Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 465#flightconnections.com

[https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1hvt1mp/whats_worse_about_this_jacobin_take_on_housing/ What's worse about this Jacobin take on housing: the woeful lack of fact checking or the smug attempt to blame you for noticing?]

Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Addendum: I think {{noping|The wub}} sums up my thoughts well. {{tq|It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place.}} feminist🩸 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Not a good look, but I will note that the [https://jacobin.com/2025/01/mark-fisher-neoliberalism-acid-communism/ article referred to] says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose changing the status per Simonm223 and Hydrangeans. I don't personally love Jacobin, I find their opinion pieces are hit or miss, but I haven't seen it demonstrated that they have poor editorial practices or long-standing issues with factual accuracy. It is not surprising that a reddit community consisting entirely of people from a different political leaning would dislike them, and a social media post reacting to another social media post of one author being mildly annoying doesn't meet my bar for evidence that the publication is not reliable. And as others have mentioned, making corrections when errors are pointed out is what we expect from a reliable outlet, not never making errors in the first place.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::As a tangential sidenote, the "reddit community" tends to be far-left leaning, and would more inclined to agree with or love Jacobin than to criticize the outlet in any way. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Even if correct this is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair enough. As I said, "a tangential sidenote"... Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Reddit is a fragmented website full of insular communities. That "r/neoliberal", a community of self described neoliberals, would criticize an outlet with a different leaning, is unsurprising and holds no weight in this discussion. We don't go off of what social media is saying when making these decisions.

:::Respectfully, I think a fresh RfC should be started after someone has something demonstrating a pattern of editorial malpractice, disregard for fact, or a worrying blurring of the lines between op-eds and normal articles leading to a failure to accurately present information. We don't derank sources just for having biases, objectivity and neutrality are two different things.

:::Anyways, I'm not opposed to ever doing an RfC, I just expect at a bare minimum that we have something to go off of so it doesn't just end up being a discussion in which editors !vote based on how they feel about the outlet until some poor soul has to sacrifice their time reading through everything to close the discussion.

::: Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::This has already been demonstrated by @Springee and others about their egregious error and then attacking those who pointed out they got things wrong. That is enough to start an RfC. If the RfC holds that they should not change, then so be it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Wikipedia expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Yeah, the standard has never been "makes no mistakes". If they made a mistake and then corrected it that's exactly what we expect of a reliable source. Loki (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. It's good that this was later corrected, but it's such a blatant error that should never have made it through a decent editorial process in the first place. There's even a (less serious) error in the next sentence: Monsanto hasn't existed in 6 years. Combined with the past concerns and the borderline result of the past RfC, it's time for a discussion whether "generally reliable" is still a fair assessment. the wub "?!" 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::All good points! Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Jacobin is a far left news and analysis site, and adds opinion and commentary in their articles. I consider sites like this on the right and left not too far removed from activists, and thus should be ignored. It is popular among left leaning people on twitter, reddit, and elsewhere but we should not confuse social media popularity for it being a valid source. We should trim these low quality heavily opinionated pages and rely upon high quality sources such as Associated Press and so forth. Secondly, they aren't particularity useful as anything they're going to cover will be covered by other proper news sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:You're entitled to favor political moderation as a personal opinion, but to use this as a measure of reliability is a fallacious argument to moderation, reliant on assuming that truth always lies in or comes from the 'middle' of purported 'opposites'. While Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view, our guideline for reliable sourcing is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral}}. To use political perspective (such as the Jacobin magazine's economic leftism) as a reason for doubt reliability depends on providing evidence that the bias somehow distorts its coverage and causes inaccuracies. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::It does appear that, failing to find many cases where Jacobin has not corrected an identified error in one of its articles, that the people asking for a new RFC want to prosecute it for being too left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I disagree, but an RfC should be started at this point and if there is consensus support for no change to their status then there is consensus support for no change to their status. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::RfCs are time intensive, so starting one should be done for good reason. Jacobin having made and corrected an error doesn't strike me as a very good reason. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I read in the last close information presented by @Springee that it was in fact a problematic close which moved Jacobin from Yellow (its prior state) to Green. I mistakenly was just commenting on that, then self-reverted, but I think that we should also remember WP:TIND and not delay a necessary discussion just because it may be "time intensive" for those interested in improving the source reliability determinations that this encyclopedia relies upon. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::You're omitting the concerns above about blending of fact and opinion, which is a major aspect of what we consider reliable. Also, heavily partisan sources that engage in advocacy are usually marked as "additional considerations apply" (yellow on WP:RSP). And this isn't the only discussion that has brought up issues. You can also see the concerns raised at the RfC and in multiple discussions where concerns have been brought up since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::If nothing else, it has been several years and so timewise it seems prudent to revisit those and establish a larger and more thorough WP:CONSENSUS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::OP here, my main concern is not that it was not corrected, but that the error was published in the first place. It's good that it was finally corrected, but "a single company controlling a third of housing stock in the United States" is such a contentious claim that it should never have been published in the first place. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::That is true, and a serious knock against their reliability when the claim is that egregiously false. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::This seems like flogging a dead horse, open the RFC if desired, although as I said above, absent compelling evidence, I don't think things are going to change that much, perhaps green to yellow but it is kinda yellow already because of the well known news/opinion mixing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah. I'm usually pretty critical of news sources - including left wing ones (see, for example, the thread here about Mint Press) - and even I am not really seeing Jacobin as being any worse than any other news site that Wikipedia calls reliable. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Strong bias combined with such egregiously bad fact checking is not a good look. Given the questionable close of the previous RfC a new RfC seems like a good idea. I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify. Of course, this might be as much an indictment of the simplistic G/Y/R system we use at RSP as anything else. I'm sure Jacobian gets some facts right just as Fox News gets a lot of political facts right. When it comes to Jacobin the better question should be, if Jacobin is the source, should even a true fact have weight? Regardless, I think this answer here is new RfC or just add this discussion to the RSP list and move on. Springee (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Except that's not what has been demonstated. Journalists make mistakes. The standard Wikipedia looks for is that the outlet corrects these mistakes, which was demonstrated even by the original complainant.

::::::::And do note that, yet again, and I have lost count of how many times I've had to mention this to people upset about Wikipedia giving the time of day to sources to the left of Ronald Reagan, bias is not a reliability issue as long as that bias does not become a locus of disinformation. This has not been demonstrated. Please do try to cleave to policy based justifications for reliable source assessment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Making such an error in the first place isn't good even if they correct it after trying to publicly shame a person who pointed out the obvious error. Your prescription about left of Regean is an odd tangent. Bias doesn't inherently mean the facts will be wrong. However it does open questions of how much weight a biased source should be given, especially when dealing with subjective characterizations or according the source's analysis of facts. Springee (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree with Springee that, "{{tq|I don't see the source as moving below yellow but it's current green status is really hard to justify.}}" Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake, even a correction shows that the publication is much more of a propaganda shop and less of an actual journalistic organization with journalistic integrity or standards. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::And therefore an RfC is beyond warranted. Who would then start that? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::If an RFC is started can I ask that it be done in a separate section. The board is overloaded at the moment due to the Heritage Foundation discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Can you clarify what you are asking for me? There are many other RfC's ongoing beyond Heritage Foundation. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Sorry I didn't mean to direct the comment at you specifically. The HF RFC contains over 2/5th of all the words currently on the noticeboard, all the other RFCs are tiny in comparison. If an RFC for Jacobin is started in a new section then this prior discussion can be archived without having to weight a month, or more, for the RFC to close.
You can see how large each discussion is in the header on the noticeboards talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::without having to "wait" I assume you meant. ;)

:::::::::::::::And this makes sense thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Lol, thinking about two discussions at the same time. Wait and weight swapped in my mind -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|Given the egregious nature of their attack on those who noted their mistake}} — A writer being annoying on social media, then making the necessary corrections anyways, is not fundamentally different from a writer being nice on social media and then making the same corrections. We don't assess how personable the staff is.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

This discussion has really dragged on, especially for something that was prompted by a reddit thread related to one sentence in what appears to be an opinion article. Are editors aware that we have whole articles on New York Times controversies, BBC controversies and criticism etc? Have editors been following the deconstruction provided by social media users of corporate media coverage of the assault on Gaza? Are editors aware that the BBC employs Raffi Berg, a former CIA propaganda unit employee with Mossad connections, to head its Middle East desk and whose "entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel"? What about when an IDF embedded CNN reporter visited Rantisi Children’s Hospital with an IDF minder and swallowed the minder's claim about a roster of Hamas members watching over Israeli captives? The document was actually a calendar, with days of the week written in Arabic. Sorry to go off on a tangent but some perspective is needed and, in the scheme of things, a reddit thread is hardly cause for starting an RFC about reliability. Burrobert (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:That was only one aspect. A much larger aspect was related to open questions from the last RfC and the questionable close that seemed to have moved it (correctly?) from "yellow" to "green". Iljhgtn (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Although I'm involved in the discussion the result seem uncontroversial, and so asking for a close at WP:CR wouldn't be appropriate. The result is that there is no change, Bild remians Generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}

What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecated

Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, [https://archive.is/rhcMS archived link], routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle [https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-bild-falls-for-hoax-unleashes-debate-on-fake-news/a-42704014] their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic [https://edoc.ku.de/id/eprint/31813/1/Lilienthal_Volker_Medienethik_bei_Bild_2023.pdf] (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated [by Bild], who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• :As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 [https://www.imediaethics.org/bild-apologizes-fake-sexual-assault-mob-story/], as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic [https://en.ejo.ch/ethics-quality/how-not-to-cover-science-bilds-campaign-against-german-virologist-christian-drosten] Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Wikipedia. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch ^{talk to me} 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis_¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Wikipedia project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – [https://bildblog.de/ressort/bild/ Bildblog]. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• :it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. [https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/3-028-24_Braungardt.pdf][https://www.die-medienanstalten.de/service/gutachten/typen-von-desinformation-und-misinformation/] --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Wikipedia per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:

• {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated [by Bild], who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
• In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes [https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-york-times-admits-its-caliphate-podcast-fell-for-terrorism-hoaxers-bullshit/]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}}

::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis_¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!

:::::These are the key points from the foreword

:::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers

:::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples

:::::# [CEO of Axel Springer] is said to have felt personally affected [by rent freeze]. Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze

:::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer

:::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.

:::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?

