Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 466#Media and Journalism Research Center

There has been a repeating issue with articles about Somali clans that content sourced to one of the foremost academic experts on this topic, I.M. Lewis, is removed from articles on the basis that as a Western orientalist he should be biased and unreliable.

The true reason for these removals, as it often seems to me, is that Lewis' critical descriptions of Somali clans in terms of their foundational myths runs counter to the traditional belief in the historical truth of these myths (just one example being what [https://books.google.com/books?id=J6nODwAAQBAJ Mire 2020, pp. 68–69] calls the {{tq|Islamic Somali Myth of Origin}} [...] {{tq|, which is regarded as fact by Somali people}}). Removal of Lewis-based material often results in legendary progenitors becoming historical figures, foundational myths becoming factual history, etc.

Maybe Lewis is wrong, and the so-called myths really are historically grounded. Problem is that it seems like there are no academic experts arguing that this the case, and/or that Lewis is wrong. I'm not very familiar with the literature, but when I have seen Lewis' work cited by other scholars, it has generally been with approval (for a recent example, [https://books.google.com/books?id=J6nODwAAQBAJ Mire 2020] cites and even quotes him very often, mostly approving of his views). Rejection by Wikipedia editors of article content based on Lewis' work seems to be entirely based on the fact that he is {{tq|a random scottish orientalist}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaaq_bin_Ahmed&diff=prev&oldid=1266398285] {{tq|a scholar not even from Somalia}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaaq_bin_Ahmed&diff=prev&oldid=1271801458] etc.

I would appreciate any input at Talk:Ishaaq bin Ahmed#Semi-legendary forefather or historical figure? Beyond that, I would like an evaluation of Lewis as a source. He obviously meets Wikipedia's general reliability standards, but is he reliable in context? Is he really a biased orientalist? Has his work been rejected by more recent experts on the subject? By whom? Or on the contrary, has his work been validated by more recent research? Are his views, especially regarding foundational myths etc., still guiding modern studies on the subject? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:What you are seeing is Ismail7Hussein, a (presumably) ethnic Somali editor (who isn't even EC yet), looking to defend their own sociocultural beliefs, which are considered to be "true" and factual in Somali society. You see similar things with Muslim editors trying to downplay Western criticsm of hadith, etc. Obviously we should look to what scholars say and not present people's traditional beliefs as factual if scholars don't think they are. It's worth noting that even in the form that Ismail7Hussein left the article in, I.M. Lewis is still cited numerous times. If Ismail7Hussein thinks Lewis is wrong, he should present scholarly sources that support his claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:: That said, it would be better if we had more than one source and scholar that said that Ishaaq bin Ahmed is legendary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. I quoted one such source (Mire 2020, p. 256) on the article talk. As far as I know, this is simply a given in the literature, to the extent that it is hardly even mentioned. Unfortunately, the literature on the subject is rather limited. I would love to see more sources though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Personally I think it’s best practice to prioritise or at least incorporate native sources, given the history of African historiography. This scepticism of local history is very predictable in that Western scholars maintain scepticism, native scholars maintain they’re based in truth (see Luba Empire#Oral traditions at the bottom). Kowal2701 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::When you say "local history" I assume you mean oral tradition> I'm not saying that oral tradition is worthless, but it needs to be very carefully evaluated, as it not infrequently gets distorted or made up out of whole cloth. There's a good (though dated) journal article about this from 1971 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024011?seq=1] (open access). Regardless of whether it's framed as wikivoice, it's definitely due to include the fact that Western scholars have described him as a semi-legendary figure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, and it’s a mistake to take it literally, but it’s just very colonialist to completely ignore a people’s perspective on their own history. I tend to say “According to tradition” or “[a group]’s oral tradition holds” as it’s much more respectful, and admittedly shy away from fixation on objective veracity as I think that comes from a misunderstanding regarding the social and political functions all histories play. Btw, if you’re interested, Jan Vansina’s [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A-CVBVzZwmAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Oral tradition as history (1985)] is really good and builds off of that journal article Kowal2701 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, such 'Western skepticism' vs 'native traditionalism' is predictable, and also quite problematic. But I don't think there's broad consensus on Wikipedia for prioritizing sources based on such Western/native dualism, or even to take such differences into consideration when evaluating what is due. Instead, broad consensus is that content should be based on "on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources" (wp:npov) and that "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (wp:rs){{pb}}Lewis' late colonial perspective has been criticized, e.g. by [https://www.jstor.org/stable/41960543 Kapteijns 2004–2010]. But Kapteijns also readily acknowledges that Lewis is {{tq|a leading scholar in the field of Somali studies from the early 1960s until today}} and that she is not going {{tq|to question Lewis's pivotal significance and enormous accomplishments in Somali studies}}. [https://books.google.com/books?id=J6nODwAAQBAJ Mire 2020] p. 177, after citing Kapteijns 2004–2010, explicitly says that despite this critique, Lewis' perspectives still inform her own research.{{pb}}Trying to balance this with native sources without any academic pedigree (e.g. Sharif Aydurus, as is currently being argued on the article talk) would be a classic example of wp:falsebalance in my view. Surely Sharif Aydarous' POV deserves a mention, perhaps a summary of his study similar to what you point to in Luba Empire#Oral traditions, but it should not inform the entire article in wiki-voice as it currently does. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::That’d be fine, but just make sure not to imply veracity/falsity in wiki voice Kowal2701 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would say that Lewis is due inclusion as a clearly reliable source. But if his views are contradicted, especially if his views are contradicted by the people he was studying then we should avoid using Wikivoice for those views and attribute his views to him along with providing any relevant and due criticism therein. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::As far as I've seen, no such criticism exists. The people who would contradict him are not critical scholars, but just your everyday Somali clan member who obviously believes in their own religio-national myths. Note that the article currently presents these myths (e.g. Sheikh Ishaaq having been a Sayyid) in wiki-voice as historical fact, and that the scholarly POV has been systematically removed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Right and I'm saying the academic material should be restored but that, as that academic material is contradicted by the lived experience of the subjects, neither should be treated in wiki voice as uncontested fact. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Agree with that per WP:WIKIVOICE. Your everyday Somali clan member is going to have a much better understanding of their own culture than a scholar would, and oral traditions require more than scholarly analysis, see African epistemology Kowal2701 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yup… a classic case where INTEXT attribution should resolve the issue. Western scholars say X, Somali tradition says Y. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There are always people who contradict the established academic view. This is not normally a reason to avoid stating that view in wiki-voice. Are we to avoid stating that The Exodus is a "founding myth" because millions of people would contradict this based on their living experience (e.g., in certain forms of Jewish religion)? Would you argue that The Exodus should not be called a myth because religious Jews have a much better understanding of their own culture than scholars? The myths surrounding Ishaaq bin Ahmed and his travels are precisely that, founding myths. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The difference is colonialism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::If Western academic sources are to be degraded to 'not fit for wiki-voice, always attribute' simply because of colonialism, you might want to start rewriting all of our articles on the Middle East, Islam, etc., in order to attribute the academic POV and balance it with non-academic Arab-nationalist and Islamist POVs. The result would not be an encyclopedia in my view, nor would it be consistent with what I believe to be the broad consensus view here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm just one editor. That seems like rather larger a project than I have the time to take on. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::However, I would note, Edward Said is widely cited in articles about the Middle East. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::With that said, a few sources I found that might be helpful in expanding academic views (all available at Wikipedia library):

::::::::::# The Role of Somali Kinship in Sustaining Bureaucratic Governance around Dagahaley Camp in Kenya. Ikanda, Fred Nyongesa, Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 00141844, Apr2022, Vol. 87, Issue 2

::::::::::# Genealogy as Theory, Genealogy as Tool: Aspects of Somali ‘Clanship’. By: Luling, Virginia, Social Identities, 13504630, Jul2006, Vol. 12, Issue 4 - Cites Lewis extensively.

::::::::::#Embarking on an Anthropology of RemovalNathalie Peutz, Current Anthropology Vol. 47, No. 2 (April 2006), pp. 217-241 (25 pages) (weakly relevant)

::::::::::#Self-determination and a Shattered Star: Statehood and national identity in the Somali horn of Africa,Authors:Chonka, Peter, Healy, Sally, Nations & Nationalism. Jan2021, Vol. 27 Issue 1, p61-79. 19p.

::::::::::Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that unless other editors step in, I'm withdrawing from discussion on Talk:Ishaaq bin Ahmed. If anyone cares about WP summarizing academic consensus rather than representing religio-national myths as facts, please do raise your voice there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• :That’s a bit of a strawman, people are saying that per WP:Wikivoice {{tq|Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them}}. It’s very easily solved by attribution, i.e. putting “according to tradition” etc. and then having opinions on veracity attributed after it Kowal2701 (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Please solve it then! This is not what the article is currently doing (currently it just presents the traditional view as fact), and I'm really tired of arguing about it. {{p|crying}} It would really help if you would take a stab on improving the article. {{p|smile}} ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Okay I’ll have a look at it later today, btw I recommend starting RfCs or 3Os in disputes like this, they’re not worth the exhaustion and frustration Kowal2701 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, while obviously international sources are usable, if we're relying entirely on American and European sources for this aspect, that is a potential WP:DUE / WP:NPOV issue (see WP:GLOBAL.) If high-quality Somali sources exist (and I'd assume they do) it is worth digging them up and including some of them for that reason - though ofc traditional beliefs should be described and characterized as such. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I will note that, within the academy, most of the attention on Somalia and kinship seems to focus on diaspora populations. The first reference I mentioned above - The Role of Somali Kinship in Sustaining Bureaucratic Governance around Dagahaley Camp in Kenya might be a good start though. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• I.M. Lewis is not the foremost academic expert on Somali history (although he likely was at one point), a lot of his work is outdated and he hasn't exactly published new work in a while. Lewis *does* have serious issues with bias and orientalism... That doesn't mean he's wrong about clan mythology though... Hard to imagine nobody has published since. What do contemporay experts say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks to {{noping|Kowal2701}}'s help the Ishaaq bin Ahmed article has been moving forward. The critical scholarly POV has been attributed and restored, with less emphasis on Ioan Lewis (whose article I also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ioan_Lewis&diff=1272395448&oldid=1251235417 updated]) and input from more diverse sources such as Christopher Ehret, Mohamed Haji Mukhtar, and Sada Mire. However, there are now attempts to tuck away the critical scholarly POV in one section towards the end of the article. Input is welcome on Talk:Ishaaq bin Ahmed#Moving critical scholarship to the historicity section. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Once again, Kowal2701 saved the day. I sincerely hope no more input will be needed this time around. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I'm curious about the quality/reliability of the Boston Review.

In particular I am considering citing [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/seeing-genocide/ this article].

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:They are well established and have a full editorial staff [https://www.bostonreview.net/about/masthead/], their about us page makes clear they are a place to discuss and foster ideas[https://www.bostonreview.net/about] so intext attribution may be required per WP:RSOPINION. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::Great explanation. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::What ActivelyDisinterested says. I’d rate it as similar to London Review of Books. Reputable and well edited periodical specialising in considered opinion. Worth taking expertise and qualifications of individual authors into account - in this case the respected media scholar Ariella Azoulay, who they describe as a curator, filmmaker, and Professor of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University. This particular article seems of potential use (attributed of course) in eg WP articles that relate to the conflict in Gaza but in particular media representations of the conflict, such as Media coverage of the Gaza war. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi, recently there's been some edit warring over the result of the Air Battle of Valjevo. I do not believe the website sources are reliable in this context, since they seem like local city blogs (to be fair, my mistake with Helion isn't good either), but I would appreciate a second opinion. Pinging @Red Spino for their thoughts.

The main sources relied upon here that support a Yugoslavian victory and successful halt to the attack:

• [https://www.valjevskaposla.info/valjevo-ne-zaboravimo-nikad-24-mart-1999-godine/], [https://www.kosovo-online.com/vesti/drustvo/na-danasnji-dan-pre-23-godine-herojski-poginuo-pilot-milenko-pavlovic-4-5-2022], [https://podgorac.info/2022/05/04/pilot-milenko-pavlovic-heroj-koji-ce-ziveti-vecno/], [https://tov.rs/spomenik-majoru-milenku-pavlovicu/]

And the sources I've dug up that state either a NATO victory, and/or mention that the attack had already been completed:

• [https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Operation_Allied_Force_1999/Y2_ZEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=milenko+pavlovi%C4%87&pg=PT156&printsec=frontcover] by a Brian D. Laslie and published by Osprey Publishing
• [https://archive.org/details/11-operation-allied-force-air-war-over-serbia-1999-volume-1/page/68/mode/2up] by Bojan Dimitrijević, {{ill|Јовица_Драганић|sr}} published by Helion and company. I used this on the article, but now, after looking more into this, I'm doubtful of it, as Dimitrijević has been accused of historical revisionism for WW2 stuff. I was able to find one review of it in [https://www.proquest.com/openview/363d013d7eb59fd5e1b375d8af2fbf9b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=779|Air Power History]. This cites some other sources that could be used (i.e. 204. lovački avijacijski puk published by {{ill|Медија центар Одбрана|sr}} ) but I've been unable to find an online copy.
• [https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26276597.pdf] also from Air Power History

Thanks, and sorry for the long post. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:The break up of Yugoslavia happened over a quarter of a century ago, there is no reason at this point not to use academic sources (of which there are many). If other sources (newspapers or magazines for instance) disagree with the academic sources then the academic sources are preferable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::It does seem riddled with NPOV violations and crowing language. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::More generally, having gone through about half the sources listed here, the stronger sources do not mention identify the May dogfight as an isolated battle, but rather as part of the much larger NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The basis for having this be a separate article seems weak-to-nonexistent, based on nationalist hagiography in newspapers rather than sources that would actually be reliable for covering this conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I can agree on that, but this incident is mentioned on multiple pages, so it might be best to just find a RS to source all of them. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Or delete all mentions GNG still applies. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

This is the book:

• {{cite book |last1=Jacksons |first1=The |last2=Bronson |first2=Fred |title=The Jacksons: Legacy |date=2017 |publisher=Workman Publishing Company |isbn=978-0-316-47374-3 |url=https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Jacksons/_F8RDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 |language=en}}

Would this book be considered a reliable source? HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Probably, the author has written multiple books about music and the publisher is part of the Hachette group. Remember that sources are 'generally' reliable, it could still be unreliable in a specific context if he makes some outlandish claim (particularly if it involves living people). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{Reply|ActivelyDisinterested}} Thank you for your response and answer. As there are tour dates in this, would that be considered reliable, as the topic I am using this source for is in relation to tour dates. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, definitely reliable for tour dates. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Alright, thanks for letting me know. :) HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Just wondering if https://bestsellingalbums.org/ is reliabe? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:What claim is this pertaining to? Context would help. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::Mainly album sales and charts Newtatoryd222 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::It looks like a self published source. Are there other sources for this info besides this website? It may be better go use the slaes certifications pages it uses instead [https://bestsellingalbums.org/about#exaggerated_sales]. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Added here.Special:Diff/1272239473 to call him neoconservative and Zionist. Ran into this as I have some concerns about the editor. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:The more fundamental problem is that it fails verification, as the source makes no mention of him being a neoconservative or Zionist. As it's a BLP I've reverted the edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested Typical of that editor. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Off topic, but yes I can see that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable? They are all over Wikipedia, I question the accuracy of some of them, and they have never been submitted to the Noticeboard before.

There are 5 sources. The main three are:

• CDM Create Digital Music [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Create+Digital+Music&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 (list of articles where source is used)]
• This source seems be on many pages involving music gear. This source is also cited in many living persons such as Kate NV and Pixelh8. However, many of the articles are written by one person (who is also the editor-in-chief, and may be a self published source); and as of 2017, [https://cdm.link/category/meeblip/ collaborates with another synth company] and [https://cdm.link/category/establishment/page/ has their own music label], both of which may violate WP:NPOV.
• Sonic State [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22sonic+state%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 (list of articles where source is used)]
• Used in many articles involving products such as Arturia MiniBrute, but unable to identify if source is notable. Also could not find an editorial team.
• Synthtopia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Synthtopia&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 (list of articles where source is used)]
• Is a blog, articles do not have names of their writers, the [https://www.synthtopia.com/about/ about page] does not list who runs the site, and seems to be a self published resource. Also could not find an editorial team.

