Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#User-generated primary sources about themselves

Does political reporting by local television stations owned by Fox Television Stations fall under WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 21:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:The 2023 RFC makes no direct mention of affiliates, but the 2022 RFC specifically excluded affiliates from the close. It would probably depend on how independent the affiliate is. If they are just reposting articles from Fox News then they are probably covered by FOXNEWSPOLITICS, if it's independent reporting it won't be covered. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think Fox-affiliated TV stations are acceptable unless we see evidence of the parent company's ethos trickling down into their editorial process. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable I agree with Muboshgu above that these would still be reliable. The closest parallel I can draw to previous discussions would be Hardcore Gamer{{'s}} reliability post-acquisition by Valent, a company known for producing situational to unreliable sources like Fox. (See WP:VALNET) Without any evidence to prove that Valent's unreliable practices had trickled down into Hardcore Gamer's editorial process, however, the source was still deemed to be reliable after a discussion. Hope this was helpful, cheers! Johnson524 19:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Not unreliable - I would agree that the local affiliates are in a different category than the national FoxNews cable channel, and do not suffer from the same issues. For example, WNEW (Fox5 in NYC) has a decent reputation and is quite even-handed when it comes to coverage of politics (especially City and State politics).

:That said, some local affiliates have websites/apps that may occasionally reprint material originating from the National website/app … and when they do so, those specific bits of material might be considered downgraded - on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• No change {{--}} nobody has so far produced evidence that local staffers at regional TV channels are clinging to the biased Rupert Murdochian dogma that makes Fox News unreliable about AMPOL and other topics. BarntToust 00:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• No change for now. Dog knows what will happen when Lachlan gets his mitts on the company, but for now the regional affiliates are mostly publishing uncontroversial local reporting. I think we all know enough not to cite any Fox content in support of claims about immigrants eating cats, Ukraine starting the current war, or DOGE being about anything other than nullifying the legislative branch. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:*WHOLLY UNRELIABLE and the same should go for any of the "mandatory content" on Sinclair Broadcasting-owned stations.

:73.206.161.228 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::... do you have any evidence to prove local Fox stations partake in the same quackery the main Fox News channel does? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You're fucking joking right? They run the sponsored Fox Lies Content all the time. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::We are talking about local news coverage on politics regardless of the station{{'s}} owner, and not nationwide reruns of stuff like Tucker Carlson Tonight. I apologize for not phrasing my question correctly, but I invite you to stop discussing this matter in a advocating tone. Wikipedia is not a place to debate on political issues. I personally have my grudges against Fox News's objectively scummy practices, but the use of terms like "Fox Lies" makes me think you were probably brought here by a post on social media. For example, I don't support the Israeli government as I believe they are abusing their power, but you're not going to find me calling them the "apartheid state" on here, as it makes me look like I'm only here to advocate for anti-Zionism. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 16:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::"requiring its stations to broadcast packaged video segments and its news anchors to read prepared scripts that contain pro-Trump editorial content" - this is what Sinclair Broadcast Group and Fox Lies have done for two decades. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• No change for now - Don't want to broad brush this. But I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• No change for now per Guy and O3000, but certainly not opposed to revisiting if something does happen. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Just to note this is not an RFC, so no pseudo voting is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think these are covered by FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Only something like 20 of the 250 Fox affiliates are actually owned by Fox. The overwhelming majority have no relationship with Fox other than syndicating its national content like The Simpsons, etc. and incorporating its logo into their branding. Locally-produced news is self-contained and doesn't rely on national (except for a handful of liner segments where video and scripts are provided by Fox's "NewsEdge" service, however, that's generally inapplicable as it will only appear in over-the-air broadcasts, versus website content, and we rarely use records of terrestrial broadcasting on WP). Chetsford (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

As I work towards promoting Imran Khan to GA or FA, I am verifying whether the existing content aligns with its sources. I have come across instances where content in the article is not supported by its cited source. However, when searching online, I find reliable sources that include the same information but were published after it was added to Wikipedia. This makes me suspect that these sources may have taken the information from our poorly sourced article. How should I handle such situations, as I feel uneasy citing a source that I suspect may have relied on Wikipedia?

One such example is {{tq|Long settled in Mianwali in northwestern Punjab, his paternal family is of Pashtun descent and belongs to the Niazi tribe.Encyclopaedia Asiatica, ‘‘Comprising Indian Subcontinent, Eastern and Southern Asia’’: H. Jangtang By Edward Balfour. Published by Cosmo Publications, 1976 Item notes: v. 4. Original from the University of Michigan p.188}}}} When I checked the online version of this source, I found that page 188 did not contain this information. I removed the content since the other sources I found online appeared to have copied from Wikipedia, but another editor later restored it, citing [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/imran-khan-pakistan-former-pm-sentences-14-years-prison-corruption-b1037329.html this source]. However, I suspect that the "Who is Imran Khan?" section of that source was derived from our Wikipedia article. I have encountered similar cases where content in the article was poorly sourced but later appeared in reliable sources, seemingly after being introduced in Wikipedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:Anything that is suspected to be WP:CITOGENESIS should be removed. Anything that was published after the information was included in the Wikipedia article can reasonably be suspected to be citogenesis if they don't go into detail about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Completely agree. Unless you can find something published before the content was added to Wikipedia I would handle it with extreme scepticism, doubly so if the article is about a living person. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Khan says this in his own books. For example, the opening line of All Around View (1988) is "Both my parents came from Pathan landowning families. My father's tribe, the Niazi, arrived in India when the Lodhi Pathans were ruling in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. My mother belonged to the Burkis, a Turko-Afghan people who also came from Afghanistan, though they came to India a little later, after a dispute within their tribe. Like all Pathans, the Burkis and the Niazis were extremely proud of their backgrounds and clung on to their identity for hundreds of years".

:Of course it's possible that he's lying, but RS have repeated the claim many times. Here are two examples: [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-sydney-morning-herald-niazi-khan/168467377/|link 1] [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-independent/168467483/|link 2]. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::@GordonGlottal Thank you for pointing out those two sources. I will review them in due time and use them accordingly. However, I will be reluctant to rely on Khan's own claims, considering that they are primary sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::@GordonGlottal Would the Sydney Morning Herald piece be considered an opinion piece? It is hard for me to tell, but based on the language, it does not seem like news reporting. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::We can use primary sources. People's own reports of their parentage and ethnic identity are often treated as reliable unless there are special reasons to suspect dishonesty. (Ethnic identity is to some extent determined by the beliefs of the people involved.) Where you SHOULD be careful is claims about ancestry further back, because many families have strange ideas about their ancestry. HOWEVER, there is nothing wrong with reporting (with attribution) a family's own beliefs about their ancestry, and descriptions of their pride in their heritage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Here's another example: [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-observer-khan-niazi/168490372/ 3]. I agree with Andrew. I don't believe that Khan really knows his medieval ancestry but we should include it with attribution. The newspapers state it as fact but I feel comfortable assuming they didn't look into it. Especially because he was an athlete at the time, not a politician. BTW Khan doesn't say anything about the Niazi or the Burki in his Autobiography (1983), but he does say p. 4, "I suppose this feeling of superiority was a natural result of being born into a privileged environment. I was aware of my good fortune very early: Pakistan is a country where class divisions are sharply drawn. My father was a brilliant engineer with a post-graduate degree from Imperial College, London, who had joined the Government service. My mother's family was even more comfortably off. The best cricket ground in Lahore belongs to the Gymkhana Club; you need money and influence to become a member there. It was dominated by my mother's family". This is probably also worth mentioning. I don't have access to West and East (1975) which is his first book according to the page. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@GordonGlottal I am concerned that these might be opinion pieces since all three sources use highly subjective language. However, as suggested, I will reference one of his books and attribute it directly to him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::They're not opinion pieces, it's the normal tone of sports journalism. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@GordonGlottal Even the book review written by Akbar Ahmed, the second source you shared? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::About the quality of the book, opinion, but otherwise yeah I think the tone is normal sports journalism. Take for example [https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6216895/2025/03/21/coco-gauff-tennis-family-background-grandmother-pompey-park-delray-beach/ this article] from yesterday in the New York Times. It would be a scandalously incurious puff piece if Coco Gauff were a politician, but because she's a celebrity athlete instead it's just par for the course. When people cross over, the editors immediately regret not having covered the subjects the way they cover potential politicians. Imran Khan but also, like, Trump in 2015. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Andrew Lancaster What if the subject is trying to boast about his heritage to portray himself as belonging to a certain heritage to which he does not actually belong? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::That would in that case be a valid concern, but OTOH even if we know it is all untrue the way he reports his background is notable. So reporting with clear attribution seems the best approach? To go further than this approach implies that you have reliable sources claiming that his information is a fabrication. Do you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vZ7zBgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y this] a reliable source? I've never heard of "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" but that doesn't prove anything either way. As always when I post here, any guidance on how I could have assessed this for myself without bothering you would also be gratefully received. AndyJones (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Cambridge Scholars Publishing is an academic publisher that operates in the Cambridge UK area but is not associated with the university. They were founded by an alumnus. They are, however, an academic publisher. I would say that this book is very likely a reliable source for the incredibly specific topic of Friedrich Schlegel and his perspective on the grotesque within romanticism. I will note that Siddhartha Bose does seem to be an appropriate author to use as a RS for such a topic. (Note the red-link, we could probably make it blue). Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Is this about The Tempest again? I think I need to give that article more attention - it's my favourite Shakespeare. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:@AndyJones A small amount of text at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#Cambridge_Scholars_Publishing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, all:

• {{ping|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Thank you. That link is really useful.
• I don't really feel the point sourced from here is earning its place on the page so I think I'll just be WP:BOLD and delete it, letting others pushback if they want to.
• {{ping|Simonm223}}. Yes, this is The Tempest. Absolutely one of my favourites too: and I once played Sebastian. At the moment my involvement there arises from the suggestion that it might no longer be a GA and the process I am following is:
• Currently, perfecting all the sourcing throughout the article (making minor or consequential changes to the text as I go).
• Only then, I plan to break-out separate articles from what is now the "Legacy" section, WP:summary style. I've no intention of then taking it to WP:GAR myself: but I will invite others to decide if they want to.
• And only then, maybe to send the article to WP:peer review. I think it might have WP:FA potential, if given sufficient TLC. AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

English version has recently started having this line "This article is translated by generative AI and edited by The Korea Times." at the bottom. Under normal circumstances, both the Korean and English versions of The korean Times is considered a good source, but they've started to use AI that is overseen by a real person, rather than having a real person translate their Korean articles into English. This gives me a bit of pause, as ascribing a direct quote to someone based on an AI translation feels sketchy.

More and more mainstream reliable foreign news sources may start using generative AI to translate with oversight by real people, and there should be some policy on this. Before, with a proper human translation you could be sure. Now we're not sure how many articles that the human editor is looking at or how deeply.

Below is the same article, one on the original Korean language version of their site, and the other the Korean original.

• [http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250311/1555407 ‘소녀상 모욕’ 미 유튜버,“한국은 미국의 속국”]
• [https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2025/03/113_393798.html American YouTuber Johnny Somali sparks outrage in trial, calls Korea a US vassal state] (AI translation)

Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Tentatively, translation with human oversight is the one place that I don't mind seeing more AI. I've done that kind of work with AI outside of Wikipedia and generally find it very useful. In some ways it's a step up for anyone who would otherwise be pasting the original into Google Translate, which already uses very similar technology. There's still a chance of hallucinations, but because of the nature of translation as a task, you can always refer to the original and confirm whether something is correct. In my experience, it's much faster to get a first draft of an article translation with an LLM and then read over it side by side with the original to check for discrepancies than it would be to come up with an original translation all by myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:WP:KOREA has been informed of this discussion. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:As long as the AI translations are vetted by a human editor, as they are here, then I don’t see any issues with this. RachelTensions (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:We also discussed this on the Korea-specific reliable sources noticeboard. seefooddiet (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see an issue with this as they're openly disclosing the use of AI, and I am in agreement with Rosguill's comment about translation with human oversight. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Honesty? Translation of a text or statement from one language into another requires inherent{{--}}but not harrowing{{--}}liberty of interpretation. It'll be the same way with AI, I suppose. BarntToust 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::While AI-assisted translation with human oversight can be useful, I believe we should be cautious when using AI-translated articles as sources. Even with human review, nuances and meanings can be altered, especially in complex topics. If The Korea Times and other sources continue using AI translations, we may need clearer guidelines on how to treat them in terms of reliability. Jeong seolah (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to note that the both outlets only share the same English title. The U.S.-based Korean-language newspaper (koreatimes.com) used to be the American edition of the Hankook Ilbo, but they are under the different owners now. Hankook Ilbo in South Korea (none of the founder's family owns it anymore, by the way) still publishes The Korea Times as its English edition (koreatimes.co.kr), but The Korea Times in South Korea and The Korea Times in the United States (the latter of which is owned by one of the sons of the Hankook Ilbo{{'}}s founder) no longer have common ties. --183.101.53.185 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Ah, thanks for the update. It's often difficult to keep track of these things. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

An editor on Wuhan Institute of Virology is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan%20Institute%20of%20Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281297426 claiming] that adding the claim that highly qualified virologists linked to the lab quoted in high quality RS with concerns about inadequate safety standards requires "journals" as references.