:::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis_¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis_¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif[ing] sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

See[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bering_Strait&diff=1269419876&oldid=1263107952#cite_note-5]. The link doesn't go to the source cited and I can't find that aource. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Found a Spanish Wikipedia article on the explorer.[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Ferrer_Maldonado] Doug Weller talk 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::I found a link to the pdf but [https://blog.dipalme.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/revista-real-lorenzo-ferrer-maldonado.pdf the article is in Spanish] which I don't read well. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Simonm223 @Doug Weller My Spanish is at a passable level, from a first glance I’m not seeing anything outlandish/indicative of unreliability but I can take a deeper look a bit later. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:The journal isn't peer-reviewed, so it's not a top quality source, but it is a serious journal, in the sense it is something we would usually accept as reliable in general. The writers seem reasonable-ish. However, it's not a good enough journal that an outlandish article would become reliable. I'm reading the article now, and a couple of things strike me as a bit off, but maybe it's just because I've been drawn to it here. Will give a bit more info later today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::OK, the article appears to be claiming Lorenzo Ferrer Maldonado completed a crossing of the Northwest Passage in 1588. Between February and March. This is an extraordinary claim, I don't think the source is good enough to state that in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::And if I'd checked, I'd have found out that he made up the story although it was taken seriously 200 years later.[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Naturalists_at_Sea/pRn7AAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Lorenzo+Ferrer+Maldonado&pg=PA186&printsec=frontcover] Doug Weller talk 09:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The article is really odd, it is drifting towards the genre of x was actually Spanish/Catalan/Indian/Hungarian and the Masons hid the evidence of how they built pyramids so they could continue Akenhaton's religion. They use a photoshop reconstruction of how a woodcut of Ferrer might have looked and suggest a Spanish conspiracy to hide the fact they had discovered the Northwest passage, so the English and Dutch couldn't use it. They also claim that "Anglosaxon scholars" now accept Ferrer's claims, but fail to cite them. Valeriano Sánchez Ramos seems to be a quite decent local historian of eastern Andalucia, whereas Alfonso Viciana Martínez-Lage is more of a general writer but has published some academic stuff. I can't quite make my mind up if this is a sort of folie à deux, or whether they are publishing an academic joke.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::They managed to get published in Boletín de la Real Sociedad Geográfica (Tomo CLX (2023), p. 115). But still I wouldn't give it much weight unless there are other scholars that concur with them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm really surprised at that, I would have to say this is covered by WP:FRINGE. It is hard to understand how the editorial team might have accepted for publication an article which suggests an ice-free passage existed in the winter of 1588. You need specialist ships, and often icebreakers, to do it in summer today.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That someone was able to navigate the northwest passage at that time is definitely bthe type of exception claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL talks of. This would require multiple high quality sources, so this source alone would not be reliable for the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for Chapel Hart. I've never heard of the following sources currently being used nor can I find past discussions on them. As such, I would others' opinions on them.

• https://texasborderbusiness.com/chapel-hart-music-video-for-new-single-i-will-follow-premiered-by-cmt-on-friday-february-5th/
• https://drgnews.com/2022/09/19/darius-rucker-set-to-release-new-song-featuring-chapel-hart/
• https://www.southernliving.com/chapel-hart-danica-vocal-cord-surgery-6825847

Lazman321 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:The Texas Border Business link (now dead but available from the Wayback Machine) is a press release, you can find the exact same wording elsewhere[https://2911.us/chapel-hart-i-will-follow/][https://themusicuniverse.com/chapel-hart-premieres-i-will-follow-video/]. So it would be reliable in a primary way, as it's from the band about the band.
Southern Living appears to be an established magazine, I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable.
The drgnews.com article appears to be another press release, as the wording is found in many other sites[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Darius+Rucker+appeared+on+America%E2%80%99s+Got+Talent+to+perform+Bonnie+Raitt%E2%80%98s+classic%22]. Oddly though I can't access any of them, as I get blocked by cloudflare for some reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, I'll take this into consideration for my review. Lazman321 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Southern Living tends toward puffery, and I would avoid using them for controversial claims (although they mostly avoid making controversial claims anyway). I would accept an article by them as supporting notability. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::My assessment:

::* The https://texasborderbusiness.com/ source isn't labeled as a press release. Overall, the site looks like a low-quality free newspaper that lightly repackages any information they receive that they think would interest their readers (i.e., their advertising targets). Other sites label it a press release, and I'm sure these other sites are correct. That said, even if we treat it like a press release, press releases can be reliable for the sort of simple fact this one is being used to support.

::* The DRG News source is labeled as being from The Country Daily, which appears to be a media outlet/country music magazine.[https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/thecountrydaily] They might be part of https://www.cumulusmedia.com

::* Southern Living is a reliable source.

::WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking to see if we can come to some consensus on [https://www.nasaspaceflight.com NASASpaceFlight.com]'s use as a reliable source in articles related to SpaceX, specifically in its use in Starship flight test 8 and Starship flight test 9.

At a glance, to me the site seems to be a bit fan-sitey and seems to glean a lot of information from rumour and speculation based on photos and video they've taken from the perimeter or via drones flying over SpaceX facilities. I also see no evidence on the website of any editorial oversight or fact checking policies.

Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ mentions the site as a reliable source but the only criteria they give for its inclusion are that the source

{{tq|1="should already have a Wikipedia page (notable enough to be created) and have reliable sources covering them (notable enough to be mentioned)."}} which I think we can all agree is not valid signal of reliability. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:WP:RS calls for {{tq|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. A Google books search[https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=nasaspaceflight.com&udm=36] appears to show WP:USEBYOTHERS, and even use by NASA[https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230003611/downloads/Minow%20SCAF%202023%20Intro%20-%20final_2.pdf]. They appear to have some editorial staff[https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/about/], but there's no editorial guideline I could find. Obviously the forum section wouldn't be reliable per WP:USERGENERATED.
Given how often they are used by other sources I would think they should probably considered generally reliable. Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|1=Is there any specific instances that are of concern? After all generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable.}} Nothing in particular, mostly just looking to see if coverage of events from this source would constitute sigcov in reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. RachelTensions (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::This is probably a reliable source, but WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability. Notability is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|1=WP:SIGCOV isn't just matter of reliability.}} no, but coverage in an unreliable source does not count for WP:GNG. That's why I'm seeking opinions on whether this source in particular is reliable. RachelTensions (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've found their written news reporting to be generally reliable however their coverage of SpaceX in particular often comes off as promotional (you very rarely see the controversies or criticisms found in other sources reflected in their work) but that may be more self-censorship to maintain their inside access to SpaceX than objective promotion. I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|1=I would not touch their forum or youtube channel with a 10 foot stick but thats surely besides the point of this discussion.}} well, maybe not exactly besides the point. There are several citations to their YouTube channel in the articles I've mentioned (and similar articles). What in particular about their YouTube channel do you believe is less reliable than their website? RachelTensions (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::In general I find the stuff on their Youtube channel to be much more speculative and clickbaity as well as of a generally low quality. Often its just one of their people flipping between a bunch of pictures from the day before and speculating live about what they might mean. It also doesn't appear to be subject to the same standard of editorial review, its not the same standard of writing and analysis (much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Hogo-2020}} and I have bit of a dispute [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran#c-Hogo-2020-20250114105700-Vice_regent-20250112133500 here]: can we list that Howard Dean as among the American officials who received either cash payments or some other form of compensation for making speeches promoting the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran?

Sources:

• A telephone interview with Ben Smith (journalist) that was published on a newsblog on Politico.[https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/dean-calls-on-us-to-protect-iranian-group-034861] Smith writes that Dean "said that while he's given paid speeches for the group, his advocacy is pro bono."
• An editorial by Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian.[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa]
• The editorial links to a Christian Science Monitor article, which writes "Mr. Dean confirmed to the Monitor that he received payment for his appearances, but said the focus on high pay was “a diversion inspired by those with a different view.”"
• An article in Salon[https://www.salon.com/2011/09/01/howard_dean_paid_advocate/] which says "Dean himself has acknowledged being paid but has not disclosed specific sums". Dean's advocate responded to that article, according to Salon[https://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/dean_response_2/], saying "On the issue of the MEK, he is not a paid advocate. He was paid for a handful of speeches, but has not been paid for his advocacy."

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Vice regent I don’t think the reliability of any of these sources would be in question by most editors - this seems a bit more of a content dispute on the surface. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::@The Kip, well Hogo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=1269378116 argues] that the guardian piece is an WP:OPED, the politico piece is a WP:NEWSBLOG and there's no consensus for salon at WP:RSP. These are all WP:RS-based arguments.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The issue at hand is whether a couple of op-eds provide sufficient evidence to justify adding to Wikipedia that a politician was paid for making speeches. Then, there's also the question if this would be in line with WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• There are two issues here, neither of which is really a WP:RS issue directly (but they touch on how different types of sources can be used and the considerations that come with them.) First, since those are all either opinion pieces, interviews, or quotes, they would have to be attributed if used; they can't be used to state facts in the article voice - looking over the article history, it previously said {{tq|In 2012, Seymour Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton}}. If the listed sources were all you could turn up for including Dean in that list with that sort of wording, it's not enough for that specific wording - you can't say as fact that he was paid, and cite an opinion piece from Greenwald to support that. (That said, is there a problem with citing the CS Monitor article directly? Citing it via an opinion piece by Greenwald seems weird; the Greenwald piece is a weaker source due to being opinion.) Either way, second, as is often the case when dealing with largely opinion sources published in RS / WP:RSOPINION venues, is the WP:DUE issue - the question is then whether Greenwald etc. are noteworthy enough for their opinions about this to be in the article, or whether the sum of all of them is enough to put it over the top, or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::I should add, looking at the discussion, it feels to me like this is a result of a dispute over previous wording that probably reflected the broad strokes of what the sources support but which wasn't quite correct in terms of both the specific source it relied on and how it summarized it - finding individual sources for every person in that list, yet trying to retain it as a list whose original version was really an inaccurate paraphrase of a different source, is going to constantly run into problems like this and may produce WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest discarding that list and instead reconsidering what the section should say from the top, after reviewing the best available sources individually. Why this list of people? Why those specific names? Just because they were in the Shane source, which doesn't say they were paid? I suggest going back to the drawing board, looking at the relative level of coverage for each and whether it's something we can use for fact or just attributable opinion, then deciding who to cover and how to cover them based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that this is solid advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Those are great points. It would be great if you can help discuss on that talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Aquillion thanks for your input. Understand the point about CS Monitor. But my next question is this: Ben Smith, a journalist working for a reputable source like POLITICO, wouldn't just fake or distort an interview. Smith isn't stating his opinion, he's giving the results of the interview. To me Smith is a stronger source than CSM because CSM doesn't actually say where they got the info from. In either case, is the CSM source enough to state it without attribution or would it also require attribution? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::: Stumbled across this. The Christian Science Monitor investigation into the MEK paying Dean and many others (which I happened to edit). https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list . I don't understand the dispute here. Dean is on record in this article admitting he was taking their money.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

How broad should this restriction be interpreted? For example, does it include topics such as Kurdistan, Israel and the current conflict in Syria? FortunateSons (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would have thought it applies very strongly for Kurdistan and Syria, as Turkey is in open conflict in those areas. Israel might depend on the context, Turkey obviously isn't a uninterested party but it's not Iran. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::To be clear it would be reliable for statements of the Turkish governments official views in all cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Of course, I‘m just asking about reliability for facts, because I saw some less than great statements, particularly in the I/P area. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Basically agree with ActivelyDis. I think TRT World is pretty good on non-domestic issues on the whole, but not for anything Kurdish. Israel is fine. Probably not good for Syria as Turkey is a belligerent party there, although I’ve never seen it actually publish anything questionable on Syria apart from Kurdish-related stuff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am making the argument that whilst GBNews is generally speaking not a great source, it has some of the most stellar investigative reporters on group based child sex exploitation, aka rape gangs.

