be "independent secondary SIGCOV"... JoelleJay (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If a significant person/organisation (e.g. national TV channel) deems someone worth interviewing, that can be a point towards notability but doesn't provide it on its own. An interview by a person/organisation without that significance does not indicate anything about notability.

:::An interview can only ever be a primary source for the views of the person being interviewed (or the organisation they are representing) and, in some cases, the views of the interviewer (or the organisation they are representing). However a faithfully recorded/reported interview is a reliable source for those views, which are sometimes DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It can be a soft indication towards notability but it does not itself contribute to GNG as, as you said, the interview is a primary source for the interviewee's statements and thus those statements are not independent secondary coverage of the interviewee. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Thryduulf, anyway, the point of my raising this is to assess reliability; do you have input on that? I can find no evidence of any organization behind the channel, its editorial policy, or even who the channel author is; surely the default is not to presume it is RS and that its videos can be used in BLPs? JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah I don’t think it could be considered a reliable source if it has zero presence outside of YouTube and Facebook, or any sort of info on their editorial policy. ApexParagon (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@JoelleJay I have nothing useful to say on that point that others haven't already said. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't really see why this would be anything other than WP:UGC. Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF would apply, but only maybe; we'd need to have reasonable understanding about the provenance of the clips before we'd want to even do that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Red-tailed hawk So the article at issue has now thankfully been redirected, but only after a truly exhausting amount of effort trying to explain why this source isn't acceptable to autopatrolled editors...is there something ambiguous with our PAGs? JoelleJay (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The ambiguity with how it was used in the page before it was redirected is about whether or not this sort of thing qualifies as WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not horrible in light of those guidelines; some of the stuff it's used for are very basic information (e.g. "He moved to Cidra, Puerto Rico after his marriage in 1980" and "Serrano is from Coamo, Puerto Rico"), though others (i.e. "He would go on to break the Puerto Rican national record in the 10,000 m") both I and sourcing guidance would prefer an independent source for (and one should exist if it's breaking a Puerto Rican record).

:::As for {{tq|that interviews on it are notability-contributing for BLPs}}: no, this doesn't appear to be notability contributing. The two main reasons—that it's a primary source interview (WP:NBASIC presumes notability based on secondary sources) and that it's clearly self-published—appear quite unambiguous. That being said, I'm not super familiar with the landscape of the Puerto Rican distance running community and I could be missing something; for fairness's sake, it might be worth pinging in those {{tq|two experienced editors}} to have them explain what their reasoning is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your input @Red-tailed hawk. @Habst was claiming enough of the info from this source was actually spoken by the interviewer and was thus independent secondary coverage, in which case I think it would be unacceptable as a source in general (non-expert SPS) and especially for a BLP. The ambiguity I'm referring to is the apparent presumption that such a source is or "could be" RS even in the absence of any info on its publishing standards, and that therefore it still ought to be considered for notability purposes. I was under the impression that reliability must be demonstrable and not assumed, particularly for BLPs, and that the lack of any info on a source at all, let alone its editorial policy, should be sufficient to deem it non-RS. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@User:JoelleJay, thank you for the ping. There's a lot here so I will just try to respond to the comment you pinged me with. The creator of Leyendas del Fondismo is Jorge Maisonet, who I think is fair to say is a subject-matter expert on Puerto Rican long-distance running. He's done interviews with multiple notable Puerto Rican Olympians, his interview with Serrano was just one of them. If any of the content I added was against WP:ABOUTSELF I'm open to hearing it, but I guess it's moot now that the page has been redirected anyways. --Habst (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::By policy, subject-matter expertise means established experts who have published their work in the relevant field in independent RS. There is no evidence this is the case. The issue was never ABOUTSELF, it was your claims that the channel was RS and that any of it contributed to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It seems like the notability question is answered by the AfD, although I'll couch that by saying neither of us understand the language the outlet is publishing in so there could be something we're missing. The ABOUTSELF is important also because regardless of the notability question, there's no issue with expanding an article with ABOUTSELF claims. --Habst (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You claimed {{tq|By the way, where possible I did not source claims to the athlete himself but instead to the interviewer anticipating this exact scenario.}} So the 350 words you sourced to this interview was specifically (an attempt at) a non-ABOUTSELF usage and you were touting it as a notability-contributing source, which is why the reliability is relevant. {{pb}}That you maintained {{tq|The YT interview is definitely not anonymous or unverified and not self-published either, because it's published by Leyendas del Fondismo – and there's definitely no copyright issues involved, so I'm not seeing the RSPYT issue.}} even after no one was able to find any information demonstrating the reliability of the channel, and continue to claim the interviewer is an "expert" even here, raises concerns about where else you have introduced random YT channels and UGC/SPS as third-party sources on BLPs. I was not intending this thread to become about behavioral issues, so I won't expand on this point further, but I hope the unanimous position by uninvolved editors here will discourage similar scenarios coming up in future AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This is getting into the weeds now, but it's also true that the way this interview was conducted, the interviewer would say something and then the athlete would confirm it. So yes, even though details were attributed to the interviewer in a notability-contributing sense, the same details could also be attributed to the athlete in an ABOUTSELF-sense.

:::::::::I have a lot of respect for you and your contributions. If you have issues with any other source I've used, please raise them instead of gesturing without specific examples. I generally have always tried to keep a higher standard for sourcing than P&G permits out of an abundance of caution.

:::::::::Lastly on behavior, I will say again that I think it's important that we both treat each other with respect, stick to the P&G substance, and not make personal comments, as you have done repeatedly to me. I greatly appreciate your arguments even when we disagree and I hope you can treat me with the same good faith. --Habst (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

{{rfc|reli|rfcid=F0791D8}}

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. We have 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. 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)

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)

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)

Since [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk%2FArchive_14#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_other_removal_of_sourced_content practically the inception of Wikipedia], there have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk&diff=prev&oldid=311551862 persistent efforts] to remove any information about the reported romantic relationship between Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Zsa Zsa Gabor. I've gathered a dozen references published over a period spanning 73 years:

• {{cite news|first=Alice|last=Pardee|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/599102511/|title=Behind the Scenes|newspaper=The Ogden Standard-Examiner|date=December 23, 1951}}
• {{cite news|author=Staff|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/996036020/|title=Zsa Zsa . . . . The Mink and Pearls Girl|newspaper=Truth|date=August 24, 1952}}
• {{cite news|first=Lon|last=Jones|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/991525306/|title=The Exotic Miss Gabor|newspaper=Star Weekly|date=April 18, 1953}}
• {{cite news|first=Zsa Zsa|last=Gabor|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/987527798/|title=Life With A Turk|newspaper=The Sun|date=August 25, 1954}}
• {{cite news|first=Parker|last=Kent|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z2NkAAAAIBAJ&pg=1230%2C1718557|title=Not Just A Peek, Today You Can Gaze|magazine=Herald Magazine|date=October 8, 1960}}
• {{cite interview|series=Larry King Live|title=Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6sBdgrZjMw|date=November 26, 1991|publisher=CNN|time=4:37}}
• {{cite book|first=Kaylan|last=Muammar|title=The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey|year=2005|publisher=Prometheus Books|isbn=9781615928972|page=68}}
• {{cite book|first1=Marty|last1=Wall|first2=Isabella|last2=Wall|first3=Robert Bruce|last3=Woodcox|title=Chasing Rubi|year=2005|publisher=Editoria Corripio|isbn=9780976476528|page=3}}
• {{cite web|first=Leslie|last=Bennetts|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/10/zsazsa200710|title=It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World|work=Vanity Fair|date=September 6, 2007}}
• {{cite web|first=Suzanne|last=Moore|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/zsa-zsa-gabor-death|title=Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly|work=The Guardian|date=December 19, 2016}}
• {{cite news|first=Louis|last=Bayard|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/were-zsa-zsa-and-eva-gabor-the-proto-kardashians/2019/08/19/bf9c48d0-c03e-11e9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html|title=Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=August 19, 2019}}
• {{cite web|first=Hadley|last=Hall Meares|url=https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/zsa-zsa-gabor-old-hollywood-book-club?srsltid=AfmBOop_t28BjuAlJhL0hz0iRW1dL_pWPplyXjgeEe3scs1u9QAw1BJ1|title=High Camp: Zsa Zsa Gabor, the Fabulous Fabulist|work=Vanity Fair|date=December 23, 2024}}

