Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477#Primary source usage
{{talk archive navigation}}
''Prophet and Teacher'' by William R. Herzog
{{atop|status=WP:NOTDUMB|reason=I left this open even though the OP was blocked, as there was maybe reasonable discussion still to be had. Unfortunately this is either socking or someone trying a Joe job against the OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}
Concerns the lead of :Christ myth theory. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
"Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."
Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press
This book is firstly used in an incorrect way in the article, see reference number 3. The book doesn't actually says what the wiki article says that is says, something which I have brought up on the talk page but it is not corrected. Secondly it is a book published by a religious publisher, therefore heavily biased. I have suggested other sources such as Brittanica, but it seems that some editors prefer this book, even though it is not accurately referenced even. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:William R. Herzog II was formerly Sallie Knowles Crozer Professor of New Testament Interpretation, seems to make him a reputable source, as to verifiability, a different issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::So he's not a historian. This is bout historical Jesus. And this wasn't written in a journal or similar. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Err, he is an expert of religion, Jesus is a religious figure. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Are we going to ignore that it is not representative of whole mainstream historical scholarship? Are we going to ignore what he actually writes in the text to? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::The first few pages of the boom are available as a Google preview[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BHXMZ_V9zyQC&pg=PA1], it certainly seems to back up the idea that the historical Jesus existed in the first century CE and was crucified. As an academic in the specification field he is writing on he would appear to be a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is what the wiki says:
::::::"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in 1st-century-AD Roman Judea"
::::::In the book he doesn't mention anything about a "mainstream scholarly consensus," which is claimed on wiki. So it's incorrect. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Wikipedia is a summary of sources not simply requoting them, and this is not the only source for that statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::But the only similarity to what is written is that he make claims about a historical Jesus but it cannot be referenced to make this generalised statement. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Why have you opened a second thread about the same exact topic? Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Which is the second thread? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Same article different source, I tried to rename this section to avoid this confusion but was reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Multiple references can be used to back up a claim, with different references supporting different parts of the claim. This isn't the only reference for that statement, it is there in partial support of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::To be fair, this is a separate source. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's also a different claim, the section headers have caused confusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The first one is about whether the Christian myth theory is fringe, this one is about whether the Christian myth theory is theainstream view. These appear as different claims in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::But the source is incorrectly referenced, please show support for the claims on wiki. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not an RS issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::IP needs to drop the stick. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The show where it says what is claimed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, as I have said that is not required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Misrepresenting sources is not correct. It should be required to be correct. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It's not being misrepresented, it's one reference that is being used to support a larger claim. This is a standard practice on Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::But it doesn't make sense in relation to the source. It's wrong. Explain why this source is used in this way. The justification? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::There were three quests. Bssic knowledge, explained in the article. Jesus existed, three references, plus a long list of quotes in the notes. Why is it so long? Because some people think they know better than each and every expert, and don't notice when they WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::There are other sources that says Jesus existed. This book also says Jesus existed, although he doesn't make the claims that are made in the wiki article. It should be better adjusted.
::::::::::::::::::I don't think I know better than experts, but it should be attributed correctly don't you think?
::::::::::::::::::"Jesus existed, three references,"
::::::::::::::::::This is not the dispute.
::::::::::::::::::This is what wiki says now:
::::::::::::::::::"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus"
::::::::::::::::::It just doesn't have support in the book. He doesn't mention mainstream consensus at all. Please make a narrow page reference then because 6 pages for that small sentence seems excessive. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I understand it doesn't make sense to you but maybe if many different people, including people uninvolved in the article, are saying your wrong then maybe you are. WP:1AM has some useful thoughts non this situation.
Of course maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong, but that won't help in this situation. Wikipedia is built on consenus amongst editors, and sometimes no matter how right you are that consensus will be against you. In that case all you can do is move on to a different subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I agree with the OP, I don't think this is a proper reference to use, so there's not a consensus 2A02:AA1:1040:582C:9559:A103:5A92:D692 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I don’t think the source is reliable 114.46.147.190 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I don't think the source is reliable either, so there seems to be many who doesn't think it's reliable. 110.77.200.120 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent}} This should probably be closed. It's clear the consensus is against the OP, but also, this noticeboard is for determining the reliability of sources. This appears to have been brought as an issue of whether the source supports the claim it is being cited for. That has nothing to do with reliability of the source, and is instead suited to discussion at the article's talk page regarding whether the source is appropriate for the claim is supposed to be supporting. Those are entirely different things. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with the OP, I don't think that it's a good reference to use in this context. So there's not a consensus. 2A02:AA1:1040:582C:9559:A103:5A92:D692 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:The source should be deleted, it is biased since it's published by a religious publisher and more academic sources should be used 114.46.147.190 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I am a third party that have been following the debate and I've checked the source myself, it doesn't say what is claimed so it should be changed or deleted, otherwise there is a heavy bias 110.77.200.120 (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Note as well that single-purpose IP's are not going to swing the issue. Second, a call to snow close. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Primary source usage
Can primary sources be used to represent an organisation's stated position? As I understand it, WP:PRIMARY allows the use of a primary source for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". WP:ABOUTSELF states that self-published sources "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". I relied on these policies to present an organization's position with proper attribution in the section titled "Positions". I cited an official statement from SEGM to reflect their attributed opinion (not a statement of fact) that they believe puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trial settings: [https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence]. This was removed citing WP:PRIMARY: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine&diff=1289556593&oldid=1289547900] But how else can an organization's official position be cited, if not from its own statements or documents? Since this is not the first time this happens, I would like to ask a third opinion on the matter. JonJ937 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:This seems to be an appropriate use of a primary source. However, this relates to a topic that seems to be in flux… positions change frequently. Thus, the source might be outdated (you should check whether SEGM has any issued subsequent statements that might indicate a change in their position). Blueboar (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the comment. I checked their website and couldn't find any recent updates to their position. They normally state their stance with wording like 'It is SEGM's position that...'", or include a separate section titled "SEGM Position". JonJ937 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:Even for an organization's official position, it is usually best to have not just the primary source but also high-quality secondary sources to put it into the right context. The question is what is WP:DUE and whether it is reasonable to include (even attributed) medical misinformation in spite of WP:MEDRS. Our article on Andrew Wakefield does not go out and report claims from his pro-viruses activism as "opinion" either. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this. I believe that citations aren't just for verifying whether something is true, they're for verifying why it's relevant. If it's not covered in secondary sources, that calls its overall relevance into doubt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:WP:ABOUTSELF details can come from primary sources, but remember that is a limited exception. As Kusma said we wouldn't rely on Wakefield for certain ABOUTSELF details because they would likely be self-serving or exceptional claims. SEGM is a contentious organisation, so relying on only it's self statements alone would likely be a NPOV issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for your comments. I'm working on editing the "Positions" section, which is meant to reflect the official views of the organization. I think the most accurate way to do that is by using the organization’s own statements, rather than relying on how others interpret them. In my understanding, WP:ABOUTSELF permits to use self-published sources to reflect the person's or entity's own opinions. SEGM’s official position is that the U.S. should limit the use of puberty blockers to clinical trials until there’s more evidence about their effectiveness and long-term safety. I linked their statement above. This is a widely debated topic, and medical organizations around the world have different views. However, there is a general international trend toward taking a more cautious approach, with the WHO acknowledging that "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". [https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-library/tgd_faq_16012024.pdf] Of course, if broader context on the ongoing international debate over the use of puberty blockers is needed, we can include that as well, along with the organization's official position. I have no issues with that. I just believe that the organization's own views need to be accurately reflected. JonJ937 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the problem you have is {{tq|"which is meant to reflect the official views of the organization"}} is simply not true. In all cases secondary sources are preferred. The article might include how an organisation describes itself, but if there are reliable secondary sources that also discuss the topic then they can't be ignored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:With SEGM, absolutely not, per WP:FRINGE:
:* WP:FRIND: {{Tq|The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, as such sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of mainstream secondary sources. Points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles.}}
:* {{tq|While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article}}
:* WP:PROFRINGE: {{tq|Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.) For this reason, notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.}}
:Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the material must be {{tq|neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} and {{tq|not involve claims about third parties}}. This fails on both counts, not even including the fact RSN's last discussion on SEGM found {{tq|It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here. WP:ABOUTSELF exception applies}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_393#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine]
:The quote you added was FRINGE nonsense put into wikivoice: {{tq|SEGM believes that due to the substantial uncertainties surrounding the long-term risks and benefits of hormonal treatments, any invasive and irreversible interventions should be limited to clinical trials, following comprehensive psychological evaluations and a transparent informed consent process}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289547900&oldid=1287606134&title=Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine]
:* This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that there are "substantial uncertainties"
:* This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that treatments are "invasive and irreversible"
:* This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that they call for a "transparent informed consent process"
:** According to them, this means that informed consent {{tq|must accurately disclose the limited prognostic ability of the gender dysphoria/gender incongruence diagnosis for young people}} because as they say earlier {{tq|Studies consistently show that the vast majority of patients with childhood-onset gender distress who are not treated with "gender-affirmative" social transition or medical interventions grow up to be LGB adults.}} - which is a piece of misinformation known as the desistance myth
:* Every single WP:MEDORG in the US thinks this is bullshit
:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::What about MEDORGS outside the US? Springee (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::We are not discussing whether an opinion is fringe or mainstream; we are discussing whether it is appropriate to cite an organisation's stated position with proper attribution. I believe Wikipedia’s guidelines allow this, regardless of whether we personally agree with the opinion. Regarding the "substantial uncertainties," this debate is indeed not limited to the United States. I cited the WHO, the organization that usually reflects global medical consensus, which states that the evidence for gender-affirming care in children is variable and limited. The European Academy of Paediatrics has stated: "The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested". [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38374879/] Even in the United States, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons notes that "the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty". [https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/asps-statement-to-press-regarding-gender-surgery-for-adolescents] The NHS in the UK also acknowledges uncertainty (the same word as SEGM uses) about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment and lists possible permanent complications. [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/] These are not fringe opinions, In fact, WP:MEDRS advises us to pay attention to positions of both the WHO and NHS. I could provide many more sources, but it is clear that SEGM’s position on puberty blockers aligns with a broader shift in international consensus. It has long been argued that the U.S. is becoming a global outlier in not taking a more cautious approach to the medical treatment of gender dysphoria: [https://www.wsj.com/politics/u-s-becomes-transgender-care-outlier-as-more-in-europe-urge-caution-6c70b5e0] JonJ937 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The opinions of SEGM have already found to be fringe on this the WP:FRINGE/N board previously. We don't need to establish that again as it is established that they are a fringe group who publish fringe opinions. As such WP:FRIND most certainly does apply as per YFNS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::There was a strong consensus on the fringe board that opposition to puberty blockers is not a fringe position. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_104#Puberty_blockers_in_children] So SEGM's opposition to them is not fringe either. This discussion is not about fringe theories, particularly since there is consensus that this specific view is not fringe, but about the use of primary sources to represent an organization’s stated views. JonJ937 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:I think ActivelyDisinterested is correct here. I asked a similar question years back with respect to the NRA. The NRA's views on things like red flag laws shouldn't be viewed as factual views on the topic. However, they are the view of a gun rights organization and thus, within the NRA article, their aboutself stance on the topic may be quite relevant. Certainly if a claim from a source conflicts with the SEGM's stated position that should be noted. In this case, if a RS says, SEGM's stance is X but the SEGM's official position is !X then aboutself can be used. What shouldn't be done is if no RSs bring up a position SEGM has stated but we quote their position anyway. Springee (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, this includes cases such as the WP:ADL when they describe something as antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::As I mentioned above, SEGM's position that puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trials is consistent with the recommendations of international and national health authorities and medical organizations, particularly in the UK, Finland, Sweden, and others. So, can we include a sentence like "SEGM believes that puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trials", linking to their official statement? Also, since there is an ongoing international debate about the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers, should we include an overview of that debate in the article? If so, what would be the best format? Should we follow SEGM’s position with the views of major international and U.S. medical organizations and point to the divergence in opinions? JonJ937 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:The main concerns here about due weight and npov are not being satisfied by your belief that SEGM's views are similar to that of some national medorgs. I understand that you really want to show off SEGM's views, however if secondary rs don't write about them, why should we.LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::It is not my belief. This is what Undark Magazine writes:
::''On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/]
::''
::SEGM advocates for similar restrictions. How does WP:WEIGHT prevent including an organization's own views in a section titled "Positions" in the article about that organization? The article exists to describe the organization's activities and viewpoints. If we leave out its main position, how is that neutral? JonJ937 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Because it's a crackpot view per WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::No, it is not, because the position held by health authorities in many countries cannot be considered fringe. This specific position was discussed on the fringe board (see above). Secondary sources also mention SEGM's position that puberty blockers and hormones should be limited until more evidence on their benefits becomes available. Undark Magazine:
::::{{quote frame |Against the backdrop of these rapidly diverging continental perspectives, Malone began looking for professionals who shared his belief that better research is necessary before youth are given access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries. In 2019, he co-founded the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, or SEGM (pronounced SEG-um). [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/]}}
::::So there are both primary and secondary sources on SEGM's position about puberty blockers. JonJ937 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Again you are trying to re-litigate the recent RfC at WP:FRINGE/N that established that SEGM is a fringe advocacy group mostly known for spreading transphobic misinformation. That some authorities have fallen for their nonsense doesn't change that they're fringe.Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:People raise important points about WP:DUE that often militate against the use of primary sources as you describe. That said, there are definitely situations where those concerns are satisfied and it is appropriate to cite an advocacy organisation (that would not be RS in general) about its own opinion. In those situations, SEGM is reliable for its own position. The due weight debate can happen on the article talk page or WP:NPOV/N if needed. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
: More sources.
{{quote frame |In 2022, the Swedish government’s National Board of Health and Welfare said hormone treatments for minors “should be provided within a research context” and offered “only in exceptional cases,” while adding that the “risks of puberty suppressing treatment … and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits.” In Norway, the country’s Healthcare Investigation Board recommended in part that gender-affirming care treatments such as puberty blockers be defined as experimental. Meanwhile in France, the Académie Nationale de Médecine in February 2022 recommended the “greatest reserve” when considering puberty blockers or hormone treatments due to possible side effects such as “impact on growth, bone weakening, risk of infertility” and others, according to a translation. [https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors]}}
{{quote frame |In 2020, Finland’s health agency restricted the care by recommending psychotherapy as the primary treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria. Two years later, Sweden restricted hormone treatments to “exceptional cases.” In December, regional health authorities in Norway designated youth gender medicine as a “treatment under trial,” meaning hormones will be prescribed only to adolescents in clinical trials. And in Denmark, new guidelines being finalized this year will limit hormone treatments to transgender adolescents who have experienced dysphoria since early childhood. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/health/europe-transgender-youth-hormone-treatments.html]}}
Also [https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/12/13/the-uk-is-the-latest-country-to-ban-puberty-blockers-for-trans-kids-why-is-europe-restrict] [https://www.academie-medecine.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/22.2.25-Communique-PCRA-19-Gender-identity-ENG.pdf]--JonJ937 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to cite an organization's own statements when presenting its positions, in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Some context about the global debate on the use of puberty blockers could also be provided. Quite frankly, it is a highly contested topic with no clear scientific consensus, and Wikipedia should aim to represent the views of all sides objectively and in a balanced way. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The Schlock Pit
Hey, just wanted to get a look at this one. Long story short, The Schlock Pit is a genre website that tends to focus on Z grade horror films and the like. I saw it pop up while looking for sources for a somewhat obscure film and I wanted to see if this could be usable.