For example, Charlie Peters has written about this extensively, it is his main topic of writing for years. https://www.gbnews.com/authors/charlie-peters

I'd genuinely argue he is even as or if not more reliable on this topic than most trusted sources. If you want an insight into why I believe that, without going into just arguing over facts and analysis which I can do in the comments below this thread, read this anecdote from him being the only reporter who bothered to show up to one of the most prolific child sex abuse cases in British history for most of the hearing https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/

Yes, GBNews is genuinely quite a sloppy publication, I'm not here to make an argument that it is not even remotely, but I think the summary ought to be changed from the first to the second.

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.

There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. It is reliable for specifically group based child sex exploitation.

I am not sure if it is precedent to specifically name a reporter, but if that is the case then specifically naming Charlie Peters is important here. He isn't the only good reporter on child sex abuse at GBNews but I'd argue he's the best. In essence, I'd argue and make a fierce case that Charlie Peters of GBNews (and some other reporters), regardless of his employer, is easily one of the most qualified and leading reporters on this specific topic of group based child sex exploitation and I'd make a very long argument that articles specifically by him should be included and it would be worse not better for Wikipedia to include them. I am not arguing for Peters (and some other reporters) to be included for other topics at this moment, just specifically the topic of child sex abuse.

I hope I have formatted this correctly, thank you. NotQualified (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry but it is the source we judge, not the writer, his work say in the Telegraph can be cited, not his work for GB news. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::Just to be clear here, I am not saying Peters is the only good reporter. GBNews has some good reporters and they're specifically concentrated on this. I think GBNews is generally slop but I just wanted to cite a specific reporter as an example. I think GBNews' work and information on this very narrow subject is worth considering. NotQualified (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:This seems backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, not exceptions for terrible ones. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:GB News is persistently and relentlessly unreliable. We cannot make exceptions for a single reporter (and I say that as someone who believes Peters to be one of the better GB News reporters, though admittedly that's a very low bar). If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think more sensationalist reporting is going to make that page better. Let's leave GB News off it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, I'm being clear here I'm only talking about one narrow subject. NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I was also being very specific to that one page as well. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::So you're saying that, specifically on child rape, they're sensationalists. I agree with you that their titles would do better without the incessant capitalisations but their reporting on this isn't errant in any way. NotQualified (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::So you're basically just saying Peters is a racist and if I can prove he isn't racist you'll be convinced? Here he is covering a white rapist. https://www.gbnews.com/news/two-rotherham-child-abuse-victims-accidentally-left-out-court-rapist-sentencing-office-error NotQualified (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::: I absolutely did not say that Peters was racist, so don't do that again please. I was pointing out that GB News inevitably covers Asian grooming gangs, but almost never white ones. If Peters broke that mould I would be convinced. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: Oh, I've just seen your userpage. That explains it. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::> Sources (some are invalid and blatantly biased for wikipedia standards but summarise info well. i'll find a proper source for them.

:::::Not all the sources in my user page are valid at all, I've just added them to look deeper in later on to verify myself.

:::::If you're accusing me of being a right wing grifter so be it, I literally just added an article by Bindle to my user page smearing the right as racist grifters before I read this, I edited McMurdock's article and wrote how he kicked a woman four times, I try my best to be fair. I am not interested in just saying "Pakistani men rape and whites don't", that's absurd. The state has routinely failed children of rape. I'm arguing that GBNews on this topic is good. NotQualified (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I suppose even Bindel can be right occasionally. That's not the point though, I followed a few of your links and saw the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page - that's not good on a BLP, whether you are a right-wing grifter or not (I have no idea if that's the case). But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop. It would be incredibly problematic if we had to define sources as reliable or not depending on which journos were producing the material, especially as their material is routinely filtered through an editorial process which we have defined as unreliable in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand. I regret making my initial point on Peters specifically because you're right that specific journalists do not save a publication. I've been trying to change the position to accomadate this, and say something more so on the lines of "Generally speaking, their covering of child sex abuse is good, can we make an exception for this topic". Is your argument here from the context of me originally saying Peters was good or is your argument here that no matter how good the journalism is on child sex abuse, the rest of the publication is too sloppy to make an exception? " But - no, we cannot use GB News full stop"

:::::::> the editorializing on Jess Phillips' page

:::::::Is this on the word 'despite'? This was talked about on the talk page, I agreed it was a mistake. NotQualified (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, GBNews is generally slop, we can agree on that. I believe they have good journalists focusing on child rape. NotQualified (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::: We can't separate the two, that's the issue. The Daily Mail has good journalists as well, the problem in using them is the venue they publish their work in. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree the Daily Mail is total slop as well, but if they had excellent journalism on one specific topic that would warrant an exception. That's what I'm arguing here. NotQualified (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to repeat that as you have made clear that was not your intent, but I'm not trying to strawman you. I've misinterpreted what you're saying here as you calling Peters / GBNews / their audience racist (though that is not what you are saying), I am confused on what you exactly are you trying to say with the below. May you please elaborate?

::::"If you showed me some evidence that Peters has investigated child abuse rings that weren't run by Asian people, I'd think again. Though of course, that's not what GB News's audience wants to hear." NotQualified (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::: GB News is a right-wing channel (and, to be fair, it is transparently so); it tells its viewers what they want to hear. Much of the right-wing audience believes that child abuse is mostly committed by Asian gangs, because that's what right-wing narratives have told them, even if it's false. GB News doesn't actually say that is true, but it reinforces those ideas by focusing on such cases. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not accusing you of calling them 'racist', but what exactly would you call the behaviour your describing, if not racist.

::::::Yes, GBNews is obviously a right wing channel. I believe you can criticise nearly all political journalistic publications that aren't state funded of pandering to their audience. CNN, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Fox, etc. I find it all a bit obnoxious.

::::::I do however have qualms with the idea that GBNews is, how do I put this, 'filtering out or downplaying' rape gangs when they are not Pakistani / Bangladeshi? You say the majority of these perpetrators are white, I believe that is true of CSAM online but I amn't sure that's true at least on a per capita basis for rape gangs though I have collated a lot of sources which I intend to read when I have the time, as you've noted on my talk page, so I'll be better informed to answer this in the future.

::::::In essence, your hesitance or better put refusal to add an exception to GBNews on rape gangs isn't derived from a sense that they're journalistically or factually incorrect outright but rather they have underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. If I'm understanding what you are saying correctly which I'll need confirmation on as I do not wish to strawman you. NotQualified (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Yes, that's exactly what GB News does (though I would not go as far as saying it is "factually correct" all the time). It is, however, understandably more careful with its narratives with this subject than it is with others (although it does publish nonsense like [https://www.gbnews.com/membership/trump-elon-starmer-us-britain this], notably not by Peters). Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That's an opinion piece that more falls under geopolitics. That wouldn't fall into what I, or the other user, is arguing to include.

::::::::If we can agree that at least nearly all the time they are factually correct on this very specific subject, and the wealth of information is enormous, we can just put a warning that GBNews has something along the lines of "accusations of underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias" in a general sense (but is better on this subject (and thus the exception being made) as you noted and I agree), but that if possible, should be substantiated with another source, but is still acceptable on this very specific subject, even independently, especially if there are no other sources available. That's reasonable, I believe. Thoughts? NotQualified (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: I'm not convinced, I have to admit, and I wouldn't vote in favour of it. Though I ask, could it be any worse that allowing the Telegraph, a paper which posts rabidly transphobic opinion pieces, to be used on trans-related topics (as was allowed in a recent RfC)? It's unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::As long as what is written is factually true, the agenda behind it just has to be made known to the editor beforehand to caution them. We shouldn't restrain facts and deprive people of them because we deem the authors morally repugnant. NotQualified (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst I agree that GB News should be approached with caution (and I wouldn't touch their climate change reporting with a barge pole), I think Charlie Peters is an exceptional reporter. I would generally trust what he has to say before, for example, The Guardian or The Times. I think that by barring his reporting on GB News we are probably barring the country's most pre-eminent authority on gang-related CSE. IT's worth bearing in mind that coverage of this topic has now become highly-politicised, but Charie probbaly brings the most balanced and fact-based perspective to the coverage of the issue. We could treat his reporting on GB News on this particular issue as an instance of expert WP:SPS. If other sources are reporting the same thing then fine, bit I honestly believe we would be devaluing Wikipedia's coverage by excluding him. The fact remains he is not interchangeable with other journalists at other news outlets, because he brings a wealth of research and statistics to the table, and has probably interacted with grooming gang victims more then any other journalist. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I know this sounds silly but it is refreshing hearing more knowlegable Wikipedians explain what I'm trying to articulate so eloquently. I do want to be clear however that I think GBNews' coverage on gang CSE is excellent, not just Peters. The main contention seems not to be on if it is factual, no one here seems to be disputing this, but rather if it has underlying narratives, ulterior motives, and bias. You can read my last comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1269267836 as I try to Steelman what another user is saying to the best of ability. NotQualified (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:Are there any third-party sources that validate the claim that GB News and Peters are the best sources on this topic? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::What do you mean? How would that work? Are you asking if reputable sources cite GBNews regularly on this topic? If so, yes I've read many articles, especially the Telegraph, mentioning them if I recall correctly. NotQualified (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources,{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}} That seems to be one way it works. Normal editorial processes are that we use secondary sources to evaluate the significant views among published reliable sources, and UBO is in most cases relatively weak validation for other claims. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::: If you're going to start an RfC on this topic (which would be required to carve out an exception for GB News), it would be far better to present such evidence as opposed to a simple opinion of "I think it's reliable". Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure there are any sources out there that flat out stipulate that Charlie Peters is the best source for this topic, but he is increasingly becoming the "go to" source in this area. [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/world/europe/elon-musk-uk-starmer-grooming-gangs.html The New York Times] report how he "broke" the latest story about the Government declining the national inquiry into CSE in Oldham, and other news outlets have approached him to co-author their articles, presumably for his insight, such as [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ The Telegraph] and [https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/britains-grooming-gangs-is-rishi-sunak-doing-enough/ The Spectator]. Deadline profile him [https://deadline.com/2025/01/elon-musk-uk-grooming-gang-scandal-driven-by-gb-news-1236250381/ here]—it is worth bearing in mind he was a specialist in this area before working for GB News, having made a documentary about the Rotherham cover-up. Maggie Oliver—a former police detective who blew the whistle on the cover-up in Greater Manchester and now works with survivors—holds his journalism in [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/maggie-oliver-38b58639_i-stand-by-every-word-said-in-this-article-activity-7220329957896458240-wXfP high regard]. In reality, as NotQualified has noted, other news outlets have re-used facts first reported by Peters in their own stories, so there is no way to really avoid his core reporting. Part of the reason for this is because [https://thecritic.co.uk/why-was-i-the-only-reporter/ other news outlets have not dispatched their own reporters to cover trials and sentencing], so they are dependent on those that have. For the record, I do think there is a difference between the core facts as reported by Peters and the framing of these stories by GB News in its broadcasts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::If other sources have reported on the details, then they should be used. That way editors waste less time arguing about the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::You get less depth and less nuance from news outlets which repackage his work, usually for sensationalist reasons. Peters has interviewed the survivors and their families extensively. He attended the trials and the sentencing. If other news outlets are happy to re-use his material I don't see why it should be any issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Any other source is going to be less sensationalist and so less controversial. The issue is doing the simple option so as to avoid wasting time arguing over which source to use rather than something more useful. GBNews is by it's nature always going to be controversial, so using a different source for the same information is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::That is an ad hoc approach which only works for one news story at a time. Simply put, what if other sources don't. This is why it is important the exception is carved out. NotQualified (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If a single news source is the only source that picks up a detail, that probably goes to show that detail shouldn't be included (WP:WEIGHT / WP:BALASP). That other news sources decide not to include certain details may well be because they do not believe the details are important, or that they are presented properly. I would say it goes to shows why there shouldn't be a exception given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@ActivelyDisinterested this statement can be applied to any source in any discussion... Alaexis_¿question? 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, choosing the least contentious source to support a detail is always a good idea (regardless of the article). Arguing other a contentious source when others are available isn't a good use of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The New York Times says {{tq|No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs.}} which does not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement. It instead sounds rather more like exactly the sort of {{tq|unduly represent contentious or minority claims}} we're supposed to take care to avoid. If a primary source has been published in multiple places, I see no compelling reason why the reliability of GB News even needs to be discussed, and it seems like nobody wants to use the secondary parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Surely that's a WP:WEIGHT issue to be determined in the context of what is being written, rather than a WP:RS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Even if it isn't a "ringing endorsement", it does sound like NYT agrees it has the largest wealth of knowledge on this issue, which is one of the reasons I'd argue it's critical to allow. If that knowledge was erroneous, I'd obviously agree it shouldn't be included, but that knowledge as discussed on this talk discussion seems to be virtually always correct.