A final decision needs to be made about this so editors like Beshogur will no longer be allowed to remove an extensively sourced, widely accepted piece of information that is relevant to the subjects' biographies. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Has there been an rfc and if so, can you link it/them? Of course, WP is bad at "final". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:This seems like something that should be settled by a WP:RFC on the articles talk page. This noticeboard is meant to be for advice about the reliability of sources, not the content of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::These sources look ok to me. It is from numerous RS. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Having source doesn't mean we have to include it. I haven't read any of those but I'm pretty sure they're based on authobiography of that woman. There is 0 evidence that Gabor had anything with Atatürk. It is a claim made by Gabor. Shouldn't be included in the page of Atatürk, but should be mentioned in her own page as a claim. It is funny how it is stated as a fact {{tq|Gabor dated German composer Willy Schmidt-Gentner, Turkish president Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,}} Source spamming doesn't mean you're right, that's what {{user|PromQueenCarrie}} is doing here. Beshogur (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I feel like this might be better for an article talk page. I'm seeing a good number of sources that might each have quite different analyses regarding their corresponding reliability for these sorts of facts. If there are specific sources objected to, it would be appropriate for this board; I just don't think this is the right place unless we have a concrete sourcing dispute. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

: Last appearance here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_Kemal_Ataturk. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I was too quick to make the edit on International recognition of Israel. Here is: Talk:International_recognition_of_Israel#Kuwait_state_of_war_against_Israel. I have tried to find confirmation for Kuwait's state of war against Israel in other sources, but I couldn't find anything. On the other hand, if something has been permanent for more than 50 years, newspapers may not write about this. How reliable is Times of Kuwait? Lova Falk (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Lova Falk}} is this the same as Kuwait Times? Left guide (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Left guide}} Not an easy question! But according to the List of newspapers in Kuwait, Times Kuwait is not the same as Kuwait Times. Here is their "About us": https://timeskuwait.com/news/about-us/ Lova Falk (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm wondering if a source with analyses wod be better. I can find other (if not great) sources stating that Kuwait have reconfirmed there support of the 1967 Amiri Decree that Kuwait is in a defensive war against the "Zionist gangs" in Palestine. But to reduce that to a single word stating that Kuwait is at war with Israel seems simplistic. Kuwait has never declared war on Israel, as it doesn't recognise Israel's existence. That could be solvable by modifying the wording of the legend.
As to Times Kuwait it appears to be an established news organisation and has some WP:USEBYOTHERS. So WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSBIAS, and WP:RSOPINION would all seem to be applicable. The only point I would make is that the only other sources I could find picking up this story have been considered only marginally reliable in past discussions, whether that's relevant not not I'm not sure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t°, food for thought! Good to get confirmation that my reluctance to write "war" has some ground.Lova Falk (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The issue is wording. Kuwait has not declared war on Israel but it's status is different than say Afghanistan. Afghanistan just doesn't recognise Israel, while the situation with Kuwait (and the others in that set) is more complicated. This also doesn't mean that there aren't good sources out there that would allow a more plain interpretation, just not the ones I've looked at. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I have some guidance please about this short paragraph from the article The Tempest and its sourcing?

• Although comparisons have been made between The Tempest and the 2015 science fiction film Ex Machina, namely that Prospero was reinterpreted as Nathan, the genius tech developper; Miranda as Ava, the artificially-intelligent android and Ferdinand as Caleb, the manipulated visitor, writer-director Alex Garland denies the connection.
• {{cite web |title=Ex Machina at 10: The Story Behind the Thought-Provoking Piece of Speculative Fiction |url= https://www.flickeringmyth.com/ex-machina-at-10-the-story-behind-the-thought-provoking-piece-of-speculative-fiction/ |date=21 January 2025 |website=FlickeringMyth}}
• {{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared%7D&v=bVbt8qG7Fl8 |title=Alex Garland Breaks Down His Most Iconic Films |date=2025-04-15 |last=GQ |access-date=2025-04-16 |via=YouTube}}

In the first one the relevant part is under the subheading "The story was a loose adaptation of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest". And in the second one the relevant interview is at 9:22-13:55 and the comment in question is made about 13:45.AndyJones (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I can't find anything about Flickering Myth, they have no about us page and I can't find any meaningful WP:USEBYOTHERS. Outside of that the Flickering Myth article appear to be an opinion piece, so it's the opinion of Flickering Myth that Ex Machina is an adaptation of The Tempest. I would doubt their opinion is worth inclusion in The Tempest.
The GQ are generally reliable and interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources, so it's reliable for what Garland said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:The Ex Machina (film) article uses a Collider article[https://collider.com/best-sci-fi-movies-about-ai-matrix-ex-machina/] for the same content, which is a slightly better source.
Also you can add the relevant time stamp to the interview by adding {{para|time|13:45}} to the cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the edit history the question appears to be more about the GQ interview, so to clarify it's definitely a reliable source to support that Garland says it's not an adaptation of The Tempest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{tq| Alex Garland denies the connection}} ← is a bit odd. The "connection" is there if sources mention it. Garland may deny it was his (conscious) intent to make that connection, but he cannot dictate how a work is received. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks all. Agree with {{ping|Bon courage}}'s comment in light of which I think the comment can stay (without that thought, "FILM ISN'T BASED ON TEMPEST" doesn't seem like a fact worthy of inclusion in an article about the Tempest). Thank you especially {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} for a supporting reference and the idea for the timestamp, both of which I have included. AndyJones (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:It seems really implausible to me that this connection or non-connection satisfies WP:DUE in an article about The Tempest. It belongs (if anywhere) in the article about the movie, instead. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a follow-up to previous discussions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#riverfronttimes.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#h-Sophie_Rain-20250324185100.

I'd like to know if anyone would support an RfC to see what can be done about what WIRED magazine has called "[https://www.wired.com/story/zombie-alt-weeklies-are-stuffed-with-ai-slop-about-onlyfans/ zombie alt-weeklies]," or former alternative publications that have been sold and now focus on largely promotional, spam-like content, especially about OnlyFans creators.

The main one to focus on is the Riverfront Times, which was sold in May 2024 to a Dallas-based company that focuses on OnlyFans marketing ([https://www.stlpr.org/economy-business/2024-09-24/st-louis-riverfront-times-owner-rsc-ventures-onlyfans-onlyfinder source]). There's a decent amount of archival material from when it was a real newspaper, so not exactly fit for the spam blacklist (as I learned), but good enough for a possible RfC.

There are some other alt-weeklies mentioned in the WIRED article, but they don't seem obvious enough at first glance to get the spam boot. Curious to hear thoughts. wizzito | say hello! 23:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:We'll probably need to establish specific timeline requirements for the use of each of them, based around when they became zombified. I've used the Riverfront Times myself for the article Jessica Lussenhop, who was a journalist there back when they were an actual paper. So I definitely don't think they belong on the spam blacklist, but we do need to add them to the perennial list and vigilantly kill any usage of them after the zombification period. Make sure to double-tap! Silverseren^C 23:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

: I fear that these likely have to be addressed on a case by case basis. In this case yes, unreliable after sale but marginally reliable before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think there's any automated method that can deal with this, but the references to the so before it was sold can be marked as usurped so readers are directed to the current site. This can be done for all links bby making a request at WP:JUDI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

LADbible has categories for articles about popular porn stars [https://www.ladbible.com/riley-reid Riley Reid] and [https://www.ladbible.com/mia-khalifa Mia Khalifa] (and possibly others). Many of these articles are authored by the site's [https://www.ladbible.com/author/tom-earnshaw "SEO Lead"] and are essentially repackaged content from various podcasts and social media with no apparent original reporting or fact-checking. To me this looks like spammy, clickbait churnalism that especially shouldn't be used for any biographical material.