The site is run by two people, Matty Budrewicz and Dave Wain, who have been writing for the site for about 10 years. The two seem to be pretty well thought of in the horror genre - they were brought in to curate a box set for Arrow Films and were highlighted in [https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/enter-the-video-store-empire-of-screams-blu-ray-review/ this article] by Slant Magazine and [https://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/456536/enter-the-video-store-empire-of-screams-is-a-blast-arrow-video-review/ this one] by Dread Central. It looks like Arrow has also brought them on for audio commentary for some of their movies - so far I can see that they did commentaries for Arrow's releases of The Wolf of Wall Street and Critters. They were also brought on for commentary on [https://bloody-disgusting.com/home-video/3640347/88-films-slashes-know-last-summer-trilogy-blu-ray-box-set-uk/ this boxset of I Know What You Did Last Summer] by 88 Films. They have also been cited as a RS in books by [https://www.google.com/books/edition/C%C3%B3mics_en_pantalla/kuRtEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=https://theschlockpit.com/&pg=PA327&printsec=frontcover the University of Zaragoza Press] (by :es:Héctor Caño Díaz) and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Adapting_Stephen_King/7RTYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=theschlockpit.com&pg=PA214&printsec=frontcover McFarland] (by Joseph Maddrey). I think there are more, as their name comes up in relation to "It Came From the Video Aisle!: Inside Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment Studio" through Schiffer Publishing, but as it has no snippet view I can't tell what relation they have to the book. I've got a copy somewhere so I'll try and find it to see. Other than that, they seem to have run a video store that got covered by [https://www.fangoria.com/the-last-video-stores-physical-media-comeback/ Fangoria].
I think this would establish the two (and more specifically their site) as a RS on Wikipedia. Arrow is a very well thought of company and given the lineup at their film festival FrightFest (it's the largest and most well known horror themed film festival in the UK), they can pick and choose as they please for commentary. That they would choose these two is pretty telling.
This passing as a RS probably won't save the article in question, but it would be extremely useful for some of the more obscure films out there, especially as the two tend to go into some depth with their reviews and commentary. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:Per WP:BLOGS: {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} Budrewicz and Wain are recognized as subject-matter experts by other reliable publications; and they have contributed material to other projects because they are considered to be subject-matter experts. That meets the standard, IMO. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'd concur. This sounds like an expert SPS. I'm also familiar with the outlet through my work as an art critic and would personally support the idea this blog is made by people who know their stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Sweet - I figured it'd be usable, but always good to get some consensus just to CYA. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Just remember the limits on expert SPS means don't use them for any BLP statements. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Not a worry on my end - I'm going to use them more for themes and review sections in articles. But still good reminder to have, since of course some of those films are sometimes the focus of controversy. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
TV audio commentary database
Could this site be used to support basic information about television DVD commentaries? https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/ While it takes input from readers, the named editors have full editorial control. For full disclosure for the entry for [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/merlin Merlin] (also the article I tried to add it to: Merlin (2008 TV series) I am credited as one of two people who submitted underlying information that was compiled by the editors, but neither me or anyone else credited for [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/Simpsons various entries] have any say in what is published and the editors added additional information, for example in the former case about differences between a U.K. and U.S. release that I had no knowledge of. I don't see any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information. It does disclose the use of affiliate links, though so do many established news websites. newsjunkie (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
: It's just a fan site. https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/contact explicitly says that it's run by three "fans", and there's nothing whatever to indicate that it's any more reliable than any other fan site. JBW (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
::Yes it is a fan site with commentaries on shows. I think that a better source would be wiser to use as this can be challeneged by anyone and I don't think this can be defended as somehow reliable. Seems like user genreated content. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::It doesn't have any actual commentaries, it's just saying that these are the commentaries that exist on certain DVDs. To what extent does context matter in that what is being verified is very uncontroversial and not an exceptional claim? In some ways I think it could be considered either like a Vendor/Affiliate link or convenience link in that it's just compiling the information that is available on the DVDS themselves in question similar to individual listings on a vendor website. Is external recognition by a another source the only way to verify accuracy if there is also no evidence of inaccuracy? There is evidence of disclosure in terms of the affiliate links and that there is some editorial oversight (not just a page where anyone can register or post something) newsjunkie (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Not even sure what this would be used for if it does not even have commentaries on DVDs. What exactly do you mean when you say DVD commentaries? Do you have example of an artcle edit using this source? Iam trying to see what claims have been used with this soruce on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ah I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merlin_%282008_TV_series%29&diff=1290160901&oldid=1288802549]. Its just on what actors, producers, etc have episode or movie commentary on DVDs right? I see other fan sites like [https://poetryincamelot.tumblr.com/merlin-audio-commentaries] there too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think this page is actually more reliable the the first one, because this one can't be edited by anyone, only the editors. And it's across multiple different series, not one in particular. newsjunkie (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::It compiles in list form for each [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/merlin show] which episodes of a series on DVD have audio commentaries and who is speaking on those audio commentaries (actors/writers/directors), which is information that is of course on each individual DVDs but but not broadly accessible otherwise, so it just verifies that the commentaries exist and provides further information on them. It also has an overview of actors/speakers providing commentaries across different shows, so like showing that Thomas Schlamme has provided commentaries on DVDs for several different series.https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/commentator/schlamme-thomas newsjunkie (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Considering that the tumblr blog [https://poetryincamelot.tumblr.com/merlin-audio-commentaries] is on the Merlin article already and the other refs for the commentaries is amazon UK, I don't think there is much I can object to using this as a source. I suppose this is better than nothing. But if there is enough push back, then it is best to leave it out. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I would consider replacing the Tumblr one with this one, the Merlin entry was added to the database more recently, and the database page is at least definitely one that not just anyone can edit. newsjunkie (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you. I think that DVD listings from sellers provide some decent material. Also sometimes IMDB is ok for this basic info [https://www.imdb.com/find/?s=tt&q=61%20(2001)%20-%20Commentary], but it not seen well in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, I know IMDB is tricky because anyone can register and edit, which is the one of the reasons I think this page should be seen as somewhat more reliable since it does not have that option. newsjunkie (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Re: {{tq|Considering that the tumblr blog [111] is on the Merlin article already and the other refs for the commentaries is amazon UK, I don't think there is much I can object to using this as a source.}} That would appear that you're making a determination that [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com this] is a reliable source based on "there are other bad sources on this article already"? A source isn't considered reliable simply because bad sources already exist in the article. This source is a blog/fan site, which is a self-published source and on that basis, it should not be used. The Tumblr blog you noted should not be used for the same reason.
:::::::This noticeboard is for determining whether a source is considered reliable. This source does not meet our standard of measure. Suggesting "this isn't as bad as that" isn't a reason to use the source. It's a reason to find a useable source or remove the content. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Cool. But on the same post you quoted I did say that leaving it out would be good if others agree it is not a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Duly noted, thanks for clarifying. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The reliable sources guideline emphasize that context matters and reliability is on a spectrum and that "no source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything." There is also the suggestion on the informational page about perennial sources that "Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources" newsjunkie (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Context does matter, but you can't take the "context matters" concept out of context. A self-published blog and/or fansite is not citable, with the obvious exception of a site published by "recognized experts". There is no recognized expert at the helm - just three "big fans of TV shows on DVD" - that's the context. Why would we cite this over some-tv-fan-blog.com? There is nothing about this source that establishes it as qualified. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Having some of DVDs in question for several of the shows cited the listings appear to accurately and correctly reflect the information on the DVDs. That is something anybody with access to any of the DVDs for the shows in question covered by the site can verify. (since the DVDs are also published and available as public sources, in case that raises original research questions.) And there is also reference on some pages to them making corrections based on input from readers. https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/Simpsons newsjunkie (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Accurate ≠ Reliable. These are not interchangeable terms. Just because some-tv-fan-blog.com has accurate information, that does not mean it is a "reliable source". Accuracy is necessary, but that's not the criteria. Who are Carol, Paul and Emily? Other than being "big fans of TV shows on DVD", what qualifies them as reliable sources (or any of the other unnamed masses that have evidently contributed to the site)? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Are there no circumstances where accuracy and no evidence of any negative reputation can show reliability or is external validation the only mechanism for that in all situations? newsjunkie (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::When the source is someone's personal website, there has to be some qualification that makes the person a reliable source. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Newsjunkie, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. We have already explained why the source you are talking about is unreliable, but you keep egging it on. It is clear that you are WP:NOTLISTENING to us, and this has been consistent from you for the past 2 months. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Inter Press Service - Business section
- Article: Vishwananda and Bhakti Marga (organisation)
- Source: https://ipsnews.net/business/2024/10/17/rui-patricio-the-famous-portuguese-goalkeeper-has-revealed-his-secret-to-staying-at-the-top-of-his-game-yoga/
- Claims: Multiple, including nearly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhakti_Marga_(organisation)#Religious_practices the complete section on Atma Kriya Yoga].
This is only about the content under https://ipsnews.net/business and not their general reporting under https://ipsnews.net. The latter is unquestionably reliable. The two sites are kept distinct, with different archives.
I strongly suspect the content at https://ipsnews.net/business to be advertorials generated by untrustworthy and not neutral third parties, not by the Inter Press Service itself.
Further examples:
- [https://ipsnews.net/business/2020/03/31/smartcard-marketing-systems-inc-smkgotc-announces-expansion-partnership-with-white-prompt-collaboration-for-brazil-and-argentina-markets/] Advertisement for Smartcard Marketing Systems
- [https://ipsnews.net/business/2023/06/15/birth-month-flowers-and-their-meanings/] Advertisement for a flower delivery service in LA
- [https://ipsnews.net/business/2021/11/30/indium-tin-oxide-ito-market-2021-industry-analysis-segment-forecast-to-2027/] Advertisement for fusionmarketresearch
Without any exception, all of this content is labeled as "Content Marketing".
See also the (short) Terms of Use: https://ipsnews.net/business/terms-of-use/
In an effort to raise more funds to support our independent news service, IPS has started redistributing newswire content to the site IPS News Business, in partnership with a few selected sources.
We may, from time to time, monitor the content posted to IPS News Business, but IPS cannot monitor or thoroughly review all the information that is submitted to IPS News Business. Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:Sites that repost material don't change it's reliability. As an example MSN.com repost news reports from other news organisations, the reliability of those reports come from the original publisher and not MSN. So if ipsnews posts news wire content, it should be handled as if the original source published it and not ipsnews.
In this case the original source is unclear, so it should be treated as being from someone involved with Paramahamsa Vishwananda or Rui Patricio. Such a source can be reliable for certain limited details, see WP:ABOUTSELF, as it's basically a press release. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Princeton Review (Best x)
This company provides (or at least has historically provided) ranked lists of 'Best' things relating to higher education in the USA, including 'Best Professors', apparently based on student feedback etc. although I am not clear on the methodology used. Appearing in those rankings is cited in a few articles e.g. Karl J. Niklas. Do we have a view on whether it's (1) enc/noteworthy and (2) a cite-able source please? My initial feeling is 'probably not' to both, but keen to get further input. YFB ¿ 16:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:If anyone replies to this, please @ping me. I can't cope with checking this page in my watchlist due to the ludicrous WP:FRINGE UFOstuff battle that's happening in the topic below. YFB ¿ 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Bookauthority.org
Is there any reason to use https://bookauthority.org as a source or include it in External links sections? It is currently found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22bookauthority%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 37 articles].
The main page of the website claims to list "books recommended by thoughts leaders and experts"; the [https://bookauthority.org/about About us] page says "We meticulously search the web daily for the most recommended books, then review them and categorize them by subject", which sounds all well and good, but their [https://bookauthority.notion.site/BookAuthority-Author-Help-e0c72e2664834fdd8ac7a42ba79e8855 help page for authors] is much more honest about what they actually do:
BookAuthority operates through a fully automated process. Our AI and algorithms scan the internet, analyze recommendations, and determine which books are featured. To maintain impartiality, we have no editorial control and cannot manually add, feature, or review any books.
Oh, and also all book links on the website are Amazon affiliate links. Any objections to removing the link from where it can be found in article space? --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
:With that admission of theirs, I think it should be removed across the project. (I've removed it from several places in :Jennifer Cook, including inline attribution.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
:I can't see any reason to include it, if the reviews it aggregates are relevant they should be cited directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
:Ditto to what ActivelyDisinterested said - it's an aggregator (albeit a well put-together one), so citing what it is pulling from is better, much like any news source that is actually noting another article - it's better to cite the original article than the reprint. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, if it is extracting from a better source, it may be better to cite the better source. That will at last reduce objections to the material being inserted into wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, yes, obviously, but bookauthority does not extract information from sources and present it – it is almost only used in Wikipedia articles as a primary source for claims like "Her book was listed as one of the 20 best books about topic Z", meaning that it was included in an autogenerated list at bookauthority.org. And that is clearly not a relevant piece of information, even if it is picked up by another source like [https://chitraltoday.net/2020/04/18/dr-zubaida-among-authors-of-three-best-of-all-times-books/ here] (which is pretty clearly paid promotion anyway).
:::What might be possible to do is use bookauthority like one might use a Wikipedia article, going to the sources and reading them to see if they are useful, and what information they contain. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::The quality of what it generates is.... well... one of the links currently being used as a source points to [https://bookauthority.org/books/best-selling-nigerian-biography-books this page] of the "best selling Nigerian biographies of all time", the second of which is not a biography but a system for using AI to generate a biography. Slop slop slop. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Voice of America (May 2025)
I think we might want to consider whether VOA should be considered GUNREL from May 2025 forward per [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/07/us/trump-news?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk8.aab_.e460M-ZWazOu&smid=url-share this NYT article]. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:Seems to be a notable concern according to [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/07/voice-america-one-america-news the Guardian] as well. DN (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::Raised this already at WT:RS. Masem (t) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not a particular fan of VoA as a source, but should we see this veer in the direction this suggests, it would be due a re-consideration. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:I think we should definitely be concerned, see what happened to covid.gov, but has the output of VOA changed yet? If they do start outputting reposts from OAN then they would become unreliable as OAN is unreliable, and where an unreliable source is published doesn't change its status (all the DM reposts on MSN and Yahoo for instance). I just worry about jumping the gun before changes have been made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::But we should also wait, until we see what it does. But we do need to keep an eye on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:For now its a wait and see but its likely going to need to be date seperated as you suggest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, agreed. I was just flagging it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
:Is there a way to have any link to it archived automatically? Just to prevent tampering with older articles. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::According to WP:PLRT the Internet Archive runs through the Wikipedia EventStream and archives all links it sees automatically within about 24 hours, which is probably about as good as we can do. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I assumed there would be a larger delay, this is probably good enough, thanks. FortunateSons (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:Well, so much for it advertising the land of the free and the home of the brave. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::It can't happen here. I wouldn't trust any US government source for at best the next 4 years. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I can thoroughly recommend 'Travellers in the Third Reich' which is about what people travelling to Germany said in the years before WW II. It is quite fascinating seeing what tourists, businessmen, diplomats, writers and others said about their journeys there, I still find it hard to believe how it all happened and how those who disagreed were cowed into silence or had to flee, how people one might expect to know better became ardent believers, how the youth in particular were taken over. NadVolum (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:I would support infinite (non date specific) deprecation of all USAGM properties because (a) the sources clearly support that they have always been unreliable, and less importantly but still observedly, (b) our unwillingness to deprecate in the past exposes us to ridicule now.
:One year ago I advanced a successful RfC that led to the deprecation of VOA sibling broadcaster Radio y Television Marti. I also advanced an unsuccessful RfC related to another VOA sibling, RFE/RL, on an objective basis of unreliability (chief among them was that its reorganization under the USAGM removed all cushions between editorial and political policy). While I still strongly believe all USAGM broadcasters (including VOA, RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia, etc.) should be deprecated, I will generally note that now when we do it -- having declined to do so last year -- we will open ourselves to claims of political bias. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, of course. However, deprecation, when it happens, should cover the whole history of VOA as clear evidence supports that it is and has been unreliable throughout its existence; any recent events are superficial when viewed through a holistic lens of USAGM and BBGs documented, decades-long history of errors, omissions, political manipulation, and agenda-setting oriented towards supporting the wild global ambitions of its sponsor. It's perceptually perilous, but -- more important -- factually incorrect, to suggest VOA's reliability can be turned off and on like a light switch. Chetsford (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::If VOA stops it's current reporting and starts reposting OAN, then there will have been a definitive switch. Just because the name would stay the same doesn't mean it's would be the same organisation. If someone bought a newspaper and completely changed it from the ground up, then reassessing it and potentially changing it's reliability would be valid. If something no longer bears any relationship with it's past, there is no reason it should be treated the same. If anyone wants to make a claim of political bias they would have to show where that happened, not just that different sources are handled differently.