The other two are:

• Analogik.com [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Analogik.com&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 (list of articles where source is used)]
• Appears to be a blog and seems to be a self published resource.
• Force Field PR [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Force+Field+PR%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 (list of articles where source is used)]
• Seems to be in many articles involving artists such as Clear Moon and The Fiery Furnaces. However, it is a PR firm and not an independent source (Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases).

2620:8D:8000:10E6:B852:F938:53B0:89C8 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding LiveLaw to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So Which of the following best describes the reliability of [https://www.livelaw.in/ LiveLaw]?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

LiveLaw is used in lots of article when it comes to legal reporting in India like Firecracker#India(reference 23) From and earlier discussion 3 years ago, and also on many other pages like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India#cite ref-14(reference 14).

List of articles where LiveLaw is used can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=%2A.livelaw.in here] the list also has User and Talk pages but please ignore those.

This is my first RfC on Wikipedia So If anything is wrong with my request feel free to correct me. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:DataCrusade1999, you don't really need to start an RFC unless 1) there is {{em|disagreement}} about the reliability of a source, and 2) previous (non RFC) discussions have failed to resolve that disagreement. So, the question here is, do you (or someone else) disagree with the previous discussion you found? What specific claim is this disagreement about? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC RSP is meant to be a log of prior discussions at RSN, opening a RFC for the purpose of adding a source to the RSP is back to front and misses the point. RSP is not meant to be just a list of all sources, see WP:RSPNOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• :That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• RSP is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of sources. Sources are added to it if they have been repeatedly brought to the noticeboard and subject to a discussion. I'd suggest removing the "RfC" from the section heading and turning this into a general query if you are asking whether you should use the source or not.

:As far as LiveLaw is concerned, it's generally reliable for legal news reporting. Though it is their summarisation of cases, etc that should be used and not direct court documents, legal arguments, etc which their articles also often contain as reference. What hako said in the old discussion more or less sums it up. If you are looking for legal news reporting in India, LiveLaw and [https://www.barandbench.com Bar and Bench] are the go-to reliable sources and don't suffer from the issues endemic to mainstream general news outlets. In addition, [https://www.Article-14.com Article 14] and [https://www.theleaflet.in The Leaflet] are equivalent reliable sources for legal news, which may be helpful in better contextualising topics since they have a more generalised area of law related coverage (but not as much day to day reporting) compared to the former two which are usually very strictly legal news. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC not seeing any WP:RFCBEFORE for this RfC to be worthwhile. CNC (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RFC it seems to be backwards. Not all RFCs end up in RSP either way.. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/Do not enter to RSP I’d evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and think it does not meet RSP criteria so should not be listed. I think no evaluation without context can be really valid except option2. I only found 2 RSN discussions (both concluded use it) so seems not enough to summarize or adjudicate to a general statement and not a perennial topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|No need to re-litigate a perennial source}}

State-funded among other issues Mistletoe-alert (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Reliability_of_Al_Jazeera Snow closed as reliable in August last year] Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please review the prior discussions listed at WP:ALJAZEERA for rather extensive arguments concerning the source's reliability. This source has been discussed enough that the community's opinion is unlikely to change unless there is new peer-reviewed analysis of the publication countering prior assessments, or a bombshell expose of pervasive fabrication published by news RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Would [https://www.muellershewrote.com/p/a-fork-in-the-road-is-federal-employee this podcast] be considered a reliable source? Skyerise (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:It would probably be WP:SPS and so would depend on what you want to use it for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:In general a podcast is about the same as a self published source. So long as there is no dispute about it's authenticity it is reliable evidence that the people involved said the things they said. That doesn't mean we can/should treat the claims as accurate or DUE. It generally would be fine for allowed ABOUTSELF claims. Springee (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:The podcast has a WP page: Mueller, She Wrote BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.

I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:

1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and

2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")

Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.

Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.

Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep

Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):

• [https://alittihadnet-net.translate.goog/art447.html?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp]
• [https://web-archive-org.translate.goog/web/20221127160922/https://www.khuyut.com/blog/seven-martyrs?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp]
• [https://www-khuyut-com.translate.goog/blog/seven-martyrs?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230101015251/https://sa24.co/show15856645.html] (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
• [https://www-shabwaah--press-info.translate.goog/news/34246?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp]
• [https://www-alaswany-com.translate.goog/2021/01/28/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d8%a8%d8%b9%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b5%d9%88%d9%81%d9%8a%d9%87-%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ba%d8%b2%d9%88-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa%d9%80/?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp]

Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:

• [https://www-independentarabia-com.translate.goog/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp]

Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Wikipedia. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. [https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/details?id=3771000 This] also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}
WP:AGE MATTERS?
{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. ([https://archive.org/details/careerlegendofva0000subr/page/291/mode/2up link]) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post [https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php/?story_fbid=2288310571547876&id=100011068659917&locale=tl_PH] made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others [https://www.tarebhtoday.online/2023/12/22/54697/] [https://tv3ad.net/?p=115744] [https://tv3ad.net/?p=123253] [https://adenalakhbaria.com/2024/10/13/%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AF%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%85-%D9%81%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%83%D8%AA/]. He also published a book about the city of Shihr [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&hl=en&u=https://yemenibookstore.com/product/%25D8%25B9%25D8%25A8%25D8%25AF-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AE%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D9%2582-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B7%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B7%25D9%258A-%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25A6%25D8%25AF-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AA%25D9%2586%25D9%2585%25D9%258A%25D9%2587-%25D9%2588%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A8%25D9%2586-2/&client=webapp]. He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 [https://moe-ye.net/21305]{{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city [https://archive.org/details/tareeh-assher/%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1%20%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%B1/page/n3/mode/2up Internet Archive] [https://www.masaha.org/book/view/4137 a txt version of the book that can get machine translated] can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in [https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/viewer?id=3771000 this letter], which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from [https://books.google.com/books?id=YiwdAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA392 the catalog description] but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:

::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India ["India" was mainly used to refer to all Portuguese territories beyond the Cape of Good Hope], his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.

::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. [https://books.google.pt/books?id=YiwdAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA392&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false][https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/viewer?id=3771000] Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:@GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::::No I'd support that, just separate it out and attribute all the sources properly. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes of course, Thank you. @Javext now stop deleting the other sections 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have already stated that as long as the content is backed up by wiki-appropriate sources there is no problem and so did Gordon, "[...] you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source." Those arabic amateur essays don't qualify as appropriate sources. Javext (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::did you not read the 5 previous messages before replying? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yup. Give up, there's no way you are going to use those arabic articles to cite content. Javext (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|1=No I'd support that, just separate it out and attribute all the sources properly.}}
- GordonGlottal, above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You forgot he stated that expecting you to use wiki appropriate sources. "[...] you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source." We have already established the fact that those arabic essays are in no way appropriate for wikipedia and cannot be used, there's no going around it. Javext (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|8}} what we established is that {{tq|1=there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books.}} The sources can be used for anything but the battle.{{pb}}@GordonGlottal can you close the discussion and give us an exact result so we can end with this 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Gordon made it very clear they aren't reliable as stated in his first comment, "[...] none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Wikipedia." Javext (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::It would be much better to find secondary sources which describe the local myth in objective terms. But I think it's within our discretion to put that stuff in its own section, carefully attributing every sentence to Bamousa or etc., using only the Arabic-language sources that Abo Yemen found. Even sources which are wrong on the facts can be reliable with regard to the beliefs of their author. If it can be appropriately sourced, ideal would be something like {{tq|In modern culture: By the late 20th century, Ash-Shihr had reinterpreted the 1523 battle. The "Shrine of the Seven Martyrs" and annual celebrations, held since 1977, advertise the new narrative, which holds that . . ."}} But you will have to be very clever about constructing the right framing from these sources.

::::I think this discussion is no longer relevant to RSN and we should continue on page talk if necessary. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I heavily disagree with this. What's the point of adding a section for a literal local myth that is based off huge lies in an attempt to glorify their ancestors..? Those local lies stated in the arabic sources that Abo Yemen found are what got us into this huge debate mainly about the battle's result in the first place.

:::::And one more thing, if those arabic sources are unreliable, they shouldn't be used to cite content in wikipedia, no? According to WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources [...]"

:::::And who is supposed to write that section? Abo Yemen with his personal bias? Does that make any sense? Please be for real. Javext (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

At Republican Party (United States) an editor is trying to suggest that [https://split-ticket.org/2023/03/24/where-do-democrats-win-white-voters/ this article] supports that the Republicans are not racist. This is a bit of a non-sequitur within the conversation although I think they are suggesting that supports that the Republicans should not be identified with the far-right ideological position. While that claim fails verification on its face and depends on a novel WP:OR interpretation of the source, I also contend that Split Ticket is not a WP:RS at all as it [https://split-ticket.org/about-us/ appears to be a group blog.] However I thought it'd be prudent to poll a wider group. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Simonm223 Split Ticket is a source for electoral analysis, which aside from psephology (the study of elections and voting), is not an exact science. For lack of better phrasing, electoral analysis and predictions for elections are subjective.

:*Split Ticket is grounded in statistical analysis and modeling, plus mapping. It is nonpartisan, like Sabato's Crystal Ball and The Cook Political Report. But unlike the latter two, Split Ticket uses statistical models to analyze and predict elections, not simply qualitative analysis.

:Statistics is necessary to analyze elections, and Split Ticket's maps are extremely useful for understanding electoral demographics. Statistics are far more reliable than often subjective interpretations of elections by news organizations.

:Note: I am a PhD student in statistics at UIUC. I'm probably biased with respect to my love of statistics, but I find it insulting that you consider objective statistical analysis as unreliable, even if done by ordinary people. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yes I do consider it unreliable when it is conducted on a group blog by non-experts. This is a Wikipedia policy position, WP:SPS being quite clear. Sorry if you are insulted - that was not my intent. But this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::@JohnAdams1800, per the policy that Simonm223 noted, self-published material is only considered reliable on WP in two very limited situations: (1) "when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," or (2) if written by someone about themselves, as long as it meets the conditions listed in WP:ABOUTSELF. In this case, we have a self-published source, and none of the authors qualify as subject-matter experts. It's not in any way a commentary on the reliability of statistical analysis and modeling themselves, only on this particular source. @Simonm223, I agree that this source doesn't qualify as EXPERTSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The website in question is Split Ticket (website), which has its own article. The head of Split Ticket, Lakshya Jain, has had his work featured in Sabato's Crystal Ball, The New York Times, Politico, and The Washington Post. The website has had its work cited by reliable, independent publications.

:::This website is on electoral analysis, which itself not a rigorous field. The statistics and modeling are rigorous. I just use this website to provide statistical analysis on voter demographics by race and education, including very nice maps.

:::From the article:

:::*In 2024, the website partnered with Politico to create a game in which the user plays as a campaign manager. The game created an algorithm that split U.S. counties into separate groups based on how they would vote. They also published a New York Times opinion article about campaign money spent on abortion ads.

:::JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Can you please link to some of Lakshya Jain's work in other outlets? That is definitely relevant information. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::That a source has a WP article does not make it reliable. For example, Breitbart News has a WP article, and so does Infowars, neither of which are in any way reliable. I looked at the Split Ticket's "About Us" page, and none of their descriptions suggested that they're subject-matter experts, nor would creating a game with Politico accomplish that. But if you can come up with articles where their expertise in electoral statistics is acknowledged by others, then of course I'd reconsider. (The NYT essay is identified as an opinion piece, which is iffy, since plenty of opinion columns are written without subject-matter expertise.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::It's important to remember that the context for discussions is "for the purposes of Wikipedia". Discussions aren't a slight against the source, but rather about the source in relation to Wikipedia's npoliciea and guidelines. The most basic principle would be that reliable sources should have {{tq|"a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}, per WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources. Other reliable sources are usually the best way of checking that reputation. For self-published source the policy is that the person (or people) should be experts {{tq|"whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"}}, see WP:SPS. As that would establish that others consider the source to be reliable enough to publish them.

::What would help is details of, or links to, any other works by the authors. Journals, newspapers, etc - anything would help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I emailed Lakshya Jain, through his business email. He has published or been quoted for electoral analysis in reputable RS:

:::1. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/21/kamala-harris-gains-polls-00175262

:::2. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/02/election-forecasters-2024-election-qa-00186868

:::3. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/us/elections/election-polls-accurate.html

:::4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/25/economic-indicators-predict-presidential-election/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::These seem sufficient to establish Lakshya Jain may constitute an expert within the context of WP:EXPERTSPS but please note that while this means their work at the group blog may be reliable it includes the following requirements:

::::* SPS sources, even expert, cannot be used for statements about living people. This definitely includes Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

::::* The expert status demonstrated is currently specific to Jain and not to other collaborators on the group blog. This can be expanded with additional evidence.

::::* No source should be interpreted beyond the statements it explicitly makes per WP:OR so, for instance, that white voters map you like cannot be used to establish that the Republicans are not racist / far-right / etc. because it does not actually say that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::*Jain describes himself as {{tq|a machine learning engineer who analyzes political data in his free time.}} I don't think that that's enough to ever qualify him as an WP:EXPERTSPS when it comes to politics. EXPERTSPS is for, like, academics with published peer-reviewed papers or academic books or the like on the subject they're being cited for, not CS dudes with a popular blog who have been quoted a few times in the media or written a column or two. Overall this looks like a hobbyist blog - maybe a high-quality one, but I don't think being quoted a few times is enough to make them a RS, so I wouldn't cite it for anything remotely controversial (which realistically means "if it's challenged and you can't find another source you should probably take it out.") --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:I'm not planning to use Jain's work for anything except electoral analysis. Split Ticket is not a newspaper, and just uses statistical modeling and mapping to predict and analyze election results. I like citing it precisely because it's not a newspaper, and doesn't subjectively describe election results or candidates.