Some RS in question:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/ralph-baric-wuhan-lab-leak

{{Blockquote|"Baric testified that he had specifically warned Shi Zhengli that the WIV’s critical coronavirus research was being conducted in labs with insufficient biosafety protections."}}

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/

{{Blockquote|"Unnoticed by most, however, was a key difference that significantly shifted the risk calculation. The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+."}}

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/26/1030043/gain-of-function-research-coronavirus-ralph-baric-vaccines/

{{Blockquote|"Historically, the Chinese have done a lot of their bat coronavirus research under BSL-2 conditions. Obviously, the safety standards of BSL-2 are different than BSL-3, and lab-acquired infections occur much more frequently at BSL-2. There is also much less oversight at BSL-2."}}

I would add:

https://www.science.org/content/article/house-lawmakers-both-sides-grill-head-nonprofit-worked-with-chinese-virologists

{{Blockquote|"In Baric emails and in testimony he gave to the panel described today in , Baric, who had proposed engineering bat coronaviruses, says he felt that any work with such viruses should take place in biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory, not the lower security BSL-2 lab that WIV scientists apparently used for such work."}}

180.249.187.157 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:THey might be enough to say "according to the Baric the safety measures were not enough". Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::The IP is probably running up against WP:MEDRS which is a particularly thorny part of WP:RS policy and guidance. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::They could still be used to say Baric testified that he had warned them of a safety risk. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Well testified he claimed there was. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|MasterBlasterofBarterTown}} {{ping|Lova Falk}} {{ping| Bon courage}} 180.249.187.157 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Count me out, I don't want to be involved in this any more. Lova Falk (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe the sources are adequate for the inclusion into the article. This isn't a WP:MEDRS issue as the topic is not specifically related to any medical or health claims. This is an issue about how the lab was run and perceived deficiencies as noted in reliable sources. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:There are excellent secondary scholarly sources for this, so no need for popular magazines or primary sources. Nobody has raised MEDRS except the complainants, so that seems like a false framing of the dispute, which is unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::If there are scholarly sources saying there were no safety concerns at the lab, why do you feel the need to cite an oped from a non-expert criticising the ProPublica and Vanity Fair [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281318550]? Vanity Fair's feature piece on Baric's testimony on the safety standards at the WIV passed through an editorial process, unlike opeds in LA Times, which are subject only to editorial review. One is WP:OPINION and the other is actual reporting. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I "cite" no such article, but it does illustrate how Propublica and VF were laughed-at for their lab leak conspiracy-mongering. There are indeed concerns from Baric about WIV lab safety, and we mention them in the article cited to Cell, perhaps the most esteemed scientific journal on the planet. Job done. We don't need ancillary lab leak nonsense from shite sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281260462 initially claimed] Baric didn't harbour the concerns the Vanity Fair and the Science Magazine articles expressly shows him testifying to Congress about. Your subsequent dismissal of these RS as "shite" and "crap" is both inaccurate and uncivil. Such a dismissive attitude undermines the value of reliable sources used across Wikipedia and has already led one editor to withdraw from the topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1281317010]. These RS add crucial details and context you seek to prune from the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281260040] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281283832]. It obviously puts into question the below section about speculation being "conspiratorial", while Baric in his Cell piece calls it "reasonable". 180.249.187.157 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Baric's claim seems to be mentioned in the article. Slatersteven (talk)

:: Baric's claim are really only given a cursory mention and there is far more information in the VF and PP articles. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::THat is an wp:undue issue, as we seem to mention his claim, beyond adding "he also expressed concerns about safety" thre is not much more we should add. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::: My point is we don't actually mention his claim. Sure, he's cited in the article but not on this particular issue. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps that's because it would contradict the below section labeling any link to the origin of covid as conspiratorial which some editors would like to keep indefinitely? The Baric piece in Cell says "other explanations remain reasonable", which contradicts the conspiracy label. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Whether content should be included, and how much space should be given over to it, are matters of WP:NPOV not reliability. The provided sources would be reliable for the fact that Baric made those claims in his testimony, which is already in the article. If more spaces shod be given to Baric'd claims isn't about reliability, but weighing his testimony with all the other sources and details (WP:DUE/WP:BALASP). Such matters are part of WP:NPOV and are beyond the scope of this noticeboard per the header. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That may be worth discussing on NPOVN but right now we need a consensus on whether sources such as Vanity Fair and MIT Tech Review are reliable enough sources to quote Baric's testimony on the subject. Currently we cite only his Cell article, which was from much earlier on in the pandemic, and is primary source for his concerns about the lab's safety. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I would say they were reliable for quotes, "Baric said such and such", or for stating that he made certain claims in his testimony, but the issue appears to be more about what to include and reliability doesn't guarantee inclusion (see WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: The objection to inclusion (primarily) made by Bon courage is these are not reliable sources with Bon courage making claims they are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281322501 "crap sources"] .. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology&diff=prev&oldid=1281318550 "notoriously so"]. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not quite true. These are low-quality sources. We have better, i.e. some WP:BESTSOURCES to hand. Use them I say, not these crappy ones. That helps with NPOV (and yes, this is a NPOV issue). Bon courage (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::You left off that they demonstrated RSes that referred to the Vanity Faire / Pro Publica exposee as a train wreck. [https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-01/column-propublica-vanity-fair-covid-lab-leak-expose-train-wreck] Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|The article is based heavily on Chinese-language documents that appear to have been mistranslated and misinterpreted, according to Chinese language experts who have piled on via social media since its publication.}} Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Is one op-ed by a business columnist enough to justify exclusion? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::A Pulitzer prize winner? Oh it's enough that any editors left insisting on the "train-wreck" source (when we have peer-reviewed scholarship to hand), it pretty plainly a POV-pusher who is WP:NOTHERE. Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I didn't recommend including the Pro Publica piece, as it was a mistake to propose it. Only Baric and Lipkin's views meet WP:DUE (WP:NPOV) standards, as they are directly linked to the lab, making their concerns significant. There is really no good reason to break with policy (and civility) and call reliable sources "shite" and "crap" just because you don't agree with what their contents, and the Hiltzik piece is really irrelevant because the Science Magazine article citing Baric's position is a good RS, as is the Vanity Fair piece itself. Any NPOV concerns can be addressed in an RFC if needed. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There's a policy WP:CIVIL, about how to deal with other editors, but these no civility standards. Different cultures have different opinions about such things, so someone saying a sources is crap is completely acceptable. In fact civility policing is generally frowned upon. As to further discussion or an RFC it appears everyone agrees this is an NPOV, so this is not the proper place for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::In our culture, on Wikipedia, dismissing such high-quality sources in such a politically charged topic while using such language is not only uncivil but also completely unacceptable. This type of behaviour is aggressive, disrespectful, hostile, and undermines the collaborative spirit that Wikipedia was built on. Such contemptuous demeanour also contributes to the ongoing gender imbalance on Wikipedia, and we've already seen a good-faith female editor withdraw from this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1281317010]. Frankly, this conduct is disgusting, and had ANI not been locked out for IPs, I would have raised this there. However, I will still ping the relevant admins here: {{ping|JPxG}}, {{ping|asilvering}}. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Well, no comment on any of the sources here, but I would say that, in general, it's not a good idea to dismiss any source as "crap" or whatever, since that's simply not a very helpful kind of comment. Regarding the Covid lab leak page in particular, which periodically gets waves of attention from new and inexperienced editors, I would really strongly encourage all of the experienced editors there to avoid using language that is not both clear and informative. So instead of, for example, "No, the Daily Mail is shite not worth the paper it's printed on", consider something like "sorry, we don't use the Daily Mail on wikipedia at all, since it's been deprecated as an unreliable source, see WP:DAILYMAIL". The first just really just says "no" (or, if you read it as the IP editor has, something more like "no, and fuck you"). The second says "no, here's why, and here's where you can learn more." Much more helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::No "new or inexperienced" editor brought up the "Daily Mail". Experienced editors (of varying degrees) brought top shelf RS, like a Vanity Fair and MIT Tech article, and even when shown that Science Magazine references the same article, the editor continued dismissing it. A Pro Publica article was also brought up by User:Lova Falk (a good RS usually but problematic in this case, which we could have discussed), but due to this bullying behaviour, she won't comment here anymore. I would like to see you as an admin acknowledge this complaint and take the appropriate action. 180.249.187.139 (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The VF and Propublica sources are the same 'train wreck'[https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-01/column-propublica-vanity-fair-covid-lab-leak-expose-train-wreck] These are not 'top shelf RS' especially when we have an article in Cell (journal) to hand (which really is top quality, as it is thre top-ranked journal in its field). Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::IP, as I said, I was making no comment on any of the sources in this discussion, my suggestion was a general one, and the Daily Mail was an example. (However, it is an example that has come up specifically on the lab leak talk page in the past day.) I'm not going to interfere, as an administrator, in a WP:RSN discussion I was tagged into, that isn't directly related to an admin action I've taken. But if you would like to make a complaint about repeated incivility or other disruption in the topic area, I can take that to ANI for you. Just write the post on your talk page as you would like it to appear on ANI, then tag me to your talk page. I'll copy it over for you. -- asilvering (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::With the utmost respect, it's best to at least try to deescalate and avoid running to authorities over what may be construed as a simple misunderstanding. See Wikipedia:Pearl-clutching. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Literally nothing since I wrote my last comment is about the reliability of sources, this is not a general forum. This is not a place to have another general discussion about the lab leak theory, or behavioural concerns about editors. If behaviour is unacceptable then take it to ANI, otherwise casting aspersions is also unacceptable. If you wish to discuss how to handle conflict in a particular subject area I suggest the village pump. If you wish to discuss the weighting of sources in the article, that's what the articles talk page is for. The noticeboard header is quite clear {{tq|This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, I'm not even sure why "reliability" on the table. The questions (from article Talk) are of quality of sources and NPOV. Oh, and about avoiding coatracking lab leak stuff into an article about a virology institute. Bon courage (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I think this discussion was worth having, establishing the reliability of the sources, particularly the Vanity Fair piece and the Science Magazine article citing it as to Baric's concerns. The Cell article is primary source for Baric's concerns about the lab's safety, and is also missing details. Of course we will need to have the WP:DUE discussion on the page. 180.249.187.139 (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Just to clarify reporting of events and quotes from a subject are also primary sources. Parts of the VF / SM articles might be secondary, but probably not all of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::So we would use the parts considered secondary. Still better than using a source that is entirely primary and lacks any quotes for attribution. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::You appear to be making the mistake that primary sources are somehow unreliable, that's not true. Being primary or secondary is less a reliability matter and more about how they should be used, WP:PRIMARY gives more guidance on their use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::It wasn't claimed that the primary source was unreliable, only that secondary sources are better, especially as the Vanity Fair article that Science Magazine cites is more recent and detailed. I posted a question about the WP:DUE issue on WP:NPOVN. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I decided to continue the conversation from this talk page. Pinging {{u|Toadspike}}, {{u|Justanothersgwikieditor}}, {{u|Robertsky}} and {{u|Chipmunkdavis}} who were involved in that discussion, and other active Singapore users ({{u|S5A-0043}}, {{u|Brachy0008}}, {{u|Actuall7}} and {{u|Sculture65}}).

In my view, Mothership leans towards WP:TABLOID given its style and structure. From [https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2024/singapore Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism], it stated that "it [mothership] drew flak after writing an article about a social media video that triggered public outrage against its creator. The article had included some inaccuracies, and Mothership apologised and updated the article." The newspaper had also lost its press accreditation for breaking news embargo twice [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/motherships-press-accreditation-suspended-with-immediate-effect-for-breaking-budget-embargo in Feb 2022] and [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mothership-s-press-accreditation-suspended-by-mci-for-breaking-embargo-on-pub-announcement in November 2024]. In my view, its reliability is somewhat like Daily Mail or The New York Post.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Jumping the gun on a government news embargo and writing an article with errors that are later corrected are not grounds on their own for treating a source as unreliable. However it certainly doesn't seem like the *best* source either.