Although the site lists several [https://www.ladbible.com/about-and-contact reporters and editors] among its staff, it's unclear how much actual editorial oversight exists. Previous discussion in 2020 suggested the site was merely {{tqq|lowest common denominator clickbait content}}, but I'd like to hear other users' opinions before removing the citations. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

: LADbible is in general low quality to the point of being generally unreliable, there is occasionally something marginally useful from professional writers but like OP notes there is no real way to sort wheat from chaff... At best editorial controls are unclear. In the case of the articles in question I would say no... Especially as they are likely to be BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:LADbible is mostly reposted clickbait content with little editorial oversight. Some of the things they post are misleading, inaccurate, or mislabeled, and some of the things they post are Fringe or Fabrication. Not a reliable source, and within sensitive topic areas I would consider relying on their content to be unsubstantial and undo any edits made citing them. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is a generally low quality website; I don't think that it is an established news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

https://covid.gov used to be a good source of reliable information about COVID-19. It has since been hijacked by an group spreading COVID conspiracy theories. It fails our policies on medical advice and no longer reliable.

The Social Security Administration (ssa.gov) will be using Twitter/X as its primary outlet for communication with the public. This platform is known for spreading conspiracy theories, either directly or through nearby posts. It is a cesspool of targeted propaganda, disinformation (see also Facebook).

The reliability of the Federal Government is impossible to gauge due to its distributed nature. Is navy.mil reliable? Nevertheless, we can and should make an effort to better understand. Up until a few months ago it was generally assumed to be a reliable source. No longer a valid assumption. -- GreenC 02:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:In general, I've been thinking for a while that we might want to time range limit usage of US .gov websites to archive versions prior to this year. We can always revise the time range later as needed. We generally use archive link time dated versions anyways for .gov sites since they do sometimes change with new/different info regardless and we're using them to reference information from a specific version. Silverseren^C 02:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::There's also been a huge amount of 2025 United States government online resource removals. Here's [https://www.datarescueproject.org/current-efforts/ one resource] listing/linking to efforts to archive the information. The Reactions section of the article above identifies a few other places making efforts to archive some of the material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I came here to post this same thing. This is just the last straw in a long line of disinformation and misinformation being added to US Government websites since Trump took office. It is beyond time for us to have a full RFC and deprecate all US Government sources as unreliable until further notice. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{asterisk}}at least all US Government sources after Trump took office.

::73.206.161.228 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:As in all things, never forget its the government's claim, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Except that now we have to worry about Trump's regime taking adverse actions to try to strongarm previously reliable sources into repeating the claims. Or have you not been paying attention to what's been done to the Associated Press over Trump's fake renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and AP's refusal to go along with that "Gulf of America" Orwellian Revisionism? 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That is not a .gov website, so that is another matter. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok. Let's parse this out. Doublechecking the Fox News coverage, which they have made front page news: they have a fawning repetition of all the claims, and then reference to the New York Times publishing an "article" in March. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html)

::::The "article" is actually an op-ed from one Zeynep Tufecki, who is a sociologist - not an epidemiologist - and whose op-ed misrepresents virtually all of her purported sources either in content, in origin, or both. (Much of her purported sourcing comes from a known anti-vaccination conspiracy site, per https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstream-media-source-is-funded-by-anti-vaxxers/).

::::I think there is a legitimate reason to be worried that more of this sort of thing will be happening. Tufecki, for instance, seems to be engaging in several publications like this recently, quite possibly (a) to ensure that her Turkish ties do not get her deemed a person of concern to the Trump administration and (b) to try to ensure that her grants continue, given that other researchers in the field have seen research shut down for spurious reasons, especially researchers focused on the spread of misinformation and disinformation. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The "Gulf of America" now appears on a bunch of government websites, as an internet search on [site:gov "Gulf of America"] shows. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Some statements on government websites are facts and others aren't. The problem is that many facts are disappearing from federal government sites, and the facts:non-facts ratio is getting smaller. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Therefore, use with caution, and not for MEDRS subjects. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This needs to become far more general. "Not for MEDRS subjects" - do we then need to have other categories beyond that? How many areas does the Trump administration need to expand their "flood the zone" tactics to before it's too many? How much is too much? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/business/trump-misinformation-false-claims.html

::::"use with caution, and not for MEDRS subjects" feels like just trying to kick the can down the road. Why not have an RFC? 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You mean: facts are disappearing and being replaced by falsehoods. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In some cases. In many other cases, they're being removed and not being replaced at all, as is discussed in the article link I provided above. Both are a loss of factual information, but they're distinct. FactOrOpinion (talk) FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:It might be wise here to draw a line between the political branches of government and other areas, inasmuch as one can. Websites like whitehouse.gov reflect the statements and positions of the administration that occupy the White House. It hosts things like [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-common-sense-to-federal-procurement/ the text of executive orders] and [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/03/national-consumer-protection-week-2025/ proclamations], as well as [https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ position statements]. There are other websites, like federalreserve.gov, which hold things like [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/index.htm economic research working papers] and the [https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/20250207_mprfullreport.pdf monetary policy report].

:I think common sense is all that's required here; that [https://www.cdc.gov/tb/signs-symptoms/index.html the CDC page for signs and symptoms of TB] would not be reliable for MEDRS purposes because whitehouse.gov the U.S. president's position that COVID is a lab leak is quite a bit absurd. That the [https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/summary-of-fatca-reporting-for-us-taxpayers IRS description of FATCA reporting requirements for U.S. taxpayers] would be unreliable because of a report from the [https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/ House of Reps oversight committee] is ridiculous.

:There are quite a good number of government websites that are reliable for facts, and there are some that aren't—the government is large and diverse. If we are ignorant of basic civics, we might come to some sweeping conclusions about the whole of the bureaucracy based on the political branches publishing documents that contain sharp political spin. But that would be sloppy, and harmful to our project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I can't tell if you're joking or not @Red-tailed hawk. Consider: covid.gov USED TO go to a CDC website. Now it's been redirected to a White House batshit-insane propaganda page.