:::::*:It instead provides detailed statistical analysis on things like how White voters vote by geographic region or education. It's kind of like Sabato's Crystal Ball in this regard, not say The Cook Political Report which analyzes candidates and electoral news. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm debating making an article on a right-wing internet personality called Raw Egg Nationalist. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss him at length, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-38407-3_7] [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3p24c517] my issue is this: he was doxed by Hope not Hate, and the name or information they gave has not appeared in connection with Raw Egg Nationalist in any other reliable source - however, he has since accepted the dox and lists it on his author bios in stuff like the Spectator [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-to-turn-eggnog-into-a-superfood/]. So I think there's no issue with including his name, but the Hope Not Hate piece [https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/06/20/egg-sposed-we-reveal-the-identity-of-far-right-bodybuilder-the-raw-egg-nationalist/] does include some other interesting information (mostly on his PhD and educational background) but I am unsure if it should be included. My impression of Hope not Hate's factual accuracy is that it is rather poor, especially for usage on a BLP. Even compared to other advocacy groups like the ADL and SPLC, my impression is that it is substantially worse. But others might disagree and try to add it to the page. I'm really not sure. I might not even make the article. Thoughts on using them as a source? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have now found the prior discussions (I searched their name wrong lol my bad) but they do not give me much clarity for their usage in this specific case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::If a source doxed him, I think we should be careful not to use information spreading sensitive information. Wikipedia should not be used as a megaphone for such information, even if available elsewhere. Everyone has a right to privacy and should be protected as much as possible. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I would agree if not for the fact he now freely volunteers that information about himself and includes it on the back of books he writes/translates. He now does interviews with his real name/face tying it to the REN persona. We can cite him for what his name is, we don't need to cite Hope Not Hate for that. He's much less elusive than Bronze Age Pervert, who the same thing happened to, who we prominently name. My issue is with the other information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Hope Not Hate looks like a partisan activist source. Sources that are not partisan would be better for this. No newspapers? Ramos1990 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are a spattering of news sources, nearly all of which are pre dox, and a bunch of academic sources. Usually with online political people it goes partisan advocacy sources -> news -> academia but this time it seems to have skipped the news. I mostly just want to include the details about his educational background/academic career, which is only in the Hope not Hate source and sources from him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I suppose that is better than nothing. But better sources would be preferred. If it is hard to find such info on newspaper articles, it might be best to not include it yet. Raw Egg Nationalist may not be that notable to get biographical treatment by a magazine or news source yet. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There are at least three books and one academic journal article that give him multiple pages of sigcov, but all news articles (except one, I did find one that covers this thankfully) are pre-dox. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I made the draft Draft:Raw Egg Nationalist I'm too tired to finish this today and will probably get to it tomorrow. Gives you a good idea of the sourcing though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Re: "I mostly just want to include the details about his educational background/academic career, which is only in the Hope not Hate source and sources from him," if his own statements confirm the Hope not Hate statements, then it would seem that they're reliable for that specific content, whether or not they're reliable more generally. I just skimmed the educational info in your draft. Here's a [https://earlymodern.web.ox.ac.uk/michaelmas-2017 source] that he was at Lincoln College (open the section titled Early Modern Britain Seminar, he's listed under Week 2); just found [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27038575 this] and [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0047729x.2017.1376374 this] as well. Here's [https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:25e1a5d0-d168-4ddc-8902-ec849b5e125d confirmation] of his 2018 PhD from Oxford and dissertation title. Here's [https://royalhistsoc.org/prizes/history-today-prize/rhs-history-today-prize-past-winners/ confirmation] that he was at the U. of Exeter, though doesn't explicitly say his major. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that Hope Not Hate is usually reliable, but given the nature of the accusations it reports great care should be taken to attribute. If it is the only source which accuses an individual of criminal activity it may be a BLP problem, but possibly not. The best way to think of it is as being similar to the ADL, if they didn't have Israel Derangement Syndrome.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• :It is substantially worse than the ADL, imo. As a solution to this I found one reliable source that does include most of what I wanted to include. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Why do you think it’s “substantially worse” than ADL? Can you give an instance of HnH being unreliable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::They read like advocacy group publications and not actual academic/reputable sources and every article of theirs I have read seemed of a far lower quality. I take that they are marked yellow instead of green unlike the ADL and SPLC to be evidence of agreement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with PARAKANYAA. It is not a good source to use. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The ADL is also explicitly an activist organisation. What evidence for uncorrected factual inaccuracy by Hope not Hate have you seen? As far as I can tell it is exceptionally rigorous in making sure what it says is accurate, more so than the ADL. This is largely because if it wasn't it would be a piggy bank for libel lawyers. It takes a position that racism, islamophobia, antisemitism and fascism are bad, but bias does not equate to unreliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm unwilling to take "they haven't gotten sued yet" to be an indication of their reliability on BLPs. And yes, they are both advocacy orgs, but those vary in quality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That is a very selective interpretation of my post. So far you have provided no evidence against reliability, just your feelings on the source. As has been shown, Hope not Hate is used by others and corrects its mistakes. It's a reputable, respected source and does not suffer from the problems that cloud the judgment of the ADL.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Usually reliable. I follow this topic closely and I can’t think of a single instance of them being found to be inaccurate. Their investigations are frequently reported by RSs and they are cited as experts by RSs, so per USEBYOTHERS they’re a decent source. For a BLP issue involving allegations of criminality then obviously we need to be super careful and use attribution and ideally multiple strong sources sources, so if they’re the sole source for something like that then maybe not, but as a general rule I think they’re a good source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• :They are already marked "case by case", which is lower than both the SPLC and ADL. Our article on them documents quite a few incidents I find concerning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Which incidents? The only one I can see relating to inaccuracy was resolved with a correction and apology.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::That they apologize after the fact does not excuse that they made errors so egregiously in the first place. I also don't see much evidence that their publications undergo journalistic/peer review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Quite the opposite. Corrections are evidence of reliability. The only error I am aware of was the claim that an acid attack had occurred in Middlesborough, which turned out to be false and was corrected. I could give you many more examples of mistakes from the Guardian or the New York Times.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::The acid attack claim was not published by HnH. It was a personal tweet by its director, who posted “reports are coming in of” an attack, but it turned out the reports were false so he apologised. We don’t usually judge reliability of an outlet by things employees say elsewhere. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for clarifying. I would also agree that tweets by employees should not be considered.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It wasn’t “egregious errors” plural. It was one confusing press release about an entirely accurate report done for HnH by so leading criminologists! BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Usually reliable, although if they are the only source for a BLP it would be as always WP:UNDUE. User:PARAKANYAA see this Guardian article, how did you miss it? [https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/oct/22/undercover-exposing-the-far-right-review-the-bravest-documentary-of-the-year-so-far] "Undercover: Exposing the Far Right review – the bravest documentary of the year so far. Nail-biting and terrifying, this film shows us the essential work of Hope Not Hate, a group who use hidden cameras and incredibly treacherous fieldwork to expose the threat of extremism around the world" Yes, they have made mistakes and apologized, as have most of the major mainstream media. The right hates them. And we should always attribute them. But we can use them as a source. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Usable with intext attribution, and making sure to consider due as with other such sources. There's extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS, and corrections are a plus for reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• So, I'm inclined to say that the source would usually be usable as a WP:BIASED / opinion source with in-text attribution, but obviously for BLP-sensitive things the threshold is higher and we have to consider privacy issues. I'd be cautious about characterizing something as doxxing, though, which is itself emotive language - where is the threshold between reporting on someone and "doxxing" them? I recall this came up in particular with relation to Slate Star Codex, whose author accused the New York Times of doxxing him when they wrote an expose. It gets into complex questions of who a public figure is and how the public interest weighs against privacy in individual situations - media coverage routinely reveals information about private figures in certain cases. But for our purposes the main thing to consider is the risk of harm. If he's acknowledged and accepted the key elements of the coverage and is publishing that information himself, then there's no risk of harming him simply by identifying him; more minor biographical details (eg. his PHD) are probably not serious BLP issues in this context because it's unlikely they could harm him, so the only question becomes whether the source is reliable enough, which I think it is. The fact that he is clearly a WP:PUBLICFIGURE (ie. he seeks fame) also weighs against worrying about it and means pure privacy concerns aren't as pressing. If it was something shocking we might still want an additional source but they're clearly reliable enough for anodyne, unexceptional things about his educational background. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Depending on how that SPS RFC goes they may be considered an SPS and therefore unusable on such an article anyway. But we will see. And I don’t describe it as doxing in the text, but to my understanding the line is basically if it happened to someone we think didn’t deserve it it’s doxing and if it happens to someone we don’t like it’s “deanonymizing”. They published private information on someone without his consent which to my understanding of the term is what the original sense of “doxing” is. So in my person communication I am going to call it that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think it would be good to establish consensus and that, to your point, Hope Not Hate makes worse missteps than SPLC or the ADL. They've made pretty severe mistakes: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/nick-lowles-hope-not-hate-apologise-tweet-acid-attack/

:To @Aquillion's point there, and as was discussed on the talk page of related article, there have been other instances of publications revealing the identity of online figures, relatively consistently along partisan lines.

:It would be good to reach consensus on how to handle this given all the complications it creates re:

:- Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, BLP, and often:

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE&redirect=no MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE]

:# One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.

:It also tends to be concentrated by just a few authors, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FMSP&redirect=no WP:FMSP] see: Wikipedia over-focuses on publisher instead of author reputability Bluetik (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::also, see:

::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTATABLOID&redirect=no WP:NOTATABLOID]

::Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. Bluetik (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::As BobFromBrockley points out above, the tweet covered in the Telegraph was not a publication by Hope not Hate, but from the private account of its boss. It was also corrected, a sign of reliability. Therefore it is not an example of unreliability from HnH.

:::As for the rest, these are not arguments on reliability. It may be the conceivable that a particular claim made by HnH should be discussed on the talkpage of the relevant article due to privacy concerns, as with any other reliable source, but there is no reason to suggest HnH is unreliable given its widespread WP:USEBYOTHERS and its excellent factual record and publication of corrections.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Was starting to type almost exactly what Boynamedsue said! Bluetik, you say “pretty severe mistakes” plural but give one single example, which isn’t actually an example of them making a mistake. (And you cite the Telegraph, a reliable but heavily biased source.) If you want to establish consensus that HnH aren’t reliable or worse than other advocacy sources, you’re going to need some evidence! Yes, doxxing/outing and BLPs bring a whole other raft of issues, but those aren’t issues for this noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I would also add that HnH is a much better source than ADL. For example, in its publications on antisemitism, the ADL includes any anti-Zionist comments or chants as antisemitic incidents.[https://forward.com/news/575687/anti-defamation-league-adl-antisemitism-count-anti-zionism/]. Its own staff decried its role in campaigning against critics of Israel who had not taken part in antisemitic behaviour.[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/05/adl-pro-israel-advocacy-zionism-antisemitism] No such problems have been documented for Hope not Hate, who nevertheless have taken a significant role in opposing antisemitic comments from individuals who identify as pro-Palestinian or being of the political left. They also frequently commission very strong academic research, which is of better quality than that of the ADL, as it uses mainstream definitions of racist behaviour.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think Hope Not Hate is a reliable source. As PARAKANYAA stated, Hope Not Hate is an activist organization. This article is also a BLP, so it's thus more sensitive. Hope Not Hate also exposed his name without his consent (WP:NOTATABLOID), and they said that they did this because they don't like his rhetoric. This seems contrary to what a reliable source would present. WP:PARTISAN Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :User:Zero Contradictions I am not sure what you mean - not an rs at all? or just for the BLP? I also, and I don't mean to be rude, looked at your talk page and it's clear there that you still aren't very familiar with our policies and guidelines. But that isn't surprising or a terrible sin as I don't think anyone as new as you are could possibly have more than a rudimentary knowledge of them. And you aren't the only editor here that this applies to. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ah, I think you are talking about the tweet made by its chief executive, which he apologised for. That speaks for his reliability since he caught his mistake, and nothing to do with the organisation directly. I'm not sure how you made that mistake. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::No, I'm not talking about the tweet made by the chief executive, or mistakes that HNH made but corrected later. I gave my reasons for why HNH is not a reliable source in this case in my original message. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't think Hope Not Hate is a reliable source in general, especially not for BLPs. I know that I'm a new editor and that I'm not familiar with all the guidelines, but I've been reading them. It just takes time to read everything. I also do have a source for regarding one of the comments on my talk page, but I just haven't responded yet regarding how to include it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :a) isn’t it often part of the job of reliable sources to reveal things about people they don’t want revealed? it’s a regular part of what investigative journalism does. Defining whether it’s tabloid behaviour is about whether they have done so in the public interest or purely for titillation. In this case, it’s clearly in the public interest.
• :b) Where did they say that they unmasked him because “they don’t like his rhetoric”? I guess their job is reporting on the far right and they don’t like the far right, so in that sense I guess it’s trivially true. But they investigated him because they saw his growing viral influence. It’s fine for investigations to be partisan; we just need to write them up neutrally. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::a) No, it's not in the public interest. Many countries have laws against doxxing anonymous people in the Internet. So, if they revealed his name without his consent and without any legal justification, then they clearly broke the law. Breaking the law is not something that any reliable source would do. Again, Hope Not Hate is also clearly an activist organization. They doxxed his name because they don't like his rhetoric.
• ::b) You should read [https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/06/20/egg-sposed-we-reveal-the-identity-of-far-right-bodybuilder-the-raw-egg-nationalist/ the article that's being discussed], if you haven't already. They clearly stated this at the end of the article. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::"doxing", defined as revealing the name of a person who uses a pseudonym online, is not illegal in the United Kingdom. It may be theoretically illegal in one or two jurisdictions, but not when it is in the public interest. It is illegal in several jurisdictions to share threats of violence, and in some others, sharing neo-Nazi imagery, including the swastika and totenkopf, is illegal. Incitement to racial hatred is illegal in the UK. If you have, as you state, read HnH's article on this individual, you will know why a public interest exists in revealing his identity.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::a) Do you have a reliable source to prove that doxxing is not illegal in the United Kingdom? If so, then I strongly recommend creating a new subsection and citing that source on the Doxing page.

:::::b) Regardless of the laws of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia's official legal policy is that content must obey the law of the United States. The United States has some federal laws that imply that doxxing is illegal. Wikipedia should avoid citing NHN, in order to avoid possibly breaking these laws. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Regarding a) take care not to WP:SEALION

::::::Regarding b), this is a pretty silly reading of the policy, which is quite clear in stating that we are prohibited from violating US law with our website content. Regardless of whether HNH's actions would have been illegal if conducted in the US (unclear), citing them in no way breaks any US law (and the onus would be on you to demonstrate that it does before complaining about it). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was not aware about WP:SEALION, but that was not my intention. Other people have been asking if there's laws in the UK prohibiting doxing, and since the Doxxing article doesn't have a subsection regarding the UK, I thought that it would be worth creating one for other people to read and expand on in the future.

:::::::I'm going to research if there's other information about what the US laws are on doxxing beyond the sources that are already cited in Doxxing, and if I find anything, then I'll respond. Maybe I won't. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Question… if the subject has “accepted the dox” and now includes his real name when writing for outlets such as the spectator… why not use one of those? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think the question was that the HnH article contained more detail than the other articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Sourcing his name was never the issue, but for some reason Hope not Hate is still the only source that clearly says what degree he has and where he got it from. Sorry if that was unclear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I pointed out some other sources for some of the content above. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'd turn it around: he's "accepted" the doxx, which was well-researched and covered in reliable sources, confirming the research solidity of HnH, and HnH provides the most details, so why not cite HnH, ideally along with secondary sources where possible? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I see a lot of people caught up in a discussion of whether Hope not Hate is GREL or not. We don't actually have to resolve that, though of course people can address it anyway and clearly want to. I think the more important question here is whether it's a reliable source for the specific information sourced to it. The article content sourced to Hope not Hate is "Cornish-Dale got his undergraduate history degree from the University of Exeter, before completing his PhD at the Lincoln College of the University of Oxford in 2018. His PhD thesis, titled Migrations of the Holy: The Devotional Culture of Wimborne Minster, c.1400-1640, is on the religious history of a Dorset parish. In 2024, his real identity as academic Charles Cornish-Dale was disclosed by the British advocacy group Hope not Hate."

:Clearly they're a reliable source for the fact that they identified him, though perhaps not for the fact that they were the one to first disclose that info. I already noted above that there are reliable sources confirming he was an undergrad at the University of Exeter (source: the Royal History Society), that he was at Lincoln College, Oxford (sources: academic publications), and the title/date of his dissertation (source: Oxford University). I didn't find a source stating that he majored in history at Exeter (maybe I missed it), though that's certainly consistent with the RHS award. Hope not Hate seems reliable for all of the info that's actually sourced to them here. I'm curious why people want to resolve whether they're a reliable source more generally. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::I still don't think that Hope not Hate is a reliable source for this specific case, or even in general. Many countries have laws against doxxing anonymous people on the Internet, and Raw Egg Nationalist never consented to HNH revealing his name or his identity. Since HNH doesn't have any known legal justifications for revealing his personally identifiable information, they clearly broke the law. The willingness of NHN to break the law is strong evidence that NHN is not reliable source in general. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Broke what law? Laws are subject to jurisdiction, and no evidence has been presented that anyone was tried or even threatened with legal measures, much less convicted. I note that Britain, the country of residence for both REN and HNH is not listed on the page of doxing legislation that you linked, so there's really no reason to suggest that anything they did was illegal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia's official legal policy is that content must obey the law of the United States, so the laws of the United Kingdom aren't relevant in this case, as far as we know. The United States has some federal laws that imply that doxxing is illegal. It's better to be safe rather than sorry, so I think Wikipedia should avoid citing NHN, in order to avoid potentially breaking these federal US laws. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you have even one reliable source stating that HNH's action was illegal? WP is not breaking any law on doxing, given that Cornish-Dale has already acknowledged that's he's Raw Egg Nationalist; your concern about WP's legal risk is misplaced. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, if you read my last message, I shared a link on US's federal laws relating to doxxing, and it cites some sources regarding the Interstate Communications Statute and the Interstate Stalking Statute, which imply that HNH's doxing was illegal.