I would agree that nothing should happen now, as I said in my original comment. We should wait to see what happens and how secondary sources report on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not really certain we agree at all. To clarify, I believe all USAGM properties should have been deprecated ten years ago and the error can be remedied at any point including now. We already have decades worth of secondary sources that demonstrate to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that each of the USAGM brands have not been functionally independent since they were founded, even with the ostensible protections offered by the now defunct BBG. I itemized a mere fraction of these in the Radio y Television Marti and RFE/RL RfCs. Whether or not it starts simulcasting or syndicating OAN is superfluous; that's a drop in a reservoir that long ago crested the dam. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not being drawn into past RFC, especially if they closed with a consensus that these were reliable. If you believe there is already enough evidence to change that consensus you can always start a new RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{Xt|"I'm not being drawn into past RFC"}} I don't think -- or at least didn't mean to -- draw you into a past RfC. You seemed to imply no secondary sources exist about the unreliability of USAGM brands; I was merely correcting that point that, in fact, there are scores of secondary sources spanning decades. {{Xt|"especially if they closed with a consensus that these were reliable"}} One closed with a consensus to deprecate, the other closed with a consensus that additional considerations apply. I would respectfully posit that, in the second case, that consensus occurred largely due to !voters similarly adopting a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach to the subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think the key concept here is the presumption of regularity. If our treatment of government sources varied with the change of political party then yes, we'd be open to a charge of bias. I doubt you'd find much support for the idea that we can say that about the present situation in the United States. Developing an argument that the VOA has always been unreliable, and that the current (possible) changes make no different, seems like a difficult and unnecessary hill to climb. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::As the person who closed the past two RFCs, I agree that that would be a tough battle, and probably one that would generate more heat than fire. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It is difficult, I agree, though I'd posit that's largely due to the American sensibilities of most of our editors whose cultural frame associates VOA and its sibling brands (particularly Radio Free Europe) with Cold War-era nobiliary intentions to such a degree that they're willing to overlook decades of documentation that reveal a more pernicious M.O. that would warrant deprecation for any other outlet. The second RfC was correctly closed by Voorts as a consensus for Additional Considerations. However, the !votes of many editors were still and undeniably bizarre. Faced with a dozen points from RS showing RFE/RLs historic and ongoing infiltration by intelligence services, its politicized editorial focus, its routine disciplining of editorial staff for reporting that challenged the wild global ambitions of its sponsor, and its history of broadcasting fabrications and falsehoods, many editors still simply lodged a simple and perfunctory "meh - don't see any reason not to trust it *shrug*". I've been on the wrong end of many RfCs and I can usually comprehend the perspective of the other "side" even if I don't agree with it. This one, though, left me utterly befuddled. Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I agree entirely fwiw although as one of Wikipedia's loudest VOA critics that probably is no surprise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|"You seemed to imply no secondary sources exist"}} I don't see how I did, and iif I gave that impression it has nothing to do with my comment.
::::::{{tq|"that consensus occurred largely due to !voters similarly adopting a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach"}} I find that it's best just to take editors at there word, rather than trying to guess some secondary meaning.
::::::My point was (only) that if you believe that you have enough evidence to start a new RFC you could, and that I didn't want to get into discussing prior RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:The VOA's last story is from March. If the VOA is just syndicating stories from One America News Network then the source is still One America News Network. It is a waste of time to bother editing the reliability of a source based on things that may happen. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::Sort of. It makes sense for us to update our WP:RSP entry to highlight this, since it's the sort of thing that many editors may miss. And it doesn't make sense for us to leave a green RSP entry with no warnings that only refers to a VOA that no longer exists - it ought to be updated to note the change in order to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:::There is no point in updating the VOA entry when they haven't published anything, this is just politicking rather than actual concern in regard to the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Please don't make assumptions about other editors' motives. I posted this because it's noteworthy and we will likely need to act on it. I could care less about the politics of VOA. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yesterday, the Trump admin fired 600 VOA employees - a third of the entire staff, per [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/us/politics/trump-voice-of-america-firings.html NYTimes]. Seems to indicate that they are indeed making course towards partner content. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Business Standard Bangladesh tbsnews.net
For Mehzeb Chowdhury, is [https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946 this article] a reliable independent source? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:It's heavily promotional, it might be reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF details (as it contains so many quotes) but I doubt it's independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
''[[Our Culture Mag]]''
[https://ourculturemag.com/2025/05/15/laufey-announces-new-album-a-matter-of-time-shares-new-single/] Here's what I found. In that article, there's both author's name and date. But I think it's too fast to determine that the source is reliable just because it includes both author's name and date, so I wanted to ask about it here. I'm trying to use this source on singer's albums or songs. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't know where you got the idea that including "author's name and date" made a source reliable, but it doesn't. Not on its own. Not remotely. The website appears to be a platform for paid promotion. Not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::@AndyTheGrump: Hello! Appreciate your reply, but
::{{tq|The website appears to be a platform for paid promotion.}}
::could you please tell me how to determine this fact? I read reliable sources criteria of cource, but I still have a trouble defining WP:RS. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::See [https://ourculturemag.com/contactus/]: "Our platform allows for a variety of different advertisement opportunities for companies and individuals. From social media posts to sponsored posts, we will do our best to make sure your marketing strategy goals can fit ours." They are engaging in marketing, not journalism. As for identifying WP:RS more generally, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I see. I tried to find another source and checked "About" section to see whether the source is independant or not, then [https://www.russh.com/about/ this source] seems reliable because they said
::::{{tq|RUSSH Magazine is an independent fashion magazine showcasing innovators in fashion, beauty and the arts.}}
::::I hope I'm doing it right. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::A statement on a website that it is independent is in no way sufficient to establish it meets WP:RS criteria. A moments inspection of the website's 'contribute' page [https://www.russh.com/contact/contribute/] demonstrates that they are taking payment for contributions: "We consider both donated submissions in exchange for bylines and backlinks, and paid submissions".
::::::If you are having difficulty establishing the reliability of sources, I suggest you stick to only citing major publications already frequently cited by Wikipedia in the relevant topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Because of the paid advocacy, it's not reliable as an independent secondary source for what it covers.--3family6 (Talk to me
Rohingya Refugee News
TL;DR: Would Rohingya Refugee News be a reliable source for Rohingya-related topics?
Hello,
Rohingya Refugee News is a [https://www.rohingyarefugee.news/ substack] page ran by Shafiur Rahman.
Rahman is a journalist who had his work noted in the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05l5xy6 BBC]. He also wrote for [https://english.dvb.no/tag/shafiur-rahman/ Democratic Voice of Burma] and [https://www.dhakatribune.com/author/shafiur-rahman Dhaka Tribune]. He criticizes the Bangladeshi government, the Myanmar anti-junta National Unity Government, the Myanmar junta,BROUK, ARSA, RSO, and the Arakan Army in the RRN Substack. In contrast, a lot of Rohingya and Burmese publications are slanted towards one side. Many anti-junta Burmese publications are either pro-Arakan Army (Narinjara News and Development Media Group of Burma News International for examples) or mostly hesitant to cover Rohingya issues. Battlesnake1 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Because Rohingya Refugee News is a self-published website (with Rahman being its sole author), the WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS policies severely limit the content from this website that can be directly used on Wikipedia. Specifically:
:* WP:BLPSPS: {{xt|"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published {{strong|by the person themself}}."}}
:* WP:SPS: {{xt|"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}}
:— Newslinger talk 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Government census which is old
Are government census which are recorded in 2001 or 2011 unreliable? A certain user in this article Bangladeshis, keeps removing the amount of Bangladeshi in India directly from the infobox just because the census by government is too old.. According to several reports, there are approximate of 2Million to 3Million Bangladeshi born people in India [https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/187870/indian-govt-data-proves-number-of-bangladesh Source1] (states 3.7M), [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273337748_Immigration_from_Bangladesh_to_India_Based_on_Census_Data Source2], [https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-is-not-being-overrun-by-immigrants-1564334407925.html Source3]. Now given with the data, its clear Bangladeshis diaspora are largely present in India, yet is it wise to remove India from infobox just because the census source is "old"? Next, if we add a analysis from BBC, it would state even higher https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51575565 bbc. So how wise is it to directly just ignore the 2001-2011 census and remove the whole country from a infobox diaspora? WinKyaw (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:There are reliable for saying that the figure was correct in 2001 / 2011, really all census data should be presented with the year they were taken (as censuses are snapshots in time). That they are old doesn't make them unreliable, old sources are made unreliable by new sources that contradict them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::An infobox should be based on (and cite) the most recent census… and is not the correct location to mention historical population data. The historical data can be mentioned in the article text. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::If there is a more recent census it should definitely be used, but the entry shouldn't just be removed because the source is old. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Assuming the new census is considered at least as reliable as the old one in regards to what is being cited. Government censuses do change what they ask or change who they ask (if for instance there is a change in policy on whether or not to count immigrants or to record where they were born) or change because of external circumstances (e.g., war making it impossible to gather information in occupied areas). I note that 2011 is the most recent Indian census; the next census has been postponed repeatedly. Erp (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:As long as it's clear that the data is from 2011, it shouldn't be a problem. KnowDeath (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::Again… an infobox isn’t the right place for out of date info. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::According to what policy? KnowDeath (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Is it misleading to include it, even if clearly dated? For example, do we have later estimates which indicate it's seriously wrong - and if so, why don't we use them instead? Alternatively, is it misleading to exclude it? This is a list of the numbers of Bangladeshis in different countries; completely omitting India makes it look, at least to the naive reader, as if there aren't any Bangladeshis in India, but there might even be more there than anywhere else, bar one or two other countries or bar none at all. NebY (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The latest census data is 2011, it's not out of date or historical. The 2021 census details won't be released until next year, due to delays causes by COVID. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Population counts on any sizable place are always out of date. People are being born, dying, moving in or out, or cloning or fusing themselves even while the study is taking place. That doesn't mean population is unimportant, and if we have the latest reliable source and date the source, we're good and clear. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Heres the government data, the news outlet is from Bangladeshi media itself stating Indian govt census of 2011. [https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/187870/indian-govt-data-proves-number-of-bangladeshi] WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:They are reliable for the year they were made (and should be denoted with said year when used in text). The information cited to them should only be changed when a newer reliable source is added. Just removing the information with no replacement is pretty close to blanking vandalism, in my opinion. SilverserenC 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:If consensus is reached I'd prefer someone to restore the stable version before the edit reverts, currently I can't do it cause that will be WP:3RR. Also I'd like to highlight another claim by the same user on Indians in Bangladesh and it's talk page. WinKyaw (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::I've restored the details and added a second reference for the Pakistani numbers, as the first source uses Bengali rather than Bangladeshi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Youtube
I have a question about using a Youtube source in an article I'm currently working on.
Here is the context:
The video is an interview with a well-known musician. It's clearly two real people (not AI fakes), with standard editing (i.e. trimming in post to make it watchable). The interviewer is a reputable member of an established music supply company, and the channel has 248,000 subscribers and 1,200 videos.
During this interview the subject provides a lot of interesting information -- including material that a lot of people haven't heard yet. So we're talking about new, interesting information provided directly from the subject himself (not filtered secondhand).
My feeling is that maybe a video like this could qualify as a reasonable exception to Wikipedia's Youtube policy, with respect to usability. By utilizing this source, we can get this information out to the world via Wikipedia. Whereas NOT using this video is equivalent to depriving the Wikipedia-reading public of the only current source of this information -- and maybe the only source where it will ever be shared.
I would like to know if: a) this could indeed be an exception; or b) if not, why not?
Thank you in advance for providing as much detail as possible, so I can best understand the rationale, and be better informed for next time.
Thanks for your help and happy editing! Chillowack (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what part of our WP:YOUTUBE guidelines you are concerned about. Plenty of YouTube videos can be used, the real question is who put the video up. Is it published by a reliable source? If Rolling Stone magazine put it up, it's fine for statements about the subject. If the article subject themself put it up, it's also usable for statements about himself. If it's some individual who is not the subject, then it's a problem, under our guidelines for use of self-published sources for biographical information about living people (I'm assuming the subject is alive, as many musicians are.)
:But yes, many things published on unreliable sources are full of interesting information... we just can't rely on it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Re:{{tq|By utilizing this source, we can get this information out to the world via Wikipedia.}} - That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Youtube is already doing that, in which case, we do not need to duplicate it. We are not a tool for promotion. Further, regarding the idea that we'd be {{tq|depriving the Wikipedia-reading public of the only current source of this information -- and maybe the only source where it will ever be shared}} - We are not "depriving" them of the only current source - it already exists openly on a publicly accessible site. Further, if it's likely this is the only source where it will ever be shared, then that calls into question whether it is notable for inclusion. That would seem to cross the line of what Wikipedia is not, most specifically, that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::They are also full of wrong information. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::It sounds like the OP wants to use Youtube for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Which is probably fine. Just remember that an interview in a self-published source absolutely cannot be used to make a statement about a living third party. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you all for your input, it's very helpful. Chillowack (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Simon, that is a good point, and I had been wondering about it for a while. WP:YOUTUBE is in the external links page. But is there any explicit guideline anywhere that states something to the effect that: "If in a Youtube video, professor X states that statement Y is true , then we can state that according to professor X statement Y is true". Of course if professor X makes that statement to the NY Times, we can use that as a WP:RS item. But can we use the Youtube video for the same purpose, given that statement Y may not be ABOUTSELF and may state that Quantum computing is at least 50 years away? Please clarify. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is WP:EXPERTSPS. If the person in the video is a subject matter expert in the field who has previously been published in other reliable sources, then there self-published works could be considered reliable. So if a professor, who has had books published by reliable publishers in the field of quantum computing, publishes a YouTube video about quantum computing then that video could be reliable.
There are limitations, such sources wouldn't be enough to support contentious or exceptional statements, even if they are attributed. If the video contained the claim that the best quantum computers are made of cheese then it wouldn't be reliable, as that would be an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It's also important to remember that you can't use attribution to say anything you like. No matter the source you shouldn't add an attributed statement to the Earth article containing the claim that it's flat. Attribution isn't a get out clause to ignore everything else.
They also must never be used for any claims about living people, you couldn't use such a video to support "Professor X says that Professor Y is an idiot who knows nothing about quantum computing". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Actively, thank you. I think you have done 2 things. One is that you clarified the issue for me, and others who read this board. Secondly, you indirectly answered the question about any explicit guideline. The fact that you had to type your explanation rather than provide a link to a guideline means that no explicit guideline is present. Your explanation is well written and needs to be added somewhere beyond this board. You or someone else who knows the issues (yours truly excluded) must add that somewhere. It would be a very useful thing to do. Please do so. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::erm.. I mentioned the explicit policy in my first sentence, it's WP:EXPERTSPS. The rest of my comment was trying to put that policy in context with the other relevant policies and guidelines, as it's a limited exception to otherwise WP:QUESTIONABLE sources that would normally not be considered reliable.
Someone could write further documentation if they wanted to, but any preexisting documents only exist because editors stepped forward to write them. There are very, very few instances where editors "must" do or not do something. Writing documentation is not one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I think there is an implicit assumption there that "text and video sources" are treated the same way regarding reliability. The WP:RS page says that "Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited." I am not sure how we decide if the youtube video of someone talking at a conference published by a reliable source. Consider the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_l9ayLBc5A| video] of a talk. The speaker Margaret Macmillan is an expert. Now what if someone sitting in the audience had recorded that, and put it on you tube. Would it be as reliable as the video I linked to? What if 3 audience members had done so? I am not going to push this issue further, but in my view, the matter is less than settled. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You would be citing the speaker as an expert, not the person who recorded the speach. It would be an expert in a self-published source, as I've said there is a policy covering that.