::That means that due to the insane and corrupt Trump administration's actions, any directed links Wikipedia had to covid.gov resources are now broken or worse. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think that perhaps for MedRS, we should downgrade US Govt websites from Green to Yellow, that is Additionally Considerations should apply and attribution and secondary source verification should be included for controversial or fringe claims. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The presence or absence of factual info on a gov (any gov) website (primary sources) is not conclusive, prefer secondaries where possible and avoid drawing conclusions from biased sources.Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Are you implying that all government websites are primary source? If so, I'd have to disagree. For example, the whole of the IRS [https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit-eitc website publications] regarding the Earned Income Tax Credit are secondary—the primary sources are the Statutes and CFR entries; the agency analyzed them and has compiled lay-readable guidance on them. They're extremely useful, and quite reliable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::So are secondaries. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::The agency in charge of enforcing the laws and statues explaining how they will enforce those laws and statues is absolutely a primary source, regardless of the administration. Masem (t) 16:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Governments, culture, and views change through time. It makes no sense to all of a sudden say government sources are unreliable because of such chnages. FDA and EPA often change positions and do have tolernaces for things that are not verified by any scientific bodies (e.g. dietary supplements, medical devices, poisonous subtances, etc). When you look at European, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc govement sources they also contardict each other in such matters. Health ministries or agnecies of Canada, US, Britain, China, Germany, Nicaragua, Ghana, India, etc never match up. Asian and Latin American minitires of health which have very different policies on medical practices allow for things that are prohibited by other western governments. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"FDA and EPA often change positions" - in the past this has been incremental change based on available scientific knowledge and data. Not "taking down the website focused on vaccinations of a pandemic-level disease and replacing it with a batshit-insane conspiracy theory page because Orange Shitler didn't like how the real medical professionals didn't go along with his 'just snort horse dewormer, you'll be fine' lunacy." 73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources from non-US govermental institutions are generally not used for unattributed statements of fact. Such US sources have been used because of there ease of use and access, but really they should only ever have been used in the way as sources from other governments. As sources from US govermental institutions come to show a more US centric view point, they should no longer be used in lieu of more neutral sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can we not have an RfC on whether the US government is generally reliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would have thought the question to broad. Which part, for what? If the a US politician called a press conference and spent four hours extolling the virtues and washing you eyeballs with bleach, it would be a reliable source for that politicians words. If the CIA released a detailed report on the intricacies of the Iranian nuclear weapons program it should have intext attribution regardless of how persuasive the report. If they said the right way to spell peaches was "peeches" it would obviously be unreliable given the weight of other sources, but they would still be reliable for census data. The list is endless. My point was that when it comes to general or globe subjects the opinion of the US government shouldn't be stated as fact.
If anyone wants a RFC I suggest they workshop the question, otherwise it will just end as a trainwreck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So [https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/nx-s1-5268958/trump-order-census-citizenship-question-apportionment about the census]... you may want to rethink your example there. The moment after Orange Corruption got into office he altered the census results for purposes of congressional districting. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe it would have been better to say they would be considered generally reliable, no source is absolutely reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:What does "As sources from US govermental institutions come to show a more US centric view point" mean? There are many federal sites that are US-centric more or less by definition (e.g., US census data, information about the Social Security Administration) and others that mostly aren't (e.g., NASA). I don't think the issue is that some federal info is becoming more "US centric," but that it's become less reliable (e.g., has misinformation or propaganda) and some is simply disappearing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think existing policy covers the situation adequately even if in the past we have tended to give more credence to gov websites than we probably ought to. It's not as if there is much doubt about the intention behind the recent changes but I'm also sure the current US administration is not the only one guilty of this sort of thing. Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would agree. What I was saying was that the past credence given to US government websites was due to the US goverment view 'generally' (I'm not saying it's wasn't slanted) following a the global consensus view. That has changed and so how we handle them needs to change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Whether a global consensus view exists depends on what the topic is. Origins of COVID? sure, because COVID is a global phenomenon with global research. But there are many articles with US government sources (census, etc.), and where the article's focus is only on the US and there isn't global research. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::In general WP:ATTRIBUTION is a good and safe option to use when citing any goverement agency or position. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::See my comment above that discusses that exact point[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250419231400-Chess-20250419221400]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Relatedly, there is a proposal to add the "official" US govt position to the lede of COVID-19 lab leak theory.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Let's_add_the_official_US_position_to_the_lead] Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Any US goverment source that contains things like {{tq|"New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into..."}} is not reliable. As the DOJ is part of the US government, they should not need "new evidence" they should know as they are talking about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at the linked page above regarding a series of endorsements from bankers for the Conservative Party. An editor has repeatedly tried to add these endorsements in the article despite opposition on the talk page, and has done so again tonight, claiming consensus after the discussion stalled for 2 days. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:This board doesn't handle editors behaviour, see WP:DISRUPTIVE for editors who are editing against consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was inviting watchers of this noticeboard to participate in the discussion to seek a clearer consensus, as the discussion involves the coverage of the endorsements in RSs. Though I do think there are some bad actors acting in the general context of the election article, I am aware of where ANI is. Apologies for not being clear enough. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 21:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just to give this a bit of background because I think GhostOfDanGurney did not explain well and shifting the focus to editor behaviour is unfortunate. The dispute is around a letter of endorsement published as an advertisement in a Canadian newspaper, in which a group of businesspeople endorsed the Conservative Party in the upcoming election. The advertisement was picked up and covered by several other Canadian newspapers, which also investigated the membership of this group and identified several prominent individuals by name, many of whom have their own biographies on Wikipedia. Some editors have argued that this endorsement is undue on its face and should not be included in the article at all because it is a paid advertisement. Among editors who agree that inclusion of the endorsement is warranted (owing to independent coverage and/or the notability of the individuals named as part of the group), there is an additional dispute about whether the advertisement should be included in Wikipedia as a single endorsement by the group that published the advertisement, or as separate endorsements by each individual named in third party coverage.

:I agree that more eyes would be helpful, as the discussion has been stalemated for several days and is devolving into edit warring, which everyone with half a brain cell knows needs to be reported somewhere else and we are all quite capable of doing so if that becomes necessary, so you don't need to shove that down our throats, thank you very much. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently the article Bæddel and bædling was featured on the main page. Upon looking it over, I've noticed it has many problems that should have been sorted out during its GA and FA article reviews.

One of those issues is the article's lead says:

:"The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, supports {{lang|ang|bæddel}} as the etymological root of the English adjective "bad" ...".

However, if you actually [https://www.oed.com/dictionary/bad_adj?tab=etymology check the OED's entry on bad] (which is mentioned repeatedly in the article but in fact never cited), you will find it doesn't "support" any etymology: it just says the etymology is uncertain ("Summary: Of uncertain origin.", "Origin uncertain."). It mentions a (widely suspected) connection to contemporary English bad but certainly doesn't take the position that English bad developed from bæddel. It just says it may be related:

:"Perhaps related to Old English bæddel hermaphrodite, homosexual man, man who does not conform to traditional notions of masculinity ..."

It also discusses some other potentials, including toponyms (for some reason also not mentioned in Bæddel and bædling, although it is a common point of discussion regarding the etymology bad—just another matter that should have come up during the reviews).

For context on why the OED is noncommittal, while (notoriously) no clear precursor to English bad is attested in Old English, notable philologists have discussed how an unattested Old English precursor to bad (*bæd, etc.) may have have existed that separately produced words like bæddel ([https://blog.oup.com/2015/07/history-word-bad-origin-etymology-3-dutch/ like Liberman] 2015 and [https://www.academia.edu/111346754/The_Etymologies_of_Old_English_B%C3%A6dling_Sodomite_and_Modern_English_Bad Sayers 2019], presented as Sayers 2020 in the article) and the OED editors are aware of these potentials. (Example, although for some reason only briefly and vaguely touched on at the end of the article, Liberman 2015 concludes that "..bad is not a back formation on bæddel; on the contrary, bæddel “a bad man” was formed from it.")

Now, for more context, all of this would be a simple (and typically welcome) correction or removal, but changes to the article have been met with extreme hostility by the editors who passed it to FA. Any notable change to the article triggers mass reverts, attempts at communication are met with hostile confusion or silence. The big problem seems to be that none of the editors involved seem to be knowledgeable about historical linguistics (a bit of a problem for an article with a big focus on historical linguistics).

Most recently, an editor who passed it on to FA status, {{ping|Borsoka}}, has repeatedly argued that somehow the OED's stance is in fact that it "supports" bæddel developed into bad, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&curid=78462563&diff=1286461069&oldid=1286418125 has reverted to keep this claim in the article].

So, in short, is it somehow OK to render the OED's position (that the etymology for bad is "uncertain" but "perhaps related to bæddel") as "support" for the idea that English bad developed from Old English bæddel? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Although I do not understand why this board was involved, I think the whole story significantly differs from the above summary. Our whole discussion can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Borsoka, it seems like the main thing you wanted out of that discussion was a proposal for an alternative version of the OED content. How about something like "The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, considers bæddel to be a possible etymological root of the English adjective "bad" ..."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That would be more accurate but the OED just says it may be related, not that it may have developed from bæddel. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging active editors who regularly edit Germanic philology topics: {{ping|Austronesier}}, {{ping|Alcaios}}, {{ping|Blockhaj}}, {{ping|Yngvadottir}}, {{ping|Ingwina}}, {{ping|Carlstak}} :bloodofox: (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I think a proposal is needed, and it should be discussed on the article's Talk page not here. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is a centralized place for discussing appropriate application and use of WP:RS. It benefits the article to seek opinions beyond those of the editors who approved the article to FA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In response to ping: "source" or "etymological root" is definitely not the same thing as "related". The OED source is being misused if it's cited to claim bæddel is a possible source of bad. I suggest: "The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the philologist Julius Zupitza, considers bæddel to be possibly related to the English adjective "bad", whose etymology is unknown." Using one of Bloodofox's citations above—the OUP blog—one might continue, "Philologists Richard Coates and Anatoly Liberman have suggested that bæddel and "bad" have a common origin in an unrecorded Old English word *bæd, an alternate to the word yfel." I am concerned that this misstatement didn't come up in review, but it's easily remedied with a better paraphrase and citing more sources; as Bloodofox notes, there are equally reliable sources available. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Check out the discussions over at Talk:Bæddel and bædling: this is just the tip of the Iceberg with this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Notifying the other users involved in this discussion: {{yo|ArtemisiaGentileschiFan}}, {{yo|Tim riley}}, {{yo|UndercoverClassicist}}, {{yo|SchroCat}}, {{yo|AirshipJungleman29}}, {{yo|Riposte97}}, {{yo|Sawyer777}} Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Generalissima}}, you authored the lead line about the OED "supporting" a derivation of bad from bæddel. Could you explain how you came to that conclusion from the RS (the OED entry) rather than, for example, something like "according to the OED, the etymology of bad is unclear but a connection to bæddel is possible"? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Here is what it says from the 1989 OED: {{green|Prof Zupista, with great probability, sees in bad-de the ME repr. of OE bæddel, 'homo utriusque generis hermaphrodita' [...] This perfectly suits the ME form and sense, and accounts satisfactorily for the want of early written examples. [...] No other suggestion yet offered is of importance; the Celtic words sometimes compared are out of the question.}} If the OED Online disagrees strongly with this, I am unaware; I don't have access to it and simply asked a friend to check if the online version had changed its perspective, and she said that it still posits Zupista's connection as the main theory. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Generalissima}}, your friend is wrong—as anyone who has access to it can see—and 1989 was many years ago now. In 2025, despite what the FA article now tells thousands of readers, the OED (which is now not OED Online but just the Oxford English Dictionary) does not support any etymology for the word.