::::::And regardless of whether or not Raw Egg Nationalist has acknowledged that he's Cornish-Dale, HNH still exposed his name without consent. The official definition of Doxxing is: "the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet and without their consent." It thus still follows that citing HNH could still potentially break these laws on doxxing, because they didn't have his consent to publish what they did. My concern about these potential legal risks for Wikipedia are absolutely justified and are not misplaced at all. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::US law does not apply to doxing in the UK. US law does apply to WP, but WP is not doxing him, as his identity has already been confirmed by him. All WP is doing is summarizing part of what was said in a source, and the question here is only whether that source is reliable for the specific WP content. (FWIW, if an editor attempted to actually dox someone, it would fall afoul of the WP:DOX and WP:NOR policies and hopefully would be quickly reverted for that reason, with the editor being blocked.) Your concern about the Wikimedia Foundation's legal risk is absolutely misplaced. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::US law does apply to the Internet though. Even if a victim confirms their identity after getting doxxed, the people who reveal the victim's identity without their consent still would've doxxed him, by the definition of Doxxing. You also a shared [https://www.eenews.net/articles/gay-frogs-and-atrazine-why-the-alt-right-likes-rfk-jr/ second source] in a different comment that states Raw Egg Nationalist's identity, and I think it's more reliable and less risky to cite in this case, so I don't still don't see why the REN article should cite HNH. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::US law does not apply to the internet. British citizens, in Britain, are not bound by any US law unless attempting to commit criminal activity in the USA, and even then it is a somewhat moot point.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The second source, Politico, draws on HnH in naming REN, so if misplaced legal squeamishness is the reason not to cite them that seems odd. In fact, Politico using HnH is the kind of use by others that confirms HnH’s reputation for reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I wasn't commenting on whether it's reliable in general. I think that editors too often move directly into a discussion of whether a source is GREL, when the header for source edits to this noticeboard explicitly states "The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Whether their having doxxed him is legal is unrelated to whether they're a reliable source for that information. Cornish-Dale confirmed his identity, so clearly they were correct. That particular piece of information is also sourced to a [https://www.eenews.net/articles/gay-frogs-and-atrazine-why-the-alt-right-likes-rfk-jr/ second source] (which I failed to notice initially, so the portion of my comment above saying "perhaps not for the fact that they were the one to first disclose that info" is moot). My point was that they also seem to be accurate about the other WP content that's sourced them. I think you're confusing reliability and legality, and as noted by others, it's not clear to me that simply having identified his name is illegal in the UK. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I understand that you were commenting about reliability in this particular case. The legality of doxxing is still relevant to whether NHN is a reliable source of information because Wikipedia's official legal policy is that content must obey the laws of the United States. If citing a source could break US laws, then it clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether the information is correct or not. The United States has some federal laws that imply that doxxing is illegal, so I think that Wikipedia should avoid citing NHN in this case in order to comply with Wikipedia's official policies. Zero Contradictions (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion has been dragged into the weeds by arguments that stretch the bounds of credibility. There is no US Federal Law against doxing, except in the case that it is accompanied by harassment. Revealing information which is already in the public domain is not doxing, so wikipedia could not be accused of doxing by publishing this information in this case. As doxing is legal in the UK, whether or not HnH can be said to have doxed the unpleasant racist in question is entirely irrelevant to general questions on the reliability of HnH.

:A consensus exists that the HnH article is reliable for biographical details in the article above, how much more is there to say? An RfC for HnH might be due, but this is not that.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:* I agree. It's not as if HNH had been accused of spreading false information. Of course, as an advocacy organisation their statements should always be attributed, but I see absolutely no reason to treat them as unreliable. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

[https://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2011&cons=85]

Wondering if anybody with a good knowledge of Irish politics could give me some feedback on electionsireland.org. The article on Bertie Ahern uses a nice little quote that comes from here, but I'm a little worried it might be an amateur blog. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:I've advised wikiproject Ireland of this discussion.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, ElectionsIreland is run by a political pollster and expert named Sean Donnelly who has been [https://electionsireland.org/books.cfm collating and publishing] the results of these elections for about thirty years. He's been quoted as an expert in RTÉ (Irish state broadcaster) and other reliable newspapers a few times ([https://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/2016/0115/760253-donnelly-rules-getting-elected/ 1], [https://www.rte.ie/news/election-2020/2020/0209/1114103-remember-the-donnelly-rules-during-election-count/ 2], [https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-why-transfers-may-not-be-a-deciding-factor-1.4164469 3], [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-12349644 4]) and I used some of his results from electionsireland in my Ged Nash GA. I'd be inclined to believe this is reliable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Many thanks, pleased about that as it's an absolute banger of a quote.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Just saw the quote - LOL, no word of a lie! I used to live in Bertie's backyard and to this day his influence is still felt; in the locals, the incumbent FF councillor lost her seat while the Bertie-backed new FF candidate managed to win a seat. Ever so strange... ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Electionsireland is absolutely a reliable source. Yes, it's a WP:SPS, but the author is clearly a subject-matter expert in the area. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi. While I've occasionally noted a few "bugs" on the electionsireland.org website (for example this [https://electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?ID=9872 entry for Richard O'Donoghue] appearing to indicate that he was "not elected" to the 34th Dáil, [https://www.independent.ie/regionals/limerick/news/large-increase-in-support-sees-richard-odonoghue-re-elected-in-limerick-county/a2002594709.html when he was]), it is otherwise generally reliable. I've used it for years, in combination with other sources on electoral counts, and found it to be as reliable as any other. As with any source of any kind, it shouldn't be relied upon solely and as absolute "gospel". But is otherwise generally reliable (for use on articles covering Irish elections/etc). Guliolopez (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks to all, so a consensus would exist its numbers are usually reliable, opinions, to be attributed in the normal way, will often be due as expert comment.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I raised this on Talk:Neoauthoritarianism (China) where I've been doing a comprehensive review of sources because of pervasive WP:SYNTH concerns. And I came across this and have a bit of a different concern. This 1994 paper was published in a respected outlet by a scholar with relevant knowledge. But it's 31 years old and its conclusion is just plain wrong - as in the subsequent three decades have demonstrated that Zheng got it wrong. I think, in this context, it's being depended on too heavily and may not be reliable for a discussion of any matters related to China after 1994. I also have concerns about sourcing it for opinion pre-1994 as a result of the failed conclusion. I'm looking for feedback here as the page is low-traffic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:In general the article depends far too much on sources from the 1990s - but this is one where I'm seeing the greatest variance from what actually happened after the 90s. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Depends what it is being used for. It's cited several times in the article and some of them are for historical notes that are still true, eg. {{tq|The concept of liberal democracy led to intense debate between democratic advocates and neoauthoritarians prior to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre}} or {{tq|Following the 1978 Third Plenum, which made Deng Xiaoping Paramount leader, China employed a variety of strategies to develop its economy, beginning the Chinese economic reform.}} Even the large paragraph in the background section cited to it is probably fine (although it could use more sources and isn't a great-written paragraph, with too many quotes); the issue is that the background then stops there and includes nothing past that date. We also devote a huge block-quote and lots of text to this source in the legacy section; mentioning it there might make some sense to illustrate what people thought in 1994, but, again, the problem is less that this source is unusable (it can still provide a window into 1994-era thinking), and more that we lack later ones, especially later comprehensive ones that can be used to provide a summary and put older stuff in context. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I think we largely agree for what it's worth. What worries me is that it was clear that, at some point in the past, this article was changed to put forward the rather novel claim that neoauthoritarianism and neoconservatism are coterminous in the context of Chinese politics. This was entirely derived from WP:SYNTH. I've rooted most of that out and the article is now, mostly, an historical account of an effectively no-longer followed ideology as most RSes say. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I stumbled on this in the new BLP Ryan Borgwardt. It has a little WP-presence[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22WhatsNew2Day%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1]. Can't find an about-page except [https://www.facebook.com/WhatsNew2Da/about]. Is it something we should use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure we should be linking to the site at all due to copyright concerns. For instance this article about Cate Blanchett[https://whatsnew2day.com/cate-blanchett-hollywood-harvey-weinstein-htmlns_mchannelrssns_campaign1490ito1490/] appears to be a only very slightly reworded copy of this Daily Mail article https://web.archive.org/web/20250203115153/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14354223/Cate-Blanchett-Hollywood-Harvey-Weinstein.html archive link. Looking at the article used in Ryan Borgwardt it is again a copy of a DM article. Even if that wasn't the case, a website run from someone's home doesn't seem to be one of the 'high quality' sources that BLP calls for. Also, given how closely they copy the source, DM articles posted on other websites are still as deprecated as articles from the DM website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is a fake new site. Not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• October 2024 RS/N discussion on Countryhighpoints.com Graywalls (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned about what are and what are not acceptable sources of heights of mountain peaks. In particular, if a mountain has never been surveyed, or not been surveyed for several decades, but then, say, a maths professor and GPS expert goes to that mountain and carries out a thoroughly modern DGPS survey, is it OK to update the height of that peak using his report as a source? And is it OK to use sites like [http://www.peakbagger.com peakbagger], [http://www.peaklist.org peaklist] and [http://www.countryhighpoints.org countryhighpoints]? If the answer is no, not unless it has been thoroughly reviewed in academic papers as laid down by WP:RS, then there are very many peak heights that need to be deleted from Wikipedia, to the point where Wikipedia will have to cease to be a source of accurate peak heights. What RS calls "Scholarly articles" about mountain peak heights are extremely rare.

Declaration: I have cooperated extensively with the proprietors of the above mentioned sites.

{{ping|KnowledgeIsPower9281}} {{ping|Axad12}} {{ping|Graywalls}} {{ping|Urlatherrke}} {{ping|Darwinek}}

{{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} {{ping|Buidhe}}

Viewfinder (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:It seems you already know that the answer is no... I would note however that just because something isn't reliable doesn't mean it needs to be purged. I would also note that we only appear to have so many links to those sites because connected editors have essentially spammed us with them... These groups of amateurs are the problem, not the solution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::So how should we be referencing heights of low importance mountains? Viewfinder (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Why should we have the information at all if it isn't due? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::If there's a disagreement between multiple reliable sources as defined by WP:RS and/or determined through consensus here, it's reasonable to share the different versions from different textbooks and such. If there's a disagreement between a reliable source and bloggy websites, then we retain what's covered in reliable source and eliminate the unsourced/unreliably sourced version.

::My position is that it's absolutely not okay to replace WorldAtlas, textbooks, [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ CIA World Factbook] with bloggy website or other self published questionable source, nor should we use them. If self published, user generated contents or bloggy sources are used, the right approach is to eliminate them and replace with professionally published material. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Who are CIS World Fact? Serach reveals nothing. You mean CIA World fact? World Atlas rarely covers low importance mountains. Textbooks are hard to verify. What about satellite data sources? What about promotion sites? I have found these to be less reliable than topographic sites like the ones I listed. Viewfinder (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Those are promotional sites you shared. For example countryhighpoints is a promotional site for Eric and Matthew Gilbertson according to itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I meant promotional sites by, say, local tourist authorities. Viewfinder (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Horse Eye's Back and Graywalls.

::::::It is a simple point of Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia seeks to reflect reliable independent sources and is not a repository of raw data obtained by hobbyists (no matter how intrepid those hobbyists may be) which the hobbyists then place on their own blogs (or similar websites).

::::::The OP is aware that this topic was discussed on this forum as recently as October 2024, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#Eric_&_Matthew_Gilbert,_PhD_site_at_https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/].

::::::We are talking here about serious matters of physical geography, not matters that are decided between small groups of hobbyists/enthusiasts who import their own subjective opinions to Wikipedia re: the reliability of other members of their community.

::::::I appreciate that members of the highpointing community have the greatest of respect for Eric Gilbertson (whose biography has twice been deleted on Wikipedia) and his work is very highly regarded on the off-wiki sites that the OP has noted above, but that is clearly a entirely different matter to whether his work fulfils the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

::::::It is great pity that multiple users who have been in direct contact with Gilbertson (sometimes over a long period) have attempted to import his work on to this website and refuse to accept the consensus which has been in place now for some time. Axad12 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thats going to depend on context but if its some sort of local government authority that is likely alright. The bar on the mountain or a climbing tour business? Almost certainly no good Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:Peakbagger is crowdsourced. I added 2 peaks to their database. USGS topo maps have the same info (for the US anyway) and should be used instead. (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The bottom half of Gilbertson brothers' front page is dedicated to diatribe against Wikipedia, and specifically against myself. https://web.archive.org/web/20250127041252/https://www.countryhighpoints.com/ Countyhighpoints website. When I called this out the other day in a talk page discussion, they removed references to me. This is an indication of Gilbertson acutely watching Wikipedia activity. I think there's off-wiki coordination of meat puppetry to lobby for inclusion of Gilbertson sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:Well that is uncomfortably personal... But at least they had the decency to upgrade you to "administrator"/"senior moderator" (doesn't exactly speak positively to their reliability though) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:I intended this to be a discussion about how best to source peak heights in mountain articles. {{ping|Graywalls}} it was your suggestion that I took it here.}} Viewfinder (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::We have not departed from that topic, what you appear to not be accepting is that not having a peak height isn't a problem. You seem to be working from the position that we need to have all of these peak hikes and then looking at how you can scrounge them up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::That off-wiki co-ordination has occurred is, I would say, an established fact. Note for example the appearance last year of an account claiming to be Gilbertson himself at the talk page for Mount Rainier to back up the pro-Gilbertson arguments made not long earlier by his wiki-biographer (user:KnowledgeIsPower9281, who has admitted elsewhere to having had extensive and ongoing contact with Gilbertson). The relevant threads are here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Rainier#Elevation] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Rainier#Clarification_on_Elevation] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Rainier#Final_Consensus].

:::This thread at RSN is essentially a Trojan Horse for the inclusion of Gilbertson derived data and was started by another account who has previously admitted to having had direct contact with Gilbertson.

:::And then we have this other very recent thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Highpointing#Seeking_consensus_to_submit_a_controversial_COI_edit_request], started by Gilbertson's wiki-biographer and making further arguments for inclusion of Gilbertson derived data.

:::Then we have the appearance of 2 Gilbertson-linked accounts at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jabal_Soudah#Highest_Point_in_Saudi_Arabia_(continued)] talk page, within days of each other, making the same arguments for inclusion.

:::All of this material is clearly part of a off-wiki canvassing campaign derived from Gilbertson himself, relating to posts on his website, blog and forum - and individuals with whom he has been in direct contact. It is straightforward WP:MEATPUPPETRY and ought to be dealt with as such. Axad12 (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Off-wiki canvassing by a source is relevent to this discussion... But perhaps the MEATPUPPETRY claims etc should go to AN/I? There seems to be more than enough evidence at this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::We also have the 80 or so unsourced changes to national highpoints made by two Calgary Alberta IP addresses at the article on List of elevation extremes by country on 11th/12th January (see article history here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_elevation_extremes_by_country&action=history]). Gilbertson's wiki-biographer has admitted elsewhere [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jabal_Soudah&diff=prev&oldid=1272864967] that the motivation behind those edits appears to have been to install Gilbertson derived data, but the end user behind the edits remains unknown. Shortly after they were made the edits were reverted en masse but then reinstated by a good faith user who was apparently unaware of the background. The edits remain in the article today. Given the other evidence above it seems reasonable to assume that the edits were part of the same campaign.

:::::My feeling is that the off-wiki canvassing issues/meatpuppetry side of this would be better resolved by the users involved voluntarily stepping back from continually opening threads related to the reliability of Gilbertson's blog (and other associated matters). Every time they have done so the consensus has been against them, as has the relevant policy.

:::::As you have stated earlier in the thread, the real issue here is the existence of articles such as List of elevation extremes by country which are essentially unsourced / non-RS sourced articles probably intended as an on-wiki beachhead for raw data derived from blogs set up by highpointing enthusiasts. (Or, if not intended, that is certainly how they are used)

:::::The response ought to be more a clean up exercise (which will need to happen anyway) to discourage further activity of this nature. I am unsure of whether that would require simply the deletion of certain data or if it would require the deletion of entire articles.

:::::I have no particular appetite for ANI, but if anyone else feels strongly that that is the place for this to be resolved then please feel free to take it there. Axad12 (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Correction: having now seen the recent activity at this AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ribu], this discussion at WikiProject Spam [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#worldribus.org], this thread on the Highpointing talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Highpointing#Seeking_consensus_to_submit_a_controversial_COI_edit_request] and this discussion at the relevant user's talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Urlatherrke#Your_comment_at_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam] I'm more than satisfied that ANI is indeed the correct arena for these concerns to be raised, especially as the user involved only opened their account a month or so ago, clearly coinciding with the increase in disruptive activity on highpointing articles and talkpages.

::::::Matters have clearly developed beyond simple off-wiki canvassing and into WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, WP:UNCIVIL and WP:PA territory.