Consider as a different example the situation when it comes to WP:ABOUTSELF details in an interview. If some entirely random YouTuber conducts the interview it doesn't matter, as you citing the interviewee not the interviewer.
Now for EXPERTSPS the speaker at a conference isn't going to be the one recording the speech, but it doesn't matter you are citing the expert's speech not who is recording the video. There is nothing more to be said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Ok, let us take that as the conclusion of this discussion. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Restrictions Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA)
BTVA is currently listed as generally reliable with restrictions regarding notability. A previous RFC in 2022 here determined it to be generally reliable. I don’t want to challenge that result, but rather clarify what the reliability applies to.
According to their [https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/faq/ FAQ], the results properly verified by their fact-checking process get a green tick, which includes a corresponding screenshot of the credits. Therefore I'd like to propose to limit reliability of role-credits to ones with a green tick.
Additionally, I would like to challenge the general reliability of statements about BLP content other than role credits—such as birthplace or date of birth. Firstly, this is because no source is ever provided for such claims. Secondly, in their FAQ they list their usual ways of verifying data, none of which typically include such information. Overall, I get the impression that this type of information is not part of their fact-checking process, but rather a courtesy to their users.
Please note that my two proposals are independent of each other and can be approved or disapproved separately. ~Squawk7700 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:I've posted notifications to WT:WikiProject Anime and manga and WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as both projects have discussed the source previously. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:These proposed restrictions are reflective of how it's already used in anime articles. WP:ANIMESOURCES states: {{tq|Roles and lists that are not checkmarked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used}} and further that {{tq|Other site sections such as actor biographical data, trivia, side-by-sides, voice-matching analysis, polls, credits count, and forum sections are not verified and should not be used.}} I see no reason to not expand these restrictions to Wikipedia at large. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::For procedural reasons, I want to point out that WikiProjects don't have rules separate from "Wikipedia at large". If it's not a rule for Wikipedia at large, then it's just a suggestion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Trump and "Kinder, Küche, Kirche"
{{close top| Non admin closure: This is not a question of reliability but WP:DUE, try NPOV noticeboard}}
I recently came across {{Diff|Kinder, Küche, Kirche|1287649442|1287633474|an edit}} that appears to discuss one of Trump's policies in relation to Kinder, Küche, Kirche (heavily exploited by Nazi Germany), and the only source was a Guardian "comment is free" opinion piece. Since US politics is contentious, I question if such comparison is appropriate with just one opinion source: I think we need more than one source to back that up. --Minoa (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:I agree with you. The article itself is very important and should be kept. The addition is so weakly sourced and POV-ridden that it gives ammunition to people who would like to attack Wikipedia. I suggest that the addition is removed until balancing sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC).
::I have removed the addition for being poorly sourced for a very contentious topic (needs more than an opinion article). --Minoa (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is not an RSN issue, I would try the NPOV noticeboard. Of course the Guardian is RS, of course Moira Donegan is reliable for her own opinion. I would share the point of view that this is not WP:DUE as it is an opinion that has as yet never been mentioned in RS whose main topic is the subject of the article. There is nothing to stop you deleting this text as of now.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
{{close bottom}}
Colonial sources
Similar to the discussion above on classical sources (and WP:CLPRIM), it's unfortunately common for colonial sources to used in articles on the African colonial period. For anyone unfamiliar with the context, see African historiography#History, I've also written an essay on this. What's an absolute showstopper for me is that they completely exclude African perspectives, so no matter how alive an editor is to the source's positive bias, it will always result in a partial and very POV account.
Having a guideline or adding something to WP:RSP might be an idea? I'd like a near blanket ban on colonial sources pre-1940 (the '40s were when African history separated from colonial/imperial history and when the SOAS started producing Africanists) as it'd be easy to enforce, but that may be an oversimplification (a bit of qualified language and a couple caveats might address this?). Kowal2701 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:I think your essay makes some strong points about reliability of colonial sources for history, cultural and anthropological topics. A blanket ban doesn't make much sense to me though as that would catch, for example, a lot of geographical and scientific content (e.g. on flora and fauna) originated by colonial entities, that is much less likely to be subject to bias due to colonial attitudes and prejudices. In many cases these are the earliest documentary records for whole blocks of important articles. YFB ¿ 11:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Kowal2701}} Would you consider moving your essay to projectspace? Instead of an RSP entry, I'd rather have an explanatory essay on colonial sources since it would have broader applicability beyond Africa (see WP:RAJ, another essay on colonial sources in India) and I could cite it easily in discussions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::@Chess done. I did want to write on colonial sources more generally but didn’t know enough outside of African history. Agree with YFB that for other topics they can be usable. It’s a bit of a blindspot on WP, but RSP is probably inappropriate since that’s more for individual publications. Maybe a section listing essays on particular sets of sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
''[[The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs]]''
I'm currently compiling sources for an article about Avi Shlaim's Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, and came across an article from this magazine/journal that reviewed the book. The last discussion on this source's reliability dates back to 2010, and that's a lot of time for it to drastically change. I would not mind using this source, as it is run by [https://www.wrmea.org/about-us/about-us.html experts in foreign policy], but I am somewhat hesitant to do so (possible WP:UNDUE issues), as it tends to cover the the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am posting this in order to see other people's comments on this before I proceed any further. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 17:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:Do you have a link to the article, and an idea of what you want to support with it? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:They favourably reviewed a 9/11 conspiracy book in 2011 [https://web.archive.org/web/20181106213209/https://www.wrmea.org/013-march/books-solving-9-11-the-deception-that-changed-the-world.html] (for some reason the article isn't available on their website).
:Also, I'm not sure that it's "run by experts," at least their [https://www.wrmea.org/contact-us.html key personalities] don't seem to have scholarly credentials.
:It would be helpful to know what exactly you'd like to use and who the author is. In general, we should do WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis to check its reliability. Alaexis¿question? 20:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
::Apologies for the delay and the incoherent request. Here is the source I want to use:
::* {{cite journal |last1=Brownfeld |first1=Allan C |title=Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew |journal=The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs |date=June–July 2024 |volume=43 |issue=4 |page=67 |issn=87554917}}
::I didn't want to immediately proceed with writing as the article and the book it's reviewing cover I/P, so I decided to post here first. My question was if this source is appropriate for info related to the aforementioned topic. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:::For reference the review is available [https://issuu.com/washreport/docs/volxliiino4/67 here]. The review itself is probably uncontroversial, or at least anything controversial is said in the words of the author of the book rather than the reviewer, but looking into The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs using it may not strengthen your article. A lot of the criticism against it comes because of it's opposition to Zionism, but opinion and bias don't make a source unreliable. Other criticism is more justified, for instance to go along with the 9/11 book there an article about Mossad's involvement with JFK's assassination[https://www.wrmea.org/1992-march/speaking-out-in-kennedy-assassination-anyone-but-mossad-is-fair-game-for-u.s.-media.html]. Saying that I don't think it can be just written off as totally unreliable, it has seemingly extensive use by others and is well established, but it's controversial and in an already controversial topic area I'm not sure it's inclusion would always be helpful.
Unless you really need something from this review I would suggest using a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
If [[WP:RS]] says that per the Pentagon person X ran a program, is that sufficient
- Article: Luis Elizondo
- Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601110803/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111
- Source link on article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo#cite_note-Bender_Politico_Dec_2017-6
Passage directly from source:
{{blockquote|Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program.}}
It is used to support this in the article lede:
{{blockquote|
And this in the section named Luis Elizondo#Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program:
{{blockquote|
Is this suitable sourcing for these two passages? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:Like I told you: {{tq|if you ask the question without its context and without explaining the problem, the answer is worthless.}} I asked VPP to revert themselves, but they refused. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::Is this more UFO stuff? Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@Simonm223 They aren't done yet, see Luis Elizondo. Polygnotus (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Is this more UFO stuff?}}
:::No. This is explicitly non-WP:FRINGE and cannot be in any logical way framed as such. It's a question of whether Politico with that specific source is WP:RS to the statement from the The Pentagon that this WP:BLP served in the described government job. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::But that is not what the debate is about. Polygnotus (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Ok so I've looked at the page and I'm still somewhat mystified as to the missing context. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Simonm223 Yeah that is why I asked VPP to revert. Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|A little bit more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::One user has without evidence asserted the Politico reporting is in error, for unclear reasons. Another (Poly) seems to believe for this specific passage it is not WP:RS, because we--as Wikipedia editors, if I understand correctly?--have no transparent means to independently validate what Politico reported. I think. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::@Very Polite Person Please stop misrepresenting what I said, and think. It is annoying. I was really hoping we were getting somewhere and then you do this. Very disappointing. Polygnotus (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Please stop responding to every single comment I make. I want third party views of this. We are at an impasse. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@Very Polite Person How can you request 3rd party views before you have even comprehended what I mean? Normally the idea is that you first (try to) understand eachothers positions, and maybe ask for clarification, have a debate and then if it doesn't work out then you can ask for 3rd party views. What you don't do is, without even understanding what is happening, post on a noticeboard, ignore a request to revert yourself, and misrepresent what the dispute is about and what the other side thinks. It is impolite and counterproductive. Polygnotus (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You know what, I give up, at least for now. I got more rewarding things to focus on. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I think we should both stop and let independent eyes adjudicate the validity of this WP:RS for this context. I frankly still don't understand your position of why this source is problematic for the used 100% non-WP:FRINGE statement and claim. Perhaps you might outdent a clear, concise explanation backed by policy of why we shouldn't use this, because it doesn't make any sense. We don't need the readers here to wade through the massive forest of tiny replies on the article talk page over multiple sections. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::But the dispute is not about adjudicating that. So that is irrelevant, and a waste of time. And like I said, for now I give up explaining things to you. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:::{{ping|Simonm223}} Yes, this 100% is {{Tq|more UFO stuff}}. This is a case where reliable sources are in conflict - some pentagon officials have denied the claim while others have supported it. The article lead used to explain this better, but the current version doesn't seem to be summarizing the article properly. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Non-UFO parts of the article are not "UFO stuff".
::::A summary of it (the conflict) was sourced to an otherwise reliable WP:RS that I removed graciously at the request of Poly this week. That left this specific hole. Are we allowed to unsourced in a BLP for this context summarize the conflict between sources? I'm unclear. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is a claim that the BLP subject was in charge of a program that investigated UFOs for the government. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::And does Politico actually say the Pentagon said this guy was in charge of this program? Again I'm at something of a loss as to the locus of the dispute beyond the "has run / was run" language specifics, which seems resolved. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|And does Politico actually say the Pentagon said this guy was in charge of this program?}}
:::::::Yes, 100%. Go here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190601110803/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111
:::::::Control-f for this: "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but WP:FRINGE does not ever tangential issue related to this. As I mentioned elsewhere about Harald Malmgren, WP:FRINGE is irrelevant on that article, EXCEPT for the very last sentence in it. The same thing applies here. The question is: was this person employed in this role? Politico says yes.
::::::Is Politico, for this statement, from this source, valid, on this WP:BLP's government job? <-- that's the only question that matters. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::My point is that it is incredibly disingenuous to say this isn't "UFO stuff", it clearly is. When different sources are in conflict, the status of one source is not 'the only question that matters'. It seems like this is an effort to frame the debate in a way that leads to a particular conclusion - but others always have the option to reject the premise of your question. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I'm just making sure we keep this on the appropriate level and don't let this devolve into yet another FRINGE UFO circus. It's a simple question set: Is Politico RS? Is this Politico article RS about if this person had this government job or not? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: Given that this person's biography would be a stub if you took all the UFO/UAP/AATIP stuff out, it's obviously FRINGE. So it's a BLP and a CTOP; better be getting this stuff right, folks. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq| So it's a BLP and a CTOP; better be getting this stuff right, folks.}}
::::::::::Yup. That's exactly why I brought it here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::So are there other sources that dispute what Politico reported? Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|So are there other sources that dispute what Politico reported?}}
::::::::::I am unaware of any WP:RS that specifically addresses that 2017 Politico article and it's statement there. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::But I'm sure you're aware of [https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ this 2019 article] from the Intercept who quotes a pentagon spokesperson saying the exact opposite. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Ok so I would suggest that Politico and The Intercept are of roughly equivalent reliability. I would suggest both should be afforded roughly equivalent due weight. Which means we should probably mention the two sources and that they had oppposite findings together and should not say in wiki voice that this BLP did or did not run this department. And WP:FRINGE is always relevant when discussing the biography of a WP:PROFRINGE blp but neither source is making fringe claims so this is just a normal disputed fact. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Given that the Politico journalist turned out to be involved in the film involving Elizondo, and the Pentagon says they cannot confirm that statement that White supposedly made to that journalist, I'd suggest we shouldn't be giving them equal status here. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That is a detail I did not know and rather changes things. I'll strike my comment below. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::"Documentary" series, and he became a speaker at UFO conventions. Dude made a new career out of a single claim that someone said something and no one can verify it. Impressive. We do have an email conversation but it is not in there. https://x.com/blackvaultcom/status/1791506410163093516 And Bender later completely downplayed what AATIP was and did. https://www.ufojoe.net/bender-aatip-was-a-sideshow/ Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You may want to check the subsection below. The most prominent source actually puts Elizondo in AATIP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, it does not. Obviously. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{tq|No, it does not. Obviously. }}
::::::::::::::::Why would you do that?
::::::::::::::::I literally quoted Keith Kloor there: "When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)."
::::::::::::::::User:Black Kite, don't take my word for it. Read what Kloor wrote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Wait a second, {{u|Black Kite}} is a source confirming {{tq|the Pentagon says they cannot confirm that statement that White supposedly made}}? If the Pentagon are saying this didn't happen it rather changes the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@ActivelyDisinterested https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ search for "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana" Polygnotus (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That's a serious problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I've added to my statement below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:How about people who've already discussed this at lengthy on the talk page and here step back to allow uninvolved editors to weigh in without adding another tomats of text to what they have to read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'm more than happy to stop editing this damn section if User:Polygnotus also concurrently backs away to let other non-UFO involved people weigh in. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@Very Polite Person I am {{tq|non-UFO involved}}, unlike you. Polygnotus (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Your editing history disagrees, and literally all I've done is try to get two articles to BLP correctness and add sources. How about this. You don't reply again in this section and neither will I, and we both abide the opinions of people here who have never touched Luis Elizondo. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::My editing history shows that after years of non-UFO related editing and thousands of unrelated edits I stumbled upon a UFO article which was terrible and tried to improve it, but then you got blocked for various reasons. I didn't want to be seen to be taking advantage of that so I waited until the block expired before returning to the article. You 15th edit is to spacerelated stuff, and much if not most of your edits are to topics related to either space or government secrecy (based on a quick skim, too lazy to count). Polygnotus (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::You can step away regardless of what they do. At the very least, I suggest that the two of you pretend that you have an Iban, as the continuing bickering is counterproductive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps slightly greater weight should be given to the more recent source - but not by much. I mean it's the US government in the first Trump administration. I fully expect both outlet accurately reported the contradictory statements of a disorganized regime.
Struck based on the point made by Black Kite that the Politico journalist was not fully independent of the BLP while the Intercept was. While both sources may be reliable, based on this context, the greater due weight should be given to the independent source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{tq|Although Elizondo is confirmed to have worked in the Department of Defense until retiring in 2017, Pentagon spokespeople have repeatedly denied that he ever played a role in a UFO research program, much less led one.}} -- https://www.science.org/content/article/why-is-harvard-astrophysicist-working-with-ufo-buffs Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
In 2019 Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood said "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017."
{{tq|The Pentagon has denied Elizondo had any information on UAP investigations.}}https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/where-ufos-from/
Department of Defense spokespersonhttps://thehill.com/homenews/4841812-ex-pentagon-official-alleges-us-has-recovered-nonhuman-specimens/ Sue Gough said: "As we have stated previously, Luis Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) while assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security".