::::It doesn't even mention Zupista—the only scholar it mentions by name is Richard Coates, who discusses potential toponyms (which are not mentioned at all in the article). In fact, regarding Coates, the 2025 OED entry discusses the opposite of what the article currently saddles the OED with:

:::::"hence an argument that bad adj. is the reflex of an unattested Old English form *badda of which bæddel is probably a derivative, rather than vice versa".

::::In other words, Coates, as discussed by the OED, is much in line with Liberman 2015 (among others, like Sayers). And the article currently shies away from Liberman's conclusions as well, despite being an FA.

::::So, it's really important to ask, why is this claim still in an FA article telling thousands of readers that the OED "supports" a derivation of bad from bæddel rather than stating that the OED's stance is that the etymology is unclear and that it might be related to bæddel in some way? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't know, this does not seem to be as much of a "reliable sources" question as a test of poise in collaboration. I certainly have had no qualms at any point with rephrasing the section about the OED; I think the issue is that it was proposed in conjunction with a sweeping restructuring of the rest of the article and without a clear rewording proposed on the talk page. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is a question of the interpretation of an RS and, along with it, how much the reliable sourves in the FA were reviewed before the GFA was put on the main page. It's all very much an RS matter. Regarding the interpretation of "supporting" a derivation of bad from bæddel, one of the article's FA reviewers, {{ping|Borsoka}}, has said:

:::::::"The article does not say that OED asserts that "bad" derrived from "bæddel", but the fact itself that it mentions this possible etymology shows that it supports it."

::::::Given what you now know about the contemporary OED entry and its disussion about, for example, Coates, do you agree with his defense of the current wording of the OED's entry? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I still suggest that the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page. As I have several times stated any verified and consensual wording is acceptable for me. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Borsoka}}, you've argued your defense for the current wording that has current version's 'the OED supports bad developing from bæddel' on the article's talk page and we've only seen silence from the other reviewers on this matter. At this point I definitely think the article benefits from more discussion on this RS question beyond the FA reviewers who passed this article on to Wikipedia's landing page. (For my part, I first encountered the article on the landing page and immediately took issue with the article's representation of the OED's position, a matter undetected by FA reviewers, among various other problems that need to be resolved). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It would help if you stopped personalizing the discussion: comment on the content, not on other editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Dictionaries in general are descriptive, not prescriptive. Dictionaries do not decide what words mean, they are a record of what people have collectively (through use) decided it means. The OED in particular is a record of a word's usage throughout history from the first time it was used in writing, so it can be considered a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE with a dash of WP:UGC (The Surgeon of Crowthorne is a good book on it). Therefore I think secondary sources are needed to interpret the data in the OED, any conclusions (other than a word's definition) editors draw from it are WP:OR. {{pb}}{{tq|is it somehow OK to render the OED's position (that the etymology for bad is "uncertain" but "perhaps related to bæddel") as "support" for the idea that English bad developed from Old English bæddel?}}{{pb}}No, that kind of conclusion/claim/statement should come from a reliable secondary source. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a specific citation for a specific item in Comparative advertising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparative_advertising&oldid=prev&diff=1286336855

I cited isamunangpatalastas.blogspot.com. User:Kuru later deleted the citation and deleted it, replacing it with a "citation needed". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparative_advertising&diff=next&oldid=1286337436

I have reasonable proof that the blog is run by an expert. The sole owner of the blog, Alex[ander Maynardo] del Rosario Castro is reasonably expertised in Philippine advertising, having worked for it since the 1970s. Here is an article about him in the Asian edition of Campaign (magazine), a magazine for the advertising industry: https://www.campaignasia.com/article/creative-qa-publicis-jimenez-basics-alex-castro/264930

Here is his LinkedIn profile, which I think that isn't supposed to be cited as a source in Wikipedia but tells that he worked for Ace Saatchi and Saatchi from the 1970s throughout the 1980s and later Publicis Jimenez Basic from the 1990s throughout the 2010s, the agency that he was working for whilst he was doing the Campaign Asia interview. https://ph.linkedin.com/in/alexander-castro-143b1b143

An excerpt from his LinkedIn is provided:

[BEGIN LINKEDIN EXCERPT]

Senior Executive Officer-Creative

Publicis JimenezBasic, Makati, Metro Manila / Jan 1995 - Apr 2014 19 years 4 months / (Supervised the creative conceptualization, presentation, and production of advertising and promotional materials for blue-chip clients like Procter & Gamble, Selecta, Unilab, San Miguel Corp, Magnolia, Purefoods Inc, Pfizer , etc. Worked with art directors and copywriters to produce award-winning and business-generating advertising and below-the-line campaigns.

Executive Creative Director)

Synergie, Tokyu, DMB&B Advertising / Bangkok, Thailan [sic] / Jun 1991 - May 1995 4 years (Creative head of the multinational ad agency that serviced the advertising creative requirements of clients like Procter & Gamble, Thai-Danish Milk, Sony, CPC-Knorr.)

Creative Director

Ace Saatchi & Saatchi / Makati, Metro Manila / Apr 1981 - May 1991 10 years 2 months ( Planned, conceptualized, presented and produced thematic campaigns as well as below-the-line communications for agency clients that include Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Nestle Philippines, SMC-Magnolia, Purefoods, among others. These include tri-media campaigns on Print, radio TV, as well as Events, Merchandising and Point-of-sale materials, publicity stunts, collateral print materials, among others.)

[END LINKEDIN EXCERPT]

Here are fleeting mentions for his work in the advertising industry:

"Philippines 25 best ads over the years [..] 24. Astra Threads' Superman [..] Agency: Ace Compton [..] Creative Director: Mon Jimenez [..] Copywriters: Margarita Arroyo/Alex Castro [..] Art director: Salavdor Luna [..] 1984" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 Sep 2002) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=n1Y1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=alex+castro&article_id=1924,26039068&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhss_B0uWMAxVbcGwGHURjM_o4ChC7BXoECAYQBw#v=onepage&q=alex%20castro&f=false

Compton would be acquired by Saatchi, hence the name Ace Saatchi and Saatchi, formerly Ace Compton. (The New York Times, 16 Mar 1982) / https://archive.is/X765e

An obituary involving an Ace Saatchi and Saatchi executive, suggesting the name change did happen "Ace/Saatchi & Saatchi (formerly Ace-Compton)" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 21 Dec 2003) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1kRaAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA40&dq=ace+compton&article_id=2703,32563191&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQo5qy1OWMAxWbS2cHHVhFMJkQuwV6BAgMEAc#v=onepage&q=ace%20compton&f=false

".. what was then Ace Compton (now Ace Saatchi Saatchi) in the early 1970s" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 10 Nov 2006) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=sVc1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=ace+compton&article_id=1187,17327524&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQo5qy1OWMAxWbS2cHHVhFMJkQuwV6BAgHEAc#v=onepage&q=ace%20compton&f=false