::::::I will be off-wiki for much of the day but would suggest that someone makes the relevant referral. Axad12 (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::I did suggest it, so it won't be me going back and forth with you and you can also get input from outside editors. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Getting back to the original issue raised in this thread…

:::If someone buys some GPS kit and (a) notes that the readings they get are different from those in established sources, or (b) records some co-ordinates for places for which there were previously no readings, clearly it is not appropriate for that person to then start editing Wikipedia in line with their own original research. It doesn’t matter if that person is a world-renowned expert on GPS or a complete amateur. Similarly it doesn’t matter if the person places the recordings on their own blog (or someone’s blog) prior to editing Wikipedia.

:::There is never going to be any sort of consensus in favour of that kind of activity because it drives a coach and horses through various fundamental Wikipedia policies. Axad12 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have thought so. Any source that someone can edit, and then immediately turn round to use a source for referencing is unlikely to be reliable. Either WP:USEBYOTHERS or WP:SPS need to be satisfied, otherwise they shouldn't be used. Issues of spamming, meatpupperty, or other disruptive behaviour should be discussed elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::OK, so it is not acceptable for the guy who carries out the survey to post the results of that survey to Wikipedia himself, or for anyone connected with that guy to do so. But what if someone wholly unconnected with the surveyor posts the results of that survey? Viewfinder (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Why would that make the source any more reliable? Your argument is irrelevant. The issue is the reliability of the source, not the strength of the conflict of interest between surveyor and editor. Axad12 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The same thing would still apply, either USEBYOTHERS or EXPERTSPS would need to be shown. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• While I sympathize with Dr. Gilbertson, and tend to agree his website has the most up-to-date and accurate information, Wikipedia simply doesn't give a shit. A blog is a blog is a blog and can't be used. Dr. Gilbertson's measurements for Mt. Rainier are [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/mount-rainier-is-shrinking-and-now-has-a-new-summit/ under consideration by federal officials], so it's probably best if he keeps on submitting his findings from other locations to officials as well. Meanwhile, I'm not opposed to his website being used as an external link per criteria #4. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Then, that would open up "knowledgeable" sources to railfanning, geocaching, fandom, cookbooks, recipes, howto guides and everything. Gilbertson's site is extremely bloggy and appears to be designed to optimize his search engine visibility to cause an increase in his AuthorHouse books sale. ELMAYBE is not ELYES. Graywalls (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's why I referred to ELMAYBE, which says "links to be considered", as opposed to ELYES, which I did not refer to. In my view, he is a "knowledgeable" source "to be considered". Reliable sources quote him as a source of information: [https://www.latimes.com/travel/newsletter/2023-11-30/getting-outdoors-abroad-safely-the-wild Los Angeles Times], [https://observers.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-observers/20221109-himalaya-k2-mountain-climbing-rubbish-pollution-environment France 24], [https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2024/10/tallest-mountain-in-washington-state-is-getting-shorter-blame-climate-change.html The Oregonian], [https://www.thetimes.com/article/twin-peaks-brothers-matthew-and-eric-gilbertson-rewrite-mountain-record-books-khr6c8jkb The Times], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-spokesman-review-eric-gilbertson/164481461/ The Spokesman-Review], and according to Larry Signani, who headed the first survey of Mt. Rainier in 1988 for the Army Corps of Engineers, [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/mount-rainier-is-shrinking-and-now-has-a-new-summit/ Gilbertson's findings are sound]. If you don't think Gilbertson's site should be "considered", good for you, I'm cool with that. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

БЭИП «Суюн»; Том.3, Март 2016, №2 [1,2]; ISSN:2410-1788

"THE HAPLOGROUPS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM ANCIENT TURKIC CLANS — ASHINA AND ASHIDE",[https://www.podgorski.com/main/assets/documents/Wen_S.-Q._Muratov_B.A._Suyunov_R.R.pdf], S.-Q. Wen, B.A. Muratov, R.R. Suyunov, Translated to english: B.A. Muratov.

The journal article is used in the Ashina tribe article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&curid=1519477&diff=1274006641&oldid=1268547420#cite_note-100]

The journal article cites Wikipedia six times. Does this journal article violate WP:CIRC? --Kansas Bear 02:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's use of Wikipedia for assertions of historical facts is very problematic. In the journal article the fragment {{tq|"in China were tested to determine the Y-DNA haplogroup the representatives from aristocratic Turkic clans Ashina"}} is references to Ashina or Ashina clan (it's unclear which) both appear to have been disambiguation pages at the time. In Ashina tribe part of what it's used to support is {{tq|The study tested to determine the Y-DNA haplogroup the representatives from aristocratic Turkic clans Ashina}}. One way or another that's 100% circular.
The bigger problem I see is the bolded section starting {{tq|EH Project "Suyun" emphasizes that:}} that gives a list of who is and isn't Ashina/Ashide and ends with {{tq|"All other applicants who identify themselves as descendants of Ashina and Ashide — are not members of these clans."}} The criteria they use to decide who to test is all referenced to Wikipedia. So Wikipedia determines which people to test and those people have certain haplogroups. That would seem to make it completely unusable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A bit of an open-ended one as this is not a direct "I think use of this source is inappropriate in

Brought up at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Pakistani_cinema_task_force#Youlin_Magazine Pakistani cinema task force] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Youlin_Magazine Indian cinema task force]. Looking for a wider opinion as the site originally came up in a deletion discussion and has been used by several SOCKS to justify edits. Their [https://www.youlinmagazine.com/about-youlin-magazine about page] has no mention of editorial guidelines. Their [https://www.youlinmagazine.com/faq.php FAQ] page says they accept guest posts and that contributors are reviewed by the editorial board but no information about what the "editorial board" is. Their main point of contact is a Gmail address. CNMall41 (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Looks non-reliable and probably UGC.Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://blog.ametsoc.org/2024/07/24/best-capturing-the-worst-tornado-winds/ this] blog from the American Meteorological Society considered a reliable source? I was going to use it on 2024 Greenfield tornado to add more details about the DOW team, their process, and their findings. The Front Page, the blog's proper name, describes themselves as edited and written by Chris Cappella, Matt Gillespie, and Rachel Thomas-Medwid, the editors of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), as well as Katie Pflaumer, AMS Marketing Communications Manager, along with other AMS staff. They do accept guest contributors, however this article was written by a staff member. Departure– (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

: Marginally reliable, in general I would attribute anything contentious as this falls into a bit of a grey area... Most of the authors are probably going to be usable under WP:EXPERTSPS but not all staff members may qualify. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:As reliable as anything else published by the AMS. Subject to the all the normal caveats that apply to less formal publications. Opinions are still opinions, etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::Well the normal caveat that applies to less formal publications is that they are not as reliable as more formal ones (that is the social media post will be less reliable than the blog which will be less reliable than the article which will be less reliable than the book)... So one of those sentences can't be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Less formal here meaning that blog post often contain material people would not published in more formal venues, or in a less formal style. It doesn't make it unreliable by itself, just rather irrelevant and needs to be understood for what it is. Like when Plaufmer writes {{xt|Racing toward the town with her colleagues, Jen Walton told me, “We could see nothing but a wall of white ahead of us.” They were trying to put themselves right in the path of a hidden monster.}} this does not mean a literal white wall was osbtructing their view, nor does it mean they were about to get stomped by a literal Godzilla-like monster. But you reliably say that visibility conditions were poor and that they were trying to head into the deeper part of the storm. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The lower levels of editorial review does make it generally less reliable. The blog simply isn't as reliable as an actual article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, that doesn't however mean that it is unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|reason=This should be taken to the article's talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, I noticed that the article states Hamas and Al-Qaeda are allies, but there is no source supporting this claim. Since Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, I suggest removing this statement unless a reliable citation is provided. Can an editor review this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Thanks. 2A02:1810:CD03:CF00:E19E:7196:E01C:9289 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hi IP, I'm not sure what you saw there - the article actually says the opposite, that Hamas will not ally with Al-Qaeda. And that statement is sourced. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::That is what I thought. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

(Previous discussion: 2021)

It seems a little odd to be starting a thread here on a website that actively admits its unreliability, but here we are. This stems from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1272372469#Disruptive_User:RangersRus this discussion (permalink)] which moved into the reliability of pinkvilla.com for box office figures (as that was the source being edit-warred over).

As I stated at that ANI, the page involved [https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/year-end-2024-top-10-highest-grossing-kollywood-movies-at-worldwide-box-office-1362528] which is being used to source box office figures, contains a disclaimer which includes the words Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data.. When I pointed this out, the reply was that a local taskforce had declared the source reliable. The discussion can be found here, and it doesn't look like a resounding approval of Pinkvilla's reliability, and this one from 2023 doesn't look too supportive either. Thoughts are welcome. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:I saw another discussion on this noticeboard last week about another project which had it's own ideas about reliability and about how they did things differently (I think it was the anime one). Perhaps a broader discussion of some type at WP:VPP should be had concerning the numerous projects which think they have jurisdiction on what is and what isn't reliable for articles within their areas of interest. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:There was a discussion about Pinkvilla earlier this month, although it didn't come to much. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 463#Pinkvilla. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::It looks obviously unreliable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Here we are again, with the perennial discussion on the reliability of Pinkvilla. As Black Kite pointed out, the last discussion among the active task force members tagged Pinkvilla as reliable, sans gossip section. Since they are the only [reliable] source available that reports box office figures closest to the onrs reported by established RS such as The Hindu, we use it for that. Once again, like TOI, they should also be taken with a pinch of salt. Nonetheless, I'd really like to get a solid consensus from the community on the reliability, before this discussion dies down. We can also explore an RfC if this fails. Thanks and happy editing :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:* {{u|Benison}} Sorry, you're clearly going to have to explain very slowly to me how a site which "does not make any claims about the authenticity of its data" is reliable for that data. Not to mention that "it should be taken with a pinch of salt"! I also don't understand, why if you have other RS for box office figures anyway, why not ... just not use it? Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:**Black Kite, I get your confusion. Sorry for that. The thing is Pinkvilla is the only source that covers the South Indian movie industry box office figures. Other sources such as Sacnilk.com are utter rubbish and totally non reliable. Hence I said it can be used. The pinch of salt is for the gossip section which I'd stay clear from.
Another point I'd like to give is I'm not pro Pinkvilla. If they are maintaining such a we-dont-care attitude in their bio, they better be blacklisted then. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:**:I would suggest that if Pinkvilla is the only source for box office figures then box office figures should be left off the article. We don't use an obviously unreliable source just to fill a blank on an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yikes, their "medical board" includes:

:*someone they call a "Dr." and "clinical psychologist" whose bio says she is a {{tq|consultant psychologist and a certified holistic health and wellness coach practising in Bangalore, India. She is pursuing her Ph.D. in psychology and is specialized in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy from U.S.A.}} (i.e. not a doctor, and legally cannot claim to be a clinical psychologist)

:*someone they call a "psychotherapist" whose bio says she is a {{tq|holistic healer specializing in Bach Flower therapy, psychotherapy, and counseling.}} and {{tq|Education: Studied Four levels of Bach Flower Therapy from The Bach Centre, Mount Vernon, Oxfordshire, and England}}

:*a "biomedical scientist and nutritionist" whose education is {{tq|Bachelor of Biomedical Science from Deakin University, Bachelor of Applied Science in Nutrition from Endeavor College}} (i.e. not a scientist, no medical or expert qualifications at all).

:*a "clinical psychologist" whose education is {{tq|MSc in Clinical Psychology with a specialization in Marriage and Family Therapy from Shahid Beheshti University}} (i.e. cannot legally call herself a clinical psychologist). Bonus: {{tq|Also certified in EMDR therapy with the EMDR International Association}}

:* a "Dr." and "clinical physiotherapist" whose education is {{tq|BPT, MPT, PGD CLINICAL NUTRITION & DIETETICS}} (none of these is a doctorate, which is legally required to call yourself a PT)

:Literally their only actual doctors, out of 23 board members, are an OB/GYN and five dermatologists chiefly advertising themselves as "aestheticians" and "cosmetologists", all of whose biographies are redirects to an author list that doesn't include them.{{pb}}Their "Expert Panel" is a bunch of relationship coaches, aromatherapists, makeup artists, and a "certified psychology expert" whose degree is a master in environmental engineering.{{pb}}This is a garbage site that intentionally misleads readers with its false medical credentials. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Pinkvilla is entertainment site. Where do you see it talking about medical board? RangersRus (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::They have it [https://www.pinkvilla.com/medical-team here] and even if what you are using Pinkvilla for is its entertainment section, this sort of information is apropos to the overall reliability of the source which, between that and the disclaimer saying they aren't actually reliable mentioned previously, would indicate this is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for sharing that link. I can not make any judgement on the medical board site. There are over 2100 articles that use Pinkvilla source. Talking about Pinkvilla's boxoffice, not all article give the disclaimer saying the report is not reliable like [https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/saaho-vs-radhe-shyam-adipurush-salaar-box-office-analysing-prabhas-films-after-historic-baahubali-duology-1302572 here] or [https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/top-highest-grossing-indian-films-worldwide-rrr-overtakes-kgf-chapter-2-pathaan-headed-towards-1050-crores-1211636 here]. There are many such articles on Pinkvilla without such disclaimer by journalists who are expert and give expert analysis and insight into the film and media business. Some Journalists or writers who are just bollywood enthusiasts or writers of fiction, trivia, and fantasy, at Pinkvilla, give disclaimer as they are not the expert in boxoffice analysis. I agree with Benison that there are not sufficient reliable sources that give the gross figures on South Indian films. Most are from unreliable Sacnilk or reports from the makers of the film. I will be OK with any consensus that is reached through this discussion. RangersRus (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If 2100 articles have already included an unreliable source then it's best to stop introducing it into new articles and begin cleanup. "It'd be a lot of work to fix," is not a justification for retaining an unreliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::My response was informative purpose and not to give justification and yes if the end consensus is that the source is unreliable, cleanup will be done. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Simonm223, I'm sensing a great deal of offensive from you regarding this, with strong wordings suggesting that the members of the task force have been knowingly using an established unreliable source for citations. Let me make it very clear to you that the unreliable nature of Pinkvilla.com was NEVER established and there IS a rough consensus among the ICTF regulars (as evident from the multiple discussions on this matter) that Pinkvilla.com is a reliable source due to their editorial policy and the reportings they have provided until now.
The disclaimer that has been brought up now was never mentioned anywhere in those discussions (and/or we all overlooked that) and hence it was perfectly logical to use Pinkvilla.com as a RS. But now that disclaimer has been presented, it is time to rethink those decisions. Reliable or not, Pinkvilla.com is never to trusted with their gossip section and that fact has been clearly established as a consensus in the ICTF. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tqq|strong wordings suggesting that the members of the task force have been knowingly using an established unreliable source for citations.}} That's because it sure looks like that is exactly what has happened. If the disclaimer was {{tqq|overlooked}} that says unfortunate things about the task force. There may well be a local consensus that Pinkvilla is reliable in this instance, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Actually it wasn't overlooked. When checking the source for its reliability, ICTF always makes sure to check disclaimers, editorial and owner insight but the disclaimer that has now started to show up on Pinkvilla articles were not there when intially the reliability of Pinkvilla was in question. Now that such disclaimers started to show up on some (not all) of Pinkvilla articles for boxoffice figures, it is definitely something of a question on its reliability now. If this recent disclaimer and its concern was brought up in ictf talk page, consensus might have been different. RangersRus (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Exactly. I don't remember seeing such a disclaimer ever and no other ICTF regulars mentioned it either. Additionally, it was never mentioned earlier in any discussions.
The archives can be searched to see how we determine the reliability of a source. We use their official website, their editorial board, their qualifications, the editorial policy and fine print to determine the reliability, as per our P&G.
Now since they have started putting it up, it's clearly a red flag and time to reasses Pinkvilla.com. As RangersRus said, if this discussion about the disclaimer was started at the ICTF page, it will never make it into RS now. Just clearing those things up. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Please do not personalize this discussion. I am critical of the source. I am saying nothing about any given editor here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::On a related note, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_7#Reliability_of_Pinkvilla here] is the link to the discussion that originally promoted Pinkvilla to a reliable source at WP:ICTF. If you look at the revision history, you can see that the editor who implemented that change was {{u|Ab207}}. As you can see, this discussion had only three participants, Ab207, {{u|Kailash29792}} and {{u|Tayi Arajakate}}. It'd be interesting to see what they have to say about Pinkvilla's status now.