:What I'd say, unless we have some more evidence of them publishing false information than an issue for which a correction was issued, is additional considerations apply - be careful not to use wiki voice for claims and use better sources where available. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{+1}} This is essentially what I suggested on the article talk page. I think it'd be a good compromise. Toadspike [Talk] 14:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::I also disagree that losing its press accreditation from the Singaporean government should be a measure of reliability, and that it is anywhere close to the Daily Mail or NY Post, which are extremely unreliable tabloids known for publishing uncountable falsehoods and fabrications, with the result that they are constantly being sued for libel – as far as I know, this is far from the case at Mothership. Toadspike [Talk] 14:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Another concern is also how reliant Mothership is on user-generated content or taking posts right from social media. Such as an instance of [https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/ompapd/inspired_by_recent_events_i_created_a_quiz_to/ a redditor who made a KTV quiz], and later [https://mothership.sg/2021/07/condo-or-ktv-quiz/ mothership published about it] without giving credit. Or [https://mothership.sg/2017/01/10-fun-facts-about-singapore-you-might-not-have-known-before-reading-this/ this instance] when the reddit thread was discussing fun facts in Singapore. They also directly lifted from other credible sources (such as [https://mothership.sg/2025/03/rain-congestion-woodlands-jb-woman-faint/ this article] from [https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/rain-worsens-congestion-causeway-woman-faints-bus-queue AsiaOne]) or even from Stomp, a citizen-based "journalist" website ([https://mothership.sg/2022/03/woman-hit-boy-police-investigating/ Mothership] vs [https://stomp.straitstimes.com/singapore-seen/woman-twists-boys-ear-in-public-police-investigating-after-stomp-reader-lodges-report Stomp]). They had also ran sensationalist headlines to generate views such as: [https://mothership.sg/2020/05/boy-eat-mcdonalds-cry/ "S'pore boy, 9, cries tears of joy upon eating McNuggets again after 3 weeks of closure"], which many people on the internet then lambasted the boy as spolit, entitled brat and were even attacking the mom all over the comment section just based on the headline itself. Needless to say, the quality of "journalism" on Mothership is highly questionable. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Overall, we rate Mothership ... Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources.}} ([https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mothership-singapore/ Media Bias Fact Check]). – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::I hate to be that guy, but that site is considered generally unreliable at RSP (see WP:MBFC). A site which we'd expect to have a PAP affiliation is called "left-center" and a post on how to be polite to people fasting during Ramadan is called "progressive leaning on social issues", two misapplications of US-centric terminology. Finally, despite the "Mixed" credibility rating it also notes no failed fact checks in the last five years. Toadspike [Talk] 15:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Transferring from the article talk: I think Mothership should be listed as "additional considerations apply", with the following considerations:

1. Mothership is considered unreliable for Singaporean politics and BLPs.
2. Editors should prefer other sources where possible.
3. Editors should check for plagiarized content and cite the original source instead.

Toadspike [Talk] 14:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:IF there's evidence of plagiarism that would be of interest for determining the level of reliability - I have not seen such evidence yet. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::In Mothership's article, it states that it was involved in a small case of plagiarism with Today back in 2019, although I don't think this one incident is enough to say that Mothership frequently plagiarises. I personally think that Mothership is a low-quality source, but I wouldn't call it totally unreliable. Mothership just puts really low effort in all its articles and it would simply be better if other sources were used instead of Mothership, like stated in the second consideration point. Actuall7 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah. That all seems appropriate. Not a great source; prefer others where available, probably not entirely unreliable though. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:My preference is between 2 and 3. – robertsky (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:personally, mothership is an outright no-go for politics and BLPs (though for SG politics anything from singapore is an outright no-go), so 1 and 2 are my preferences. at a glance, mothership seems to be a “OMG X happened OMG OMG OMG” and is a bit sensationalist but that's just me. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This site was previously brought here for analysis 6 years ago by {{u|SamHolt6}}, but did not receive any kind of engagement. While working on List of awards and nominations received by Tyla, the aforementioned site's reliability was questioned on this FLC. Earlier today, {{u|Colanao Khod}} added multiple noms supported by [https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/urban-music-awards-launches-sa-unveils-nominees this], which literally copied its content from the [https://www.urbanmusicawards.co/urban-music-awards-celebrates-20th-anniversary-with-historic-expansion-to-south-africa/ this]. Also, {{u|Colanao Khod}} only use Music in Africa for awards/noms even if there are green sources, which makes me suspect COI. Question, {{Background colour|yellow|is Music in Africa a reliable source or not?}} dxneo (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Music in Africa looks to be a reliable source, but I don't know how independent it is from artists. Their FAQ[https://www.musicinafrica.net/about/faq] explains how artists or companies can control profiles and submit articles for publication. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::ActivelyDisinterested, [https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/urban-music-awards-launches-sa-unveils-nominees this] right here is the nomination list for the Urban Music Awards South Africa, what is so interesting is that they mention a Nasty C and Lil Wayne song, a song which does not exist by the way. It is also funny how is I only see one author writing everything on the site. dxneo (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If I search Google for 'Nasty C, Lil Wayne Dreams' it returns a page at urbanmusicawards.co[https://www.urbanmusicawards.co/urban-music-awards-celebrates-20th-anniversary-with-historic-expansion-to-south-africa/], but even though the Google preview shows the song the actual page doesn't mention it. This happens when the page has been changed after Google indexed it. The post at Music in Africa is a press release from the Urban Music Awards, I'd bet most of the content post on the site is the same. I'm guessing UMA garbled there press release, it was posted to MiA, and only corrected at the UMA's own website.
As I said the content of Music in Africa shouldn't be considered to be independent of the subject it's articles are about. The byline on the MiA article is just whoever republished UMA's press release. Which probably also explains why the same person can publish so many articles, they're not - they are just republishing whatever gets sent in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think Music in Africa might be problematic as a source due to its reliance on press releases, like the potentially inaccurate Nasty C and Lil Wayne song mention, and the lack of independent verification. Since one author seems to be responsible for much of the content, this suggests a lack of editorial oversight. It’s safer to avoid using this site for critical information unless supported by more independent, reliable sources. Additionally, Colanao Khod’s use of this site for nominations raises questions of potential conflict of interest. I don't think this should count as an RS.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Gjb0zWxOb, I totally agree with you. It isn't reliable at all. dxneo (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::...and if they are republishing other sites' work, why aren't they giving credit like ''MSN and allAfrica? dxneo (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Special:LinkSearch/idilnews.com has 222 results, but [https://www.idilnews.com/2018/05/22/video-madaxweynaha-khaatumo-oo-soo-gaaray-garowe-shir-jaraaid-na-qabtay/], [https://www.idilnews.com/2019/02/04/video-daawo-reer-boorama-oo-xusay-xasuuqii-snm-ay-ugaysatay-1991/] and [https://www.idilnews.com/2020/07/18/madaxweyne-deni-oo-loo-doortay-guddoomiyaha-urur-siyaasadeedka-kaah-video/] from 2018–2020 are dead links. What concerned me is [https://www.idilnews.com/al-shabaab-captures-villages-near-mogadishu-prompting-somalias-plea-for-ethiopian-intervention/] giving the author name in a non-standard font as "𝕯𝖗. 𝐗𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐈𝐆". Is this seriously a reliable source? That's what I'd expect from a kid's YouTube channel. The author of [https://www.idilnews.com/mogadishual-shabaab-ied-attack-kills-20-at-dayniile-cafe-dozens-injured-initial-reports/] is written in a standard font, but it comes from the same source and is used in In the news, where another "𝕯𝖗. 𝐗𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐈𝐆" article appears. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable sources should have {{tq|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. I can find literally nothing about Idil News online, and they dont publish any details about themselves. I would suggest lots of caution with sourcing anything to them, and against using them as a source for anything contentious about a living person. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Paging @QalasQalas as they seem to be used often for Somalia-related stories. Hiiraan Online seems to be a far more reputable-appearing source for similar topics, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks @The Kip, Somalia has 18 regions and 5 to 6 states. Hiiraan Online, [https://kaabtv.com/ Kaab TV], and [https://shabellemedia.com/ Shabelle News] primarily cover southern and central Somalia. When I referenced [https://www.idilnews.com/ Idil News], Garowe Online, [https://isbahaysi.com/ Isbahaysi], [https://hbnonlinetv.com/ HBN Online], [https://thesomalidigest.com/ The Somali Digest], and [https://www.hornobserver.com/ Horn Observer], it was because they mainly focus on the northern (Autonomous regions) e.g. Puntland and Somaliland. That is why. QalasQalas (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=CLOSED|reason=Pointing out that actual reliability is about context, as stated in the noticeboard header, is very rarely useful, as many editor are just looking for advice and guidance. However unless there is something more concrete than a discussion about a whole academic field - WP:RSCONTEXT - this is discussion is just to broad. If you wish to continue discussing this subject please find somewhere appropriate, because this noticeby isn't that place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop|status=closed|reason=Per {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} the first time this was closed, and also because of the discussion following the reopening, there is clearly no chance for this proposal to prevail. Loki (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Moved bottom down because closed means closed. Loki (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:If you're going to keep responding to comments in the discussion, can you do it in the actual discussion and not by tacking them at the end of the WP:SUPERHAT? jp×g🗯️ 06:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)}}

I propose that we form a consensus around the (un)reliability of these sources and authors. "Emancipatory scholarship" refers to academic work that produces peer-reviewed scholarly material rooted in activism, aiming to drive societal change rather than pursue neutral, empirical investigation. This approach focuses on social, political, and cultural issues, often seeking to challenge power structures and dismantle purported systems of oppression. Unlike traditional scientific scholarship, which prioritizes objectivity, emancipatory scholarship embraces a clear agenda, blending theory with activism to advocate for social justice, equality, and the empowerment of marginalized groups.{{Cite journal |last=Garvey |first=Jason C. |last2=Hart |first2=Jayson |last3=Hoffman |first3=Garrett D. |title=Performing Critical Work: The Challenges of Emancipatory Scholarship in the Academic Marketplace |journal=Critical Questions in Education |volume=8 |issue=2 |year=2017 |pages=138–153 |url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135613}} Its reliance on subjective, qualitative methods aligns it more closely with opinion pieces or primary source expressions of value than with impartial secondary source products of neutral analysis of the variety typically associated with peer-reviewed academic work.{{cite book |last1=Sokal |first1=Alan |last2=Bricmont |first2=Jean |title=Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |year=1998 |publisher=Picador |location=New York |isbn=978-0-312-20407-5}} Wikipedia aims to maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), relying on credible, independent sources to present verifiable knowledge free from bias. Far from independent of the societal phenomena that readers would depend upon them to dispassionately observe and record, these authors are active participants in contentious political conflicts, using their writings as a form of activism and their academic position of authority as a pulpit to promote their political objectives. Though these authors' vision of social progress may be laudable and align with the personal convictions of many of our editors, their work is inherently laden with the value-driven purpose of promoting change rather than depicting verifiable information, rendering it generally unreliable as a secondary source for encyclopedic content.{{Cite book |last=Lazar |first=Michelle M. |chapter=Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Relevance for Current Gender and Language Research |title=The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality |editor-last=Ehrlich |editor-first=Susan |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=2014 |isbn=9781118584248 |pages=180–199 |doi=10.1002/9781118584248.ch9}} Using it to support claims stated in Wikivoice risks violating NPOV by presenting biased perspectives as if they were objective facts. Still, when used cautiously as a primary source with attribution, it can provide insight into the activist views of its authors or the movements they represent, though it is unsuitable for establishing broadly applicable facts. While valuable for studying social justice perspectives or the scholars themselves, emancipatory scholarship falls short of the reliability standards required for Wikipedia’s foundational references.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of authors, academic journals and disciplines associated with "emancipatory scholarship," characterized by activism-driven academic work aimed at societal change rather than neutral investigation. These sources often require attribution as primary or opinion-based perspectives rather than reliable secondary sources for neutral encyclopedic content.

• bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins) - Feminist theorist and cultural critic known for blending personal narrative with activism to challenge oppressive systems. Her work, such as Teaching to Transgress (1994), advocates for transformative education and social justice.{{Cite book |last=hooks |first=bell |title=Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom |publisher=Routledge |year=1994 |isbn=9780415908085}} Claims should be attributed to her feminist activist perspective.
• Paulo Freire - Brazilian educator and philosopher whose Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968) promotes education as a tool for liberation, rooted in Marxist and anti-colonial ideals.{{Cite book |last=Freire |first=Paulo |title=Pedagogy of the Oppressed |publisher=Continuum |year=2000 |isbn=9780826412768 |orig-year=1968}} Use as a primary source for critical pedagogy, not objective analysis.
• Kimberlé Crenshaw - Legal scholar and critical race theorist who developed intersectionality, as seen in "Mapping the Margins" (1991), to address overlapping oppressions with an activist agenda.{{Cite journal |last=Crenshaw |first=Kimberlé |title=Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color |journal=Stanford Law Review |volume=43 |issue=6 |year=1991 |pages=1241–1299 |doi=10.2307/1229039}} Frame as part of critical race activism.
• Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak - Postcolonial theorist whose essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" (1988) critiques imperialism and advocates for marginalized voices with a normative stance.{{Cite book |last=Spivak |first=Gayatri Chakravorty |chapter=Can the Subaltern Speak? |title=Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture |editor-last=Nelson |editor-first=Cary |publisher=University of Illinois Press |year=1988 |isbn=9780252014017 |pages=271–313}} Treat as a primary postcolonial perspective.
• Sara Ahmed - Feminist and queer theorist whose Living a Feminist Life (2017) uses qualitative insights to challenge institutional norms and promote feminist praxis.{{Cite book |last=Ahmed |first=Sara |title=Living a Feminist Life |publisher=Duke University Press |year=2017 |isbn=9780822363194}} Cite as representing feminist activist scholarship.

• Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy - Publishes peer-reviewed feminist philosophy often aimed at advancing praxis and challenging patriarchy.{{Cite web |title=Hypatia |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia |publisher=Cambridge University Press}} Attribute articles to specific feminist perspectives.
• Race Ethnicity and Education - Features critical race scholarship critiquing systemic racism in education with a focus on equity and justice.{{Cite web |title=Race Ethnicity and Education |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cree20/current |publisher=Taylor & Francis}} Use as a primary source for critical race views.
• Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies - Emphasizes qualitative, interpretive methods to challenge dominant ideologies with an emancipatory bent.{{Cite web |title=Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/home/csc |publisher=SAGE Publications}} Flag as reflecting activist methodologies.
• Feminist Studies - Combines feminist theory with activism to disrupt oppressive structures through peer-reviewed articles.{{Cite web |title=Feminist Studies |url=https://www.feministstudies.org/ |publisher=Feminist Studies, Inc.}} Attribute to feminist scholars or movements.
• Journal of Critical Pedagogy - Inspired by Freire, it promotes teaching for social justice and empowerment over empirical analysis.{{Cite web |title=Journal of Critical Pedagogy |url=https://radicalpedagogy.org/ |publisher=Radical Pedagogy}} Treat as a source of pedagogical activism.

• Critical pedagogy - Focuses on education as a means of empowerment and liberation, often inspired by Freire, aiming to dismantle oppressive structures rather than neutrally study teaching methods.
• Critical race theory - Examines systemic racism and power dynamics in law and society, advocating for racial justice, as seen in Crenshaw’s work and Race Ethnicity and Education. Prioritizes activism over detached analysis.
• Feminist theory - Analyzes gender inequality with an explicit goal of societal transformation, evident in hooks, Ahmed, and journals like Feminist Studies and Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. Emphasizes praxis over objectivity.
• Postcolonial theory - Critiques colonial legacies and amplifies subaltern voices, as in Spivak’s work, with a normative aim to reshape cultural and political narratives rather than objectively document history.
• Queer theory - Challenges normative assumptions about gender and sexuality, often with an activist intention, as seen in Ahmed’s scholarship, blending theory with efforts to disrupt institutional norms.

Manuductive (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{talkref}}

:You appear to be looking to eliminate sources because they are biased; WP:BIASEDSOURCES tells us that biased sources are acceptable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also, AI generated requests are frowned upon. GRuban (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I undid[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1282077214] {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}'s close because I agree with the OP that forms of academia primarily seeking to cause social change often have trouble staying reliable. To give an example, Disability Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the Society for Disability Studies has 241 links on Wikipedia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=dsq-sds.org] It also promotes the pseudoscientific theory of facilitated communication,[https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/search/index?query=facilitated+communication&dateFromYear=&dateFromMonth=&dateFromDay=&dateToYear=&dateToMonth=&dateToDay=&authors=] and even published an article labelling opposition to FC as a form of hate speech:

{{tqb|The focus of this paper is the political aspects of the controversy over the use of FC as a communication tool and the ways in which anti-FC rhetoric oppresses FC users. In the face of studies that have validated the authorship of FC users, and given the growing number of former FC users who now type independently, continued anti-FC expression functions as hate speech when it calls into question, without substantiation, the intellectual competence of FC users, thereby undermining their opportunity to exercise their right to freedom of expression.}}[https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/1729/1777]

Because of problems like this, WP:MEDSCI warns {{tq|be careful of material published in disreputable journals or disreputable fields}}. While I'm not in favour of the OP's maximalist (and possibly AI-generated) position that all grievance studies journals are generally unreliable, the close that "there's no chance that a whole field of academic study would ever be declared unreliable" isn't accurate. There are tiers of reliability, and scholars in certain areas let their desire to create change outweigh factual evidence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am tempted to restore the close because I believe ActivelyDisinterested's close is accurate as stated. This is a clear WP:SNOW close situation: there is no possible way this process can end the way OP wants. Loki (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Discussions about entire fields would fit better at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Here at RSN, we prefer to discuss each of the authors and academic journal in a separate section. The nomination included 10 different sources, which might be more than we can handle at once. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry but this is an entirely daft discussion. Unreliable for what? Are they unreliable for the field of study they represent? If there is a question about a particular source and particular content then this would make sense. If a source is pushing fringe nonsense like facilitated communication then that source can be discussed, but a discussion about an entire field of study is going nowhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::This looks like a patently absurd request. Declaring an entire academic discipline unreliable is an attack against the foundations of Wikipedia and this discussion should be immediately closed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Also the citations to Sokal's fashionable nonsense are entirely irrelevant - Sokal's writing, which has subsequently faced pretty heavy critique, was focused entirely on poststructural philosophy; not on queer studies, feminist studies or the various other social science disciplines the OP wants to see removed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Unreliable as independent secondary sources on the subjects they're discussing. Certain authors can be primary source representations of their own views without being reliable to cite factual claims in Wikivoice. For example, an author in a peer-reviewed article in the field of CRT saying "The United States is an inherently racist society", you could cite in an article about that person's views or the political faction they represent, but not without attribution in an article about The United States. And that is not against the foundations of Wikipedia to say we should properly attribute critical perspectives. Manuductive (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It sounds like you're suggesting that critical perspectives must be attributed but non-critical perspectives need not be. That would be absolutely contrary to WP:NPOV. You object to emancipatory scholarship, we get it. Your personal views about that are not what determines how WP deals with scholarly fields. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with Loki, ActivelyDisinterested, and Simonm223. @Chess, these are not "disreputable fields." The journals are not "grievance studies journals," and the fact that that's how you're referring to them suggests a significant bias on your end. It was a mistake for you to have reopened this section, as it will only waste editors' time/energy. It should be reclosed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Why the heck is anyone taking this bullshit-bot-generated drivel seriously? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::I tried to close it last night[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1281943938], but it was reopened[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1282077214]. Something I believe to be a poor decision. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if there is a pre-existing consensus that whole academic fields cannot be deprecated, that does not address the reliability of the particular authors and journals, some of which are mentioned. But actually we do dismiss whole fields as fringe or pseudoscientific. Manuductive (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Fashionable Nonsense, one of your three sources for your extraordinary request, does not mention bell hooks, Paolo Freire, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, or Sarah Ahmed. This is effectively the lynchpin source for your claim and it's mute on literally every academic you criticize. Hypatia shows up in the bibliography but is not mentioned in the body of the book. None of the other journals are mentioned at all in that book. However the preface to the English edition of Fashionable Nonsense does say the following which, I think, Manuductive would be wise to take on board. {{tq|The debates sparked by Sokal’s hoax have come to encompass an ever-wider range of ever-more-tenuously related issues, concerning not only the conceptual status of scientific knowledge or the merits of French poststructuralism, but also the social role of science and technology, multiculturalism and “political correctness”, the academic left versus the academic right, and the cultural left versus the economic left. We want to emphasize that this book does not deal with most of these topics. In particular, the ideas analyzed here have little, if any, conceptual or logical connection with politics.}} Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sources are not required to be unbiased, see WP:BIASED. That you object to emancipatory scholarship does not make it WP:FRINGE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Manuductive, when you edit your comment after someone has already replied to it, you should make that explicit, per WP:TALK#REVISE. Please update what you just added to note that it was inserted after. As for the substance of what you added, I don't know that there are any actual fields that are fringe or pseudoscientific; that the adherents call it a field does not make it an academic discipline. But if you believe something to be fringe or pseudoscientific, the place to raise that is at WP:FTN, not here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would suggest a reclose is in order here. No evidence of unreliability has been presented, and no source is unbiased. I'm not sure how we would even begin to have this debate. In terms of social science, and non-social science, there will always be issues of the assumptions inherent in the work of authors and in whole disciplines. This goes far beyond the fields mentioned above, and there is nothing particularly problematic in them.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I support the suggestion of reclosing this, I would do so myself but have already been reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am now reading the chapter "Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Relevance for Current Gender and Language Research" and it does not support the claim it's cited to. It looks like the citations provided by Manuductive have no relevance to their request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Furthermore, of the various scholars that Manuductive cited in their original post the only one with even passing mention (a references mention of an essay not discussed in article body) is bell hooks. Ahmed, Spivak, Crenshaw and Freire are not mentioned at all by this chapter. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Even more strangely though, this citation is within the discipline that Manuductive wants to see treated as unreliable which makes its out of context use even more perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Zero questioned citations to these works, zero claims addressed, all written by a machine that understands nothing. If you are wondering whether a specific source is reliable for a certain citation, that's what this board is really for. We do not have to waste our time addressing non-claims by a make-em-up machine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I fear that the unintelligence of the opening comment to this section has caused people to react with kneejerk terror and suspicion to what is not only a reasonable claim, but already mostly true. In reality, it is true that many publications representing themselves as academic journals are primarily in the business of making subjective claims. For this reason, we typically do not cite them as proof of objective fact. This is already the case: we do not cite Lacan or Baudrillard to just repeat whatever they say, in the voice of the encyclopedia, as a verified fact about reality. Similarly, with writings on political philosophy (e.g. socialism, conservatism, liberalism, fascism, anarchism) we may cite a treatise to say "this is what William F. Buckley said about free love", or "this is what Marxists think about surplus value", but generally speaking we do not just say that whatever some guy says in a book is automatically true.

This is the basic crux of the concept of a "hard science". Claims made in, for example, a geology journal can generally be cited as factual, or at least representing the output of a process that attempted to determine fact. Here's an example: Lake Superior was formed during the last ice age. This is not something we have to qualify as being the opinion of a geologist: it's just an objectively true claim. There is no difference of opinion, or interpretation: a Fascist geologist and a Communist geologist do not disagree that a glacier is a large mass of ice, or that glaciers formed the Great Lakes. Here is another example: polar pears live in the Arctic. This, again, is not a matter of opinion. It is simply true. We do not need to write "critical zoological theorist Bobby Johnson has developed the field of polar bear domicile theory, in which polar bears are seen as living in the Arctic". We do need to write that if, say, someone's claim is that polar bears are colonizers, because this is not a claim that can be objectively true or false.

We can contrast this with, say, psychoanalysis:

:{{tq|The phallus as signifier gives the ratio of desire (in the sense in which the term is used in music in the ‘mean and extreme ratio’ of harmonic division). The emergences that appear in psychological genesis confirm this signifying function of the phallus.}}https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003059486-8/signification-phallus-jacques-lacan-alan-sheridan-malcolm-bowie

I dare someone to claim that this sentence is "true" in the conventional sense that, e.g. "periodic functions can be represented as the limit of a Fourier series" is true, or to add "the phallus as signifier gives the ratio of desire" to Harmonic series.

I don't understand what the confusion is here: it seems like the distinction should be obvious if you've read papers in any of these fields.