"Jimenez D'Arcy advertising executive Alex Castro" (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 Apr 2002) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=21g1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=alex+castro&article_id=1904,7344962&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT6N2r0OWMAxUxRmwGHbbNIdUQuwV6BAgJEAc#v=onepage&q=alex%20castro&f=false

Jimenez D'Arcy would later merge with Basic, forming Jimenez Basic (Campaign Asia, 7 Feb 2003) /https://www.campaignasia.com/article/headlines-jimenez-moves-closer-towards-merger-with-basic/188939

"Alex Castro of Jimenez Basic Advertising", (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 24 Mar 2004) / https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=dlc1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA19&dq=alex+castro&article_id=1830,17728330&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT6N2r0OWMAxUxRmwGHbbNIdUQuwV6BAgMEAc#v=onepage&q=alex%20castro&f=false

Jimenez Basic would later be adopting the "Publicis" name (Campaign Asia, 1 Sep 2008) / https://www.campaignasia.com/article/jimenezbasic-adopts-publicis-branding/207312

These facts support his LinkedIn portfolio and in turn his advertising experience.

Letmeinericandre (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Kuru Letting know about citations Letmeinericandre (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:The policy of self published sources, such as blogspot.com, is that they are reliable if they come from a subject matter expert {{tq|"whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"}} (see WP:SPS). The idea is Wikipedia relies on other reliable sources to show that the expert should be considered a reliable source. Has Alex del Rosario Castro published any books or journal articles about advertising?
Also when you say {{tq|"I have reasonable proof that the blog is run by an expert"}} do you mean you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is an expert or that you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is running the blog? You have to be absolutely certain that it's him running the blog, and there's no chance it's a random person using his name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::> do you mean you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is an expert or that you believe that Alex del Rosario Castro is running the blog? You have to be absolutely certain that it's him running the blog, and there's no chance it's a random person using his name

::Both. I am certain that it is him running the blog. This is going to be extemely harder to prove. His Facebook profile (https://www.facebook.com/alex.r.castro.7) posts the links to his blog posts on isamunangpatalastas regularly. Here is a comment from him detailing his work with former Tourism secretary Mon Jimenez (https://www.facebook.com/secmonjimenez/posts/pfbid0bpBuS7o8qppozZjo8sKnZoodDFo2MXkfWuPt48Fn7t8WD7gLTRJ21Qw18L73XgAGl?comment_id=118753923154449)

::As it is incredibly hard to find Wikipedia sources for Philippine advertising as it is not a hot topic, every source older than 2015 becomes as reliable as anything on Watters World or Ingraham Angle. Most of the discussion occurs on non-news sites.

::Also I think writing a book seems to be too high of a standard for a reliable person. Anyone can write a book.

::I have given non-usergenerated sources from the internet. The books.google.com sources are newspaper scans coming from a zombie Google project from 2008 (Google_News_Archive) that scanned such newspapers like Philippine Daily Inquirer. And try making an article on campaignasia. You can't.

:: Post from his facebook account posting a link from his isamunangpatalastas blog: https://www.facebook.com/alex.r.castro.7/posts/pfbid0ci4fhcwBf63yLE1R2DvLrLCu8qEGUnorgMNnmNhjmfHk4TRLLMAGZr7GAB54SqYGl

::Letmeinericandre (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Anatoly Liberman is a very widely-cited and published linguist ([https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=60&q=anatoly+liberman&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48]). In fact, he is probably one of the best known and most influential in the entire contemporary field of historical linguistics. For years now, he has produced scholarly entries for a highly regarded (in the field) column called "[https://blog.oup.com/category/oxford_etymologist/ the Oxford etymologist]" at the Oxford University Press blog. These entries typically consist of in-depth reviews of earlier philology scholarship alongside his own observations. In many cases, these entries are the most thorough reviews and most extensive discussions about obscure words that exist, full stop. Is this considered by Wikipedia to be a WP:RS we can use in articles? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'll copy in what I wrote on the talk page of the article in question. The relevant part of the relevant policy (WP:SELFPUB) is:

:{{blockquote|{{tq|...Self-published material such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.}}}}

:It's not out of the question that Liberman is enough of an expert to allow under WP:SELFPUB, but in general, it's unlikely that a self-published source could to be used to contradict peer-reviewed academic sources, particularly if the material in question is only found in self-published sources. How it's used is probably going to be more important than whether it's used. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, it's the Oxford University Press that is the blog publisher here and Liberman's column is administered by the Oxford University Press. Anyway, for context and to keeo it short, {{ping|UndercoverClassicist}}, would like Liberman's column as a source to be voided whenever it "contradicts" typically non-philological sources, especially at the ever-troubled Bæddel and bædling article, claiming Liberman may not be enough of an expert somehow and/or that the column is just another WP:SPS to be dismissed when liked. Anyway, for additional context, the source was in the article already when UndercoverClassicist contributed to its FA review (and I was definitely not involved with the FA review on that one). :bloodofox: (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging editors typically involved in historical linguistics discussions: {{ping|Yngvadottir}}, {{ping|Austronesier}}, and {{ping|Alcaios}} and who will be especially familiar with Liberman's work. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't believe this falls under "personal or group blogs", and thus doesn't fall under SELFLPUB. From what I can see, the blog is published by Oxford University Press and even has two editors. WP:NEWSBLOG is probably more relevant, although given OUP's high standing in academic publishing and the scholarly credentials of the author, I'd be inclined to give it even more leeway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with AirshipJungleman29. It's not even clear to me that it should be considered a blog. (Yes, this section of the OUP website says "OUPblog," but elsewhere these columns are identified as "weekly etymology articles," and the overall category is "Series & Columns.") Either way, it's very clearly not self-published. It strikes me as GREL, given OUP's scholarly focus, the author's expertise, and the editorial review. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Anatoly Liberman is a very widely-cited and published linguist ([86]). ... Is this considered by Wikipedia to be a WP:RS we can use in articles?}}{{pb}}The answer is yes, per WP:SPS: {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} But, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, he is a RS on linguistics, not on other topics. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is not a self-published source. It's published by Oxford University Press. Why are you referring to WP:SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My point is that the person is an RS in linguistics, he could post something on his personal wordpress blog and it'd still be considered RS. OUP blog falls under WP:NEWSORG. {{strikethrough|WP:NEWSORG: {{tq|Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release.}}}} Therefore we look at who wrote the press release, in this case an expert in linguistics. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Echoing others. Very much a reliable source, as I mentioned in a related discussion above. This is not a self-published blog, it's a publication of Oxford University Press and in a close relationship to the Oxford English Dictionary. Liberman is a well known expert in the field (presumably why he is the writer of this OUP online publication.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think the OUP blog has a peer-review process, they rely on the experts they publish to have done their due dilligence and trust them not to post falsehoods. That's why we can't say that everything posted on the OUP blog is RS, but the authors have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So whether we consider the OUP blog SPS or NEWSORG is ultimately irrelevant. Remember WP:NOTBURO, we don't need to classify, judge and label everything under the sun just for the sake of it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not required to have a peer-review process. It's not an academic journal. Plenty of sources are RS without being peer-reviewed. Re: "whether we consider the OUP blog SPS or NEWSORG is ultimately irrelevant," why continue to bring it up when it's irrelevant? Especially since it's very clearly not self-published (it's published by OUP), and it's very clearly not a NEWSORG, despite your mistaken claim earlier that the "OUP blog falls under WP:NEWSORG." As for "they rely on the experts they publish to have done their due dilligence and trust them not to post falsehoods," these articles are also edited, so it's not as though OUP is solely relying on the authors' due diligence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is how they [https://blog.oup.com/about/ describe themselves]: {{tq|Since 2005, the talented authors, staff, and friends of Oxford University Press provide daily commentary on nearly every subject under the sun, from philosophy to literature to economics. OUPblog is a source like no other on the blogosphere for learning, understanding and reflection, providing academic insights for the thinking world.}} (emphasis mine){{pb}}They call themselves a blog, we should trust them.{{pb}}{{tq|"these articles are also edited"}}
Just because a website has an editor, that doesn't mean the articles they publish are edited. Editing can be done on content or grammar/copyediting. Furthermore, they post "on nearly every subject under the sun", it is unreasonable to expect that the editors of OUPblog are experts on nearly every subject under the sun and therefore are able to vouch for the reliability of all the content posted. Their acting editor is also their social media manager and the deputy editor is a social media marketing assistant, I do not think their editorial team has the credentials to edit academic articles for content.{{pb}}OUPblog should be considered WP:NEWSOPED {{strikethrough|treated like it is NEWSORG}} and we should evaluate the authors/articles on a case-by-case basis. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't see why anyone should treat it like a news organization when it isn't one. Just like learned societies and professional organizations are not news organizations, even if they have blogs on their sites (e.g., [https://maa.org/math-values/ 1]). The only question is whether these columns are reliable sources for the content that is sourced to them, and we assess that in the same way as we assess the reliability of lots of other sources. There is no reason to push this into some category that it doesn't fit into. Sources do not need to be in a category for us to assess their reliability. In this case, it's written by someone with significant expertise and published by a publisher that has a strong reputation, so these columns should be GREL for the content that would normally be sourced to them. Might there be a case where an editor wants to use it as a source for something that it's not an RS for? Sure, since reliability is always context-dependent, and GREL sources sometimes get things wrong. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|I don't see why anyone should treat it like a news organization when it isn't one.}}{{pb}}You're right. It is not a NEWSORG, I was wrong in my assessment. {{pb}}{{tq|published by a publisher that has a strong reputation,}}{{pb}}It's the OUPblog. The current acting and deputy editor don't seem to have any academic credentials beyond liking books. One of the articles they published is called [https://blog.oup.com/2013/05/oxford-companion-zombie-apocalypse/ An Oxford Companion to surviving a zombie apocalypse] (albeit in 2013), so it publishes opinions as well as facts. {{pb}}{{tq|so these columns should be GREL for the content that would normally be sourced to them.}}{{pb}}I'm not sure what that means exactly, Thinking more about it, OUPblog is the closest to WP:NEWSOPED. It is my mistake for not thinking of it sooner as that's what I've been describing this whole time. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 21:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This RSN query is not about the OUPblog as a whole. It's only about the [https://blog.oup.com/category/series-columns/oxford_etymologist/ Oxford Etymologist columns] by Anatoly Liberman. The Zombie article is not an Oxford Etymologist columns by Anatoly Liberman, so it's irrelevant to bloodfox's query. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The Etymologist columns are RS because they are written by an expert in the field, not because they are published by OUPblog. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 22:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::They aren't published by OUPblog; they're published by OUP. (OUPblog is not a publisher; it's a publication.) And the reliability is supported by both the author and the publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes he would be reliable per the wording of WP:SPS, but remember that WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements require exceptional sources. A self-published sources may not be reliable if it goes against directly against more traditionally published sources. It may be worth discussing both in the article and the disagreement between them, with the more tradition view being stated and then the experts opposition being used with intext attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Except that Liberman's view is in the mainstream, while the article has presented a novel view front and centre and left out much of the mainstream scholarship. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah! That's much more problematic than if a self published source is reliable. If the situation is the inverse of what I thought, then the opposite of my comment applies. Either way the mainstream academic view should be stated, and opposition from other experts used with intext attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not a self-published source. It's a weekly column published by Oxford University Press. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would not consider it a self-published source given there appears to be editorial control from Oxford University. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is clearly a reliable and pertinent source. I don't think this is a self-published source, but even if it was it would be a good example of where WP:EXPERTSPS would be appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm seeking clarification on the reliability and coverage of sources used in the ongoing AfD for Nadeeka Guruge.