:::::::::::I personally consider Pinkvilla to be a garbage source. 193.29.183.126 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Note: this IP is a clear sock of {{u|Vax'ildan Vessar}} and considers Pinkvilla "garbage" because it reported on poor box-office returns of the film Kanguva. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Let's be real. It's not as if Pinkvilla has any major merit to be considered as anything other than garbage. 193.29.183.126 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I personally don't know or care whether it is RS or not. I'm more into maintenance and genfixes these days. What do longer term editors like {{u|Krimuk2.0}} have to say on Pinkvilla? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There are hardly very few articles which report box office collections regional wise in India. One is Bollywood Hungama which reports regional wise. But Bollywood Hungama reports only for Hindi cinema. For other languages especially South Indian films, Pinkvilla generally used to report regional wise collections.

:::::::::::::For other reliable sources present in the list Wikipedia:ICTFSOURCES, I cannot find any other source which does this. It just gives the final number either based twitter posts (trade analysts posts) or from the producers of the film or even straight away from unreliable sources.

:::::::::::::For example:

:::::::::::::# Hindustan Times which is a reliable source in the list. It straight away takes reports from unreliable source Sacnilk linking [https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/telugu-cinema/game-changer-box-office-collection-day-1-updated-live-will-ram-charan-film-beat-vvr-acharya-openings-101736514327682.html#:~:text=Game%20Changer%20box%20office%20collection,%E2%82%B951.25%20crore%20%2D%20Hindustan%20Times]. It states "According to [https://www.sacnilk.com/quicknews/RC15_2022_Box_Office_Collection_Day_1 Sacnilk], the film minted over ₹51.25 crore net in India so far on opening day, surpassing the first-day business of his last solo release Vinaya Vidheya Rama (VVR)."

:::::::::::::# Business Standard which is also a reliable source in the list, it takes twitter posts from producers as reference to report the collections [https://www.business-standard.com/entertainment/game-changer-box-office-collection-ram-charan-film-posts-186-crore-opening-nc-125011100301_1.html](also used Sacnilk). It reported 186 crore but ironically the film total final bo collection is less than the day 1 collection.

:::::::::::::# Indian Express using Sacnilk - [https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/telugu/game-changer-worldwide-box-office-collection-day-1-ram-charan-shankar-overtakes-vinaya-vidheya-rama-earns-rs-51-crore-9772659/]

:::::::::::::# Daily News and Analysis (DNA) using Sacnilk - [https://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-game-changer-box-office-collection-day-1-ram-charan-shankar-kiara-advani-film-takes-fantastic-start-earns-rs-32-crores-3126501#google_vignette]

:::::::::::::# Business Today (India) using twitter trade analysts for BO - [https://www.businesstoday.in/trending/box-office/story/pushpa-2-the-rule-box-office-collection-day-25-allu-arjuns-film-tops-rs1700-crore-mark-globally-joins-dangal-baahubali-2-458892-2024-12-30]

:::::::::::::# Deccan Chronicle using producers report - [https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/game-changer-first-day-collections-ram-charan-movie-opens-to-massive-collections-at-box-office-1853486]

:::::::::::::# Network18 Group using Sacnilk - [https://www.news18.com/movies/game-changer-box-office-collection-day-14-ram-charans-film-mints-rs-75-lakh-aa-9200670.html]

:::::::::::::The list keeps going on. The reliablility should be questioned for all the sources present in the list. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Presenting their own box office figures and quoting someone else with attribution are two different things. It isn't incorrect to say "x said this" even if the "this" is incorrect, which is what all these examples are doing. Though their choice maybe questionable if it's taken at face value, The Indian Express article is also explicitly talking about the figures being questionable. Though, publications like News18 and Daily News and Analysis (a sub-portal of Zee News) aren't reliable sources for other reasons but that's not the topic here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Indian box-office figures are famously hard to pin down. The fact that Pinkvilla issues a disclaimer means that it takes this seriously, as opposed to other publications that report figures without any fact-checking. Having that said, I would want to hear the opinions of editors who actually work on Indian film related articles to come to a conclusion on this issue. Krimuk2.0 (talk)

::::::::::::I haven't really followed up on Pinkvilla so I don't really have much of an opinion. It has always been a very borderline source. But regarding the disclaimer and box-office figures, I would agree with {{u|Krimuk2.0}}. Independent and accurate estimates of box office figures are hard to come by and figures generally presented as such by most other websites, publishers, individuals, etc are not so. In that context, Pinkvilla issuing a disclaimer stating {{tq|"The box office figures are compiled from various sources and our research. The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. However, they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films in question."}} isn't a sign of unreliability but a disclosure.

::::::::::::On a sidenote, regarding the concern about their medical board brought up by {{u|JoelleJay}}. This seems like an application of US law where it doesn't apply. Those who have a doctorate or those who are "registered medical practitioners" can legally use the title "Dr." in India, i.e one can use it once they have an MBBS (a bachelor's degree) which is the equivalent of an MD in the US, with MD in India being a higher research degree. Similarly, one can use the term "clinical psychologist" if they have a post-graduate degree and "psychotherapist" isn't a legally protected term. On the other hand, the use of "Dr." for physiotherapists is a legally contentious issue with ongoing conflict between IAP and IMA, as is its use in general which in recent times has been extended to even include ayurveda practitioners (where IMA has largely given up), etc etc. In other words, in strictly the legal sense the "medical board" is probably not going afowl so I don't think it is really relevant since this isn't about WP:MEDRS, which the source isn't anyways by any stretch of imagination.

::::::::::::That said, the most problematic issue that I see being brought up is what appears to have been a mass deletion of older articles (without any in-house archiving) brought up by {{noping|Black Kite}}, not quite sure what to make of it yet. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Right after posting that I had looked up the laws on who can call themselves "Dr." in India; according to the RCI only physicians and AYUSH cranks are allowed to use that title. The "physiotherapist" indeed can call herself that in India, but cannot call herself a Dr., nor can the "clinical psychologist" (who, as a PhD student with no RCI registration, cannot claim to be a clinical psychologist either). I reported them both to their regulatory orgs last week but haven't heard back... JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I don't think you're going to hear back from them. Physiotherapists aren't regulated by RCI anymore but by NCAHP (est. 2021) which seems to grant them license to use "Dr." and so do a number of state-level councils for physiotherapists. It is legally contentious but it is commonplace for them to use it and has the backing of the IAP, without legal clarity at present. According to MHCA 2017, post-graduation from a recognised university is also sufficient to be called a "clinical psychologist". But it is correct that they can't use "Dr." according to RCI but it too is likely common and unenforced for use in non-practise settings in the present conditions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|12}} @Tayi Arajakate, thanks for the info and discourse! JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Even when it comes to Hollywood film numbers, Deadline Hollywood (which is considered the leading figure for box-office data) [https://deadline.com/2024/05/the-super-mario-bros-movie-profits-1235902894/ cites "Deadline Estimates"] as the source for its financial data. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Another issue I went to look at some older Pinkvilla pages to see if they contained the disclaimer, and couldn't tell, because the pages don't exist any more; they redirect to the home page or a custom Error 404. Indeed, it appears that pretty much every one of the first 1,150 or so Pinkvilla links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&target=%2A.pinkvilla.com here] are dead links (I haven't checked all the later ones). Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• I certainly sympathize that this information may be hard to source from actually reliable sources. It may simply be that the Indian film industry does not currently have a robust method of clearly reporting box office figures. It wouldn't be the only regional film industry with unreliable financial reporting - perhaps we just shouldn't be including box office figures in Wikipedia articles unless those box office figures are independently notable in some way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::That would be almost impossible to implement though. The Pinkvilla disclaimer stating that the numbers are "adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films", is *all* box-office data for Indian films, no matter the source. Which is why I insist on adding the "estimated" tag to all figures. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure why you think it'd be "impossible to implement" not including box office figures in articles about movies. Just delete them when they're seen in an article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Removing pertinent info on a film's reception should *not* be a go-to solution on Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It can't be that pertinent if RS aren't reporting on it. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::RS are reporting on it. But as I pointed out earlier, numbers are "estimates", just like the numbers for American films that [https://deadline.com/2024/05/the-super-mario-bros-movie-profits-1235902894/ Deadline Hollywood reports]. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.thecollector.com/ The Collector] is a website that publishes articles geared towards the general public about history, philosophy, and the arts. It is cited in many prominent articles; in fact, it brags about being cited on Wikipedia on its "About Us" page. However, a scroll through the [https://www.thecollector.com/author/ Authors] and [https://www.thecollector.com/staff/ Staff] listings reveals an overabundance of bachelors' and masters' degrees. This seems facially unacceptable given we do not treat such authors as reliable sources for claims about these topics, either for original research or presentation of existing research. I don't want to be hammered for an overeager RFC, but I would really prefer to see this outlet cited less—I just had to pry a cite off Aristotle. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• {{linksummary|thecollector.com}}

:This seems a harmless generally reliable non-WP:BESTSOURCE. Replace with academic material where relevant but I don't see it as particularly problematic. Any evidence of inaccuracy? Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it's ever acceptable to cite people who are still in school, though—which several members of its staff (not the authors, the editorial staff!) purport to be. Given its appeal is to be used for very broad-brush, tertiary claims on the subjects it covers, I see that as potentially damaging, given the characterizations of green undergrads are not generally those of PhDs in peer-reviewed publications. If it's unacceptable to cite masters' theses, I don't see why these articles would be any better—quite the contrary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::By the same logic almost every newspaper should be eliminated. Masters theses are not generally allowed because of insufficient editorial control. A journal article published by an MA or a barefoot scholar would still be reliable like any other peer reviewed work. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, a newspaper or magazine would ask a professor with relevant qualifications (usually) to write such a column, right? When both author and editor are underqualified on the topic in this way, I don't see any real justification. In any case, per the search above it's actually cited on merely hundreds of articles, which is fewer than I realized. It's at least been worthwhile to lodge a topic about this outlet in the archives for future editors, though.Remsense ‥ 论 21:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Re: "we do not treat such authors as reliable sources for claims about these topics," we regularly treat people without PhDs as reliable sources for content. What makes "these topics" special in your eyes? Re: "If it's unacceptable to cite masters' theses, I don't see why these articles would be any better," there's a big difference between material that's original research and material that isn't original research, and a masters thesis is generally rejected because it falls in the former category; but you're not talking about original research here. Re: "a newspaper or magazine would ask a professor with relevant qualifications (usually) to write such a column, right?", I'm not sure why you assume that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::If their bachelor or masters thesis were being used as sources that would be covered by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but to judge them as unreliable because they hold academic degrees in relevant fields seems an odd argument. If someone with a masters in history wrote a history book through a normal publisher then it wouldn't be a problem that they only had a masters. Is it the editorial standards that concern you? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I would find a published book by someone with only an MA to be an unreliable source. This all stems from the premise that a PhD pragmatically functions as certification that someone is qualified to conduct independent original research, particularly as concerns their field of expertise. Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think that opinion is found is any of the policy or guidelines. Certainly something like a newspaper publishing an article with details about a historical event would generally be found to be a least marginally reliable, with better sources being preferred. Obviously this is just in general, if they published exceptional claims or claims that go against better sources the situation would be different. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Isn't that expressly how postgraduate education is generally structured in fields with PhD tracks, though? Remsense ‥ 论 22:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't disagree with that, but that's not the same as the policies on reliable sources. The author having a PhD isn't something that's required here. A source just needs to be of a quality to match the content it supports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Exactly. There is no policy requirement for a PhD. If two sources conflict a more credentialed source might be given greater due weight but we certainly would not discount a book on the basis of the author not being a doctor. Simonm223 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Also your Aristotle edit replaced an OK source with a better source for functionally the same statement. And I say this as someone very familiar with Aristotle. So I would suggest that RS/N is overkill here. You could just use both sources. Simonm223 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not everyone in fields like history and the arts get PhDs; there are plenty of terminal MA programs out there. MFA (Master of Fine Arts) and MLS (Master of Library Science), for instance, are perfectly decent credentials that aren't PhDs. Even in history, an MA (Master of Arts) in History could make someone plenty qualified to work for a museum or for historic sites in, say, the U. S. National Park Service, and plenty reliable if published in a venue with editorial oversight and a basic pattern of reputable content. Sure, we're going to have a higher bar for exceptional claims, but it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aristotle&diff=1273331556&oldid=1273330966 Aristotle being homophobic is hardly cutting edge research]. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I attempted to specify that I was only speaking about {{xt|fields with PhD tracks}}, but I could've been more clear from the onset. Remsense ‥ 论 19:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There are, in fact, PhD tracks for the arts and for library science. They are not, however, universally sought or achieved. My point was that while you make it out as if having a master's degree in a field where there are also PhDs makes one equivalent to being an untrained student, but that's not really the case, as the many terminal MA programs in the world go to show. There are people who get PhDs, but there are also people who get terminal MFAs, MLSes, and MAs. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you for the further clarifications, I do appreciate them. I suppose my perspective is narrower than properly communicated, and if viable perhaps limited to history, anthropology, philosophy. Remsense ‥ 论 02:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is really not how Wikipedia's reliable source policy treats non-PhDs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again, given how curricula are generally structured in many fields, I don't see why not. At the undergraduate and masters' level, students are still being taught how to conduct research. Obviously, there are cases where non-PhDs in these fields are reliable sources, but this should not, and in practice is not, the default for MAs. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Expertise is essential for WP:SPSes and usually important for WP:RSOPINION stuff unless there's another reason their opinion is relevant; but for things published in WP:RSes that are otherwise usable for statements of fact, it isn't as strictly required because some of the reliability comes from the publisher and editorial controls, not just from the author. All else being equal a cite to a highly-cited peer-reviewed paper written by someone with a relevant PHD would obviously be better but that's true in most situations; we can still use sources that don't meet that standard for most things. I don't think "their writers lack PHDs" is a valid argument for rendering a source as a whole unreliable - assuming they have editorial controls (which their about page seems to indicate they do) and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, anyway. Like, look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1273331556&oldid=1273330966&title=Aristotle the statement you replaced the sourcing on] - it's an uncontroversial statement of a universally-accepted part of Aristotle's writings. There would be nothing wrong with citing something basic like that to a news article or pop-science magazine or the like; and this source is probably a bit above those (the authors do have some expertise.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|we do not treat such authors as reliable sources for claims about these topics}}: Er, don't we? It's not as if the journalists who write the news pieces, magazine articles, and even published books that are so frequently cited on Wikipedia usually have PhDs; and it's not even as if every article published in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a university press is written by someone with a PhD.{{pb}}Like, I'm right there with you in wanting an article like Aristotle to be based on citations of university press books, peer-reviewed journals, etc., since those are the best sources, and you're hardly wrong to replace a citation to a pop history/public history site with a citation to something more rigorous when available, but there's still considerable daylight between "meh source" and "unreliable source". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::No, all else being equal I don't think a columnist with no relevant credentials is a reliable source for these claims. I don't see where the reliability is even coming from if both the author and editorial staff are still in the process of being taught how to conduct research in their given fields. Again, if this is not the case and someone in the chain has appropriate credentials, that's obviously a different story. Remsense ‥ 论 19:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a total minority position on reliable sources for English Wikipedia. You’re entitled to it, but it goes against long-standing consensus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Could you at least gesture to where the reliability is meant to stem from, if no one involved in either writing or editing a piece of research has relevant credentials? What are our readers meant to rely on, exactly? Remsense ‥ 论 00:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Research abilities and writerly/editorial standards, as vetted by the process of getting to be hired by a reliable outlet, as vetted by the process of earning that designation among Wikipedia's editor community. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Not reliable by our standards. We only just accept PhD theses, on the grounds that the authors have studied their topic for years and theses go through an examination process (usually with multiple examiners) before acceptance. Someone with only a bachelor degree does not have anywhere near the qualifications. No sources are given, apparently by design. Besides that, why do we need it? What information does this site have that we can't find in much more scholarly places? Zero^talk 12:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The Express Tribune is a Pakistan based news source and website. According to it's "About us" page,[https://tribune.com.pk/about] The Express Tribune is its printed version and https://tribune.com.pk is it's online presence. The Tribunes claims to be linked to the International New York Times and Daily Express (Urdu newspaper).

The Express Tribune does not list its staff members nor do articles it publishes carry author credits. Articles published online by the Tribune do not hyperlink to sources of information, even in cases where the information clearly comes from an online source. For example, this article [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2526120/ryan-reynolds-calls-justin-baldoni-a-stand-up-person-in-released-texts-amid-legal-battle] explicitly discuses the releasing of a document online, but does not link to the source of it, and only contains a low resolution screenshot of content from it.