I apologize in advance for having written rather long sentences here, but would nonetheless appreciate if any responses began by reading my full comment. jp×g🗯️ 15:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are, in a way, making the same mistake as the original poster, albeit less egregiously, by conflating social sciences and post-structural continental philosophy. These two things are not the same, and the claims the OP made regarding social sciences which were, frankly, indefensible. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:But also Foucault would have had more than a few things to say about the epistemology of Wikipedia - and its blind spots. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Foucault can go fouc his postmodernist self. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Below I will reproduce a comment from Manuductive, which seems to have been made in the wrong location, repeatedly, and then repeatedly removed from the page instead of put in the right location. jp×g🗯️ 06:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Simonm223, is it your contention that emancipatory scholarship does not exist primarily to promote a political rather than scientific objective of generating verifiable knowledge? Or are you suggesting that Wikipedia should depict in Wikivoice the position of sources that do not purport to exist primarily to generate verifiable knowledge? I have no problem with social sciences, but how scientific is a discipline really if they start always from a premise about society that is presupposed prior to the investigation?

I am re-opening this discussion per WP:SNOW:{{tq2|closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon.}} It is not just about whether the proposal as written will be adopted. It's a rather broad proposal. But the essay on snow recognizes that there is also value in being courteous to allow for different kinds of input before closing it. Also, note that{{tq2|The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks.[1] The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time.}}and{{tq2|...if there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely.}} I suggest that if the purpose of SNOW is to politely request that we do not waste editors' time, then, the people who have already weighed in can feel free to relax and focus elsewhere while we give other people a couple of days to weigh in if they so desire. You have said your piece—no need to hover or defend. If you’re standing on solid ground, the facts will speak for themselves.Manuductive (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Have you considered following the process described in the editnotice? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:No I am not going to just sit by while someone tries to declare an entire field of study unreliable when they quite clearly don't even understand the boundaries around and within that field of study. Simonm223 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk ref}}

{{abot}}

Is the International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy considered a reliable source? Link to the journal's webpage: [https://ijspt.org/]. I'm thinking that it may be considered a medical source, is it appropriate to use on Wikipedia on a physical therapy related article? Netherzone (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Netherzone}} Should be. I picked a random article with it (foam roller) and the journal is highlighted in dark green by the cite highlighter tool, which means it's been deemed reliable by the community even for medical claims. I wonder where this journal was discussed before since I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&profile=default&search=International+Journal+of+Sports+Physical+Therapy&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 nothing in the RSN archives]. Left guide (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::For what specific claim is this source being used on? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @Left guide and @Ramos1990. The source was used by a new editor in the Aquatherapy article, a removed by an experienced editor with the edit summary {{tq|weak source for bold claims}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquatic_therapy&diff=1282320532&oldid=1282317971] The IJSPT journal was used to source a somewhat effusively written paragraph by the new editor. I can easily tone down the wording, but wanted to double check if the source was considered reliable. It is not listed on Beall's List of Predatory Journals which was a good sign. I'm sure I can also find a second source for the content just in case. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Highlighting in green is meaningless. All that says is that you have a link to pubmed databases, not that it's a good journal. An actual indicator of reliability is that this is a journal sponsored/published by the American Physical Therapy Association/International Federation of Sports Physiotherapy.

::That said, WP:MEDRS applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• This is a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal which suggests it is not usable for anything weighty. The article added{{snd}}PMID:31803530{{snd}}was a 'clinical commentary' making a novel argument (i.e. a primary source) from 2019, and essaying several broad-brush therapeutic claims. Better WP:MEDRS are needed for such use. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It seems to contain very detailed account of family tree. I was looking for evidence if Marcus Bernheimer is in fact father of Lucille Bernheimer, and this [https://www.hohenemsgenealogie.at/getperson.php?personID=I7994 page] seems to be the source. It also contains more information than the [http://opac2.mdah.state.ms.us/phpmanuscripts/z2044.php Mississippi Archives] (which is also not discussed whether it is a reliable source). Labratscientist (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:This appears to be one of many such genealogy websites. I can't find anything about who runs it or where they get their data from. I would be very doubtful that it's a reliable source. The Mississippi archives should be more reliable, but I can't be sure as every link on the website is broken (at least for me). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Drop Site News is a news site founded by former journalists from The Intercept that mainly covers politics and war. The two founders (Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill) have longer track records. Grim has worked for and/or appeared in the New Republic, the Washington Post, and Uproxx among others ([https://muckrack.com/ryangrim]) and is a Pulitzer Prize finalist ([https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/05/05/ryan-grim-intercept-huffington-post-238052]). Scahill has written for and/or appeared in The New York Times and The Nation, among others. ([https://muckrack.com/jeremyscahill]). The site's founding editor, Nausicaa Renner, has written for and/or appeared in The New Yorker, The New Republic, and The New York Times Magazine ([https://muckrack.com/nausicaa-renner]). I'm leaning reliable on this one, as the site's staff is clearly what we want out of a RS. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 17:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've used them in my editing before and find them an excellent resource. They're independent and have some great original reporting. I'm not aware of any evidence of their unreliability. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Making no statement on general reliability, I do think it’s important to note that they have a more extreme version of The Intercept’s left wing/ “anti-establishment”/“anti-USA” bias, as seen both in the (unreliable) [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/ MBFC] and their own [https://www.dropsitenews.com/about about section.] In addition, they are very new, and I would hesitate to consider this sort of “spin out” as inherently reliably based on the reliability of the parent. Lastly, and based on a very cursory look, I would be incredibly cautious about using them for language use due to their rather inflammatory language, and for BLP due to the issues described above (and their Twitter, but that’s based on vibes more so than hard facts). FortunateSons (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::FortunateSons, I also had those concerns TBF. Attribution and due weight must apply then. As a left-wing person myself, I've also noticed that bias can creep into these types of sources. But every source has some form of bias anyways. Even the most centrist or apolitical sources have some form of bias, and it doesn't automatically make them unreliable. If we make sure we just aren't repeating "China never killed people at Tiananmen Square in 1989" or "the Holodomor didn't happen" type BS, use it with proper attribution when required, and make sure other viewpoints are represented, we should be fine. IMO, we could approach this source in a similar way to Jacobin. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@LunaEclipse, agreed, these types of additional considerations seem like a reasonable approach, unless and until a clearer picture emerges. I would personally be very cautious for some of the more contentious topics (AMPOL, ARBPIA, BLP, maybe GENSEX) as well, particularly based on their past coverage; while I’m not aware of outright falsehoods, they were definitely very “activisty”, though any such general rule of course has exceptions, for example if their coverage of something specific gets picked up by reliable and less biased sources, I’m not opposed to citing them for it. FortunateSons (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Seems a bit silly to say you support additional considerations, and then say you wouldnt use them for a list of categories that includes basically every single news item they might cover. Which is it? Parabolist (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::personally be very cautious for some of the more contentious topics does not mean "never use", it means "avoid for contentious claims unless there is some kind of secondary verification (such as getting picked up by a newspaper of record), and probably not great for establishing due weight". For example, the Hamas-interview below seems like a acceptable use, the Georgetown-deportation is better cited to the other sources, and I wouldn't use them for the WaPo story. That seems like a pretty clear additional consideration to me. FortunateSons (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I understand the apprehension on DSN, and while they've not come up in articles I am working on, I have interacted with their reporting outside of Wikipedia. They seem to be of a decent enough quality, and they haven't (as of yet) published anything akin to what we see from other outlets of a similar political persuasion which has caused concern in other reliability discussions. So, for now, using them with attribution where they are relevant and useful would probably be best. It may be hard to avoid using them in CTOP areas, considering that is the core of their journalistic endeavours. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Sure, that sounds reasonable FortunateSons (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Are there specific uses of this source on WP that you want to consider? General reliability for a new source would be very sweeping so its use should be assessed case by case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Bobfrombrockley, I didn't think of general reliability in mind. I meant to ask if they were reliable in the topics of politics and war. Apologies if I did not make myself clear. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 09:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Are there a few example statements that you feel like are best cited by Drop Site News? FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Not that I know of, but I still stand by the opinion that we could treat this source in a manner similar to Jacobin. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::After spending some time on it, I think it’s better than jacobin for most of our purposes. It’s very solid investigative reporting. I thought it might have a fringey/conspiracist edge but their journalism seems very high quality to me. Intercept ar its best rather than Intercwpt at its worst. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Here are a few examples of their work that I think are among their best, at least from a cursory search of their work:

::::[https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/on-the-record-with-hamas Exclusive interview with Hamas]

::::An article as good as any other, if more focused on one individual, about the [https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/venezuelan-professional-goaltender-rendition-deported-dhs deportation of Venezuelan migrants].

::::One of the only reliable outlets other than Al Jazeera that publishes accounts from inside Gaza by Gazan journalists: [https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/hossam-shabat-journalist-killed-gaza-last-article 1] [https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/death-march-from-beit-lahia 2] [https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/gaza-where-death-and-ceasefire-intersect 3]

::::An article on the deportation of a [https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/georgetown-postdoc-the-latest-to Georgetown postdoc], published two days before [https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5336173/immigration-georgetown-university-professor NPR], [https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/us/bahar-khan-suri-deportation-what-we-know-hnk/index.html CNN] and the rest seem to have picked it up.

::::Reporting on a [https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/scoop-washington-post-brass-spiked story] that was spiked by the Washington Post.

::::[https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/i-reported-a-piece-for-the-new-york Interview] with an NYT freelancer who found an error the NYT refused to correct.

::::The best use case for Drop Site IMO is to counter-balance or fill in gaps in the reporting of other reliable sources. They're committed to accuracy and reliability, but also to telling the stories that aren't being told elsewhere. They're certainly outside of the mainstream, but that's a good thing as it widens the view we can present to readers. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have info on the reliability of Unilad? I notice some controversy on their WP article, but aside from a brief 2023 mention I couldn't find anyone else talking about it on this noticeboard. I noticed a new user changing pronouns for one of the perpetrators on the Slender Man stabbing article, and when I asked them for their source they pointed to a UNILAD article that states that this person now uses "he" and "him" pronouns. I especially want to make sure we're using an up-to-muster source given the sensitivity of transgender identities here on WP. wizzito | say hello! 20:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Per [https://www.unilad.com/about-and-contact] I wouldn't choose that for WP:BLP stuff. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_297#LADbible_and_Joe.ie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

What is your opinion of the following sources, used on Sophie Rain, and asking in response to concerns at her DYK nomination:

• WP:VICE and WP:THESTANDARD used for attributed opinion.
• WP:FOXNEWS for the claim that she uses "SophieRaiin" as her social media handle.
• People being used for the claims that she attends online church services and that her OnlyFans total increased from $43 million to $50 million.
• Complex Networks being used for the price of her OnlyFans account and for any of the claims removed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Rain&diff=1280405533&oldid=1280331058 this] edit.--Launchballer 18:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:I see about Fox: you are okay to use Fox News, as they are historically reliable for subjects outside of politics, and a claim that someone's social media handle is... what it is... is by no stretch political. The opinion pieces do have to be well-written. People is okay. Complex is the one you'll have to worry about. BarntToust 13:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Could WP:NEWSWEEK ([https://www.newsweek.com/1-4-million-american-women-onlyfans-1996639]) work for the price of her account?--Launchballer 14:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::you ought to use both Complex and Newsweek to show that there are several less-than-"ideal" sources in agreement about the price. BarntToust 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I have an allergy to adjacent references under any circumstances, so I added a citebundle. Also, what is your opinion of [https://www.riverfronttimes.com/after-dark/best-teen-onlyfans-44309873 this] Riverfront Times piece for the claim that "she offers fully nude content [but] no sexually explicit content"?--Launchballer 15:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::eh, two references shouldn't be a terrible thing. usually a cite bundle happens around 4-5 references. BarntToust 18:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::no comment on the Riverfront Times piece. It was at one point a local news publication but now its focus is weed and "onlyfans promotion". BarntToust 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I wouldn't use Riverfront Times for anything now, and would actually prefer it be deprecated or put on our spam blacklist. It's not much different from [https://www.wired.com/story/iowa-newspaper-website-ai-generated-clickbait-factory/ the expired news domains] that get snapped up by bad actors to run crypto or OnlyFans promotions. wizzito | say hello! 20:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Same with the Village Voice. Another once-respected alt publication that got bought out to run OnlyFans promo. https://www.wired.com/story/zombie-alt-weeklies-are-stuffed-with-ai-slop-about-onlyfans/ wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Good god. Cut.--Launchballer 21:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yup. If we can deprecate the literal Heritage Foundation for a simple threat to dox editors, then I think deprecating these 3 "alt weeklies" (Riverfront Times, Village Voice, and LA Weekly) for their posting of uninhibited AI slop isn't too out of the question. There's a very real possibility of OnlyFans "marketing agencies" spamming WP like they do Reddit and content farms (if they haven't tried to do so). wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Another story about the new ownership at Riverfront Times: https://www.stlpr.org/economy-business/2024-08-05/new-riverfront-times-editor-has-ties-to-onlyfans-pr-company wizzito | say hello! 21:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::[https://www.laweekly.com/ LA Weekly]'s homepage doesn't look too shitty to me. looks like general interest content, but I'm only looking at surface level, could be worse, given you say it is. On the other two—Village Voice and Riverfront—yep, I agree, usurped domains likely need link depreciation. BarntToust 21:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Here's an OnlyFans promo article from LA Weekly I pulled from Google. Published 2 days ago. https://www.laweekly.com/catholic-school-teacher-caught-on-onlyfans/ wizzito | say hello! 21:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The main problem is that there is still a lot of archival content on these websites from when these publications were run legitimately. wizzito | say hello! 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This looks nothing like blatant promotion, and "Teacher found on OnlyFans" is a popular routine news story for any publication. I'd need to see a field of "OnlyFans OnlyFans OnlyFans..." in order to support depreciation of LA Weekly BarntToust 21:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::https://www.google.com/search?q=site:laweekly.com+onlyfans This is the search parameter I used. wizzito | say hello! 21:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Fwiw, here's another discussion on LA Weekly: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#LA_Weekly_guest-author?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::(ec) I also cut 34st.com (The Daily Pennsylvanian) after running it through an AI detector.--Launchballer 21:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The Daily Pennsylvanian is student media, which has a mixed reputation for reliability here on WP (see WP:RSSM) wizzito | say hello! 21:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Additionally, a lot of student media takes... very shady sponsorships just to keep themselves going. e.g. if you look at the bottom of the website for The Daily Iowan, you get a lot of sponsored links for peptides and buying social media followers. https://dailyiowan.com/ wizzito | say hello! 21:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::It should have been fine for attributed opinion.--Launchballer 21:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I would not ever trust the output of "an AI checker" -- most of these websites are either grift or use questionable methodology. This is doubly true if you do not even have a name for the site... jp×g🗯️ 08:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Would you have used [https://www.34st.com/article/2025/02/tiktok-bop-house-sophie-rain-content-gen-z-only-fans] for the claim that "Jack Lamey of 34th Street Magazine compared [The Bop House] to Sway House"?--Launchballer 09:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• If urls have been usurped WP:USURPREQ may be of interest. Archive links can be added to cites and marked with {{para|url-status|usurped}}. This will ensure the archive link is used and the current url is hidden. Obviously this is separate from the discussion of reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I was just directed here. I'm in here asking for opinions on using Ultimate Guitar news articles as a source. Many are staff-written, I believe. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's reliable per this list. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 23:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I'm gonna use this this alot going forward. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It's a great resource. Just check that the specific article that you want to use was indeed written by a staff-member.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Published by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation has been deprecated and blacklisted as a source. So what do we do about this article/ And the use of its website as a source? Doug Weller talk 14:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think it's reliable and I don't think it should be used. The connection to the WSJ is increasingly tenuous in recent years and the aggregate doesn't seem to measure what it claims - it's not a measure of freedom but rather one of market regulation. As it is ultimately a statement of opinion by the unreliable Heritage Foundation I'd suggest the index is, at best, generally unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's heavily sourced to the blacklisted source and deprecated source, not sure how to handle that in this specific article. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh I see. Sorry I misunderstood the question before. That is a pickle. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think keeping the article is fine, though I'm not sure what to do about it linking to a potentially malicious source. One option could be de-linking the sources so they appear as if they were a print resource. In terms of the reliability of the index, I think this might be a case where bias equals unreliability. This index claims to be an authoritative assessment of economic freedom, yet it clearly has a very narrow methodology that ignores important aspects of what most people would consider economic freedom. For example, the other week I added some interesting material to the economy of Taiwan section about the Taiwanese bicycle industry's debt bondage practices toward migrant labor. It is one of the few places in the world where this remains legal. Yet, Heritage considers Taiwan one of the most economically free countries in the world. I'm not sure if this is directly an issue of reliability as opposed to just quality. It's not so much that the index includes false information, but rather that it excludes so much relevant information that it's a poor assessment of what it purports to measure. In any case, I think these rankings should be given very little if any weight in Wikipedia's assessment of various nations' economies. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:The article meets GNG, so it shouldn't be deleted, but it makes sense to look at all of the sourcing. I'd say that Heritage can be used as a source for WP text that meets ABOUTSELF, and otherwise it shouldn't be used as a source. Whether that leads to deleting a lot of content or not depends on whether actual RSs can be found for that content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::I mean I guess that brings up a good question: If we did just remove the cites to Heritage Foundation, what do we have left? I know there is academic work critiquing the index because I've read it and previously shared it during the Heritage RfC. But what else is there? Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not suggesting that all of the citations to Heritage be removed, since some of the information cited to it clearly falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. But one of the conditions there is "The article is not based primarily on such sources," and another is "It does not involve claims about third parties." That may mean that the tables should be deleted in their entirety. A quick [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=%22Index+of+Economic+Freedom%22+%22heritage%22&btnG= Google Scholar search] shows that there's lots that's been written by others about it. I personally do not care about this topic enough to want to work on the article, but it's clearly possible to improve it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:We do nothing about either, the Index remains reliable for aboutself and thats all it should ever have been used for. The problem comes when people conflate the index with actual economic freedom however they imagine it... Which is almost certainly different than how the index is computed. But the same can be said of pretty much every similar index, freedom isn't something that can actualy be measured so you're left to make crude estimates from proxies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:If the links are kept I would suggest adding archives and then adding {{para|url-status|unfit}}. That will hide the original URL and only display the archive link. Actually I'm just going to go ahead and do this, so readers aren't presented with potential malicious links. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'll go and have a coffee, GREENC pre-empted by comment by over a month. No links to heritage.org appear in the references (these one in the 'External links' section). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

El Siglo (The Century) is the house organ of the Communist Party of Chile. Do we think a 2022 issue is okay to reference for the date of death of the spouse of Luis Corvalán? Chetsford (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• You ask a bad question. A better question is this: is the information accurate? If so, use it and footnote it. If not, steer clear. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Lolwut? How would one know if the information is accurate in the absence of a reliable source? Chetsford (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• For uncontroversial facts like this I would suggest it is ok. It would need attribution for anything more political.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! That's sort-of the direction I was leaning, just needed some validation. I appreciate it! Chetsford (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Attribition is good. If it is a more common place knowledge, I am sure there would be a newspaper or other source to support it. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::I would disagree, simple biographical details of the person's spouse are probably ok without attribution. It may be that she is not particularly notable in her own right, so her death received little coverage. If we are saying something like "was killed by the Pinochet regime" then attribution would definitely be necessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe you are right. It is basic information. If it differs form another source, then it may be another matter. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=Closed|reason={{nac}}OP is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing, as well as being check user blocked. If any other editors wish to discuss The Desk I suggest they start a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)}}

There has been a dispute in the last week over the reliability of [https://thedesk.net/ The Desk], which is a self-published blog covering the television industry and related topics. The dispute's flashpoint is WPLG, where User:TheMediaHistorian has added citations to The Desk and several other editors (User:ViperSnake151, User:Mvcg66b3r, User:Nathan Obral) have reverted them. TheMediaHistorian and an IP address have restored the citations seven separate times in the last week. The two sides have varying interpretations of what is a subject-matter expert.

In the edit summary of Special:Diff/1282534554, TheMediaHistorian contended, {{tq|[P]er Wikipedia's own policy, the source is not merely "self-published" - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The author of the story, who broke the news first, ticks those boxes.}} This is the contention made in this talk page edit as well. The other editors, noting that The Desk is an SPS, are unconvinced that the author, Matthew Keys, is an expert in the field that meets our subject-matter expert criteria. Independently, TheMediaHistorian has called edits removing citations to The Desk "destructive and unhelpful" and called the removal of these citations "vandalism".

I've brought the dispute here in an attempt to defuse it and get broader input as to whether Keys is a subject-matter expert and therefore The Desk is an acceptable self-published source. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:The Matthew Keys who publishes the media blog appears likely to be the same Matthew Keys who has a criminal record of hacking and vandalizing two major media outlets and served prison sentences of first two years and later six months for a related probation violation. The Sacramento Bee described his background in this 2021 article [https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article252880588.html Keys gets 6 more months in prison after deleting Sacramento business magazine’s videos]. If that Keys is the same person as the blog author, then no way under the sun should the blog be accepted as a reliable source. If it can be shown that these are two different people named Mathew Keys, then further discussion of the expertise of the other Keys can take place. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::It is. Keys worked in local TV, too. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Keys was also the deputy social media editor for Reuters until 2013; Reuters even [https://www.reuters.com/article/business/reuters-deputy-social-media-editor-matthew-keys-says-he-was-dismissed-idUSBRE93L180/ reported on his dismissal]. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 01:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Since when did a reporter's personal life make them unworthy of professional recognition? First, the criminal case was over a decade ago; Keys has since rebuilt his reputation by establishing himself as an authoritative journalist who covers the news media industry. (Should we scrutinize the criminal or civil record of every potential source? What are Alex Weprin's skeletons, and do they disqualify him from being considered a reliable source?)

::::Even if Keys was disqualified under the policy of a "self-published" source, The Desk is not. It is owned by Solano Media LLC, which is incorporated as a business in the State of California, as are other publications, including the Hollywood Reporter. If The Desk is a "self-published" source, so are they. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:The author does appear to be the same Matthew Keys as mentioned by Cullen328. He has medium post here[https://medium.com/@matthewkeys/a-few-thoughts-on-that-associated-press-story-e2ec0eb51bd2] where he mentions the connection. He lists selected works on his personal website[https://matthewkeys.net/], but they just appear to be posts he's made to The Desk.
I can't find anything to show he has been {{tq|previously been published by reliable, independent publications}} per WP:SPS. I searched for use by others of The Desk, but found next to nothing. Reliable sources should have {{tq|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, I'm struggling to find anything that shows that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::You clearly didn't look very hard into his professional work. The lists on his personal page include numerous stories that were authored for StreamTV Insider / Fierce Video, KnowTech, something called The Blot and a number of others. He also has links to interviews with the radio broadcaster Audacy. And he co-hosts a weekly web series on YouTube. His work has also been widely cited by other publications, including TechCrunch, TechHive, PC World and CNET. If they found him to be reliable and authoritative, so, too, can Wikipedia.

::It seems Wikipedia editors simply feel his articles are not "authoritative" or convey expertise, merely because of his unrelated personal activities — which, again, occurred more than a decade ago. Frankly, this does nothing to counter the narrative floating around in some spaces that Wikipedia's editors inject their own bias into what they choose to publish, edit and remove. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::And since your cursory search returned nothing, [https://talkingbiznews.com/media-news/story-on-paramount-bid-was-from-fake-news-release/ here] [https://www.insideradio.com/free/for-sale-detroit-s-superstation-wfdf/article_bd970d1c-7133-11ef-b0b4-b3b82d7949d7.html are] [https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/future-of-tv-briefing-how-sports-will-hog-the-ball-in-this-years-upfront/ numerous] [https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/att-fallout-ensues-after-massive-data-heist examples] [https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/26/23773914/ai-large-language-models-data-scraping-generation-remaking-web of his work] [https://www.streamtvinsider.com/person/matthew-keys being published] [https://awfulannouncing.com/fubo/sports-broadcasting-skinny-bundle-venu-disney.html or cited] [https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/wood-tv-news-director-stanton-tang-fired-over-anti-gay-memo,244570 by others].

:::Not a single editor can back their assertion that 1.) The Desk is self-published and 2.) Matthew Keys — despite his prior, personal misgivings — is not an authoritative, expert source who covers the media industry. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Even if it were a reliable source (which there is no indication of), edit warring is not considered acceptable behaviour. This is more a issue with collaborative behaviour than any specific source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::There are numerous examples of his work being considered reliable. Moreover, if "edit warring" is not acceptable, there are three editors — not one — who are guilty of this. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You have been repeatedly trying to insert the citation for The Desk in the WPLG article, which multiple editors have rejected and don't want in the article, and the incendiary personal attacks on my talk page, accusing me of vandalism, was totally uncalled for. Honestly, why are you so deeply invested in inserting that citation for The Desk that you have initiated over nine edit reversions to that article in less than a week? Why? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Why are you so insistent on removing it?