Several editors have dismissed sources as unreliable or lacking significant coverage, including long-established Sri Lankan newspapers such as the Sunday Observer and Daily News. These appear to be independent and editorially controlled.

Can experienced editors kindly review and provide input on whether these meet the standards of WP:RS?

Thank you. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:The best advice I can give having read the discussion is that you don't need lots of sources you need a few good source. Try presenting what you think are the 3-5 best sources that discuss the subject in detail (see WP:SIGCOV). You want sources that are entirely independent of the subject, so avoid interviews and anything that sounds like promo or a press release (see WP:INDEPENDENT). That's generally the best way to convince others editors the subject is notable. If anyone disagrees with the reliability of those particular sources you can always come back here for more advice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I am struggling to figure out if this website is reliable, i have read that it mostly is, but is that good enough? X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:The website appears to be self-published by Alastair Ian McIntyre, there a biography on the website[https://electricscotland.com/friends/alastair/al.htm]. He appears to have led a quite fascinating live, but I don't see anything to suggest he's an expert is history. The policy for self-published sources is that they should come from established subject matter experts who have been previously published by other independent reliable sources, see WP:SPS. I wouldn't consider the site reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but it does point to other sources you can investigate. It's also appears to house many other sources, for instance full texts of out of copyright books, the reliability of those would have to be judged separately on a case by case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Are these considered primary or secondary sources? They were compiled by professional court historians (with generally minimal interference from the Korean govt) based on various primary source materials and interviews. These are directly cited a lot on the English Wikipedia, and a significant portion of modern Korean studies is based on these records. So either way, they form a huge backbone of Korea-related information on Wikipedia.

It seems to me like they're secondary sources, although due to their age we should probably rely on modern interpretations of them, rather than relying on them directly. seefooddiet (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would have thought they were primary documents, in a similar way that newspaper reporting of events is considered primary - especially after considerable time has passed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::WP:SECONDARY seems to apply more to it than WP:PRIMARY. I think there's two caveats though: 1. the Veritable Records weren't subject to modern-style peer review or journalistic standards 2. I'm not sure if/how much the court historians involved in the creation of them were also witnesses to the events.

::I'm not sure if the time since publication changes a source from primary to secondary. That doesn't seem right to me. seefooddiet (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Time changing how sources are considered is common in the study of history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My understanding of the relationship between time and primary/secondary is that it has more to do with the amount of time between the events chronicled and the date published, rather than the date published and the present moment. One such example documented in WP:PRIMARY says {{tq2|For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.}} I don't believe that breaking news of today's run-of-the-mill car crash becomes a secondary source 10 years later. To be clear though, time isn't the only factor determining whether a source is primary or secondary. Left guide (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah I see, thank you that's helpful seefooddiet (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would consider these to be primary sources.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:If {{tq|they were compiled by professional court historians (with generally minimal interference from the Korean govt)}}, then why does [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veritable_Records_of_the_Joseon_Dynasty&oldid=1278570904 the lead sentence of the article] call them {{tqq|state-compiled and published records}}? If the latter statement in the article is true, it's likely a primary source. Left guide (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I misspoke; I meant "minimal interference from the Korean monarchs". seefooddiet (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok. But I find that claim peculiar too, because after having read through the article more, I noticed the middle of the first paragraph at Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty#Compilation process says {{tqq|These historians accompanied the king at all times}} which in my opinion (in addition to addressing the #2 caveat of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1286663814 this comment]) cements its status as a primary source per the beginning of WP:PRIMARY: {{tq2|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.}} Left guide (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Hm I see. I don't know to what extent the historians that compiled the Veritable Records were the same historians that recorded the primary sources.

::::However, because there's possible overlap that's significant I think I'm willing to accept that a label of "primary" seefooddiet (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::One last question if it's ok; if you hypothetically had to classify it per WP:RS/P#Legend, where would you place it? I don't think the site has been discussed enough to actually make it onto the list, but just curious. We have our own similar list at WP:KO/RS that I'd like to have the VRoTJD classified in. seefooddiet (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is about {{diff2|1286623061}}. {{u|MrThunderbolt1000T}} claims that three of the five sources WP:CITED therein are unreliable. He further claims that the paragraph fails WP:V. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{strikethrough|I ran into the page on anti-white racism recently, and I noticed that has some dead links. Like this {{cite news |last=Alibhai Brown |first=Yasmin |date=26 October 2006 |title=When the victim is white, does anyone care? |newspaper=London Evening Standard |issn=2041-4404}}, this Licra, Appel contre "ratonnades anti-blancs" : polémique surprenante [Appeal against "anti-white racial attacks": surprising controversy] (in French), in AFP, 30 March 2005

I put a good faith effort into finding the sources, includuing archive.org and I've put in a request with the talk page for any working source. The thing is, much/most of this page was copied from other articles. See [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racisme_antiblanc the French language version of this article], Murder of Ross Parker, and 1804 Haitian massacre. The page started on 2 November. They're not old dead links from a page made in 2005. The editor just brought them over in a slipshod manner, with likely no effort to find them.