Despite being based in Pakistan, the publication releases a high volume of articles on America-based topics. How unnamed staff members in Pakistan obtain information about American topics is questionable.

Express Tribune articles can and do contain factual errors which are never corrected: For example, this article [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2480569/streamer-destiny-banned-following-hate-speech-on-trump-shooting] incorrectly identifies Corey Comperatore rather than Donald Trump as the one shot in the ear on the events of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. This article[https://tribune.com.pk/story/2525898/dylan-obriens-award-winning-twinless-reportedly-removed-from-sundance-online-after-leaks] about a film called Twinless links to an "official" film trailer which is not official at all, in fact no trailer for the film has been released at the time of this post.

This article [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2525833/ethan-klein-slams-hasan-piker-over-china-comments], in particular the final paragraph, show strong signs of being AI-generated. Given that other articles do not cite authors and do not hyperlink to the sources of information, it's possible https://tribune.com.pk uses AI to scrape other websites for content.

I suspect that https://tribune.com.pk is not reliable and is a "content mill" primarily interested in gaining traffic through interesting headlines but little content in the articles.

The views of other users would be appreciated. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:The Express Tribune appears to be a somewhat established WP:NEWSORG. I notice that all the articles from them in question are from their entertainment section. I'm of the opinion that such sections shouldn't be considered as reliable as other parts of newspapers, but I don't think that part of any policy or guideline (WP:RSENTERTAINMENT is certainly a red link). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::It is part of our policies and guidelines, WP:NEWSORG does mention "human interest reporting" which should cover it broadly. "RSENTERTAINMEMT" can be quite limiting since different publishers might have a different scope for this kind of "news" and organise them in different ways. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's an old established newspaper as far as I'm aware and they have a partnership with The New York Times (see [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/world/asia/gunmen-attack-offices-of-pakistani-media-group-in-karachi.html]), but that on its own does not mean all that much (and Daily Express is just the parent company's Urdu imprint). Reliable sources can partner with unreliable ones and many established newspapers can be quite bad. Their articles as can be seen from navigating around their home page are almost entirely Pakistan related though, except with their entertainment section filled with American and other international pop culture related things. The four examples you've picked are all from that section. They may as well be using that section as a content mill of sorts on the sly. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::The International/American section is, to the best of my knowledge, predominately what is cited on Wikipedia. Tribune.com.pk often carries articles in relation to Internet/Social Media influencers and streamers, and in many cases the Tribune is held up as a reliable source for information for those people, as it's the only one people can find with anything close to the gloss of a real news organisation reporting on the topic. As part of their coverage the Tribune will discuss serious court cases and allegations made against such people. However, I don't think Tribune.com.pk is reliable enough to be used on BLP pages, especially for those kinds of claims. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no International/American section. The section is called "Entertainment". At the top of their homepage, you'll see a horizontal bar with a list of sections (such as "Pakistan", "Business", "World", "Sports", "Entertainment", "Opinion", "Lifestyle", etc) that you can scroll through and each of their articles is tagged with the name of the section it belongs to.

:::The streamer/influencer content is all from the Entertainment section. Ideally, one doesn't source information about the Trump assassination attempt from an article on "What Streamer Destiny Said!" from the Entertainment section (one of the examples above) but rather from an article on that topic in the "World" section.

:::We can also just check their domain uses at {{duses|tribune.com.pk}} and see that it is not predominantly what is cited on Wikipedia. There are about 4 cites from the entertainment section in the first 50 articles. I can also see a lot of quality content related to personalities in the film industry, in sports, etc picked from other sections, which are being appropriately used including on Featured Articles.

:::Treat it as a general WP:NEWSORG and don't use anything from the Entertainment section or attributed to "Entertainment Desk". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have seen it used often in BLPs, especially for rumors or unconfirmed legal issues related to streamers and influencers. This generally falls under their entertainment banner. It is wholly unreliable for such claims. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Is https://cultbox.co.uk/ a reliable source? Looks to be a self-published source due to the wordpress logo, and if a search is done, it looks like the most common authors do it as a side-gig, and are not journalists. It is used a lot by the Doctor Who WikiProject, and we had a discussion that concluded that it should not be used. But the very experienced editor @Alex 21 has an issue with it, bcs it's a "local consensus" and not a community one. So I would like to see what the "community consensus" on it is? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's definitely marginal. Its editorial is quite opaque. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I've said it before on the WikiProject, but this site just doesn't seem 100% reliable. The site has no clear editorial bylines; there's an option for anyone to write for the site, and the lack of guidelines means we can't be sure what standards they're basing guest writers on. Their usual staff, at a cursory glance through their various sections from the past few years, appears to consist entirely of two writers: Ian McArdell, and Tony Jones. I've also found the occasional piece by Andrea Laford. McArdell has no journalistic credits beyond CultBox, so I can't say he's a reliable writer. Jones has had two years editorial experience with Starburst (magazine), so he seems to have at least some degree of credibility. Laford seems to have no experience beyond CultBox, at least in terms of journalistic accreditation. Scrolling through older sources, there seems to have been more authors in the past, but those I found had no experience outside of CultBox, though again I can't be sure since I'm not willing to scroll through all twenty-ish years of article publishing here.

:It's unclear what role these journalists are all playing; I don't know if they're management or just writers, because there is no byline on the website making this clear. It's unclear what kind of editorial involvement is involved behind the scenes, either. We can't guarantee if the info here is accurate or not as a result. I will say that I might consider pieces by Jones marginally reliable, as he has proper experience, but beyond that I'm not willing to give it much more than that. Authors should probably be considered reliable on a case-by-case basis depending on how credible they are outside of CultBox.

:Many of CultBox's articles cite a direct source; in the cases where they cite a source, we should cite that source directly, unless it's a random Twitter post or the like that's from unofficial media. However, they do interviews sometimes, and CultBox has an extensive history. Admittedly it's unclear sometimes if the interviews are conducted by CultBox themselves. I assume some interviews like [https://cultbox.co.uk/interviews/syndicated/matt-smith-the-sarah-jane-adventures-interview this] or [https://cultbox.co.uk/features/wallace-gromit-vengeance-most-fowl-the-creatives-speak this] were conducted by CultBox, but I can't be sure since they just dump the raw text in the article most of the time, without clarification of who did the interview or if they were the ones who did it themselves. This [https://cultbox.co.uk/interviews/exclusives/karl-greenwood-doctor-who-live-interview one], though, as an example, specifies it was conducted by CultBox directly, but doesn't specify an interviewer. These interviews might need to be looked at in greater depth to verify their authenticity, and to see if they aren't just the subjects saying the same things they said in other interviews, but I might be willing to consider these marginally reliable as Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources.

:TLDR: Articles from the majority of the staff, especially opinion pieces, are likely unreliable due to a lack of clear editorial guidelines or policies. Articles made by reputable journalists or interviews conducted by CultBox that can be verified as reliable should be used as marginally reliable sources in cases where no other information is able to fill the gap like CultBox is able to. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Just realized the reviews I mentioned above are syndicated, aka taken from other sources. To be clear, exclusive interviews are what I am discussing in regards to marginal usability; syndicated reviews should preferably use their original source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

(Previous discussion: 2021)

It seems a little odd to be starting a thread here on a website that actively admits its unreliability, but here we are. This stems from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1272372469#Disruptive_User:RangersRus this discussion (permalink)] which moved into the reliability of pinkvilla.com for box office figures (as that was the source being edit-warred over).

As I stated at that ANI, the page involved [https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/year-end-2024-top-10-highest-grossing-kollywood-movies-at-worldwide-box-office-1362528] which is being used to source box office figures, contains a disclaimer which includes the words Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data.. When I pointed this out, the reply was that a local taskforce had declared the source reliable. The discussion can be found here, and it doesn't look like a resounding approval of Pinkvilla's reliability, and this one from 2023 doesn't look too supportive either. Thoughts are welcome. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:I saw another discussion on this noticeboard last week about another project which had it's own ideas about reliability and about how they did things differently (I think it was the anime one). Perhaps a broader discussion of some type at WP:VPP should be had concerning the numerous projects which think they have jurisdiction on what is and what isn't reliable for articles within their areas of interest. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:There was a discussion about Pinkvilla earlier this month, although it didn't come to much. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 463#Pinkvilla. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::It looks obviously unreliable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Here we are again, with the perennial discussion on the reliability of Pinkvilla. As Black Kite pointed out, the last discussion among the active task force members tagged Pinkvilla as reliable, sans gossip section. Since they are the only [reliable] source available that reports box office figures closest to the onrs reported by established RS such as The Hindu, we use it for that. Once again, like TOI, they should also be taken with a pinch of salt. Nonetheless, I'd really like to get a solid consensus from the community on the reliability, before this discussion dies down. We can also explore an RfC if this fails. Thanks and happy editing :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:* {{u|Benison}} Sorry, you're clearly going to have to explain very slowly to me how a site which "does not make any claims about the authenticity of its data" is reliable for that data. Not to mention that "it should be taken with a pinch of salt"! I also don't understand, why if you have other RS for box office figures anyway, why not ... just not use it? Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:**Black Kite, I get your confusion. Sorry for that. The thing is Pinkvilla is the only source that covers the South Indian movie industry box office figures. Other sources such as Sacnilk.com are utter rubbish and totally non reliable. Hence I said it can be used. The pinch of salt is for the gossip section which I'd stay clear from.
Another point I'd like to give is I'm not pro Pinkvilla. If they are maintaining such a we-dont-care attitude in their bio, they better be blacklisted then. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:**:I would suggest that if Pinkvilla is the only source for box office figures then box office figures should be left off the article. We don't use an obviously unreliable source just to fill a blank on an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yikes, their "medical board" includes:

:*someone they call a "Dr." and "clinical psychologist" whose bio says she is a {{tq|consultant psychologist and a certified holistic health and wellness coach practising in Bangalore, India. She is pursuing her Ph.D. in psychology and is specialized in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy from U.S.A.}} (i.e. not a doctor, and legally cannot claim to be a clinical psychologist)

:*someone they call a "psychotherapist" whose bio says she is a {{tq|holistic healer specializing in Bach Flower therapy, psychotherapy, and counseling.}} and {{tq|Education: Studied Four levels of Bach Flower Therapy from The Bach Centre, Mount Vernon, Oxfordshire, and England}}

:*a "biomedical scientist and nutritionist" whose education is {{tq|Bachelor of Biomedical Science from Deakin University, Bachelor of Applied Science in Nutrition from Endeavor College}} (i.e. not a scientist, no medical or expert qualifications at all).

:*a "clinical psychologist" whose education is {{tq|MSc in Clinical Psychology with a specialization in Marriage and Family Therapy from Shahid Beheshti University}} (i.e. cannot legally call herself a clinical psychologist). Bonus: {{tq|Also certified in EMDR therapy with the EMDR International Association}}

:* a "Dr." and "clinical physiotherapist" whose education is {{tq|BPT, MPT, PGD CLINICAL NUTRITION & DIETETICS}} (none of these is a doctorate, which is legally required to call yourself a PT)

:Literally their only actual doctors, out of 23 board members, are an OB/GYN and five dermatologists chiefly advertising themselves as "aestheticians" and "cosmetologists", all of whose biographies are redirects to an author list that doesn't include them.{{pb}}Their "Expert Panel" is a bunch of relationship coaches, aromatherapists, makeup artists, and a "certified psychology expert" whose degree is a master in environmental engineering.{{pb}}This is a garbage site that intentionally misleads readers with its false medical credentials. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Pinkvilla is entertainment site. Where do you see it talking about medical board? RangersRus (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::They have it [https://www.pinkvilla.com/medical-team here] and even if what you are using Pinkvilla for is its entertainment section, this sort of information is apropos to the overall reliability of the source which, between that and the disclaimer saying they aren't actually reliable mentioned previously, would indicate this is not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for sharing that link. I can not make any judgement on the medical board site. There are over 2100 articles that use Pinkvilla source. Talking about Pinkvilla's boxoffice, not all article give the disclaimer saying the report is not reliable like [https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/saaho-vs-radhe-shyam-adipurush-salaar-box-office-analysing-prabhas-films-after-historic-baahubali-duology-1302572 here] or [https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/top-highest-grossing-indian-films-worldwide-rrr-overtakes-kgf-chapter-2-pathaan-headed-towards-1050-crores-1211636 here]. There are many such articles on Pinkvilla without such disclaimer by journalists who are expert and give expert analysis and insight into the film and media business. Some Journalists or writers who are just bollywood enthusiasts or writers of fiction, trivia, and fantasy, at Pinkvilla, give disclaimer as they are not the expert in boxoffice analysis. I agree with Benison that there are not sufficient reliable sources that give the gross figures on South Indian films. Most are from unreliable Sacnilk or reports from the makers of the film. I will be OK with any consensus that is reached through this discussion. RangersRus (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If 2100 articles have already included an unreliable source then it's best to stop introducing it into new articles and begin cleanup. "It'd be a lot of work to fix," is not a justification for retaining an unreliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::My response was informative purpose and not to give justification and yes if the end consensus is that the source is unreliable, cleanup will be done. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Simonm223, I'm sensing a great deal of offensive from you regarding this, with strong wordings suggesting that the members of the task force have been knowingly using an established unreliable source for citations. Let me make it very clear to you that the unreliable nature of Pinkvilla.com was NEVER established and there IS a rough consensus among the ICTF regulars (as evident from the multiple discussions on this matter) that Pinkvilla.com is a reliable source due to their editorial policy and the reportings they have provided until now.
The disclaimer that has been brought up now was never mentioned anywhere in those discussions (and/or we all overlooked that) and hence it was perfectly logical to use Pinkvilla.com as a RS. But now that disclaimer has been presented, it is time to rethink those decisions. Reliable or not, Pinkvilla.com is never to trusted with their gossip section and that fact has been clearly established as a consensus in the ICTF. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tqq|strong wordings suggesting that the members of the task force have been knowingly using an established unreliable source for citations.}} That's because it sure looks like that is exactly what has happened. If the disclaimer was {{tqq|overlooked}} that says unfortunate things about the task force. There may well be a local consensus that Pinkvilla is reliable in this instance, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Actually it wasn't overlooked. When checking the source for its reliability, ICTF always makes sure to check disclaimers, editorial and owner insight but the disclaimer that has now started to show up on Pinkvilla articles were not there when intially the reliability of Pinkvilla was in question. Now that such disclaimers started to show up on some (not all) of Pinkvilla articles for boxoffice figures, it is definitely something of a question on its reliability now. If this recent disclaimer and its concern was brought up in ictf talk page, consensus might have been different. RangersRus (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Exactly. I don't remember seeing such a disclaimer ever and no other ICTF regulars mentioned it either. Additionally, it was never mentioned earlier in any discussions.
The archives can be searched to see how we determine the reliability of a source. We use their official website, their editorial board, their qualifications, the editorial policy and fine print to determine the reliability, as per our P&G.
Now since they have started putting it up, it's clearly a red flag and time to reasses Pinkvilla.com. As RangersRus said, if this discussion about the disclaimer was started at the ICTF page, it will never make it into RS now. Just clearing those things up. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Please do not personalize this discussion. I am critical of the source. I am saying nothing about any given editor here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::On a related note, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_7#Reliability_of_Pinkvilla here] is the link to the discussion that originally promoted Pinkvilla to a reliable source at WP:ICTF. If you look at the revision history, you can see that the editor who implemented that change was {{u|Ab207}}. As you can see, this discussion had only three participants, Ab207, {{u|Kailash29792}} and {{u|Tayi Arajakate}}. It'd be interesting to see what they have to say about Pinkvilla's status now.

:::::::::::I personally consider Pinkvilla to be a garbage source. 193.29.183.126 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Note: this IP is a clear sock of {{u|Vax'ildan Vessar}} and considers Pinkvilla "garbage" because it reported on poor box-office returns of the film Kanguva. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Let's be real. It's not as if Pinkvilla has any major merit to be considered as anything other than garbage. 193.29.183.126 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I personally don't know or care whether it is RS or not. I'm more into maintenance and genfixes these days. What do longer term editors like {{u|Krimuk2.0}} have to say on Pinkvilla? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There are hardly very few articles which report box office collections regional wise in India. One is Bollywood Hungama which reports regional wise. But Bollywood Hungama reports only for Hindi cinema. For other languages especially South Indian films, Pinkvilla generally used to report regional wise collections.