::::> If a primary source has been published in multiple places,

::::And what if it isn't. Wikipedia as a whole suffers. NotQualified (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tqbm|And what if it isn't.}}

:::::WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, even were it to be considered reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Other sources are reporting on Peters “breaking” the story in that he revived a myth that was taken up by Elon Musk who then intervened in uk politics and got far right grifters competing with each other for his attention, making Peters’ “reporting” noteworthy, but not reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::post sources NotQualified (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::A few examples:

:::::*FT: “How a handful of X accounts took Elon Musk ‘down the rabbit hole’ on UK politics… In the past week, Musk has also amplified posts on the grooming scandal by former prime minister Liz Truss, former Labour MP Kate Hoey, former Reform politician Ben Habib and people linked to broadcaster GB News.”[https://archive.is/VPnfw]

:::::*Yahoo News: “News of Philips's rejection letter was then reported by GB News on 1 January, sparking an intense debate about whether such an inquiry was needed. This was picked up by Elon Musk who began posting prolifically about the issue, levelling harsh criticism at the government and at one point calling for Philips to be jailed for rejecting the request.”[https://uk.news.yahoo.com/grooming-gangs-inquiry-news-keir-starmer-update-130733616.html]

:::::*BBC: ”Debate around grooming gangs was reignited this week after it was reported that Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in the town, in favour of a locally-led investigation. The decision was taken in October, but first reported by GB News on 1 January.”[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75wp53vk1lo.amp]

:::::*BBC Verify: “In one post, Mr Musk alleged that "Gordon Brown committed an unforgivable crime against the British people" and shared a video clip from campaigner Maggie Oliver appearing on GB News. In the clip, Ms Oliver alleged: "Gordon Brown sent out a circular to all the police forces in the UK saying 'do not prosecute these rape gangs, these children are making a lifestyle choice'."… But BBC Verify has carried out extensive searches of Home Office circulars issued across that period and found no evidence that any document containing this advice exists.”[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2g7qgl1eo.amp-]

:::::*New Yorker: “The onslaught began on January 1st, when Musk responded to a report by GB News, a right-wing cable-news channel, which said that the country’s Labour government had rejected a national inquiry into non-recent sexual abuse in Oldham, a town just outside Manchester, in northern England. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actual story is more complicated than that.”[https://archive.is/2V9lv]

:::::*NYT: “No British media outlet has revived the grooming scandal with the zeal of GB News, a hard-right cable news channel that went on the air in 2021, a decade after The Times’s investigation into grooming gangs… Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform U.K., an anti-immigrant party, has praised Mr. Peters, saying he had “really reignited this story” and demonstrated that “these barbarities have taken place in at least 50 towns.”… The cumulative effect of Mr. Musk’s inflammatory posts has been to energize Britain’s populist right.”[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/world/europe/elon-musk-uk-starmer-grooming-gangs.html]

:::::BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I’m just here to say that a source being generally unreliable doesn’t mean they can’t be reliable in specific circumstances. That is, if you want to make a case that a specific subset of GB News output is reliable enough to support statements in a specific article, you can make that argument on the Talk page of the article and it doesn’t need to be carved out as a formalised exception on WP:RSP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::Absolutely agree with this, both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" are not absolutes. Either way you may be required to convince other editors (on the articles talk page) that a specific source should, or shouldn't, be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Considering that there is quite a lot of academic material on this subject that isn't currently being used in these articles I'm somewhat reticent to start making exceptions for generally unreliable news media organizations out of some sort of belief we are missing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The specifics would be a discussion for the articles talk page, but in general I'd agree. Less news and opinion sources, and more academic sources would be an improvement for many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If other sources do not follow though with a story, there may well be reason why, and one of those is they can't confirm them. This is what they are RS, they do try to fact-check before publication. So if a reputable publication does not report it I have to ask the question why is the only source reporting this an iffy one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for this comment, this was also my interpretation when reading the thread, and surprised no-one else referenced the obvious here: If Charlie Peters is such a respectable journalist (let's assume he is for the sake of argument), then why is his work not published in respectable and reliable sources such as The Telegraph that he previously worked for? While trying to avoid a discussion on this journalist career path and choices in life, it does seem remarkably odd that there aren't reliable sources reporting his coverage indepth. This makes me suspect that it's because it's much easier to publish for GB News than it is other news orgs that do fact-checking and thorough reviews. Baring in mind, its not just WP that considers GB News as generally unreliable, there is rough consensus among UK journalism that it is a trashy tabloid-like source. So why is such a respectable journalist writing such great contributions for a trash can? Without intending to speculate much further than I already have, it could be because what he writes for GB News isn't as reliable as what he has written elsewhere. Generally if there were topics that I would say GB News was specifically unreliable for, it'd be along the lines of Reform Party coverage (it's a quasi-primary source at this point), and contentious topics such as the far-right riots, Tommy Robinson, and grooming gangs. Feel free to accuse me of a broad stroke, but I'd otherwise consider GB to be generally reliable for entertainment and culture topics (similar to NYP). CNC (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::Just to be clear here, it isn't just Peters, I'm arguing that generally their coverage on group based child sex exploitation is good. Peters has written under multiple papers. I do not know why he works for GBNews particularly right now but he brings spectacular journalism to it. NotQualified (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Nah. If there's news that doesn't suck it'll show up elsewhere. Per {{u|CommunityNotesContributor}}, that it isn't showing up elsewhere raises an eyebrow - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong disagree with OP. In fact, i’d say that the fact that the Telegraph has taken up Peters’/GBNews’ reporting might lead us to the rule that the Telegraph, is not reliable on this highly contentious topic. Example: here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ Peters and a co-author claim to catalogue the “cover up” of the grooming scandal “to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society” — yet every single factual claim in their article is taken from a pre-existing primary source (a 2010 W Midlands police report, a 2013 sentencing report, the 2014 Rotherham Jay inquiry, the 2015 Rotherham Casey report, the 2019 Manchester police report, the 2022 Telford Inquiry and the 2022 national independent review) that to my mind prove that far from a cover up this has been extensively investigated and publicly addressed for well over a decade. There is no actual investigation here; they rely on the investigation done by others and use it to spin an inflammatory conspiracy theory. I think it might be time to downgrade the Telegraph not upgrade GBNews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Regarding this article, is it usual for reliable sources to correct the content of articles without referencing a change? This was first published on [https://web.archive.org/web/20250104123556/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ January 4th], and modified by [https://web.archive.org/web/20250108164708/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ January 8th] with attribution to GB News added (can verify with [https://www.copyscape.com/compare.php copyscape]):
• :* {{tq|"In Jess Phillips’s letter to the council, revealed by GB News, she said she understood the strength of feeling in the town, but thought it best for another local review to take place.}}
• :* {{tq|"The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim, told GB News, "..."}}
• :It's good they corrected the article with necessary attribution for unverified claims, however it took 4 days to do so, and they failed to reference such changes in the article, including the original date. Not a good look imo. CNC (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}

TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?

Link to previous discussion

Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional,[https://www.ceicdata.com/en/about-us] but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by Caixin, as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". Wizmut (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://fantasyliterature.com] I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:[https://fantasyliterature.com/reviewers/]. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::This is the terms its staff work under: [https://unf.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1FluU8x0rBE6FA9]

::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I can’t find evidence it’s been published.[Zannettou, Savvas (November 24, 2019). "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism".] Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4647592672245666414&hl=en&as_sdt=0,21 a few places] where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently [https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2018/papers/imc18-final102.pdf published] in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Wikipedia, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." Doug Weller talk 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::@FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://hatebase.org hatebase.org] a reliable source? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:used in 4 wikipedia articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider wikipedia community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on adding citations to the home media section of King Kong (1933). I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" [after the 1984 release]. I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database [https://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/04339/ID2134TU/King-Kong:-60th-Anniversary here]. Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there [https://www.lddb.com/help/submit/ may be just one editor]). My other options are [https://search.worldcat.org/title/28363532 worldcat] or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:The bottom of the page has {{tq|"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."}} and from the page you linked[https://www.lddb.com/help/submit/] it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from Social Blade. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;

"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."

The question is should we trust it?

Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://airplaydirect.com airplaydirect.com] reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Per their about page[https://airplaydirect.com/about] they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a WP:PRIMARY source within the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pegging_(sexual_practice)&oldid=801346418 Could this conversation about the veracity of my 'opinions' in 2017] perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who specializes in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.

I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.

Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful [https://peggingparadise.com/2019/12/podcast-253-for-the-gentlemen givers] and [https://peggingparadise.com/2022/01/podcast-112-the-introduction/ receivers] how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.

I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.

My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.

https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)

https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)

https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)

With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do,

Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Ms. Ryder,

:What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations [you are] widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.

:The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Wikipedia's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Wikipedia editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Wikipedia are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Wikipedia. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.

:that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Wikipedia editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I would concur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::* Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?

::::* have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see WP:BRD) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?

::::* This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?

::::Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_January_2025|2=Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/

Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/

Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.

With respect,

Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}

:I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our XBIZ Awards page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. Joe Kort is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to Talk:Pegging (sexual practice) for fresh discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a medical claim, for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biased against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years

1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles[1][2].

2. in this article you can see a picture of the Su-57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not[3].

3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes [1] which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances[4] but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this.[1] which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.

4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't [5] and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing [6].

5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s [7] in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other[8].

There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Wikipedia.

Sources

1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/

2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/

3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/

4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf

5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/

7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/

8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from

https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye Madnow2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::The S 400 Wikipedia page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Wikipedia page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::* {{linksummary|globaldefensecorp.com}}

::Amigao (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting[https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/consulting-services/]... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed that this is a very low-quality vanity site / ad farm attached to a consulting business. Definitely not reliable and it should be deprecated. - Amigao (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this sigcov [https://www.oba.org/Innovator-in-Residence/Practice-Tools-Library/Software-Reviews/BRYTER-SOFTWARE-REPORT], [https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2022/06/29/bryter-lends-a-no-code-hand-to-help-ukrainian-refugees/] reliable for Draft:BRYTER? HelixUnwinding (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose [https://www.linkedin.com/in/friedrichblase/recent-activity/all/ LinkedIn profile] references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with @John M Baker -- especially since the second source's author is anonymous (we have no way of knowing who artificiallawyer is or their credentials), it casts doubt on the reliability of the source. Oraclesto (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mosaic_authorship&oldid=prev&diff=1271547018] edit summary by IP ")apart from the cited website, the edit has nothing to deal with YEC. It simply attests, citing the Bible with a secondary source, that some verses of the Pentateuch mention Moses as its author "

Oddly the text it presumably means to back it is all in the citation. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely not a reliable source. In fact I'm somewhat surprised that Answers in Genesis isn't deprecated as a disinformation and pseudoscience source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Surely there are better sources for such a claim? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:For the fact the author claims this to be thre case, yes. For it being true, no. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think the problem is that, outside of biblical literalists, nobody is going to claim that Moses personally authored verses of the Pentateuch as that would depend on asserting that Moses was an historical figure. I would call this claim highly controversial and, frankly WP:FRINGE. As such we definitely should not use an in-universe WP:FRINGE source to discuss it. If the claim of Moses' authorship has found any interest outside fringe sources another citation should be fully possible. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's an extract from a book published by a company that produces Christian textbooks for homeschooling, and was written by authors with a backgrounds in geology and engineering. This is a topic area that has had extensive academic writing, there should be no need to use such a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::For example, through Wikipedia Library users can access the Oxford Research Encyclopdias, which has [https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.53 an article] about the Pentateuch that looks like it both explains the reasons for/origins of the traditional Judeo-Christian belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as well as contextualizes that belief with the historical critical approach and why it has concluded the authorship was otherwise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::If you'll permit a brief off-topic aside I have to say that the Wikipedia Library is one of the biggest benefits to participation in this project. I strongly encourage anyone who is able to use it to do so regularly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've told the IP about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Answers in Genesis (AiG) is absolutely not a reliable source. Although claims of Mosaic authorship indeed have nothing to do with Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which AiG is notorious for promoting, we should not be relying on its expertise in interpreting biblical quotes on other matters either. I'm looking at some of the Bible verses invoked by AiG, and it very much seems like the author Terry Mortenson ([https://answersingenesis.org/bios/terry-mortenson/ educated as a geologist]) is an untrained Bible reader going through the text and [https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/documentary-hypothesis-moses-genesis-jedp/ chalking up every time] Moses is said to be writing something down as "evidence" that Moses wrote that text itself. Not really. Moses is described in the third person singular as writing some text down that is not quoted within the given narrative, but allegedly existed outside of it. The degree to which some parts of the Bible may claim that Moses wrote other parts of it, should be dealt with by specialised textual biblical scholars who understand something about authorship claims and how to interpret bibical texts. It's a valid subject, but AiG is not an appropriate source to invoke in order to discuss it. NLeeuw (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Beyond that, the Bible is probably the single most heavily-studied book in all of human history. There's no reason why we would ever rely on a low-quality source, which makes the WP:RS / WP:DUE standard for it much higher than it is for most other texts - any remotely mainstream interpretation will have massive amounts of text written about it in high-quality sources. Indeed, the things that the IP was trying to add about how some parts (but only some) are attributed to Moses in the text is already mentioned the article further down the section, just with more context and cited to a higher-quality source. ({{tq|...the process which led to Moses becoming identified as the author of the Torah may have been influenced by three factors: first, by a number of passages in which he is said to write something, frequently at the command of God, although these passages never appear to apply to the entire five books...}}, cited to [https://books.google.com/books?id=VwOs9f1FpmsC]. It even has a footnote somewhat like the one the IP was trying to add (listing all of them according to McEntire, in more detail than the IP even added). --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Hah, very well said Aquillion. I hadn't even seen that, but that is even a better way of saying what I observed above, and it is said in a way-more-reliable source than AiG.

:::Incidentally, although I do see a lot of discussion around the impossibility of Moses recording his own death in Deut 34:5 and following, but I do not see any discussion of other passages that I have seen counter-apologists talk about, namely:

:::* {{tq|to this day no one knows where his grave is.}} (Deut 34:6), which Moses probably couldn't have written about his own grave, given that he was presumably dead and buried inside it by the time this passage was written down. It also suggests Moses died a long time ago, and the author wasn't alive when it happened.

:::* {{tq|Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses}}, (Deut 34:11), which seems to indicate that a long time had passed since Moses' death, possibly generations, before this text was written down. (According to the scholarly consensus, if a Moses figure existed at all, that would probably have been in the 13th century BCE, while the Book of Deuteronomy is generally dated to the 7th century BCE, so that's about 600 years).

:::These are two simple internal-evidence-based refutations against Mosaic authorship for the entire Pentateuch, because at the very least, he couldn't have written those last lines of Deut 34. But here, too, we need to rely on RS by specialised biblical scholars (which I might try later if I feel like it), and not e.g. some atheist blogger making this argument against Mosaic authorship. For the same reason we can't cite AiG to make an argument in favour of Mosaic authorship. NLeeuw (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::PS: Heh, this discussion has inspired me to finally buy the e-book edition of {{cite book |last=Ostrowski |first=Donald |authorlink=Donald Ostrowski |url=https://chooser.crossref.org/?doi=10.7591%2Fcornell%2F9781501749704.001.0001 |title=Who Wrote That? Authorship Controversies from Moses to Sholokhov |publisher=Cornell University Press |date=2020 |isbn=978-1-5017-4970-4 |doi=10.7591/cornell/9781501749704.001.0001}}, which I was already considering. I've added it to the Bibliography, and may use it for some further improvements if useful. Ostrowski claims that he is one of the first to do a meta-analysis of the regular arguments used by proponents and opponents of authenticity in specific authorship controversies. It seems that these controversies are usually discussed in isolation of each other, even though the strength or weakness of particular types of arguments in favour or against authenticity should in theory be universally applicable, without the need to "reinvent the wheel". That might very well be true. We've got a :Category:Authorship debates, but no main article. Authorship redirects to Author, and Authorship controversies, Authorship debates etc. do not exist. I might eventually try to write that on the basis of Ostrowski's book, which might hopefully not be a too narrow basis. Perhaps it should start as a list that simply includes links to existing articles about particular authorship debates. We'll see. NLeeuw (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• The only link to AiG on Wikipedia should be the official link in the Answers in Genesis article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bozeman_Yellowstone_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1271179927 Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_International_Airport&diff=1271213702&oldid=1271118921 Los Angeles International Airport]. In both cases WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. The Banner talk 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22flightconnections.com%22] (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:I do see it as reliable. They are [https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/20605453-post7.html buying the data] from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::But it does not list start and/or end dates for non-permanent connections. The Banner talk 14:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It does. When you drill down on a route level basis, under the airlines it lists timespans for seasonal service and shows beginning and end dates as appropriate. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires [https://www.piratewires.com/about-us describes itself] as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashley_Rindsberg&diff=1268525044&oldid=1265442207 as was done here]? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.

:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Wikipedia” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" [https://www.piratewires.com/p/george-soros-wikipedia?f=home]. I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos [https://archive.is/hX9c0]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

[https://x.com/micsolana/status/1840778970666508451?lang=en Words of the founder] Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• :It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Wikipedia's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Wikipedia content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&search=insource%3Apiratewires.com]. in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Per {{U|Slatersteven}} its founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• :It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the Pirate Wires piece [https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-launders-regime-propaganda?f=home "How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda"] by Ashley Rindsberg a reliable source of claims for the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article? Rindsberg has published other content about Wikipedia on Pirate Wires, including [https://www.piratewires.com/p/george-soros-wikipedia "How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Wikipedia"]. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Wikipedia that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Wikipedia is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:It is more or less a group

:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Wikipedia editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:almost certainly no. the article attacking wikipedia has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Wikipedia) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/mike-solana-pirate-wires/680355/] but its viewpoint about Wikipedia per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Imo Having Wikipedia articles that discuss whether Wikipedia is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Wikipedia editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Wikipedia" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Wikipedia bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Wikipedia of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Two can play that game. [https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased]https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There's a related discussion in progress at Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Manhattan_Institute Manuductive (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Wikipedia both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectful comment: This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --Precision123 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:While I'm generally one to prefer deferring to what reliable sources say about sources, I would point out that our policy on original research is explicit that it doesn't apply to talk pages. In the absence of substantial clear-cut reliable sources saying something about X source, it isn't unreasonable or disallowed for Wikipedia editors to make observations about X source that inform their assessment of it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: I am open to ideas. I did a little research to see how it is treated in by credible news sources. While the site appears to be just a few years old, Pirate Wires has been cited/covered in some credible news sources, including [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/19/biden-trump-ai-regulations-tech-industry/ The Washington Post], which described it as a "tech news site," [https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/debanking-what-is-meaning-crypto-musk-rogan-andreessen-rcna182597 NBC News], [https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2024/10/23/the-future-if-trump-wins-00185132 Politico], which described it as a "media outlet regularly tweaks the tech industry's critics and regulators," [https://gizmodo.com/donald-trump-djt-price-solana-real-crypto-scams-rumors-1851546599 Gizmodo], which described it as a "prominent crypto-news account," and [https://fortune.com/2024/05/10/paypal-mafia-film-movie-david-sachs-jack-selby/ Fortune], as well as by a very prominent reporter on [https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/video/2024/11/why-americans-are-split-over-trumps-cabinet-nominees-and-their-qualifications PBS]. In sum, after doing a little digging to see its treatment in the media, it should not simply be blacklisted. Every source should be used with caution. As of now, it appears to be emerging in the tech news world, and reports on topics related to that field. --Precision123 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see anyone above who was even proposing "blacklisting" Pirate Wires, but there are some who do not believe it is reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for that clarification. It appears to be fine for tech-related topics. --Precision123 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:The PBS example is not as much of an endorsement when one digs in to what the journalist actually says: {{tq|there's this very interesting newsletter I read, Pirate Wires, by this guy, Mike Solana}} (emphasis added). "Newsletter by this guy" is pretty below the standard of a reliable source on Wikipedia. It's too new, and it's too dominated by Solana. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::Emphasis could be added on another part of that same sentence and taken to mean something altogether different, though I believe more accurate, "{{tq|there's this very interesting newsletter I read, Pirate Wires, by this guy, Mike Solana}}" (emphasis now added on "very interesting"). Best we do not therefore add any emphasis, and take at face value, I think the claim neutrally is supportive of PW as, at minimum, "very interesting" (and presumably therefore at least basically reliable). Iljhgtn (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::"Very interesting" is irrelevant to notability. "Newsletter by this guy Mike Solana" is directly relevant to reliability and indicates it's WP:SPS Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{+1}}. Moon landing conspiracy theories could also be called 'very interesting'. Interestingness doesn't on its own mean dependability for facts. A failure to adhere to reality could, in fact, be very interesting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Courtesy link|Alison Weir (activist)}}, {{Courtesy link|Special:Permalink/1271100946#cite_note-1{{!}}ref [1]}}

Here's a situation I haven't run into before. Alison Weir (activist) is a political analyst specializing in critiquing media coverage of Israel-Palestine issues. The article has been around since 2013, and the Talk page has recently become active due to a non-EC user ({{user|Kenfree}}) making edit requests and actively participating in discussion. A recent discussion topic concerns the reliability of a 2015 book review in Truthout by L. Hager, who reviews a [https://search.worldcat.org/title/875304383 2014 book] by Weir. The tricky part here, is that while I believe Truthout is considered generally reliable ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Truthout&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable%20sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search nine archive mentions]), Weir's book was published by CreateSpace, Amazon's on-demand vanity publisher. If cited directly, I'm pretty sure the book would be rejected as WP:PRIMARY, non-independent, and WP:SPS. But maybe that doesn't apply to Hager's review, which is clearly secondary, and from a website generally considered reliable. I guess the part that bothers me, is that it seems like using a reliable book review kind of holds the book at one remove, and whitewashes any reliability issues of the book itself. Or, does it not work that way, and it's fine to cite the book review? Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would say Hager's review is secondary and if the publication is RS then it is reliable for Hager's view on the book. It might also provide partial justification for the book falling under WP:EXPERTSPS depending on the content of the review. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:As a longtime user of Amazon's publishing services, let me clarify that Createspace was not the publisher of this book; they were a provider of publishing services, rather than a publisher in itself. Seeing them listed in the "Publisher" fields just reflects someone decided to use the free ISBNs Createspace offered rather than buying their own ISBN number, and this may have been done to save money, to save time, or to enable certain distribution options to the library market that were available to folks using that.

:The book does have a publisher listed on the back cover (which can be seen in the preview at its Amazon page): If Americans Knew.org ... which is the organization that Weir was the Executive Director of at the time. As such, this does presumably qualify as a self-published source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::I have encountered this scenario a few times with fringe authors in particular. If an author has self-published works, it is ok to cite those works in a limited fashion in their biographical page, since it elaborates on their views and if there are no better source to be found. A review by a secondary source is also ok to cite since it provides commentary by someone who not the biographical person in question. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yes I agree about applying WP:EXPERTSPS. Experts often self-publish excellent books for many reasons, including the rapacity of publishers. The rise of self-publishing platforms has in made our rules about self-published books somewhat outdated. The rules were designed for the world in the early 2000s, when mostly it was crackpots who self publish. These days there are new york times bestsellers (The Martian was originally self-published, many other examples). -- GreenC 21:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::If we mean Andy Weir's The Martian, that book is a novel. Wikipedians' reasons for preferring sources with editorial control are usually irrelevant to the reading public's enjoyment of a work of fiction. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:Based on what you've said, Weir's book Against Our Better Judgment would presumably be a case of an acknowledged expert's self-published source (though be mindful that the policy on biographical content about specific living persons does not permit the use of even experts' self-published sources). Truthout's review of Weir's book is a secondary source for the book, treating the book as a primary source (whereas the book is a secondary source for the United States' involvement in the origins of the nation-state of Israel). Reviews can also be a way to gauge if this self-published source qualifies as expertly-written.{{pb}}If concerns about the book persist, it looks like Against Our Better Judgment has endnotes and a full bibliography to numerous academically-published works, so you could also take the book as a starting point for personal learning, read the cited books (perhaps through a library), and cite those on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

What do we think about [https://www.nationalworld.com/culture/celebrity/bonnie-blue-from-recruitment-to-onlyfans-fame-with-millions-in-earnings-her-real-name-ex-husband-revealed-4856335 NationalWorld.com] being used for a living porn star's month of birth? Courtesy ping to {{yo|Diademchild}}.--Launchballer 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Based on National World, not necessarily crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Remember that WP:DOB says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::Well, the article doesn't actually have a full DOB. Policy suggests "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::This section is about using this source to support the month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Are there no other sources available for this info? Ramos1990 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not familiar with NationalWorld, but it’s [https://www.nationalworld.com/about editorial code of practices] sounds reasonable and I’m not aware of any reason why it would not be a reliable source. I would not consider this one source to be “widely published,” but it should support the birth year. John M Baker (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

In an article on Project Pluto, I used a source by Hugh Harkin. He writes mainly about aerospace matters and the history of Scotland. He is a member of the Institute of Physics and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. He has written over 60 books, but most were published by Centurion Publishing, a small British publishing firm that [https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09169573 went out of business in 2019]. The majority of the books it published were by Harkin. A trawl through Google Books only found [https://books.google.com/books?id=LtXGBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT336&dq=%22hugh+harkins%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq5-XrxoeLAxWF48kDHRPgJqo4KBDoAXoECAwQAg#v=onepage&q=%22hugh%20harkins%22&f=false one] that cites one of Harkins' books. There are a handful of citations [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5993671087823427213&as_sdt=5,36&sciodt=0,36&hl=en here], [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7853161259801454376&as_sdt=5,36&sciodt=0,36&hl=en here], and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9805029440209882457&as_sdt=5,36&sciodt=0,36&hl=en here]. Reliable? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've spent some time searching online and can find little information about the author or book, beyond what you've already found, which isn't much to base a judgement on. Have you thought to ask on MILHIST? Someone there might know the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/SPS_RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|On second thought, this is more of a rhetorical question. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 22:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)}}

Is Teen Ink reliable for media reviews? It's written by teens, for teens, so I'm somewhat conflicted on if I should use it at all.

Pinging users who have participated in a loosely related discussion above: @Hydrangeans and Gnomingstuff. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 21:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:In what context would one cite Teen Ink? From what I can tell from scanning [https://www.teenink.com/ its website], it's an anthological magazine, largely for creative fiction and creative nonfiction. The age of the authors doesn't even need to become relevant yet because it doesn't publish the types of analytical nonfiction that would be useful to cite on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

We use it in a number of articles. It's also listed as spam at times, deemed not an RS that could be use as an EL.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.palikanon.com%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1] Doug Weller talk 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:That looks like WP:SPS and anonymous enough that it's difficult to establish if it's an SPS with any particular expertise behind it. So I'd say no. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=There is consensus that NewsNation is unreliable for reporting on UFOs and related topics, but reliable for other topics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)}}

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
• NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes [https://web.archive.org/web/20230818175750/https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/18/newsnation-ufo-david-grusch-intercept-coulthart/]. In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart [https://www.newsnationnow.com/author/ross-coulthart/] is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
• In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ5z7SnPsVI]. Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
• Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies [https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/05/ufos-the-unidentified-flying-circus-comes-to-town/] Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
• He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. [https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-in-plain-sight-by-ross-coulthart]
• The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/i-blame-the-australian-skeptics/]
• The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. [https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/ufos/102785078]
• The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. [https://www.smh.com.au/cbd/ben-roberts-smith-backer-ross-coulthart-now-leading-ufo-truther-20230824-p5dz82.html]
• Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. [https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/60-minutes-investigation/9972338]
• Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
• In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/18/newsnation-ufo-david-grusch-intercept-coulthart/]), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding [UFO "whistleblower"] Grusch's mental health"}}.
• In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 [https://x.com/MickWest/status/1868039381942182134].

:Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-UFO coverage, Option 3 for UFO coverage. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 I think NN is good at getting both sides factually regarding politics. Coulomb1 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/journalism-rojava-ii-independent-media-between-freedom-and-control/ heavily censor narratives critical of theirs], which raises concern over its reliability. I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) is related to a CTOP. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:(Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Having read through the article you linked[https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/journalism-rojava-ii-independent-media-between-freedom-and-control/] it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}
As well as:
{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}
So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS[https://www.google.com/search?&q=Hawar%20News%20Agency&udm=36&source=lnms] and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://apnews.com/article/e4b8e76876d149a8a1dd62fef1a5aff0 "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria"] from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/12/how-us-can-send-message-erdogan-free-press/ such as here]), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I was looking to use [https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/travel/history-surrounds-mount-edziza-2481730 this] in the Eve Cone article but I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Volcanoguy 18:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Volcanoguy [https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/other/about] and Glacier Media indicates it's local ok-ish media, but it's written by Jack Souther, and that seems excellent in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with this site? The about page claims that it works with seasoned journalists, but offhand the site looks to be one of those questionable celebrity gossip type sites as the page title is "Who is Cindy Kimberly Age, Ethnicity, Boyfriend, Net Worth".