Polygnotus (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't understand what this debate is about. There are RSs stating that Elizondo headed AATIP for some unknown period of time, and other RSs stating that he never headed it. We report both. Is the debate about whether there was (dis)confirmation from the Pentagon? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::As near as I can tell the user you are replying to disptutes the two sources that confirm Elizondo in the role, as far as I can tell, on the basis the editor does not believe the journalists could know that information, and they simply wrote down whatever Elizondo told them. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@Very Polite Person I asked you to stop misrepresenting my POV, right? Would you be so kind to not speculate on my opinion? Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd appreciate your explaining your perspective re: what this debate is about. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is one tiny part of a much larger (and even more complicated) debate about the entire article and how Wikipedia deals with UFO stuff. Because journalists do not always specify which claims they 100% factchecked and confirmed to be true, and which claims they didn't it is pretty easy to cobble together a bunch of sentences that misrepresent how reliable sources deal with a topic. Pretty boring stuff, but it is not treated as such. Polygnotus (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::You: {{tq|Because journalists do not always specify which claims they 100% factchecked and confirmed to be true, and which claims they didn't it}}
::::::My best guess of you: {{tq|the editor does not believe the journalists could know that information, and they simply wrote down whatever Elizondo told them.}}
::::::Can you please -- I beg you -- to explain the difference between the two, in as few words as possible in one sentence? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think explaining stuff to you is a very good use of my time. But the discussion has shown that your viewpoint is in the minority, which is good. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do journalists ever specify which claims they have and haven't 100% fact-checked and confirmed to be true? Not in my experience.
::::::Clearly the RSN cannot resolve a debate about the entire article and how Wikipedia deals with UFO stuff more generally. But RSN can help with whether a given article is an RS for specific content. Is the issue that you object to Politico specifically, because of the relationship between the author and Elizondo? If so, it's not hard to find other GREL sources from around the same time that also identify Elizondo as having been in charge of AATIP for some unspecified period of time. I don't understand what the problem is with noting that some sources X and some sources say not-X. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Given that the Pentagon have said they have no record of White every saying what Politico are reporting I don't think it's that simple, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250515215000-ActivelyDisinterested-20250515211100 my comment] below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think "Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me that he 'cannot confirm' White’s statement" = "they have no record." For all I know, it only means that they're neither going to confirm it nor say it's false.
::::::::Even if you ignore Politico and drop the question of whether it was/wasn't confirmed by the Pentagon, there are GREL sources like the [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html NYT] saying "the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program .... was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo." I don't think it should be in the lead (given the conflicting info), but I don't see what the problem is in noting that some sources say he did, and some sources say he didn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The problem is that both are spokespeople for the Pentagon, so this isn't "he said - she said" - it's the Pentagon saying it has no record of the Pentagon saying that Elizondo led the AATIP. As I said in my comment below maybe a sentence could be made from that, but it's definitely not the one proposed at the beginning of this section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|it's the Pentagon saying it has no record of the Pentagon saying that Elizondo led the AATIP.}} That's not what the cited source says. It says {{tq|Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me that he “cannot confirm” White’s statement.}}
::::::::::The Pentagon is saying that they cannot confirm that Elizondo ran AATIP, not that they cannot confirm that {{em|Dana White said that Elizondo ran AATIP}}, and it's certainly not the Pentagon affirmatively saying that they have no record that White said that.
::::::::::Is Politico a reliable source for this? Given how disputed the whole thing is I would like to see other sources picking up on these claims (especially one weighing all of the various claimed official statements), but it's certainly reliable at the minimum for a claim like "Politico reported that Pentagon spokesperson Dana White said ..."; whether that is WP:DUE and how we should balance it against contrary claims is another matter out of scope for this board. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your correct that's my misreading, however one way or another Politico is unreliable in context for the content as proposed at the top of this section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately we're here because you've been unable to plainly explain what your issue with the two sources are. Could you do that in ten words or less? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:Newsnation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#NewsNation_(UFOs,_UAPs) not a reliable source for UFO related topics]. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
{{talkrefs}}
:I have said this elsewhere, but the balance of most of the research I have done on this subject which involves a lot of speculation is that it was likely that Elizondo was not at the head of anything and that the Politico claim is either a misquote, a misstatement, or fabricated. But I don't think there is a solid source that definitively shows this is absolutely the case. I don't think anyone is arguing that we WP:ASSERT Elizondo's position was that of a head of AATIP (or some other obnoxious acronym), but I do wonder whether it makes much sense to give WP:WEIGHT to any attributed assertion as to his importance while he was employed by DOD. Everyone can agree he was at least an employee. Beyond that, there is little agreement. jps (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
=[[Keith Kloor]] says Elizondo ran AATIP security=
Unfortunately it gets more complicated now that User:Polygnotus and User:MrOllie have introduced Keith Kloor. These are all sources today on Luis Elizondo, and by bringing up Keith Kloor, it opens the door to question Kloor's own status as WP:RS.
- 2017-12-16 -- Bender, Politico: Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program.
- Spring 2019 -- Kloor, Issues in Science and Technology ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190404113127/https://issues.org/ufos-wont-go-away/ link]): When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
- 2019-06-01 -- Kloor, The Intercept: Yes, AATIP existed, and it “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017.”
- 2022-01-27 -- Kloor, Science (journal): In recent years, Elizondo has appeared widely in the media claiming to be the former director of a secretive Pentagon UFO research unit.
We have Kloor explicitly saying in 2019 in the most prestigous/notable source that Elizondo was asked to take over AATIP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:...AATIP that according to Bender consisted of nothing. https://www.ufojoe.net/bender-aatip-was-a-sideshow/ Polygnotus (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure whomever "UFO Joe" is, is not WP:RS? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::That is irrelevant, because we are not using UFO Joe as a source. You seem to believe Bender is such a great source. Polygnotus (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Does Keith Kloor writing for Issues in Science and Technology for the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine say this?
::::{{blockquote|When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).}}
::::I think that's WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::How is it relevant? If the AATIP is a one-man band, how can Elizondo not be its head if he is the only employee? He'll be the cleaner, trainee, and boss all in one. Also, what does it matter? Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|We have Kloor explicitly saying in 2019 in the most prestigous/notable source that Elizondo was asked to take over AATIP}} do we? I do not think that {{tq|asked to take over security for}} and {{tq|asked to take over}} are the same thing. Head of Security for an organisation is generally not the same role as Director/CEO. (And contra the section heading, "was asked to" is not the same as "did"!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|That's enough ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::We have two sources from each 2017 and 2019, one extremely notable, that put Elizondo in a leader role at AATIP. We can't lift up two Kloor pieces with attributed remarks that Elizondo had no role, when writing for the National Academies, boldly, and plainly, he says that Elizondo ran AATIP security--directly says it. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::How can a source be notable? We have multiple Pentagon spokespeople denying it and someone who works for the DoD denying it. Does Keith Kloor have a high level job in the DoD? If not, how can he confirm who does what in the DoD? Unless Kloor hacked their HR department, how can he know? All he can do is write down what he's told. And he did. Polygnotus (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::News Nation is not allowed as a source for UFO matters; irrelevant source.
::::::::We have 1x Pentagon person saying Elizond is AATIP. We have 1x saying he no responsibility in AATIP while working in other org. We have another repeating the original statement that Elizondo had no role while working elsewhere. We have a reporter who is notably hyper critcical of Elizondo flat out declarying he ran AATIP security. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::What rule supports us demanding reporters who are otherwise WP:RS to show their homework for basic employment claims about subjects they report on? I asked you before, and your answer quite literally boiled down to WP:IAR. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::How is that relevant, the same stuff is available via other sources.
:::::::::{{tq|What rule supports...}} Again, irrelevant. And also doesn't that prove my point? If they don't have to do their homework to confirm employment claims...
:::::::::We have at least 3 against one. And that reporter who is "hyper critical" does not say: "I have definitive proof that he was the head of this and it was an actual department of significantly more than one person who actually did worthwhile stuff". He just wrote down what he was told. And I am still unclear how it all is relevant because being the boss of nothing is the same as being the employee of nothing. Polygnotus (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|He just wrote down what he was told.}}
::::::::::Based on what knowledge are you saying this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Try calling the DoD and asking them. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|Try calling the DoD and asking them. Good luck.}}
::::::::::::This is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by you. Please stop. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::What are you even talking about? Polygnotus (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|If they don't have to do their homework to confirm employment claims...}}
::::::::::Answering separately as a very separate point, and I'd prefer you stay on the narrow lane here. You are changing the reply I wrote: I said they don't have to show the public -- or us -- their homework. They are, or are not, WP:RS on an article by article basis. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I didn't change the reply you wrote. Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You have no policy basis. We don't gauge sources on vibes. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Again, what are you even talking about? Polygnotus (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, why insist on using a biased source like that in a WP:FRINGE BLP? Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|Also, why insist on using a biased source like that in a WP:FRINGE BLP?}}
::::::::::Are you suggesting we deprecate Keith Kloor on all UFO-related matters given his public hostility to the topic and actors on social media? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::The fact that you think that anyone who investigates UFO related claims is "hostile" shows your bias. Journos investigate claims, and may even make jokes about the silly stuff they uncover on social media. Is that hostile? Polygnotus (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Perhaps you and I should take our hands off the keyboard and let other editors weigh in. We are adding nothing of value, and I will not further indulge your suboptimal and ineffectual attempts to apparently get a rise out of me. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You misinterpret the situation. There is nothing to weigh in on. My recommendation is that you, because you have a minority viewpoint, allow others to edit the articles and accept that they also have the goal of improving it, even if you disagree with them. Polygnotus (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This discussion will determine the minority viewpoint. Certainly not you, and certainly not me, has power to make that determination. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::People who believe in extraterrestrial/inter-dimensional UFOs are in the minority on Wikipedia. So are people who want to use biased sources in BLPs. Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
- These would likely be reliable for attributed statements. Whether they should be included is not a matter of reliability. I will say both parts are worded in a very odd way. The pentagon confirmed that she ran the AATIP until 2012 when it was closed down, but the sentences say this in a very convoluted way.
If there are multiple source that disagree about tn details, then I suggest removing it from the lead (as the lead is a poor place to discuss complex situations) and discussing the disagreement in the body of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC) - :Yeah, it should be moved to the body of the article, and the lead should be used for the more important stuff. But I am not sure if everyone will agree with removing the claim that one person reported that another person allegedly confirmed Elizondo's claim from the lead. Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :Ok scratch my prior statement, given the [https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/ Intercept article] ([https://archive.is/mgfwv archive]) the Politico article is not reliable for the statement as is. The point isn't about which spokesperson said what, but what the Pentagon is saying. At the most this should be "In 2017 Diane White, then a Pentagon spokeswoman, supposedly said that Elizondo led the AATIP before it was closed down but the Pentagon have no record of the statement." and I can't see that as being due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::Yeah, on top of the weird formatting and contradiction of the current working, why is it in the lead at all? Seems like it needs to be reworded and moved. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :* Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo.
- :* When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
{{hat|Not constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}
- :May I ask in what way are these worded oddly? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::For starters, the first claim is not attributed, despite being disputed by 3 reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::Politico literally attributed it to "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::Bender made the claim, POLITICO published it. Polygnotus (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::I don't suppose you'd be willing to cite any guideline or policy that... supports this unique and possibly novel interpretion of how to gauge WP:RS? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::That has nothing to do with gauging WP:RS?? Attributing text is not novel or unique WP:INTEXT. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
- ::I was thinking more about {{tq|"Elizondo was confirmed as an AATIP leader by Pentagon spokeswoman"}}, which should really be "A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed Elizondo led..." The subjects are back to front. Had Elizondo just been comfirmed by senate, what is an "AATIP leader" etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::Yeah above he was just head of security, now he is a "leader", whatever that means. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::I was once a "team leader", I was the only person on the team. It's a ambiguous way to word something, so it should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :::::Did you at least get a raise for managing such an unruly employee? Polygnotus (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::Ok, wow, so, to summarize: in 2017 an author who was not entirely independent from the subject reported that Dana White said the subject headed a UFO department. In 2019 a fully independent author wrote at the Intercept that the Pentagon denied this involvement. As time went by, leading to 2022 this author became more assertive in this position. Both authors worked for publications with good reputations.
- ::::::Leaving the UFO of it all aside I'd say that greater weight should be given to more recent sources and to more independent sources. Source reliability is always contextual. Within this context I would say use both sources and claim neither in wiki voice but give greater weight to the Intercept. Simonm223 (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Good grief. If nothing else, this stuff definitely needs to come out of the lead paragraph of Elizondo's article, and be discussed in the relevant section. The claim that he led the AATIP is too disputed to be stated in Wikivoice, even attributed. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :If it's discussed in the lede it should be done so in a way that demonstrates the disputed nature of the claim.Simonm223 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- :His role is not credibly disputed. We have exactly one source claiming this while we have multiple sources, of much higher credibility which directly contradict this. This is an attempt to diminish Elizondo's credentials. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Senator Harry Reid, who set up the program, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:(Attachment_19)_20210426_Senator.Reid_Lue.Elizondo.AATIP.pdf has confirmed Elizondo's role within that program]. Elizondo had a leadership role within this organization, that we continue to have this debate on this topic is baffling. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Using PRIMARY to produce a list of awards and decorations
It's fairly customary to include awards and decorations of public servants and military officers, however, these are not always encyclopedically cataloged by secondary sources.
Is it an acceptable use of WP:BLPPRIMARY to use (in the United States) Part D of the Official Personnel File (which typically includes an exhaustive list of decorations) of a public servant or military officer just to cite awards and decorations received similar to, for instance, this when such information is otherwise lacking in secondary sources?
As this is basic, rote, vital statistics and not "viewpoints" or "perspectives" as described by DUE/UNDUE my thought is it would be fine to positively cite it ("John Dow received the Distinguished Service Cross") though negatively citing it ("John Dow did not receive the Distinguished Service Cross") would probably be proscriptively interpretive. But I wanted to get a sense from the group. Chetsford (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:There was some intense discussions regarding the decorations of JD Vance, he has some "he was there" ribbons. There were editors who wanted to put them all in the article (per user uploaded primary doc), and others who wanted to stick to those noted by secondary sources. I was the latter and that was pretty much how it turned out. Some of the discussion at Talk:JD_Vance/Archive_3#Military_Medals.
:That said, if you wanted to insert a Distinguished Service Cross (United States) in a BLP with a primary source, I'm unlikely to oppose it. Secondary source would likely be available too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:This is a split issue. Are the primary sources reliable to show the awards were made? Yes. Do primary sources show the awards are relevant? No. Awards and decorations should usually be sourced to secondary sources to show they are due inclusion. Outside of the Vance article it's an issue with BLP being stuffed with non-notable awards. Some awards would be so notable that a primary source wouldn't be controversial, but secondary sourcing would be preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::Gråbergs Gråa Sång and ActivelyDisinterested - great points, both. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:Reliability of an award and notability of an award are two different things. Except in unusual circumstances, the notability of an award doesn't depend on the person awarded it but is an intrinsic property of the award that can be established by sources about the award. If it is very famous, such as a Nobel Prize, we can assume its notability has already been established. Once we decide that an award is notable enough to warrant mention, appearance of the person on a list of awardees published by the awarding organization is usually the most reliable source. Feel free to add a secondary source as well, but don't let the primary/secondary distinction lead you to only cite a less reliable source. Zerotalk 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::Taking the Vance example, Iraq Campaign Medal is notable in the WP-sense, it has an article. The argument for not mentioning it in the Vance-article is based on WP:NPOV via WP:PROPORTION.