The sources do uphold rather controversial facts in the page. My question is how much responsibility I should I have to look for them? Shall I leave them up? Should I tag them. Thank you.}}Stix1776 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The other editors may be able to source this, so I withdraw my question so as to not waste anyone's time. Thank you.

{{reflist-talk}}

Hello editors,

I’m raising concerns regarding the Wikipedia article on Bernt Wahl, which appears to contain multiple unverified, potentially promotional claims lacking reliable sourcing. Despite being a biography of a living person, the article has no inline citations, and relies heavily on vague or self-referential sources.

Here are a few key issues:

- "Wahl was an early pioneer in the fields of chaos and fractal geometry" — No reliable third-party sources are cited. This seems like a promotional assertion per WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR.

- "Led the management buyout attempt of Infoseek" — This is a substantial historical tech claim that should be documented in the business or tech press, but is currently unsourced.

- "Worked for the United Nations on ecotourism" and "helped the U.S. National Park Service build its first website" — These are significant institutional claims with no verifiable sources.

- Mentions of co-founding companies (Factle, Datahunt, Dynamic Software) and collaborating with Jhane Barnes lack evidence of notability or third-party documentation, and may violate WP:NORG and WP:RESUME.

I've posted a notice on the article's Talk page [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernt_Wahl#Concerns_About_Unverified_and_Promotional_Claims), but would appreciate broader input on how best to address these sourcing concerns, and whether cleanup or content removal is warranted.

Thanks in advance! Justiceforhumansintheworld (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:It appears that {{noping|GeorgiaHuman}} has copyedited the article, and it looks for properly sourced now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I came across an interview with film director Philip Yung on the film news website EasternKicks (easternkicks.com),[https://www.easternkicks.com/features/philip-yung-interview/] and wanted to cite it in the article Papa (2024 film). Normally, I believe it is okay as interviews are considered as primary sources and I am not citing it to support any exceptional claims, at worst, adding attributions should suffice. But since I aim to get the article to GA or FA status, I want to ensure the reliability of this website. From my research, the site has been referenced by several reputable media outlets, including Digital Spy,[https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a796060/studio-ghibli-and-akira-animator-makiko-futaki-dies-at-the-age-of-57/] NME,[https://www.nme.com/news/malaysian-silat-movie-geran-wins-big-at-2020-new-york-asian-film-festival-2731946] and South China Morning Post,[https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/entertainment/article/3112515/how-legendary-hong-kong-action-film-director-ringo-lam] all of which are reliable sources. (See WP:DIGITALSPY, WP:RSPNME, WP:SCMP.) The articles are bylined by regular writers and appear to be quite journalistic. According to the About EasternKicks page on the site, it was founded in 2002 and mentions collaborations with print magazines, such as publishing interview pieces in Japan's {{ill|Cut Magazine|ja|Cut (雑誌)}}. I believe it should be a reliable source? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 08:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:The subject talking about themselves could be reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. Where there comments are posted doesn't change that. Whether it's their own blog, facebook or in an interview on any other questionable source doesn't matter.
If your not just making an ABOUTSELF statement then easternkicks.com appears to be something similar to a group blog. It certainly has WP:USEBYOTHERS, it's extensively used as a reference by academic works in relation to Asian cinema[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22easternKicks.com%22&udm=36&source=lnms], but I would avoid using it to make claims about living people (unless it's an interview where it's the subjec making statements about themselves). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your detailed response, ActivelyDisinterested. I wanted to cite it to support the facts regarding when the film wrapped filming and completed its rough cut, as it is the only source I found that offers a timeframe for its post-production. I think it should fall under ABOUTSELF, as the claims were made by the interviewee and pertain to the interviewee's activities. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 11:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would think it reliable for that, as it's non-contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Are these sources in the lead of the gun show loophole for the following sentence reliable in this context, or should it be challenged? It seems to rely mostly on comments to the DOJ.

• In the United States, the absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption. Federal law requires that, for commercial sales of firearms – sales conducted by someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns – the seller conduct a background check of the buyer. For firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require background checks, although some states and localities do require them.

• The term "gun show loophole" primarily refers to "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks"[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-03/16/054r-031600-idx.html] [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-19/pdf/2024-07838.pdf]

1.[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-19/pdf/2024-07838.pdf DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Part 478 (Docket No. ATF 2022R–17; AG Order No. 5920–2024) RIN 1140–AA58 Definition of ‘‘Engaged in the Business’’ as a Dealer in Firearms]

The DoJ source refers to PAGE 21 #28988 (8.) "Closes the Gun Show/Online Loophole".

• "Several commenters voiced support for closing what they referred to as the 'gun show loophole', by which commenters meant a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks. For example, one commenter simply requested that the government please stop criminals from easily buying guns at gun shows without a background check. Another commenter expressed that Americans cannot allow individuals with violent histories to purchase a gun at a gun show or online without their background being investigated. A mother and gun owner added that she is relieved to hear that ATF is moving forward on closing the gun show loopholes. ... Some commenters believed the rule presented a balanced approach. One commenter stated that closing the gun show loophole is a 'common-sense measure' and doesn't infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners; rather, it ensures that background checks are conducted for all firearm purchases, regardless of where they take place. Additionally, a commenter said that the 'proposal laid out does not appear overly cumbersome for currently licensed dealers or citizens looking to liquidate guns from their personal collection' and that '[c]losing the "gun show loophole" and requiring a record of firearms sold limits the possibility of nefarious characters obtaining weapons while increasing and promoting responsible gun ownership.' Another commenter agreed, describing the rule as a modest, common-sense measure to close some of the huge loopholes that buyers and sellers use to get around our necessary and otherwise effective system of background checks. ... The Department also notes that the term 'gun show loophole' is a misnomer in that there is no statutory exemption under the GCA for unlicensed persons to engage in the business of dealing in firearms at a gun show, or at any other venue. As this rule clarifies, all persons who engage in the business of dealing in firearms must be licensed (and, once licensed, conduct background checks), regardless of location."

2.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-03/16/054r-031600-idx.html WaPo "Gun-Friendly Governor '95 Law Lets 200,000 Conceal Arms"]

I've quoted some context that explicitly references "loopholes", please forgive me if I missed anything here.

"In Washington, a month after the Columbine shootings, the Senate narrowly passed legislation to close the Brady loophole--including a waiting period of up to three days on background checks by non-licensed dealers. Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the measure. But companion legislation stalled in the House after supporters of the tougher Senate version refused to accept a provision reducing the waiting period to 24 hours, which is the time frame Bush said he favors."

"With many Americans wanting tighter gun restrictions after Columbine, and hard-line gun enthusiasts refusing to give in, Danburg said, "I think [Bush] was trying to play it both ways." But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole."

"As a result, non-licensed dealers "have no way of knowing whether they are selling to a violent felon or someone who intends to illegally traffic guns on the streets," federal law enforcement officials told Congress last year, calling gun shows "a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously." Because Congress has been unwilling to close that loophole in the Brady bill, some state legislatures have done so, passing laws requiring background checks on all gun show buyers. But an effort to pass such a law in Texas last year failed in a House committee."

{{tq|TLDR}} I disagree that most sources describe GSL as "primarily a situation". Maybe as an example, but not "a term that primarily refers to"...Perhaps someone here can offer a fix or maybe an explanation here that makes sense to me. If it is a reliable source for "primarily a situation", my immediate concern here is how well reflected that is in the body of the article, and, whether that language should currently be presented in VOICE or if it should use attribution.

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)