I'm specifically looking at [https://thebiography.org/who-is-cindy-kimberly-age-ethnicity-boyfriend-net-worth/ this entry]. I'm inclined to see it and some of the other sources at Cindy Kimberly as unusable, but I wanted to make sure since there's a question of notability here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:It unfortunately looks to be WP:CIRCULAR and so not usable for anything. For instance check their article on Linda Kozlowski[https://thebiography.org/what-happened-to-linda-kozlowski-where-she-is-today/], which is a slightly reworded copy of Wikipedia's article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Just for reference it's used in another 13 articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22TheBiography.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Review site run by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization. I'm currently planning to rewrite the reception section for the Deltarune article and stumbled across their [https://www.pluggedin.com/game-reviews/deltarune-chapters-1-2/ Chapter 1 & 2 review]. I generally wouldn't mind using this source with attribution, but Focus has a reputation of misinterpreting information in favor of their viewpoint, and that makes me concerned of its reliability. Maybe this source could be considered marginally reliable? I don't know. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would recommend against using it for critical reception. Not necessarily because it's unreliable -- at least with that review, I've played the game and everything there is accurately described. But it's a very niche source and not really a critical outlet. The link you posted calls itself a "review" but it's more a content guide for parents, with surface-level facts and plot summary that can be found elsewhere, and almost no critical analysis besides "there is violence in this work" etc. So using it as an example of what video game critics had to say is a clear case of WP:UNDUE, except maybe for Christian media or works that had an unusually notable amount of backlash from religious groups. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'm inclined to agree that including the assessments of this website seems undue. Sometimes relatively niche sources are the best sources, such as academic publications (peer-reviewed journals often have relatively small audiences compared to, say, news blogs, but Wikipedia nevertheless favors academic sources over other kinds of sources because of the training and expertise of the authors), but this content guide for parents is not one of those cases.{{pb}}The list of sources you have compiled already includes the sources I would expect—Eurogamer, Destructoid, Polygon—plus some I didn't expect (whoa, a Washington Post article?), so I don't think you're in dire need of more sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:As someone who edits in the Christian music space, I’ve used it for a couple of Christian albums, mainly lyrical analysis (because they usually talk about about each song on an album from a theological perspective). But it’s a super marginal source, and honestly probably shouldn’t be used. There’s better sources. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I previously cited the sources from the Website I mentioned above. I'm here to ask about the reliability of this website, kindly let me know. I'm here adding some links from the website. See [https://www.awazthevoice.in/personality-news/mazharul-haque-a-forgotten-freedom-fighter-from-bihar-33418.html this], [https://www.awazthevoice.in/personality-news/when-ustad-zakir-hussain-created-sound-of-rain-on-tabla-33187.html this] and [https://www.awazthevoice.in/culture-news/fatehchand-s-miniature-captures-jahangir-s-reverence-for-ajmer-sharif-33788.html this]. Taabii (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:They appear to be a stand news organisation, so the advice at WP:NEWSORG would apply., and this is an Indian news source there could be a need for caution over undisclosed promotional articles, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The specific articles you linked are mostly to do with history, so there are likely academic works on the subject. If there is disagreement between sources, academic works would be preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'd go with not reliable. The website takes user contributions (see [https://www.awazthevoice.in/writetous Write for Us]) and it's unclear what editorial oversight they have. There is also no proper disclosure or demarcation of which author is a contributor and which is staff. Most of the "positivity" branded websites like this (see bottom of the site) tend to be rife with undisclosed advertisements. In all 3 of the articles you've linked, there's a "story by: x" and "posted by: y" which might indicate(?) the former is the user contributor and the latter is the staff who posted it. If I had to wager a guess, looking at the content on the website overall, the business model of this is probably generating its historical/cultural pieces through users for some "quality content" and otherwise doing churnalism with some paid news, interviews, etc.

:I would suggest trying to find academic sources (Wikipedia Library can be quite helpful, just in case you don't know about it) that validate what these articles say and then replacing them. The content itself seems benign so that shouldn't be difficult but it might contain inaccuracies which will get caught in the process. Regardless, one shouldn't usually use news publishers (unless a piece has been authored by a subject-matter expert, etc) for history related topics in general. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Closed rfc top|result=There is a consensus to deprecate geni.com and genealogy.eu. There is no consensus to deprecate MedLands. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)}}

The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):

• A: Geni.com
• B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
• C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav

:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.

:They should be:

• Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
• Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
• Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)

NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
• B: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
• C: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:Probably need to add the website [https://www.genealogics.org/ Genealogics.org] to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Wikipedia articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate.Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

: Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::The vast majority of editors adding Geni as a citation for the primary sources it hosts are using those sources in exactly the way that is prohibited (i.e. they are using it as the sole supporting source for a statement rather than as background support for secondary sources). Even that's rare, as way way more people are citing it for its user-generated (often Wikipedia-based) "profiles" rather than whatever historical records are uploaded there. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Invalid RFC/No change - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Geni.com RSP discussions here] ). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Why would we provide positive options when the overwhelming consensus already is that it is not reliable? There is absolutely no requirement that RSN RfCs be formatted with the standard options, especially when the aim isn't even to change the status quo GUNREL designation but rather to flesh out how we technically handle the source. And how could this possibly be declaring the previous discussions invalid, given that they all concluded Geni should not be used? The point of deprecating is to prevent new usage of the source, by warning editors who try to insert it that it's generally unreliable and tagging the citation if they go through with it. Geni is constantly being re-added by clueless people, deprecating would help a lot with cleaning it up. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::User:JoelleJay Per WP:RFC is a dispute resolution mechanism, and if the RFC excludes anything else then it is just invalid. And most of the options *do* seem to be seeking to change the prior RSP designation. This also is not involving the editors who apparently feel Geni is to be used, or to look at usage since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS except to state they are clueless. I do not know that is so - and cannot see where this RFC looked at whether a RFC to throw out prior RSP is even needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::?? Where does WP:RFC say that RfC options must include all possibilities regardless of prior consensus, appropriateness, relevance, feasibility, etc.? Do you just think all RfCs that clarify an existing consensus are automatically invalid because the listed outcomes are constrained? And again, deprecation only affects how we handle citing a source that is already considered generally unreliable: {{tq|There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited.}} There have been no other RfCs on Geni, so it's not like deprecation has even been considered and rejected. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is no WP:RFCINVALID, but try WP:RFCNEUTRAL, WP:POLL and m:Polls are evil as related. Outside of legalisms, this just is constraining the discussion and why is this RFC even rehashing RSP is not explicitly shown so just doesn’t seem a usable RFC. It would be better if showing evidence of need or reasons for listed choices, and consideration that times have existed and may again exist where geni is going to be used. ( The prior RSP discussions did wind up with geni still being used apparently 2 times out of 3 when the 5 listed RSN threads had context.) I’m not saying I have answers, mostly saying that this RFC isn’t covering the topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Deprecate as persistently abused UGC. Yes, it may cite reliable sources, but we need to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.

:::Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.