::At least I thought it wasn't in the article, but I see JD_Vance#Awards_and_decorations was added at some point. I have not checked if all the ribbons are mentioned in the refs given. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- One caveat - “Stolen valor” is a thing, so we should be cautious when it comes to ABOUTSELF primary sources (by the “awardee”). Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Taking this out of the context of military awards, and thinking about it generally, one approach is to say that whether an award is notable can independently be discerned. Are Emmy Awards notable? Yes, and this is discerned by looking at facts about the award itself. You could then go on to think, "Since the award itself is notable, it's something that could be added to any article about a person who received it, even if no RS has been written about Jane mentioning her Emmy as a significant part of her life, as long as some reliable source says that she received it, such as a [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/news-emmys-winners-list-2022-1235229678/ list like this]. The question of whether she actually received it would depend on various contestable judgments, but the question of whether it is due/notable would (in this view) depend on facts about how the award itself is regarded. This is the approach that Zero's comment brought to mind. Novellasyes (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::: That said, there could be cases where a combination of the award and the person is needed to establish notability. Consider an award which many people win and maybe isn't all that notable in general. It could still be notable that someone is the first person from country X to win it, the youngest ever recipient, or something like that. It would need to be cemented with a source making that point. Zerotalk 12:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::But, IMHO, that source should be independent from the awarding body, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:I generally agree with Zero's take here. Inclusion in a list of awardees by the awarding authority is sufficient (and probably preferred) as a citation for the fact that someone received an award. Whether to include that information in a given article is a question of WP:DUE, which will be obvious in some cases, determinable by local consensus in other cases, and determinable by appealing to reliable third-party sources in borderline cases where local consensus doesn't exist. The fact that a source is WP:PRIMARY is not in itself sufficient reason to exclude mention of an award, but if there are other good reasons to think an award is WP:UNDUE, third-party sources can be brought to bear to resolve the issue. -- LWG talk 14:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe a good way to look at this would be that although the awarding body is usually a reliable source for this, the more contentious the inclusion, or minor the award, the more helpful it is to provide secondary sourcing to show it's worth inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
THis may be more of an wp:undue issue, yes an official list would be an RS, but if they are wards every soldier gets, what makes their inclusion encyclopedic? Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
''Pixelkin''
I recently saw Pixelkin used as a source on some Wikipedia articles and used it as a source in a debate. I haven't seen any consensus on whether or not it is reliable, though. So is this a reliable source? Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Looks like it should be reliable for non-controversial details about games, which seems to be the area it reports on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::Seems kind of iffy to me. Looks like the entire "team" is just [https://pixelkin.org/about/meet-the-team/ two people], so its dangerously close to self-publishing. Looks like one of them did freelance for Polygon (website) and PC Gamer, which are reliable sources, at least. [https://pixelkin.org/ethics-statement/ They have an ethics policy] too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Pinkvilla copied data from Cinetrak
Retro page uses boxoffice numbers from Pinkvilla and Pinkvilla copied the data from source called Cinetrak (already considers unreliable, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Reliability_question_on_Cinetrak this discussion]).
| class="wikitable sortable plain row headers"
|+ Retro collection Cinetrak = Pinkvilla |
| scope="col" |Day
!scope="col" |Tamil Nadu gross !scope="col" |Worldwide gross !scope="col" |Tamil Nadu N gross !scope="col" |Worldwide gross |
|---|
| Day 1
|14 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1918315407825674627 |31.5 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1918315407825674627 |
| Day 4
|34.5 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1919418780880638217 |74.5 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1919418780880638217 |
| Day 11
|45.7 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1921944809532694980 |92 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1921944809532694980 | |
| Day 18
|48.5 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1924402973326856421 |96.5 crorehttps://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1924402973326856421 |
On 12 May 2025, Cinetrak posted "Retro in France registered 9,800 entries so far at the end of its second weekend and will aim to hit the 10,000 admits marks through the final run."
"#TouristFamily hits 5,000 admissions in France through '11 days', with second weekend alone registering 2,000 entries."https://x.com/Cinetrak/status/1921919812999188674
On 13 May 2025, Pinkvilla published "Tamil superstar Suriya Sivakumar’s Retro, directed by Karthik Subbaraj, has now registered 9,800 ticket sales in France by the end of its second weekend. The stylish period gangster drama is expected to breach the 10,000-admit mark by the end of its theatrical run."
"Tourist Family, which quietly crossed 5,000 ticket sales (admissions) in France in just 11 days, with 2,000 of those entries coming over the second weekend alone."https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/box-office/box-office-retro-and-tourist-family-perform-well-in-france-over-their-2nd-weekend-read-on-1387421
Hence it is clear that Cinetrak's data was copied and published by Pinkvilla. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Using a source's figures is not a copyright violation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::But Cinetrak source is unreliable per discussions. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Ahh, that is irrelevant, then they are an RS we assume they checked the information before publishing. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::See box office of Retro, other three reliable sources mentioned collection over ₹200 crore. Only Unreliable source Cinetrak and it's copy Pinkvilla mentioned ₹97 crore. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:This sounds like both sites are quoting the same press release or data source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
What film are we talking about, as there seems to be 2 mentioned here. Also note that Expected is a prediction, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Im talking about film called Retro (film). 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::Then what have the ticket sales for Tourist Family got to do with it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::Ahh I see, you are saying "look how similar these are". Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Both of their data and expectations are same clear that Pinkvilla copied Cinetrak. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Or they got their date from a third source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@User:Slatersteven It seems to be copied from Cinetrak considering published dates. 103.70.199.41 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Don't put box office figures on movie pages then. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Means it is unreliable for box office figures? 103.166.245.77 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
The China Project
I'm thinking of using [https://thechinaproject.com/2020/10/09/how-fujian-was-once-an-lgbt-mecca/ this] in Tu'er Shen in the future. Is The China Project reliable? KnowDeath (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:That's going to very much depend on what it is going to be used for. The article on Tu'er Shen could be reliable, although academic sources are preferred when dealing with the past, but it's advertising page[https://thechinaproject.com/advertising/] shows it offers 'native content' (undisclosed advertorials). In fact that's the only type of advertising it appears to offer. So I would suggest treating anything that's sounds overly promotional as if it was promotional. That would likely apply more to companies and individuals than articles about LGBT issues in historical China. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::I imaghine there would be some academic source of that deity - somewhere. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Dr. Robina Yasmin
does the work [https://books.google.de/books?id=a75XEAAAQBAJ&newbks= Muslims under Sikh Rule in the Nineteenth Century] by Robina Yasmin pass WP:RS? Heraklios 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, the source can be cited. However, context matters, so even though it is a published, secondary source, the information to be included from it may not be WP:DUE. I couldn't find any information on the author and the book has been cited two times. That's something to keep in mind. TurboSuperA+(connect) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:The author is an assistant professor with a background in economics and human resource management,[https://cust.edu.pk/our_team/dr-robina-yasmin/] which is somewhat relevant as the book studies the social-economic policies of the Sikh rules of the time. Would be nice if she was a historian, but it's published by Bloomsbury and by a professional academic so it's going to be a lot more reliable than a most of the sources used on Wikipedia.
As TurboSuperA+ said context matters, especially if the content you want to add is exceptional. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{reply| ActivelyDisinterested}} I essentially agree with your conclusions but I believe that you have linked to the wrong "[https://cust.edu.pk/our_team/dr-robina-yasmin/ Robina Yasmin]". Matching the details from the [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Muslims_under_Sikh_Rule_in_the_Nineteent/0mxWEAAAQBAJ?gbpv=1 book's acknowledgement], I believe that the book's author [https://www.iub.edu.pk/author/Rubina.Yasmin Robina Yasmin] is indeed an historian and currently the Chair of the Department of Pakistan Studies at Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Previously she was an assistant professor in History Department, University of the Punjab, Lahore (see footnote [https://archive.org/details/education-system-under-the-sikh-rule/mode/2up here]) and has [https://prdb.pk/author/Robina+Shoeb several other academic publications] under her (maiden?) name "Robina Shoeb" in Pakistani journals. Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Well spotted, and my apologies to both Yasmins. The correct Robina Yasmin appears to be an expert in her field for the specific topic that the book covers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:@Abecedare@ActivelyDisinterested@TurboSuperA+ Here for some context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghan%E2%80%93Sikh_Wars&action=history] of why im asking it. Heraklios 15:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Noorullah21}} is there something we are missing? Yasmin appears to be a qualified historian specialising in this period of history, is it the specific claim that her book is unreliable for? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@ActivelyDisinterested See [https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Muslims+under+Sikh+Rule+in+the+Nineteenth+Century%3A+Maharaja+Ranjit+Singh+and+Religious+Tolerance&btnG=]. My main concern is that this book is only cited by one other publication. Pointing out the author does help though and showing they have a historical background. Noorullah (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
IOL.CO.ZA for BLP
Several IOL articles are being used to state some rather inflammatory things on the page for Julius Malema, a BLP. I hadn't heard of the outlet so I went and looked for an about page and they don't have one. With a website with opaque editorial standards I get a bit nervous when it's being used for controversies on a living person so I searched the board here for information about IOL and was concerned to find that, the few times it has been raised here before, the results were inconclusive but a lot of concerns were raised about its reliability. Some of these references include:
- [https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/accuser-enjoyed-sex-with-zuma-432215 Describes rape apologia surrounding a rather unfortunate incident but wherein the other BLP (Jacob Zuma) was subsequently acquitted]
- [https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/malema-sings-the-mokaba-anti-boer-tune-475838 An alarmist article about Malema's use of an historical South African liberation chant that has the farm-genocide types shook]
- [https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/malema-under-fire-for-kill-the-boer-song-475909 another one about the kill the boer chant]
- [https://iol.co.za/news/2011-10-30-malema-faces-arrest/ an article about a spending controversy where Malema was subsequently acquitted.]
I am concerned to be sourcing some rather incendiary information, some of which was not born out in court, about two BLPs to a sub-standard publication but before I started cutting I thought I'd bring it here. I should note that the Malema page is in a rather sorry state and I did raise its general poor condition at WP:BLP/N before I started digging into specific sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:Please also note that for some of these items there are, in fact, better sources (such as The Guardian) in the article. I would not be seeking removal of mention of, for example, the rape apologia. Just better sourcing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see anything immediately concerning. They don't appear to be pushing rape apologia but reporting on it, the same with the articles about the song. Bias in reporting doesn't make a spurce unreliable. It's a news source, and an online one at that, so use in BLPs should always be handled with caution, but I think your concerns are better handled at BLPN than here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:On the source itself, it is fine. Not the highest quality outlet but probably bog-standard. IMO, better than News24 (which is itself OK) worse than the Daily Maverick. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Handwritten testimony of Geneviève Esquier
{{RfC top|The consensus is no. Chetsford (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}
Is the handwritten {{strike|testimony}} letter of Geneviève Esquier, a former French Catholic journalist for the French Catholic publication L'Homme Nouveau, a reliable primary source for her own words {{strike|and testimony}}?
For previous discussions leading up to this RfC, please see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Poem_of_the_Man-God#WP:RSPRIMARY article talk page] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_https://edifiant.fr_reliable tangential RSN discussion]. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
= Survey (Esquier) =
- Yes. (1) The website hosting the primary source document is [https://edifiant.fr edifiant.fr] a popular French Catholic platform featuring free Catholic content including articles, resources, videos, testimonies, and newsletter subscription. (2) The website's ScamDoc trust score is 88% (despite domain owner anonymity), and a trust rating of "good". (3) The website includes footnotes to the primary source document establishing its provenance, indicating it was mailed to them by Geneviève Esquier on March 8, 2023, and published to the website the same day. (4) The website includes additional footnotes to the document, indicating they had verbal communications with Geneviève Esquier confirming certain details in the letter. (5) The primary source document has been in the public domain for over 2 years on [https://edifiant.fr edifiant.fr], with high visibility and no claims of inauthenticity. (6) This handwritten testimony satisfies the Wikipedia policy WP:RSPRIMARY. (7) The handwritten testimony document [https://edifiant.fr/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-reconnait-maria-valtorta/ can be found here.] Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Words? Yes, most likely. Testimony? No. We don't hold RfCs on whether primary-source material is factual, which is what 'testimony' implies. And note that agreeing that the words are hers doesn't in of itself amount to agreement that said words need to be cited in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{summoned by bot}} The letter is a WP:SPS? meaning that it's reliability would be confined to WP:ABOUTSELF. However the usage in the article (see Special:Diff/1285286322 for the last insertion) indicates that it was being used to make statements about third parties and thus fails the limited usage provided for by WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPathtalk 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, No and No. There are several reasons why this should not be in the article. To begin with, we discussed this issue forever and a day just above on this page under the title "Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?". The result there was that the source has no provenance. It is totally unclear who owns the edifiant.fr website, but it is obvious that Esquier does not because the site claims they received an email from her with the image of her letter. There is no evidence that the handwriting belongs to Esquier. For all we know this coud be a case of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax which survived in the public domain (in several languages) for about 10 years. Moreover, this is a highly controversial claim. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger ([https://www.amazon.com/Cardinal-Ratzinger-Vaticans-Enforcer-Faith/dp/0826412653| the Vatican Enforcer]) would have danced cha cha in front of the Spanish Steps in Rome before supporting a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. And for all we know, this could be a website set up by a French relative of Clifford Irving to anonymously collect donations. The question is: How long do we need to discuss all this again? 20 years, 30 years? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- No It would be a reliable primary source if it's provenance could be reliably sourced, but the only place saying it's real is couple of closely aligned websites neither of which have any of the commons signs of a reliable source. That the website isn't serving malware and hasn't been sued doesn't equate to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- No This is a WP:SPS that has language on its website explicitly soliciting anonymous contributions. As such we cannot confirm the provenance of the document and thus it is not usable as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, not for this. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1285375804&oldid=1285295984&title=The_Poem_of_the_Man-God paragraph you are trying to add] concerns {{tq|claims about third parties}} and {{tq|claims about events not directly related to the source}} and therefore doesn't pass the restrictions on WP:ABOUTSELF, even if the providence could be established. Obviously you cannot bypass that just with attribution. The purpose of ABOUTSELF is for people talking about themselves, not to cite them for statements about other people - statements about other people require sourcing that passes WP:RS, which this obviously does not. The "scam score" for a website does not imply that they perform any sort of the sort of fact-checking for statements posted there that a WP:RS would require. The obvious purpose of this paragraph is to imply a fact about Ratzinger's actions and correspondence, not to introduce a fact about Esquier; that is a totally inappropriate purpose for ABOUTSELF. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Question. Source X is generally reliable for the fact that source X says X. That's generally trivial (except when sources are retroactively doctored, which came up with WP:DAILYMAIL discussions), or when provenance is not certain. Aside from WP:DUE concerns, we've unfortunately got a question here about provenance. If there are sources that cite Geneviève Esquier's writings in this context, and do attribute these words to Esquier, then those are the sources that should be cited (or, at least, would be helpful in this discussion).{{pb}}{{yo|Arkenstrone}} Are there other sources that make the same attribution of this document to Esquier? If so, it would be very helpful here—we're generally not going to include information in an article for which the only documentation is a single primary source document hosted on a single website and about which nobody else has written. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- :Hawk, The only other source is the site that sells the book, and if you look at the previous discussion Arkenstone said "I think Yesterday is right in that the letter on mariavaltorta.com was very likely obtained from edifiant.fr". Hence the edifiant.fr site is the only one. And note that as Simon pointed out below edifiant.fr is WP:UGC. So given your response to Reddit below, that rules it out. Generally, WP:UGC sites of unknown origin can not be trusted. On impulse, I was, at one point considering submitting an anonymous article to that site claiming that there was a letter from Mother Teresa to the effect that she would feed the hungry by multiplication of the loaves to see what happens and if they would publish it. But I did not because they might publish it and then someone (no names mentioned, of course) would add it to Mother Teresa's page and then start a n Rfc about it here. I think I made the right decision. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- ::Why do you fill your comments with your rambling stream-of-consciousness completely unrelated to the point? It makes reading your comments difficult and a waste of time. Just make your points and spare us the rest. Regarding your actual point, can you provide examples of UGC? Please do so in the discussion below where I respond to Simon's related point. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- :::Arkenstrone, does this mean that I will not be receiving a New Year greeting card from you at the end of this year? I guess so. Now, regarding WP:UGC, Simon already responded to you below and I agree with his response. And I will not even attempt to explain the concepts of WP:RS or WP:UGC here given that one of the sites you mentioned below is a Wiki. Yes, fr.mariavaltorta.wiki is a Wiki. How can that be WP:RS? So I have othing else to say on that. And thank you for directly admitting that all the sites you mentioned below state that they got it from edifiant.fr. So edifiant.fr is the only site that claims to have received the letter. End of story. Now regarding your claim below about the editorial policies of edifiant.fr, I am sure if one of Clifford Irving's cousins had set up an anonymous web site that asked for donations, they would have claimed similar things about their verification policies. For all I know, that website may have been set up by a French relative of Mr Irving. That is all I have to say. This discussion is quite repetitive with you typing several times longer items than anyone else. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- ::::??? He's talking about edifiant.fr being UGC, which it is not. You're getting your facts confused. The other links are simply to show that the primary source on edifiant.fr is referenced by these other sources, some of which may be semi-reliable, some not. Edifiant.fr is the site to which the original letter was submitted by Esquier and verified by their editors. Therefore it makes sense that all references eventually end up pointing to the edifiant.fr article.