:::::::::::::For other reliable sources present in the list Wikipedia:ICTFSOURCES, I cannot find any other source which does this. It just gives the final number either based twitter posts (trade analysts posts) or from the producers of the film or even straight away from unreliable sources.

:::::::::::::For example:

:::::::::::::# Hindustan Times which is a reliable source in the list. It straight away takes reports from unreliable source Sacnilk linking [https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/telugu-cinema/game-changer-box-office-collection-day-1-updated-live-will-ram-charan-film-beat-vvr-acharya-openings-101736514327682.html#:~:text=Game%20Changer%20box%20office%20collection,%E2%82%B951.25%20crore%20%2D%20Hindustan%20Times]. It states "According to [https://www.sacnilk.com/quicknews/RC15_2022_Box_Office_Collection_Day_1 Sacnilk], the film minted over ₹51.25 crore net in India so far on opening day, surpassing the first-day business of his last solo release Vinaya Vidheya Rama (VVR)."

:::::::::::::# Business Standard which is also a reliable source in the list, it takes twitter posts from producers as reference to report the collections [https://www.business-standard.com/entertainment/game-changer-box-office-collection-ram-charan-film-posts-186-crore-opening-nc-125011100301_1.html](also used Sacnilk). It reported 186 crore but ironically the film total final bo collection is less than the day 1 collection.

:::::::::::::# Indian Express using Sacnilk - [https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/telugu/game-changer-worldwide-box-office-collection-day-1-ram-charan-shankar-overtakes-vinaya-vidheya-rama-earns-rs-51-crore-9772659/]

:::::::::::::# Daily News and Analysis (DNA) using Sacnilk - [https://www.dnaindia.com/bollywood/report-game-changer-box-office-collection-day-1-ram-charan-shankar-kiara-advani-film-takes-fantastic-start-earns-rs-32-crores-3126501#google_vignette]

:::::::::::::# Business Today (India) using twitter trade analysts for BO - [https://www.businesstoday.in/trending/box-office/story/pushpa-2-the-rule-box-office-collection-day-25-allu-arjuns-film-tops-rs1700-crore-mark-globally-joins-dangal-baahubali-2-458892-2024-12-30]

:::::::::::::# Deccan Chronicle using producers report - [https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/game-changer-first-day-collections-ram-charan-movie-opens-to-massive-collections-at-box-office-1853486]

:::::::::::::# Network18 Group using Sacnilk - [https://www.news18.com/movies/game-changer-box-office-collection-day-14-ram-charans-film-mints-rs-75-lakh-aa-9200670.html]

:::::::::::::The list keeps going on. The reliablility should be questioned for all the sources present in the list. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Presenting their own box office figures and quoting someone else with attribution are two different things. It isn't incorrect to say "x said this" even if the "this" is incorrect, which is what all these examples are doing. Though their choice maybe questionable if it's taken at face value, The Indian Express article is also explicitly talking about the figures being questionable. Though, publications like News18 and Daily News and Analysis (a sub-portal of Zee News) aren't reliable sources for other reasons but that's not the topic here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Indian box-office figures are famously hard to pin down. The fact that Pinkvilla issues a disclaimer means that it takes this seriously, as opposed to other publications that report figures without any fact-checking. Having that said, I would want to hear the opinions of editors who actually work on Indian film related articles to come to a conclusion on this issue. Krimuk2.0 (talk)

::::::::::::I haven't really followed up on Pinkvilla so I don't really have much of an opinion. It has always been a very borderline source. But regarding the disclaimer and box-office figures, I would agree with {{u|Krimuk2.0}}. Independent and accurate estimates of box office figures are hard to come by and figures generally presented as such by most other websites, publishers, individuals, etc are not so. In that context, Pinkvilla issuing a disclaimer stating {{tq|"The box office figures are compiled from various sources and our research. The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data. However, they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films in question."}} isn't a sign of unreliability but a disclosure.

::::::::::::On a sidenote, regarding the concern about their medical board brought up by {{u|JoelleJay}}. This seems like an application of US law where it doesn't apply. Those who have a doctorate or those who are "registered medical practitioners" can legally use the title "Dr." in India, i.e one can use it once they have an MBBS (a bachelor's degree) which is the equivalent of an MD in the US, with MD in India being a higher research degree. Similarly, one can use the term "clinical psychologist" if they have a post-graduate degree and "psychotherapist" isn't a legally protected term. On the other hand, the use of "Dr." for physiotherapists is a legally contentious issue with ongoing conflict between IAP and IMA, as is its use in general which in recent times has been extended to even include ayurveda practitioners (where IMA has largely given up), etc etc. In other words, in strictly the legal sense the "medical board" is probably not going afowl so I don't think it is really relevant since this isn't about WP:MEDRS, which the source isn't anyways by any stretch of imagination.

::::::::::::That said, the most problematic issue that I see being brought up is what appears to have been a mass deletion of older articles (without any in-house archiving) brought up by {{noping|Black Kite}}, not quite sure what to make of it yet. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Right after posting that I had looked up the laws on who can call themselves "Dr." in India; according to the RCI only physicians and AYUSH cranks are allowed to use that title. The "physiotherapist" indeed can call herself that in India, but cannot call herself a Dr., nor can the "clinical psychologist" (who, as a PhD student with no RCI registration, cannot claim to be a clinical psychologist either). I reported them both to their regulatory orgs last week but haven't heard back... JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I don't think you're going to hear back from them. Physiotherapists aren't regulated by RCI anymore but by NCAHP (est. 2021) which seems to grant them license to use "Dr." and so do a number of state-level councils for physiotherapists. It is legally contentious but it is commonplace for them to use it and has the backing of the IAP, without legal clarity at present. According to MHCA 2017, post-graduation from a recognised university is also sufficient to be called a "clinical psychologist". But it is correct that they can't use "Dr." according to RCI but it too is likely common and unenforced for use in non-practise settings in the present conditions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|12}} @Tayi Arajakate, thanks for the info and discourse! JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Even when it comes to Hollywood film numbers, Deadline Hollywood (which is considered the leading figure for box-office data) [https://deadline.com/2024/05/the-super-mario-bros-movie-profits-1235902894/ cites "Deadline Estimates"] as the source for its financial data. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Another issue I went to look at some older Pinkvilla pages to see if they contained the disclaimer, and couldn't tell, because the pages don't exist any more; they redirect to the home page or a custom Error 404. Indeed, it appears that pretty much every one of the first 1,150 or so Pinkvilla links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&target=%2A.pinkvilla.com here] are dead links (I haven't checked all the later ones). Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• I certainly sympathize that this information may be hard to source from actually reliable sources. It may simply be that the Indian film industry does not currently have a robust method of clearly reporting box office figures. It wouldn't be the only regional film industry with unreliable financial reporting - perhaps we just shouldn't be including box office figures in Wikipedia articles unless those box office figures are independently notable in some way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::That would be almost impossible to implement though. The Pinkvilla disclaimer stating that the numbers are "adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the films", is *all* box-office data for Indian films, no matter the source. Which is why I insist on adding the "estimated" tag to all figures. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure why you think it'd be "impossible to implement" not including box office figures in articles about movies. Just delete them when they're seen in an article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Removing pertinent info on a film's reception should *not* be a go-to solution on Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It can't be that pertinent if RS aren't reporting on it. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::RS are reporting on it. But as I pointed out earlier, numbers are "estimates", just like the numbers for American films that [https://deadline.com/2024/05/the-super-mario-bros-movie-profits-1235902894/ Deadline Hollywood reports]. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I used the scholarly praise section on this [https://www.eerdmans.com/9780802875129/jesus-and-divine-christology/ website] to show the claim {{tq|Brant Pitre's argument that Jesus claimed to be divine has been endorsed by scholars such as Dale C. Allison Jr., Chris Tilling, Tucker Ferda, and Christine Jacobi.}} in the page Christology. Is it ok to use these quotes as reliable sources on Wikipedia?{{cite book |last= Pitre |first= Brant |author-link= Brant Pitre |year= 2024 |title= Jesus and Divine Christology |publisher= Eerdmans |isbn= 9780802875129}}{{cite web|title=Jesus and Divine Christology |url=https://www.eerdmans.com/9780802875129/jesus-and-divine-christology/|website=eerdmans.com |access-date=17 December 2024}} Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the discussion on the talk page and the revert the discussion seems to be about whether the content is due for inclusion, not about reliability. All content must be verifiable, but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. I suggest continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, there were discussions about several different subjects on Christology. I asked about this particular issue because I was told that endorsements quoted by the publisher in the publication aren't acceptable I presume at all. I was wondering if scholarly endorsements in general meet reliability and verifiability in Wikipedia in general rather than inclusion during this particular instance. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::: "Endorsements" as opposed to "reviews" are by design brief and positive, without a single negative word. As such they are not reliable as sources of the endorser's overall opinion of the work. It is not unusual to see "this is a great book" on a dust-jacket and then later a full length review by the same person in a journal which contains a lot of criticism. Zero^talk 00:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Promotional materials should always give one pause on boastful claims. They should not be accorded the same respect as actual content of books from reliable publishers, as promotions is different from editorial. (And as I just pointed out at the article itself, all four of the scholars quoted are authors for that same publisher, giving them incentive to give promotional quotes.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Ever thought about pinging the involved editors?... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:In general I wouldn't use dust jacket blurbs or that sort of thing for anything signficant. In many cases the person offering the endorsement hasn't actually read the book in question and in others the blurb is pulled from a longer review or comment which might be more nuanced than the pull. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Dust jacket blurbs might be helpful for assessing a book as a source as part of a talk page discussion; it can help to know what certain academically trained advance readers have said about a book. But citing those blurbs themselves on main space is like quoting citing the synopsis on a dust jacket, or a testimonial in advertising. I wouldn't recommend it. In any case, as ActivelyDisinterested points out, the real question here isn't reliability—sure, I would consider the dust jacket of this Eerdmans book to be a reliable source for Allison, Tilling, etc. to have said/written these things about Pitre's book; I can't think of any pattern of behavior that would suggest Eerdmans would make up their blurbs—but rather about due inclusion. I wouldn't consider the existence of dust jacket blurbs due to mention in the Christology article. They might be due in an article about Jesus and Divine Christology itself, but really it'd be better to cite published reviews rather than advance reader blurbs. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot for your take. I think I now agree that citing blurbs should be highly cautioned against if not avoided for most main articles, though I think they could be useful for articles on books themselves. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

There is a dispute over whether the Media and Journalism Research Center's entry on Al Jazeera, describing it as "state controlled" [https://statemediamonitor.com/2024/07/al-jazeera-media-network-ajmn/], based primarily on its Arabic language coverage, is a reliable source that is due to include in the Al Jazeera Media Network article. My opinion is that the source is probably okay, but it needs to be specified that it primarily refers to the Arabic language coverage. Note that this org has nothing to do with the American right-wing Media Research Center of similar name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:It does seem to primarily make its claims in regards to Arabic-language and Qatari local news, rather than its news reporting in general, so we should make sure that's clear in the text. Re: the English language reporting, it says, "Al Jazeera English (AJE) has developed its own internal editorial guidelines to ensure its independence". You could always balance out the content about the Arabic reporting with quotes about the rest of its output. Lewisguile (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::The current revision of the Al Jazeera Media Network article reflects this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

For editors other than Hemiauchenia (whom I already discussed this with at the Al Jazeera talk page), the "[Media and Journalism Research Center]'s research has been cited in research published by the European Journal of Communication in [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02673231241267145 2024] and The Political Quarterly in [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13359 2024], while MJRC director Marius Dragomir authored and contributed to UNESCO reports in [https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375061 2020] and [https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618 2022] about journalism and editorial independence, and also contributed a chapter in an edited volume published by Palgrave Macmillan in [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-70231-0 2024]. The MJRC's State Media Matrix research appears to basically overlap with this work. Dragomir has also had academic papers of his own published in Digital Journalism in [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1987948 2021], in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications in [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02605-5 2024], and in the European Journal of Communication in [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/02673231241290062 2024]". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Does Ryan Broderick meet the definition of an expert for web-comics (or any subject) as a WP:SPS? There has been discussion over at Talk:Sinfest about this. I am inclined to disagree with the idea that he meets the definition. Broderick was with Buzzfeed: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/] but lost his job due to plagiarism and now self-publishes on Substack.

I feel if Broderick can somehow be considered an expert pretty much anyone who has had anything published, regardless of any later controversy, could be considered an expert. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::Comments and analysis are at Talk:Sinfest#Use_of_Ryan_Broderick_as_limited_SPS_for_this_article ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:The discussion on the articles talk page is quite extensive, I suggest any interested editors take part there so as to avoid splitting the conversation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

An RfC some years ago on Wen Wei Po reached a clear consensus, but the RfC was not formally closed out. It looks the RfC might be a bit old for a closure request. Should the outcome of that RfC be reflected on WP:RSP? - Amigao (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:That would be a discussion for WT:RSP, as it's about the content of the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking for more opinions on [https://www.samaa.tv/advertise Samaa.tv]. Cannot find editorial oversight except for the about page which states they have a team of seasoned journalists, then say they are citizen journalists. An IP has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/39.34.187.254 adding links] to the site throughout Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Seems like a standard Pakistani WP:NEWSORG. Since 2020 it's been owned by the politician Aleem Khan, so some caution maybe on reporting that involves him or his political allies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I went to Solana (blockchain platform) to find information for a friend. I see the article is very negative. The 4th sentence says

"The blockchain has experienced several major outages, was subjected to a hack, and a class action lawsuit was filed alleging that Solana sells unregistered securities, and misled investors about the number of tokens."

I went to the talk page and see there's quite a dispute about how large the market cap of the Solana cryptocurrency is. I have not edited the article myself, but can see there's an edit war going on.

Given cryptocurrency prices change by the second, I feel stating an actual value in USD is pointless, but the article says $7 billion in 2023 and CoinMarketCap says it's $93 billion. I think it would be better to say its "approximately the 5th largest cryptocurrency by market cap"

As I wrote on the talk page, both the largest cryptocurrency exchange (Binance) and the third largest (Coinbase), say they use data from CoinMarketCap. So which (if any) of them can be considered reliable? They will all list the same value.

Note, I do hold a small amount of Solana, but my reason for getting involved is simply I would like to see a more balanced article. That doesn't seem like it will be resolved with the current editors. It looks like the page has had editing restrictions.

It would be great if someone else could look at this. Drkirkby (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Probably not, I would suggest finding other sources that discuss the subject. Primary sources such as these in the crypto topic area are always viewed with some level of mistrust. I would suggest looking through the finance sections to see if there has been any relevant reporting on the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Option 5 Blacklisting|result=The RFC has now been closed with consensus for "Option 5 Blacklisting", see the closing statement for details[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Heritage_Foundation#c-Dr_vulpes-20250208020800-The_Heritage_Foundation]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}

{{abot}}

Is [https://hbcugameday.com/2024/05/11/famu-was-a-the-center-of-a-powerful-tornado-that-made-major-damage/ this] HBCU Gameday source reliable for citing one sentence to verify tornado damage at Florida A&M? They're cited in a few other college sports articles and describe themselves as an online media outlet offering authentic and in-depth coverage of HBCU Sports and Culture. The claim I'm trying to back up is a brief mention of tornado damage to Bragg Memorial Stadium in my draft Draft:2024 Tallahassee tornadoes. Citing tornado damage appears to be on the outside of the claims they usually back up on this project, but I don't know if there's any other sources to verify as I believe no official surveys were conducted at the stadium. Departure– (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is going to depend on what content you want to support with this reference. The site in general isn't the strongest source for such information, but a source only needs to be of the same quality as the content it supports. If you just want to support a short sentence that the stadium was damaged I think it should be ok, but if you want to add extensive details I'm less sure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::I just need one or two sentences like you mentioned. The impacts at Florida H&M are verified by other reliable sources, but this is the best place I can find details for the stadium specifically. Departure– (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It should be ok for that. I wonder if the details that a couple of trees came down and a lighting poll failed may be undue (but that's not a reliability issue, see WP:BALASP). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently an Rfc about whether a blog may be used as the main source for a body content section in an article. Your feedback would be appreciated at this Rfc at Talk:ONE Championship. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)