::::For me, it is the principle of the matter. It was the first source to break the story; it was the first source cited on Wikipedia. Someone removed the original citation (poor form) and replaced it with one to the Hollywood Reporter. The original reason given was that the swap was to ensure that "local" and "authoritative" sources were being used. The Desk is no less authoritative, and the Hollywood Reporter is not a local source. Every reason for removing the original citation has failed to hold up against Wikipedia's policy or common sense. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::First of all, you have completely misinterpreted the meaning of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WPLG&oldid=1282541174 my initial edit]; I never explicitly stated all of the refs were to be substituted with local refs. There is literally nothing different from [https://www.wlrn.org/news-in-brief/2025-03-21/abc-programming-to-move-to-wsvn-channel-7-after-wplg-local-10-cuts-ties-with-network WLRN's coverage of the ABC disaffiliation] or from the [https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/barry-jackson/article302525184.html Miami Herald] or from [https://rbr.com/miami-hurricane-wplg-to-drop-abc-with-wsvn-grabbing-it/ Adam Jacobson] than from The Desk. THR is also one of the more respected national publications and my choice to retain it was based on that alone. I trust them with [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/wplg-miami-loses-abc-affiliation-disney-abc-miami-sunbeam-1236169307/ their coverage] far, far more. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::"I trust them with their coverage far, far more" is proof that your edit was based solely on a personal bias, and not rooted in Wikipedia's policy on authoritativeness or expertise. Frankly, that admission makes this an open-and-shut case. Your contribution must be removed, and the original citation should be restored, permanently. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The Desk was removed as a source from the Wikipedia page of WPLG this week by at least two editors, one of whom said the website was a "self-published" source, apparently because one person publishes the majority of the content on the webpage. The Desk is, in fact, incorporated as a business in California, and has been cited numerous times by peer publications. In prior comments, I offered numerous examples of other publications that have sourced some or all of their reporting. Moreover, the author is a subject expert on the media business, owed to the fact that he has been published by other outlets that are not The Desk, and to which no editor can claim they are "self-published."

Determining that an incorporated website that operates as a publishing business is "self-published" is a dangerous precedent, one that could affect a number of other sourced used by this website. Cord Cutters News, for instance, has been cited on dozens, if not hundreds of pages — yet, just one person, Luke Bouma, writes for it. (The website did have an editor and staff writers at one point; it no longer does.) The Radio and Television Business Report is incorporated through its parent company, Streamline Publishing, yet its editor, Adam Jacobson, writes nearly all the stories that appear on the webpage, even when they are bylined to "staff." Radio Ink, also owned by Streamline, has all of its editorial, non-opinion content written by a single person, editor Cameron Coates. Under the precedent that certain editors would want to set, these authoritative, expert sources would be dismissed as unreliable, simply because one person writes most of the material, and because the publications are small businesses compared to larger enterprise trade publications like those operated by Penske Media.

Beyond the media and entertainment trades, determining "reliability" based on the size of a publication's staff would also set a damaging and irreversible precedent for newspapers and small news websites covering rural towns. Patch, for instance, has built a business launching hyperlocal news websites that cover underrepresented parts of the United States; the contrarian Wikipedia editors here would have you believe Patch is an unreliable, self-published source, merely because a Patch outlet has one full-time staff writer covering the town's news.

These views are not only wrong, they are dangerous. They are not rooted in reality or common sense. Editors would rather engage in a reversion war because of their own biases, rather than affirm that an authoritative source is such. Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, should not indulge their prejudice or trolling.

Moreover, one's professional pedigree should determine their authoritativeness and expertise, not their personal misgivings. The late New York Times reporter David Carr, in his own memoir, admitted to rampant drug use and domestic violence against his love interests. He was incarcerated numerous times because of his habit of drugs and violence, even when he worked at a few local newspapers. He is considered one of the most-prolific columnists on the media business to have lived; Wikipedia is littered with numerous citations of his work. Carr chose to pursue a career in corporate media; Keys went in a different direction, choosing to build his own business. The fact remains that someone's personal life — including their criminal history and convictions — should not disqualify them from being considered an authoritative expert in their field, especially when the rest of the public has determined that they are.

TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Why are you acting so defensive about The Desk? What gives? It is just a mere website, why do you clearly have this vested personal interest in Matthew Keys' website that you are engaging in this behavior over and over again? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::My comment was offered in defense of The Desk as a reputable outlet, based on Wikipedia's policy, and in response to certain justifications brought by other editors. Your response is an attempt at deflection, which should be noted by Wikipedia's other editors, but not entertained. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::i dont think this is deflection, though I understand why you think it might be. I have the same question, and as stated below, I would be more than willing to engage - and even support some of your complaints, were you to stop with the baseless attacks on your fellow editors. 03:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Froglegseternal (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::To be totally honest, I'm not required to provide any kind of insight into my point of view, beyond what was already said. This is supposed to be a discussion of the reliability of The Desk — not an inquiry into my personal views. In fact, facilitating a discussion SOLELY on the reliability of THE DESK is why Sammi moved the conversation HERE. The fact that some other Wikipedia editors are trying so hard to change the subject absolutely should be noted by all. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::You are the one who is taking this so personally. It is only fair for another editor to ask. Simple as that. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It really isn't. You said it was "clearly have this vested personal interest in Matthew Keys' website." That is an allegation of a conflict of interest; yet, you provided no evidence to back your accusation of a "clear personal interest." You doubled-down by saying that you found my rejection unpersuasive ("whiskers are a-tingling" is the implication you meant it to be). Your behavior is, frankly, reprehensible. I will likely elevate this to a complaint against your account. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:hey my gender-neutral person, maybe stop with the personal attacks? I completely understand the points that you're trying to make, and a lot of them could very much be interacted with on a good-faith level, but stating that these editors are being "prejudiced" or "trolling" seems a bit much, especially when they're very much not - it seems like what they're trying to do is abide by the fact that a good number of users, including an IP, seem to be of the belief that this source is unreliable.

:Again, I understand your concerns - only trusting larger news conglomerates is a dangerous road to go down - but I don't think that's the precedent that's being established here, though I understand why you claim otherwise. Froglegseternal (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|TheMediaHistorian}}, please immediately disclose, fully and frankly, any personal connection that you have with Matthew Keys, as required by Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::None. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Just a fan, then, {{u|TheMediaHistorian}}? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I answered your question. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly, given your total defensiveness towards Keys and The Desk, which goes far, far, beyond the scope of any other editor I've ever encountered, my whiskers are a-twitching here. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you are making a direct allegation, you are required to back it with facts. Other Wikipedia editors should take note of your comment, and judge it as proof of your motivation in repeatedly vandalizing the WPLG page with your edits. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::hey, stop. with. the. personal. attacks. my. fellow. editor. Froglegseternal (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There are two editors here who are making personal attacks. I am not one of them. I find it interesting you're so concerned with my responses, and not their poor behavior, some of which obviously violates Wikipedia's policy. Nathan, for instance, is strongly implying a conflict of interest, yet Nathan has provided nothing to back this up. That baseless implication absolutely should serve as evidence of Nathan's motivation. Pointing this out is not a "personal attack." TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Moreover, Nathan and Cullen's attempts to bait an editor into disclosing a Conflict of Interest, where there is none, clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on doxing. Perhaps a complaint should be made, accordingly. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Let it be known right away that I am not accusing you of being Matthew Keys. Stop putting words in my mouth. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::So when you said your "whiskers are a-twitching," can you explain what you meant by that? Or should we take it for the implication that it obviously was? TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::how is "hey, you seem to have a personal or emotional connection here, i wonder if that has anything to do with a potential CoI", which is what both of their comments boils down to, an attempt at doxxing? That's a quite serious claim, and while I personally disagree with the way in which both users stated their confusion, would not say it is in any way doxxing. Froglegseternal (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It is not out of line to ask, given that the editor is acting with a deeply personal interest in inserting a link to The Desk in the WPLG article that borders on irrationality. But it is out of line to accuse me of "doxxing" as well as throwing up baseless accusations against me both here, on my talk page, and on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WPLG#Destructive_editing_by_Wikipedia_user the WPLG talk page]. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Saying your "whiskers are a-twitching" is a strong implication of a conflict of interest. Otherwise, you would not have said it. Furthermore, since you did say it, it should be noted that you provided zero evidence to demonstrate a conflict of interest. However, you have provided substantive evidence that your reversion war was based on a personal preference, not Wikipedia's policy on authoritativeness or reliability. Case closed. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::You have no idea what you are talking about and are trying to accuse me of things I am clearly not doing, and making inflammatory statements about me here and elsewhere. Read the room. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You were the one who accused me of having a "clear personal interest," with no evidence to back that claim, who implied that something was amiss by saying your "whiskers are a-tingling," and who affirmed your sole purpose in reverting the WPLG article was because you, personally, found one source to be more reliable than the other. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Because those sources were more reliable and I trust them more than The Desk. I always have. What is the discussion here? Why are you so clearly offended by that, especially if you apparently have nothing to do with Matthew Keys or The Desk? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::This is the second time you've affirmed that you removed the citation because you, personally, viewed a source as more-reliable. And, again, I'll note that your personal preference is not an element that Wikipedia uses in determining whether a source is reliable or authoritative. You've had numerous opportunities, here, to explain, with evidence, why The Desk is not authoritative or reliable. You have failed to do so, but Wikipedia editors and administrators should note that, while you've engaged in a personal flame war here, you've also reverted the WPLG article in question multiple times, even after being asked to stop. This is the second time you've affirmed that you removed the citation because you, personally, viewed a source as more-reliable. And, again, I'll note that your personal preference is not an element that Wikipedia uses in determining whether a source is reliable or authoritative. You've had numerous opportunities, here, to explain, with evidence, why The Desk is not authoritative or reliable. You have failed to do so, but Wikipedia editors and administrators should note that, while you've engaged in a personal flame war here, you've also reverted the WPLG article in question multiple times, even after being asked to stop. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::You're the one who keeps insisting on having it in while engaging in deeply rude behavior and irrational defenses of Keys and The Desk. You're the one who has reverted the article ten times over the past week alone (one other reversion also took place under the same pretenses [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WPLG&oldid=1282057720 with an unsigned IP address from Sacremento]). You're the one who has been asked to stop over and over again, and continually refused. You project like a freaking IMAX. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Hey, dude, or gal, or nonbinary person, you gave me. let's see..... a *minute* to respond? I was actually considering whether I was being hypocritical by just saying that to you, and quite frankly was a bit frustrated that you weren't responding to some of my other comments - where I state that I support some of your arguments, and would be willing to defend them if you stopped accusing people of vandalism willy-nilly - and was, actually, considering saying to some of the others to stop as well. Froglegseternal (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::First, you should stop with the pronoun soup, as it makes you look unserious. Second, if you find someone's arguments persuasive, you should limit your responses to that, so the conversation is not derailed. Third, you accused me of making personal attacks, when there were none, and took no other editor to task who made obvious personal attacks and attempts to bait or dox someone into a non-existent conflict of interest. I don't understand why you've taken this approach, when it seems like the more-constructive path would be to lead by example — stick with the arguments, not your emotion or beliefs. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::not my fault you don't have your pronouns on your user page. also, i'm checking out of this conversation before I say something I regret, because I am aware of how heated I get when topics drift towards things I'm passionate about. How's that for leading by example? Froglegseternal (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That is, clearly, a personal attack. I am not required to list pronouns on my page. No Wikipedia editor is. To tease someone about this is, frankly, bullying and discriminatory. For someone who professes to want civility, it is an uncivil thing to do. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::"That furry time of the month", eh? Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Are you here to discuss the reliability of The Desk? Or your own personal viewpoints and grievances? It sounds like you're more interested in discussing the latter, which stands as proof that you are WP:NOTHERE TheMediaHistorian (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::You are the one who engages in repeated personal attacks and false accusations. I'm merely quoting what YOU sent me in an email while this RSN got started. YOU are the one who is WP:NOTTHERE. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You're the one who sent me an incendiary email. That alone is a personal attack if ever I saw one. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit conflict}} What I'd like to do is to turn down the temperature, pull the discussants away from the borderline personal attacks, and refocus to the question that brought us all here and to which one can find each side's evidence buried in the above discussion. Is Matthew Keys a subject-matter expert? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Even before this unrelated behavior by an editor so clearly vested in the author and the website for some reason, no. I never really have. Matthew Keys is not, nor has he ever been, on the level of a Lance Venta or Scott Fybush, who are deeply well-versed on the subject material and do not regurgitate content from elsewhere. And that was before I learned about his legal infractions and federal incarceration, which also makes him a no-go. Simple as that. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::You are comparing Matthew Keys to two other subject experts. That argument fails as persuasive. The question is not whether Matthew Keys is "on the level" of two reporters you admire. The question is whether Matthew Keys is an authoritative, subject-matter expert. I have proven, in multiple comments, that the answer is yes. You have proven, in multiple comments, that your reasons for "no" is based on personal preference, and not evidence. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I strongly disagree with your assertations. Fybush and Venta are known experts in their field. There is nothing to suggest that Keys is such an expert. Your "yes" reads a lot more like personal preference to me. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I've cited numerous examples of Keys' work being cited by his peers. You can choose to ignore them; it doesn't make them any less real, and only serves that you live in an isolated reality where you are the main character and where your personal viewpoints carry heavier weight than others. This is Wikipedia, not your personal website. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, the projecting. I'm defending the Wikipedia project here as it is a collective. The way you're acting implies you are taking ownership in this. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 05:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I will restate what I've posted in numerous other comments: Matthew Keys may be an unlikable person to some, given his prior personal misgivings (which, I'll note, were over a decade ago). However, the issue is not Matthew Keys; the issue at present is whether The Desk is a reliable source.