- ::::Also, I ran the second website [https://www.mariedenazareth.com mariedenazareth.com] through the ScamDoc verification service and it gave an even better result: 95% trust rating, and trust score of "Excellent".[https://www.scamdoc.com/view/411329] Arkenstrone (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- :::::Arkenstrone, I just laughed at your last comment. Just laughed. Buddy, Scamdoc scores have absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of the "contents" of websites. They are about security. To understand that note that the Scamdoc score for Reddit is 99% [https://www.scamdoc.com/view/1956]. Yes, 99%. Can Reddit content be trusted? No, no and no. I really do not know what to tell you, given that type of comment on your part. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- ::::::As usual you are resorting to straw man logical fallacies, and so you may as well be laughing at yourself. I never said that a good ScamDoc score implies that the site is reliable per WP:RS. But only to counter your absurd stream-of-consciousness nonsense that attempts to paint the edifiant.fr site as some kind of scammy looney-tune site, which is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Both it and mariedenazareth.com are French Catholic platforms that emphasize providing high-quality Catholic articles, resources, and newsletters to support spiritual growth. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{pb}}{{yo|Red-tailed hawk}} Several websites reference the primary source document on edifiant.fr:
::mariavaltorta.com - The official website of the Maria Valtorta Heritage Foundation. It summarizes her account of Ratzinger’s correspondence with Marcel Clément, director of L’Homme Nouveau, and cites the edifiant.fr article as the source of her handwritten testimony. The article emphasizes Ratzinger’s initial reservations and subsequent approval of Valtorta’s work after review.
::[https://mariavaltorta.com/the-unpublished-letters-of-joseph-ratzinger/]
::mariedenazareth.com - In a section titled “Comment aborder les écrits de Maria Valtorta?” (updated November 14, 2022), this site references Esquier’s testimony as published on edifiant.fr. It quotes her account of Ratzinger’s letters and includes a direct link to the edifiant.fr article, noting that Ratzinger authorized L’Homme Nouveau to resume promoting Valtorta’s works after finding no doctrinal issues.[https://www.mariedenazareth.com/questions-de-foi/raisons-de-croire-chretiennes/les-signes-miracles-et-prodiges-divins/les-extraordinaires-visions-de-maria-valtorta/maria-valtorta-est-une-vraie-fille-de-leglise]
::1000raisonsdecroire.com - The article “Les 700 extraordinaires visions de l’Évangile reçues par Maria Valtorta :(+1961)” on this site mentions Ratzinger’s shift in stance, referencing Esquier’s testimony as published on edifiant.fr. It highlights Ratzinger’s letter to Marcel Clément, as described in the edifiant.fr document, to support the claim that he found Valtorta’s writings doctrinally sound.[https://1000raisonsdecroire.com/maria-valtorta]
::fr.mariavaltorta.wiki - The Wiki Maria Valtorta page titled “Benoît XVI et Maria Valtorta” (updated August 18, 2021, with later revisions) indirectly references Esquier’s testimony by discussing Ratzinger’s interactions with L’Homme Nouveau and his eventual approval of Valtorta’s work. It links to the mariedenazareth.com article which then links to the edifiant.fr article. A later page, “La révélation privée de Maria Valtorta” (updated November 30, 2024), also mentions Ratzinger’s favorable stance post-1990s, consistent with the edifiant.fr testimony.[https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/Benoît_XVI_et_Maria_Valtorta][https://fr.mariavaltorta.wiki/wiki/La_r%C3%A9v%C3%A9lation_priv%C3%A9e_de_Maria_Valtorta] Arkenstrone (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::: As stated above, all of these sites state that they got their info from edifiant.fr, so nothing new here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::Hawk, beyond all that, please note that this is a highly controversial claim. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger ([https://www.amazon.com/Cardinal-Ratzinger-Vaticans-Enforcer-Faith/dp/0826412653| the Vatican Enforcer]) would have never supported a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:::You're completely missing the point. Nobody's claiming anything about Ratzinger. This is only about Esquier's handwritten letter describing her personal experience and witnessing of something. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
: No from what I have seen this is not a good source for this information due to multiple concerns.
- No provence for the photo, which means that this could be true, or it could be a complete hoax.
- This seems to be only website (that I have seen) with this sort of information (do note that I haven't done a thorough search for other websites), and this topic doesn't seem to be notable, otherwise there should be more sources for this.
- This website appears to not be Reliable or have a history of fact checking, to me it looks like a small website that is mostly trafficked by a few people that happen to know it exists, I could locate hundreds of small websites like this one. (In size, not topic.)
= Discussion (Esquier) =
Why is this information important and why does it need to be included in the article per WP:DUE? Because the article conveys that Cardinal Ratzinger was not favorably disposed towards Valtorta's work, especially with recent references to Miesel's article (which contains many errors), but also through private letters by Ratzinger in 1985 and 1993 expressing his personal opinion at that time. The handwritten testimony by Esquier adds important context, as she states she was witness to correspondence received clarifying Ratzinger's views.
According to Esquier, she received a letter from Ratzinger addressed to {{Interlanguage link|Marcel Clément|fr=Marcel Clément|fr}}, the former director of the French Catholic publication {{Interlanguage link|L'Homme Nouveau|fr=L'Homme Nouveau|fr}} asking him to stop all articles and sales of Valtorta's work until he had time to review it. One year later after reviewing the work, Ratzinger sent another letter lifting the prohibition expressing that the work contained nothing contrary to faith and morals.
This information provides counter-balance to the articles' one-sided presentation of Ratzinger's somewhat unfavorable personal views of the work without which the article conveys a misleading conclusion. Indeed, up until recently, I also believed Ratzinger was ill-disposed towards the work. Now I see this is not the case, and that the situation is more nuanced. This nuance needs to be captured in the article. Again, this handwritten testimony is an important statement of an eye-witness account. These are Esquier's own words, and she is a reliable source for her own words.
When the time comes and the original letters by Ratzinger are found (they are likely buried in the paper archives of L'Homme Nouveau), we can then replace this reliable primary source evidence with reliable primary or secondary source proof of the original letters themselves. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:"she is a reliable source for her own words". Yes, if they are being correctly reproduced. If that is the case it doesn't however constitute evidence that her claims regarding content of a letter from Ratzinger are factual. We don't analyse primary sources ourselves, and draw conclusions from them. We require secondary sources, with the relevant expertise, to do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, correctly reproduced, and no factual claims as to the content of the letter itself, which requires reliable secondary sources. Understood. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::You argue above that "This information provides counter-balance..." It doesn't. Not unless we assume that it is factual. Which we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Right. Counter-balance in the sense of clarifying Ratzinger's opinion concerning the work IF Esquier's statements are later proved true, beyond Esquier's handwritten testimony. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::There are no circumstances whatsoever where it is appropriate to include otherwise-questionable content on the basis that it might be proved correct later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Okay. Esquier is a reliable source for her own words, and that's all. The content of what she says is unverified and no conclusions can be drawn from it. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote above "if they are being correctly reproduced", and also wrote "most likely are", this is not an absolute assertion that Esquier is a reliable source on this matter. On reflection, that was a little confusing, but anyway, given that no conclusions should be drawn regarding Esquier's veracity, I can see little merit in inclusion of such content in the article, regardless of whether they are her own words or not. You seem to be trying to shoe-horn them in to counter what secondary sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was stating what I understood thus far based on previous statements. The merit is that she is a well-known French Catholic journalist formerly working for a well-known French Catholic publication. She said something. Given her background, some people value what she says, even if it's only an opinion. People can choose whether to accept what she said or not. What she said is relevant in context. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::'Some people' can value whatever they like. Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow suit. Even more so if others commenting here are correct in seeing the material as falling afoul of WP:ABOUTSELF. Though I really don't think there are legitimate grounds for inclusion either way. The whole thing seems to revolve around a letter from Ratzinger that may or may not have said something-or-other, being used as special pleading to counter reliably sourced information on things he verifiably did say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::To expand further on the above, Wikipedia policy on notability seems adequately satisfied in regard to the Poem of the Man-God article. Satisfied through coverage of the topic in secondary reliable sources. And it is such sources we should be basing the article on. There are no legitimate reasons however why the article should become a battleground between those who have differing opinions regarding the Poems theological significance etc, and accordingly, we aren't obliged to host stuff from obscure websites just because someone wants to push a particular argument. Which you quite clearly do. Go find a forum for that. Or take it up with the Church, and let them decide. When they have, we'll have something to add to the article. From sources we base articles on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::You may not be aware, but there was a discussion recently about whether or not to include the words of a literary critic (Miesel) from a questionable source (website that some here claimed was not a reliable source, but also her article contained several verifiable factual errors). The consensus seemed to be that the article's reliability was questionable but we should include it anyway since Miesel was a reliable source for her own words, plus she was a reasonably well-known literary critic. That reference is in the "Criticism" section, and so it naturally conveys a negative point of view concerning Valtorta's work.
::::::::::Similarly, Esquier, a reasonably well-known French Catholic journalist, submitted and confirmed a handwritten letter which was published to a website that some here say is coming from a questionable source. But that website is only hosting a primary source document. The document itself is a reliable source for the authors own words which describe her own personal experience. There is no compelling reason to assume the website is inherently unreliable as a host of a primary source document per WP:RSPRIMARY which has not been contested as illegitimate in the 2 years it has been highly visible. They also provide the provenance of the document and the circumstances of its receipt. Esquier's words convey a certain point of view. In this case, that view is one that is in support of Valtorta's work, which is why it appeared in the "General support" section. In both cases (Miesel v. Esquier) we don't need to accept as objectively true the content of the opinions, words, views or statements that are being conveyed. After all, the contention is they are both reliable sources for their own words.
::::::::::{{tq | The whole thing seems to revolve around a letter from Ratzinger that may or may not have said something-or-other, being used as special pleading to counter reliably sourced information on things he verifiably did say.}}
::::::::::Not to counter, but provide nuance and clarification by a well-known individual who claims she was directly involved and a witness to the events at that time. Her own words are also reliably (primary) sourced information. That's what she said. People can draw their own conclusions from that.
::::::::::{{tq | just because someone wants to push a particular argument}}
::::::::::It's not about me pushing a particular argument. Everyone has a point of view. One of the purposes of Wikipedia policy is not to prohibit editors from having a point of view, but rather to prevent those points of view, as much as possible, from entering into articles without reliable sources. Criticism and support sections are naturally going to be pushing/presenting a particular argument. As long as they are reliably sourced, that isn't a problem. I won't address your other statements concerning theological significance, battlegrounds, forums, etc. as those are beside the point of this RfC.
::::::::::BTW, your initial statement of words vs. testimony I accepted at face value, as I presumed you were drawing certain special meaning from the word "testimony" which I didn't intend. But upon further reflection, "testimony" is simply someone's words that are sworn or affirmed to be true. But that doesn't make them objectively true. And they are still their own words. So the distinction between words and testimony doesn't seem especially relevant in this context. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::By "some here claim" what Arkenstrone means is that they objected strenuously to the inclusion of the Miesel source and were frustrated that the majority of respondents disagreed with them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Please don't put words in my mouth. And at least try to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|she is a reliable source for her own words}}
:Only insofar as those words pertain to herself, not in regards to the acts and words of others. TarnishedPathtalk 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::Are her own words, which in this case she asserts describes her own lived experience (being a witness to hearing or seeing something), do they not pertain to herself? Arkenstrone (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Her words are a reliable source for her claiming to have witnessed something. They are not a reliable source that that thing happened or that she did witness it. If the thing is in relation to a third party (e.g. that someone else did or said something) then a self-published source can be used to verify that the author made the claim, but nothing beyond that. If a SPS is the only source for the claim being made then it is extremely unlikely to be DUE for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. But what if the source is not SPS? There is no evidence to suggest that it is, and some evidence to suggest it is not (footnotes establishing provenance). It seems to me that WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY are far more relevant in this context. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::*WP:ABOUTSELF is clear - it can't be used for material that involves {{tq|claims about third parties}}. Obviously quoting her making a claim about a third party involves claims about third parties. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:And all that is setting aside whether we can even use this letter as an WP:ABOUTSELF source considering that it's a scan of a hand-written letter on a website that encourages anonymous submissions and has opaque ownership. There's a non-zero chance this is a hoax letter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:Both you and Simonm223 have made the assertion that we are dealing with WP:ABOUTSELF, but that applies to self-published sources, and questionable (secondary) sources. But this is not a self-published source nor is it a questionable secondary source. Esquier does not run that website. The footnotes to the document establishing provenance expressly state that she mailed them the letter on March 8, 2023, and it was published the same day, and that they confirmed details of the letter by verbal communication with Esquier. Also, the document is not being used as a questionable secondary source, but as a reliable primary source. I fail to see how WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are applicable in this context. WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY seem to be far more relevant policies in this instance.
::*::"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources."
::*:Arkenstrone (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::*::This is obvious UGC what are you talking about? Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:::I don't understand what you're saying. Please elaborate your point. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::*::::The website solicits, and hosts, anonymous submissions. This makes the content on it effectively like that of a wiki. Thus it is WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:::::What are you talking about? The content is not user-generated. Did you read their editorial ethics? Also, they have a section to encourage readers to send suggestions or corrections, and another section for those who would like to contribute their talents, which virtually every website has. So are you willing to concede that all websites are therefore UGC? Quote:
::*::::::Editorial ethics
::*::::::[…]
::*::::::As a result, we have chosen to be hyper-selective, rigorous and concise in order to share only the best and do it well.
::*::::::[…]
::*::::::All our content is verified, sourced, and regularly updated as needed. This way, our platform allows you to get straight to the point, save thousands of hours of research, and access the best information.
::*::::::Contribute
::*::::::Send suggestions or corrections
::*::::::Have you spotted a typo, an error, or have additional information to share? No matter where you are on the site, you can send us your suggestions at any time.
::*::::::Offer your talents
::*::::::Photographers, designers, graphic designers, developers, proofreaders, documentarians, translators, etc. We are constantly looking for talented people eager to contribute their skills. Send us a message using the form at the bottom of the page to join the adventure.
::*:::::Arkenstrone (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::*::::::What you are describing is an anonymously managed website soliciting contributions from readers whose participation is likewise anonymous. There is no editorial control nor ability to confirm provenance which makes this equivalent to UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:::::::Not at all. What I'm describing is a statement of their editorial ethics and a form for users to provide feedback or suggestions which is very common on most websites. That is not UGC. At all. Quoting from WP:UGC:
::*::::::::Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.