:::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Wikipedia itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "interesting" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@Andrew Lancaster, there really isn't the nuance for this source's reliability that would warrant citing it for anything. Unlike news media and niche RS where we might take into consideration the reliability of individual contributors or the scope of expertise in a publication when deciding whether it is reliable to cite for a given statement, MedLands is a non-expert SPS and thus there aren't any circumstances where it could be cited as a third-party source. It's also one of those sources widely used by amateur genealogists on other user-generated sites who come here wanting to add genealogy details; these are often drive-by users who are not regular en.wp editors and do not know/care about our policies, so merely classifying it as generally unreliable is not going to affect its continued addition here much at all. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• No Change - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&search=+Charles+Cawley%2C+Medieval+Lands&limit=500&offset=0 this search], it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Editors using a source does not make it "de facto" RS... We have thousands of hits for pinterest and the like, and used to have thousands to the Daily Mail; that doesn't mean any of those are actually reliable. If you're objecting to the whole concept of RSP this isn't the place to do it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. Thousands of Wikipedians could be quoting from The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and that still doesn't make it {{!xt|de facto RS by usage}} for information on butterflies.
• ::{{!xt|This just is not something that often comes up for question}} It does. In Background: C Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), I have indicated a long list of previous discussions on MedLands by Cawley, which has been going on for 15+ years (by now 17+ years). All this time, the conclusion that they reached repeatedly was that MedLands by Cawley was not reliable, but for a time it was thought that we could just gradually replace MedLands by other sources, and keeping MedLands template with a warning as a temporary measure until better sources had been found. However, that didn't happen, and the supposedly temporary measure became quasi-permanent until we agreed in the May 2023 RSN to no longer use the template or the website in any other way. And even after that, the website still gets used as a source by Wikipedians (usually new ones who were not aware of the previous discussions and the May 2023 decision). Deprecation is exactly what allows us to give editors a warning that it is not reliable, and to check out previous discussions and decisions, to prevent new usage. See also JoelleJay's response to your comment under Survey A: Geni.com. NLeeuw (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• ::User:JoelleJay I am saying that no entry to RSP is needed and that it seems an accepted source. Just trying to point out the practical difficulties and that countervailing practice exists. No, editors using it *does* make it de facto RS. De facto or ‘in practice’ this has been used as RS by many WP editors. And per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS looking at those usages shown by my search link above it seems to be simple matters such as providing an image of heraldic devices where it looks reasonable and helpful to use. If you’re objecting to the source as being bad, then show those hundreds of edits are bad to establish how much an effort is needed - why are we here? If those hundreds of use will not be easily replaced with something better then it just seems harmful to WP content. If there are better sources, fine, then sell those — but I just don’t see a need or benefit here, this looks like unnecessary criticism of an accepted RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Could you clarify: the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&search=+Charles+Cawley%2C+Medieval+Lands&limit=500&offset=0 search link] you provided returns 17 results in total, of which 4 are about MedLands. The rest are false positives. What are the "hundreds of use" you refer to? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::In Background: B I have done a systemic search for how often URLs to MedLands are currently used in all project spaces of Englsh Wikipedia. Quoting myself:
• ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Ffmg.ac%2FProjects%2FMedLands%2F http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ is currently used in 360 times in enwiki pages], 172 of which are Talk: pages (including 37 User talk: pages), 125 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 54 are Wikipedia: pages (Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, RSN, Reference desk, WikiProjects, Featured article candidates, Good article reassessment, Redirects for discussion), 1 Draft: page, 1 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2019, 2 Portals, and apparently only 5 mainspace article links: Boniface I, Margrave of Tuscany (once) and House of Astarac (4 times). Except for those last 5, there doesn't seem to be a big issue with the http URL of MedLands. However, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=https%3A%2F%2Ffmg.ac%2FProjects%2FMedLands%2F https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ URL of MedLands is currently used 111 times in enwiki pages], 66 of which are Talk: pages (including 6 User talk: pages), 12 are User: pages (excluding User talk: pages), 4 Wikipedia: pages (excluding 1 Wikipedia talk: page), and..... the other 29 pages appear to be URLs in mainspace articles, most of them probably recently added by User:Vittoriobr (who has already been notified below). NLeeuw (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::::So the total of URLs in mainspace articles currently referring to MedLands as if it is a reliable source is 5 + 29 = 34. Most of the rest are URLs in Talk pages discussing whether / why MedLands is an unreliable source. But the example of Vittoriobr, a good-faith new user who had no knowledge of the prior discussions and decisions, and single-handedly readded MedLands with 29 URLs in mainspace articles, illustrates exactly why we should Deprecate MedLands in order to send warnings to new users who are not aware of it is unreliable status as a source. NLeeuw (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::This would be higher but I semi-regularly clean up new additions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::I suppose you think it is ever reasonable to cite Tumblr because there are 1500+ citations to it, then? Actually, given you consider just 34 instances of MedLands being cited as evidence of its being "de facto RS", it seems that you would consider any usage of a source to mean it is RS until RSN has had 5+ separate discussions adjudicating it as unreliable, regardless of whether it is clearly SPS? {{pb}}We don't need to show that each of the edits citing it is bad when we already have consensus across multiple discussions that MedLands is an amateur SPS and thus, per policy, never acceptable to cite. Context is completely irrelevant when the source is unambiguously not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested's argument on reliability (namely the lack thereof). Yes, it cites reliable sources, but we need to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Deprecate per the many RSN conversations on this self-published source that continues to be added to Wikipedia articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://genealogy.euweb.cz/ genealogy.euweb.cz] by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Wikipedia, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; [https://genealogy.euweb.cz/foix/foix1.html Foix]. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site [https://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/foix.html here]. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla^-трёп- 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• No change to either of these - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :They are the same website; the old url is just broken now. And the fact that it is still being widely used is exactly why it needs an RSP entry and even more so to be deprecated... JoelleJay (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{!xt|somewhat widely used in WP}}. Again, usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. This is English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. Just because a source is widely used doesn't mean it gets a free pass. NLeeuw (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :These seem currently two entirely different websites according to the first post in this subthread and my brief look. The genealogy.eu current redirect does not seem like what is intended to be under discussion for RSP entry, so I suggest confirmation of this and scratching out. If you want to consider a block against future RS cites then only currently available sites seem needed. Though I suppose RSP entries can have date notes such as ‘1997-2005 this url was a blog and not RS, 2007-2015 it was a retail shop with no opinion, and 2020-2025 it is RS’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is a fair point which I should have been clearer about. But I refer to my earlier clarification above: {{xt|[We are discussing] genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Wikipedia, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}. NLeeuw (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• Deprecate as persistently abused SPS. Yes, it may cite reliable sources, but we need to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The {{tl|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :These are all clearly user-generated and/or amateur SPS and therefore automatically unreliable, so the source preferences of the random drive-by editors adding it absolutely should be disregarded. I've removed thousands of citations to these and similar sites, they almost invariably support undue trivia and frequently BLPNAME violations (e.g. full names, birthdates, and birthplaces of non-notable minor relatives) that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::It seems to me that Markbassett is trying to have it both ways.
• ::* On the one hand, he claims that all three sources are {{xt|niche sources}}; that {{xt|there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up}}; and that {{xt|This just is not something that often comes up for question}}. So it's a small matter about niche sources that are rarely discussed (and rarely used?), and there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because it's not important enough.
• ::* On ther other hand, he claims that {{xt|there is no [need] that all previous RSP should be declared invalid}} (presumably he means previous RSN discussions on the source); that {{xt|[it] seems [the source] has been accepted, [because] it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing.}}; that {{xt|[the sources] are somewhat widely used in WP}}; and finally {{xt|Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles}}. So it's a big matter about widely used sources that have been discussed many times before, but there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because the usage of these sources in thousands of articles is too important and too impossible to be replaced by anything else.
• ::These two lines of reasoning are in contraction with each other. These sources can't be simultaneously niche but also widely used; rarely discussed but also frequently discussed at RSN before; and not important enough but also too important to have their status changed. The second argument seems to undermine the first, as evidence is given for how often these sources are indeed used, and that they have been frequently discussed before at RSN, and that the impact of the decision could affect thousands of articles. The second argument also seems to invoke WP:HARDWORK. Unfortunate though that might be, it may be the conclusion we sometimes have to reach about sources that have been frequently cited in the past, but have subsequently turned out to be (very) unreliable. NLeeuw (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::User:Nederlandse Leeuw Saying “niche sources” was an observation that these sources are about niche topic areas, as in you’re not going to ever be seeing a lot of somehow ‘better’ alternatives. As for “there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up”, consider the context given - my saying it doesn’t seem a valid RFC is partly because I am not seeing those and it would be a better RFC if such can be provided. As to “This just is not something that often comes up for question” — well, despite finding hundreds of usages I didn’t find many discussions about these in RSN, and WP:RSP explicitly says “Only sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here, it is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world, it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources.” I can and do respect the concerns about these sources, but I just am not seeing these as having been shown appropriate for RSP. Hopefully in the literal Request For Comments sense this RFC is succeeding in providing comments and other thoughts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{xt|you’re not going to ever be seeing a lot of somehow ‘better’ alternatives.}} Well, I managed to list a whole lot of reliable sources for genealogical research at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Seems WP:RS. It currently stands at 11, and those are just about Scandinavia, the Baltics and Russia; I'm sure there are plenty more for the rest of the world, and probably even more than the 11 for these regions alone that I haven't yet listed. In the comments below the list, two users have already confirmed the Swedish and Finnish sources of these 11 to be Generally reliable. So it's not like we're stuck with only bad sources, and the three bad sources under nomination here (A, B, and C) should be accepted just because they are some of the "least bad" sources on genealogy. We can do better, and we are currently making an effort to do better by weeding out the sources we should no longer be using. This RfC is one step in that process.
• ::::{{xt|I am not seeing those [discussions on Geni.com]}}. In Background: A, I referred to {{xt|"Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.}} That lists 5 prior discussions on Geni.com: 1 2 3 4 5. I hope that is enough for you?
• ::::{{xt|despite finding hundreds of usages I didn’t find many discussions about these [MedLands] in RSN}}. In Background: C, I referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), the Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley RSN of May 2023. There, ActivelyDisinterested noted that {{xt|Medieval Lands has been discussed before and is not a reliable source}}. I observed amongst other things: {{xt|I now see that Medieval Lands / Cawley / fmg.ac / Foundation for Medieval Genealogy has been discussed time and again at this Noticeboard, especially in 2012 several times, again in 2014 (by which time it was clear that it was unreliable), but in a 2016 discussion (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Historical sources in Zeno, señor de Vizcaya) people seemed to be unaware of the previous conclusions and were invoking Cawley again as possibly reliable. It seems quite ineffective to me to be having the same discussion all over again. I could have saved myself the trouble if it had an entry at WP:RSP (the other place where I looked before I submitted thus inquiry). It is still extensively used on Wikipedia despite repeated conclusions that it is unreliable. (...)}} However, I guess I never gave a complete list of those previous RSN discussions on MedLands, so I'll do it here now (next comment). NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Previous RSN discussions on MedLands / Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley at fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy):
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley February 2012
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2) Aug/Sep 2012
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy Oct/Nov 2012
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170#Kekoolani May 2014
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Kekoolani June 2014
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Historical sources in Zeno, señor de Vizcaya December 2016. One user apparently invokes Cawley as reliable: {{xt|...but Cawley doubts that. He writes that....}} indicating that they believe Cawley's commentary to be relevant. But then another user responds: {{xt|And while Cawley expresses doubt, he really isn't very familiar with the range of sources for medieval Iberia nor contemporary Iberian historical/genealogical opinion - nearly everyone accepts...}} Cawley is not invoked again in that discussion afterwards, which suggests Cawley's writing on the issue is not considered relevant by anyone (else) (anymore).
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#roglo.eu December 2016, where PBS called {{xt|Darryal Lundy's http://thepeerage.com}} and {{xt|Charles Cawley's http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/}} {{xt|unreliable when not used in conjunction with a reliable source}}.
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 249#Alan Freer's William the Conqueror Database Sep 2018: Ealdgyth stated that http://www.william1.co.uk/t24.htm is {{xt|Self-published and doesn't cite its sources. Without sources, it's useless. The Medieval Lands project is more reliable because it at least cites sources, and we don't consider it a reliable source.}} "it" meaning Medieval Lands.
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#thepeerage.com May 2019
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Royalcruft again June 2020
• :::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) May 2023
• :::::NLeeuw (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::PS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Foundations - Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (Sep/Oct 2010) is about a different publication within the same Foundation for Medieval Genealogy that does not seem to be self-published, and not run by Charles Cawley. And this journal appears to be generally reliable. For this and other reasons, ActivelyDisinterested and I have decided not to nominate the fmg.ac website or the overall project as a whole for discussion, but only the subproject / subdomain fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/, which self-published and run by Charles Cawley. This is an important distinction to make. Arguably, we could even add this journal to the Seems RS list at the Royalty and Nobility WikiProject; the main issue with it, though, is that it is behind a paywall. NLeeuw (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::NLeeuw - Replying to your question to me for geni. No, those 5 discussions from 2016 and earlier seem not enough because they were part of the earlier RSP summarization. A call for RSP alteration should try to show info newer than the prior RSP per WP:RSPIMPROVE. Might be less about a count than about the qualities of newer RSN discussion(s) which are supposed to be about specific edits per RSN lead and per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, whether the discussion(s) are “significant” per WP:RSPCRITERIA, and whether they show that a RSP change is needed as in RSN discussions are no longer summarized by what is in the RSP table. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{!xt|for geni. No, those 5 discussions from 2016 and earlier}}. Did you mean 2019?

:::::::# WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Geni.com? Reliable source? 2011

:::::::# WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Geni.com for Brian Haberlin birth info 2012

:::::::# WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#prabook/geni.com/Familysearch 2017

:::::::# WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#Geni.com 2018

:::::::# WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268#Geni.com 2019

:::::::{{xt|A call for RSP alteration should try to show info newer than the prior RSP per WP:RSPIMPROVE.}} As pointed out in Background: B, Geni has continued to be a problem after 2019.

:::::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298#Royalcruft again June 2020 passing mention

:::::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 307#Can an entry from MissingPortraits.Info be used as a RS August 2020 passing mention

:::::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Genealogy reliable sources May 2021. This question about Geni shouldn't have come up if had been deprecated already, but it would if Geni's listing at WP:RSPSOURCES was not sufficient.

:::::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#KulturNav? Sep 2023. Here, ActivelyDisinterested and Gråbergs Gråa Sång discovered that some genealogy websites harvest their data from Geni.com, so Geni indirectly still finds its way back on to enwiki.

:::::::* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 448#Peoplaid.com and geni.com August 2024. Reaffirmation of Geni.com's unreliability, that might be added as no. #6 if we like.

:::::::Geni.com has been discussed at RSN almost every year after 2016. NLeeuw (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That’s more like it. The last one seems appropriate for this discussion, where geni.com is in the title and use is discussed and ultimately geni was used after mention of its rating in RSP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Closed rfc bottom}}