:On the issue of Keys, there is no dispute that he is a subject-matter expert, and that The Desk is an authoritative source of information. His work has appeared in numerous publications, including Stream TV Insider (Fierce Video), Know Techie and The Blot. Beyond his writing, he worked for two TV stations in California, the news wire Reuters in New York City, and two print publications in California. He has won numerous California Journalism Awards in recent years. His work on The Desk and elsewhere has been cited by CNET, TechCrunch, WIRED, The Verge and other publications, per his LinkedIn page as well as the linked examples above. He was also [https://www.audacy.com/podcast/after-hours-with-amy-lawrence-fd2eb/episodes/matthew-keys-journalist-for-the-desk-a4c7c interviewed by Audacy] because of his expertise on the media business.

:Keys' personal misgivings are irrelevant. There are other journalists, like David Carr, who were incarcerated for crimes during their lifetimes — and, yet, their work is no less credible, as evident by the fact that Carr's reporting for the New York Times is cited, today, on Wikipedia.

:On the issue of The Desk, it is an authoritative website, because it has been cited numerous times over the past decade by a number of publications, including the ones mentioned, as well as PC World, TechHive, Cord Cutters News, Radio & Television Business Report and others. Moreover, it is not owned by Keys; it is owned by a business incorporated in California. The fact that one person writes most of its content does not disqualify it as authoritative, as other publications like Radio Ink, the Radio and Television Business Report, and Cord Cutters News also have one primary editor or reporter who writes and publishes most of their content.

:If Wikipedia takes the position that The Desk is "self-published," the fact that the author has worked in, and reported on, the media industry for years, and has been cited and interviewed by peer publications, means The Desk is a reliable source, and meets the criteria of reliability under Wikipedia's policy.

:If Wikipedia takes the position that The Desk is not "self-published," then the fact that The Desk has been widely cited by peer publications like CNET, The Verge and TechCrunch stands as proof that the media industry considers it to be a reliable and authoritative source of news, and it meets the criteria of reliability under Wikipedia's policy.

:The personal, ad hominem attacks and veiled implications by other editors as to Keys and The Desk are irrelevant, as they lack direct evidence as to whether The Desk is reliable under Wikipedia's policy. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq| Matthew Keys may be an unlikable person to some, given his prior personal misgivings (which, I'll note, were over a decade ago).}}. The Sac Be article https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article252880588.html refers to a crime committed in 2020 and a six-month sentence to be served starting Sept. 2021. By my math, that’s not over a decade ago. Furthermore, being quoted by other media does not necessarily make him authoritative. Given all the other available sources, there’s no need to use his writings. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with {{u|rsjaffe}} here. Perhaps a conviction for something like minor tax evasion or selling cannabis might have little effect on a journalists credibility. But Keys turned over the access credentials of the company that owned the Los Angeles Times and Fox 40 to the Anonymous (hacker group) who vandalized an LAT article, and he stole subscriber email addresses, sending malicious emails to Fox 40 viewers. After serving two years in federal prison, he maliciously took down the YouTube channel of Comstock's magazine, a Sacramento business publication, and spent another six months behind bars. Both cases were retribution against past employers. These are crimes that are attacks on the news media and directly impact the work we do on Wikipedia. TheMediaHistorian's disingenuous rationalizations above are verbose but unconvincing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The specific article I'm looking at: https://emergencycarebc.ca/clinical_resource/clinical-summary/bupropion-overdose/

The section on Overdose in the Bupropion article seems sparse, and I was thinking of adding to it using the information provided by Emergency Care BC, but I want to confirm if they are an acceptable source. So, are they Reliable? JewelsVerne (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Medical information has additional sourcing guidance than normal content (see WP:MEDRS). I've left a message on that guidelines talk page asking for some input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I saw the note at WT:MEDRS.

::@JewelsVerne, you might get more specific answers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. We're nice. Come join us.

::The BC clinical summary is not bad, but I think we could do better. Try [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maudsley_Prescribing_Guidelines_in_P/QGM4EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bupropion&pg=PA876&printsec=frontcover the Maudsley psychiatry textbook] for a brief note about overdose, or this [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Toxicology_Handbook/ukR3EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bupropion+Overdose&pg=PT204&printsec=frontcover tox handbook], or [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Harwood_Nuss_Clinical_Practice_of_Emerge/6HT2DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bupropion+Overdose&pg=PT5394&printsec=frontcover this nursing handbook]. There's a whole chapter on buproprion in [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Psychiatric_Association_Pub/zKL-EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA531&printsec=frontcover this APA textbook]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Your comments in the RfC on the collocation "Modern Standard Urdu" on the Talk:Urdu page are most welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally, primary sources are considered reliable sources about themselves for purposes of verifiability (not notability!). How does this work if the primary source is user-generated? That is, the individual has created content themselves about themselves. I know that generally this is considered acceptable in the form of social media (Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc.), but what about wikis like Discogs, New Release Today, Fandom, WhoSampled, etc? Obviously, content from other users wouldn't be acceptable, but what about entries or content created by the individual themselves about themselves? For example, on Discogs, regarding a release that they were extensively involved in, they add credit information that wasn't included on the physical liner notes?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:If the credit information is about another person then WP:ABOUTSELF would not apply. If they're claiming credits that are disputed then we would worry that an aboutself source is unduly self-serving. I don't think there's any difference between UGC on Facebook and UGC on Discogs but I would say this is definitely ground to tread carefully on. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding the first point of ABOUTSELF, would you distinguish this from a statement made in an interview about the recording of an album? I ask because a couple months ago during the FA review of Eternal Blue, I asked at the BLP Noticeboard about whether or not a statement by a band member in an interview made about another band member is a violation of BLPSPS. The consensus was no, because of the close affiliation.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:They might be usable, but as with social media you would have to confirm that it is actually the subject and not someone using their name. That second point may be difficult with wikis, especially as it could be edited after the fact by another editor. With the discog example the issue could be how self-serving the details are. Someone adding their own information as a credit when it wasn't mentioned in the liner notes would be a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding subsequent edits, if the edit history is public I think that would resolve that issue. In the case the Discogs example, I'm thinking of a specific case where the account/individual - which by all evidence is from the genuine individual - was one of the main creators of the album, including the physical liner notes. Is this different from, say, this same artist making a statement in an interview that includes information not in the liner notes?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not different from an interview, as long as it's definitely from the subject. For ABOUTSELF to apply it must be absolutely certain it's actually the subject. When it's an interview that's easily determined, while social media accounts should either be verified by the platform or by the individual posting links to the account elsewhere (on their own website for instance). The same level of certainty is required for any other website, there needs to be a verifiable chain that definitely links the subject to the account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it. This is what I presumed. In the example that sparked this question, the Discogs account has links to the artist/producer's websites, is promoting his works, and almost if not entirely contributed works and edits to releases that he made/is on.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure but you appear to have it the wrong way, his personal site should link to his discog account not the other way round. Also if he's adding his own credits to album it may fall foul of the 'unduly self-serving' part of ABOUTSELF. For instance a session musician adding credits, that neither secondary sources or the primary source mention, wouldn't be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The website does link to the Discogs for the label, but it doesn't directly link to the Discogs account. For reference, this is the Discogs account in question: https://www.discogs.com/user/VBP-Gag The language matches with the style of that used on the website, without copying it verbatim. For example, the note about disinterest in political stuff on the Discogs is very similar in language to the one on the website: https://vomitbucketproductions.blogspot.com/p/rules.html.

::::::Regarding the credits, the specific potential use here would be confirming which musicians perform what on a hidden track on 6-Way Sin Decomposition. The reviews I've encountered so far don't even seem to have encountered the track (I would presume because of how the track was hidden so that it won't be found through a normal playthrough). One mentions 82 tracks, which is the official number on the liner notes. That an additional track exists is confirmed both through a mention of 83 songs on a product listing the above mentioned website (https://vomitbucketproductions.blogspot.com/p/sold-out-releases.html), and by the physical media itself (I've personally heard the song). So demonstrating its existence isn't difficult. But, the artist/record label owner doesn't talk about it in a 2015 interview (he might've elsewhere that's lost to link rot or else buried in on Internet Archive). So far, all I can find to confirm the title of the song and who is on it is a couple of Discogs edits by the account in question. I don't think the use is that self-serving, as 1) the artist is on the release and heavily involved in the album's creation, whereas the particular role credited for the track is vocals, and 2) it credits other musicians as well (all of whom are elsewhere on the recording). I can trace the specific edits and confirm that only that account made them. I find it annoying that this is the only form I can find of this information and not a better source, and obviously it's questionable, hence why I brought this up here.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::On Discogs and separately via email on a Bandcamp page for one of Gag/G.G.'s projects he verified that he's the same individual behind the Discogs account. Is that acceptable for confirming the identity? This is an area I've never tread in before.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes that looks good. All that's needed is some source, that is known to be the subject, confirming the account is also them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, after I messaged the Discogs account, I messaged the Bandcamp account of an associated act. And the response from the Bandcamp mentioned getting a message from me on Discogs. So it's definitely the same guy.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I guess I should note, in the example I'm thinking of, the account/individual is one of two individuals who released the album under his respective indie label.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. A good example would be genius.com. It's a collection of user-generated annotations explaining music lyrics and other content. However, they also have "verified artist" annotations in which a given explanation is verified to be from the actual artist. I would consider that to be reliable, despite having a wiki-based format, because we can clearly identify what comments were made by the musician who created a song.

:The important factor isn't the location in which an WP:ABOUTSELF remark was published, it's whether it is verifiably from the artist and the claims it is being used to support.

:Wikis and social media sites can be more challenging to verify due to the way they are implemented (edit histories, as you brought up), but it doesn't affect the actual reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:: I'd forgotten about Genius.com, that's a great example.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• WP:ABOUTSELF covers this. For claims of attribution, the concern would usually be to ensure that {{tq|the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}}, which varies depending on context. An artist claiming that they helped write a relatively obscure piece by a frequent collaborator, which there is no reason for anyone to doubt they would have worked on, is probably fine. A self-published cite of an artist claiming they helped John Lennon write Imagine would obviously not be fine. --Aquillion (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This was my presumption, this was just such an unusual case, and involving self-generated content, that I wanted to make sure that my judgement was correct.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the consensus on the reliability of Spears 500, specifically its information on schools? It's a commercial review / ranking site. There is some information about their processes [https://spears500.com/research-guidelines here] and [https://spearswms.com/education/best-private-schools-in-world-spears/ here]. The first link says:

{{tq|The profiles on spears500.com have various different elements. All profiles have a section with the heading ‘Spear’s Review’. This is written by the Spear’s editorial team. Enhanced profiles have an additional section with the heading ‘Adviser Profile’. The content under this heading is provided by the adviser and/or their firm.}}

Would you think then that anything under "Spear's Review" might be ok, whilst "Adviser Profile" is potentially self-pubbed and not ok? I'm looking particularly at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michaelhouse&curid=30863452&diff=1282729880&oldid=1264938605 this diff], where it is used to evidence the statement in the lead, {{tq|The Spear’s Schools Index 2025 recognises Michaelhouse as one of the world’s 100 leading private schools (Rest of the World category), for demonstrating excellence in academics, innovation and student development}}. This is from text headed "Spear's Review" rather than "Adviser's Review". Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Its not like editors review every possible source that exists. What specific claim is this source being used for? Ramos1990 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Correction, I saw the diff you cited. No discussion on this website is in the archive, but the The Schools Index article has refernces. Seems ot be WP:USEDBYOTHERS to some extent. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)