::*:::::::None of that describes edifiant.fr. It is a French Catholic platform that emphasizes providing high-quality Catholic articles, testimonies, content—videos, resources, and a newsletter, free of charge to support spiritual growth. It it clearly not WP:UGC. Not sure where you and Yesterday are getting that. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::*::::::Arkenstrone, look, you can go on singing a lonely tune about edifiant.fr. But this is a highly controversial claim about Ratzinger. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger ([https://www.amazon.com/Cardinal-Ratzinger-Vaticans-Enforcer-Faith/dp/0826412653| the Vatican Enforcer]) would have danced naked on the streets of Rome before supporting a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. And for all we know, this could be a website set up by a French relative of Clifford Irving to anonymously collect donations. You have no case. Accept it and move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:::::::Nothing of what you said addressed my question of edifiant.fr being UGC. How did you and Simon arrive at this conclusion? It's not supported by the facts. Again, please stop deflecting with stream-of-consciousness nonsense. It's not helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::*::::::::{{u|Yesterday, all my dreams...}} and {{u|Arkenstrone}} the RFC has another 3+ weeks to run. Can I suggest doing something else while you wait for a result, you've both stated you positions quite thoroughly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::*:::::::::Actively, an excellent suggestion. I will do so. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Given the very long discussion of this issue just above in this page (under the title "Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?") and the fact that it was decided that the source has no provenance, the key question I have is: Should we spell "stubborn" with 2b's, 3 or 4? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think this is, what, the third time? We've had this conversation recently. I think that a snow-close is likely here. And then I hope people can move on. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::I think it should be allowed to run it's course. A RFC should hopefully bring a conclusion to the matter, and a early close could be used to argue against whatever the result ends up being. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree. Alas the course is likely to be very long, given the lengthy (and often repetitive) answers in support of the item. I guess some user (no names mentioned of course) will have to buy a new keyboard before the rfc has run its course. That user will probably not be me, or you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I've said my piece. edifiant.fr is eminently non-reliable and we should not be sourcing primary sources from it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Following up on Red-tailed hawk's useful question in the Survey section, I've asked Grok AI to help with evaluating the reliability of mariedenazareth.com as a secondary source that references edifiant.fr's primary source handwritten letter by Esquier, all within the context of Wikipedia's reliable source policy. The results bring up some of the more pertinent points that have already been brought up by editors here, with some interesting and helpful additions and conclusions. {{yo|AndyTheGrump|TarnishedPath|ActivelyDisinterested|Aquillion|Red-tailed hawk|Simonm223|p=.}}
{{cait}}
Grok AI:
To determine whether mariedenazareth.com can be considered a reliable secondary source for discussing the primary source handwritten letter testimonial by Geneviève Esquier on edifiant.fr—specifically her claim about witnessing a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger requesting a halt and later resumption of Maria Valtorta’s book sales—under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy (WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY), we need to evaluate mariedenazareth.com’s credibility, its handling of Esquier’s testimony, and its alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for this specific claim. The focus is on Esquier’s personal experience as described, not the letter’s existence or Ratzinger’s actions.
{{pb}}Clarifying the Specific Claim
Esquier’s March 2023 handwritten testimony on edifiant.fr, referenced in mariedenazareth.com’s July 25, 2023, article “Maria Valtorta est une vraie fille de l'Eglise”, includes a claim (dated “1990–1994” by mariedenazareth.com) that she witnessed or was aware of a letter from Ratzinger to Marcel Clément, then-editor of L’Homme Nouveau. This letter allegedly requested a temporary halt to sales of Valtorta’s books, followed by permission to resume, implying approval. The question centers on mariedenazareth.com’s reliability as a secondary source for discussing Esquier’s personal experience of witnessing this letter, per Wikipedia’s policies.
{{pb}}Wikipedia’s Reliable Source Policy
- Primary Sources (WP:PRIMARY): Primary sources are firsthand accounts (e.g., testimonies, letters). Esquier’s edifiant.fr letter is primary for her claim. Wikipedia allows primary sources for “straightforward, descriptive statements” with attribution (e.g., “Esquier claimed she witnessed…”), but not for analysis or contentious claims without secondary support. The hosting platform must be reliable for context.
- Secondary Sources (WP:RS): Reliable secondary sources interpret or summarize primary sources, requiring editorial oversight, fact-checking, and independence. Advocacy-driven or niche sites are less reliable, especially for third-party claims (e.g., about Ratzinger), but can be acceptable for attributed claims about personal experiences if credible.
- Scope: Mariedenazareth.com must accurately report Esquier’s testimony about her experience, be credible within its scope, and avoid unverified assertions beyond her account.
{{pb}}Esquier’s Primary Source on Edifiant.fr
- Content: Esquier claims she witnessed a Ratzinger letter to Clément (1990–1994) about halting and resuming Valtorta’s sales, tied to her L’Homme Nouveau role.
- Credibility: Esquier’s credentials—journalist and editor at L’Homme Nouveau, author of Catholic books (e.g., Lettre aux Chrétiens de France sur le baptême de Clovis, 1996), and 2014 Toulon candidate—support her plausibility as a witness.
- Edifiant.fr: With an 88% ScamDoc trust score, edifiant.fr is reliable for hosting Esquier’s words (WP:ABOUTSELF) but not for verifying Ratzinger’s actions due to its advocacy focus and lack of editorial oversight.
{{pb}}Evaluating Mariedenazareth.com’s Reliability
Mariedenazareth.com’s article summarizes Esquier’s edifiant.fr testimony, citing her claim about the Ratzinger-Clément letter. Here’s the evaluation:
Credibility and Mission:
- Mission: Mariedenazareth.com, run by the Marie de Nazareth Association, aims to “make Mary known and loved” and promote Catholic faith through multimedia, with a “Catholic ecumenical” Mission Statement: “To make Mary known and loved, and to help as many people as possible discover the beauty, breadth and truth of the Catholic faith.”
- Organizational Context: The association’s Church ties and multimedia output (books, DVDs) suggest legitimacy in Catholic circles, but it’s not an academic or news outlet. Its focus on Valtorta, whose works lack full Church approval, indicates a niche, advocacy-driven perspective.
- Trust Metrics: Mariedenazareth.com has a 95% trust rating and an “excellent” trust score from ScamDoc, indicating strong user trust and reliability for delivering Catholic content. This high rating enhances its credibility compared to edifiant.fr (88%), but ScamDoc reflects user perception and site security, not editorial rigor or independence, which Wikipedia prioritizes.
Handling of Esquier’s Testimony:
- Accuracy: The article accurately cites Esquier’s March 2023 edifiant.fr testimony, summarizing her claim of witnessing the Ratzinger-Clément letter (1990–1994). It doesn’t misrepresent her personal experience, making it reliable for relaying her account.
- Bias: The site uses Esquier’s testimony to promote Valtorta’s legitimacy, linking it to Ratzinger’s authority. This advocacy bias means it may accept her claim uncritically, but it doesn’t distort her stated experience.
- Verification: It notes the letter is with Clément’s grandson but provides no evidence (e.g., scan, third-party confirmation). For Esquier’s personal experience, verification isn’t required, as the claim is her subjective account.
Wikipedia Reliability Standards:
- For Esquier’s Personal Experience: WP:PRIMARY allows secondary sources to discuss primary accounts for descriptive statements. Mariedenazareth.com is reliable for stating, “Esquier claimed, as cited by mariedenazareth.com, that she witnessed a letter from Ratzinger halting and resuming Valtorta’s sales,” with attribution, fitting Wikipedia’s cautious use.
- WP:RS Limitations: The 95% trust rating supports niche credibility, but mariedenazareth.com’s advocacy focus and lack of editorial oversight (e.g., no named editors or fact-checking process) make it less reliable than academic journals or news outlets. Wikipedia prefers sources with established editorial standards.
- Independence: The site is independent of Esquier (no affiliation evidence), but its Valtorta advocacy reduces neutrality.
- Notability: For niche topics (e.g., Esquier’s experiences, Valtorta’s reception), mariedenazareth.com is acceptable to show how her testimony was circulated. For Ratzinger claims, Wikipedia requires stronger sources (e.g., L’Homme Nouveau, Vatican records).
Specific Claim Constraints:
- Scope: The claim is Esquier’s experience of witnessing the letter, not its existence or Ratzinger’s actions. Mariedenazareth.com reliably reports her account, suitable for Wikipedia attribution.
- Trust Metrics Impact: The 95% rating enhances credibility for Catholic content, but Wikipedia’s focus on editorial oversight limits reliability to attributed claims.
- No Overreach: The site’s broader assertion—Ratzinger supporting Valtorta—exceeds Esquier’s experience and requires evidence. For her witnessing claim, it stays within bounds.
{{pb}}Comparison to Other Secondary Sources
- Stronger Options: A L’Homme Nouveau article or Ratzinger biography (e.g., Seewald’s Benedict XVI: A Life) would offer editorial context or archival evidence, but these don’t mention the letter.
- Edifiant.fr: As the primary source, edifiant.fr is reliable for Esquier’s words. Mariedenazareth.com adds value by showing reception.
{{pb}}Conclusion
Mariedenazareth.com can be considered a reliable secondary source for discussing Esquier’s edifiant.fr testimony about her personal experience of witnessing Ratzinger’s letter on Valtorta’s sales, under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy, with caveats:
- Reliable for Attribution: Its 95% ScamDoc rating supports credibility for relaying Esquier’s claim, suitable for Wikipedia to cite with attribution (e.g., “According to mariedenazareth.com, Esquier claimed in a 2023 edifiant.fr testimony that she witnessed a letter…”). This fits WP:PRIMARY’s descriptive use.
- Limited by Advocacy: Its devotional mission and lack of editorial rigor make it less reliable than scholarly or journalistic sources. Wikipedia would accept it for niche, attributed claims but not for Ratzinger’s actions without evidence.
- Scope: It’s reliable only for Esquier’s subjective experience, not broader claims about Ratzinger or Valtorta.
For citing Esquier’s experience, mariedenazareth.com is adequate with attribution. To strengthen reliability, locating the Ratzinger-Clément letter or a L’Homme Nouveau reference would help.
{{caib}}
Arkenstrone (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:Grok has absolutely no comprehension of Wikipedia's policies, the preceding output is wrong on just about every level and is a waste of editors time. If you want to make an argument or understand the relevant policies I suggest reading them yourself, Grok's answers are basically very verbose nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's wrong? How so? I read the policies, and compared Grok's analysis with my own comprehension of them, and it appears perfectly in compliance with them, even including verbatim excerpts of Wikipedia policy in several instances. I fail to see how Grok got it "wrong on just about every level". Please share where Grok got it wrong, specifically. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry but that would require reading "AI" glurge. Hatted as irrelevant is the best place to put automated textwalls. I think someone should write an essay about how, if you find yourself using automated text generators in a noticeboard argument, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK because you've lost all credibility. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::No. If you want to put forward an argument based on your reading of Wikipedia's policies I'll happily discuss it with you, but I'm not going to spend my time talking with Grok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::My argument is essentially the same as Grok's, as I've carefully examined what Grok produced and it is perfectly coherent and understandable with clear points being made throughout. If you or others can't see that, I submit that it's likely because you don't want to and perhaps some bias is entering into the mix. I've simply used Grok to analyze and provide additional context and information. In summary, and in my own words, citing Wikipedia policy:
::::1. Primary sources WP:PRIMARY are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved (e.g., testimonies, letters). Esquier’s edifiant.fr letter is a primary source for her claim. Therefore, even by Wikipedia's own standards, the primary source document is allowed provided it communicates only her own words and lived experience. However, to further strengthen it's reliability, I've located a reliable secondary source that refers to this primary source document.
::::2. Reliable secondary sources WP:RS analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize primary sources. Certain editors have mentioned that a reliable secondary source that refers to and discusses the primary source document would increase it's reliability in context, since it shows the primary source document is circulated and discussed, further strengthening it's legitimacy. That's what mariedenazareth.com does, as it is a very popular and respected French Catholic website.
::::3. There are different levels of "reliability". I am not saying mariedenazareth.com is a reliable secondary source at the same level as academic journals or news outlets. But only adequately reliable for confirmation of Esquier's own words about her own lived experience. Note, there are other websites that discuss this as well, but it seems to me mariedenazareth.com is the most reliable one as it produces a lot of additional French Catholic content completely independent of this issue.
::::4. The ScamDoc ratings for both websites (88% for edifiant.fr and 95% for mariedenazareth.com), while not a definitive indication of reliability, shows they are secure, established, well-regarded in the community, and clearly not "scam" websites. So this dispels all arguments concerning these websites' legitimacy. "Anonymous website ownership" is not an argument, since privacy is a legitimate concern for many website operators.
::::5. None of the other claims certain editors have brought up to justify their no vote, involving WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, and WP:UGC hold any water. The primary document are Esquier's own words of her own lived experience. Speaking of her own experience satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF. The primary document is obviously not self-published, so WP:SPS does not apply. And information generated on both edifiant.fr as well as mariedenazareth.com are not user-generated content, so WP:UGC doesn't apply. Also, WP:DUE is met, as I'm proposing only one brief paragraph, which the article does not rely on in any way, but provides useful context and information by someone who is both credible and involved in these matters. The policies that are most applicable in this situation are WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS and both are adequately satisfied as discussed above. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::We've read your argument before. At length. If you've still failed to convince anyone then it is probably, again, time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::These are just all the points you have raised before, and have failed to convince others editors. I suggest reading the advice at WP:1AM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::No. This is a summary of the clarified points all in one place (instead of separated into a dozen different incoherent threads) with additional information included because a secondary source was not previously located. None of these points have been refuted. Consensus or convincing others, is not a substitute for arguments based in Wikipedia policy. I've shown Wikipedia policy to be on my side, and I'm waiting for you or others to refute each point above with sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. Also, citing essays as a substitute for Wikipedia policy is not very helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'll leave it to whoever closes the RFC to decide on policy interpretation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|If you want to put forward an argument based on your reading of Wikipedia's policies I'll happily discuss it with you...}}
::::::::I just did, citing several Wikipedia policies, but now you are refusing to discuss. This forum is a form of court, subject to Wikipedia policy. Also, I repeat, consensus is not a substitute for sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. That's like two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::I've unhatted that section. If you want to hat that section, then you're going to have to explain why those points are {{tq|a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies}}. Or, at the very least, rebut my summary of the most pertinent points above. I've reviewed those arguments and they appear sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. If you don't agree, then explain why. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Grok's output is ludicrous. To determine credibility, Grok cites {{xt|"trust rating"}} scores from [https://www.scamdoc.com/ ScamDoc], a site that says it {{xt|"uses artificial intelligence to classify websites and emails"}} with a [https://info.scamdoc.com/guide/presentation/ goal] of {{xt|"helping users make an informed decision before conducting a transaction or sharing personal information"}}. ScamDoc's [https://info.scamdoc.com/guide/scoring/ scoring criteria] include whether the domain uses HTTPS and domain privacy, and [https://info.scamdoc.com/guide/scoring/online-reviews/ whether user reviews report] that the business behind the website is responsible for {{xt|"undelivered products, significant delivery delays, unsolicited subscriptions, use of drop shipping"}}. All of this is completely unrelated to whether a website is a reliable source of information for citation in Wikipedia articles.{{pb}}The Grok output is so irrelevant to Wikipedia that I agree with ActivelyDisinterested (who previously collapsed Grok's output) and Simonm223 in that the AI output should remain collapsed. At this point, the current consensus in this discussion is to keep the AI output in a collapsed state, so I have collapsed it again. Using AI-generated arguments in talk page discussions is disruptive as it is disrespectful of other editors' time, considering the lack of effort it takes to generate the output compared to the amount of effort it takes to review it, so please do not do this again. {{bcc|Arkenstrone}}— Newslinger talk 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
{{RfC bottom}}
Bugguide.net
I recently raised iNaturalist here, after which it was added to RSNP. I now notice that a similar site, bugguide.net, is used on 25000 articles. The homepage[https://bugguide.net/node/view/15740] makes it clear that this is another wiki. Should this be added to RSNP as well, considering the sheer number of times it has been used? Fram (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Blimey that's a lot of use! Probably a good candidate for RSP yes. Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Certainly appears to be to UGC. Listing every UGC site on the RSP would be messy, but with so many many articles already using the source maybe it's necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::Bugguide information pages are not UGC. They are edited by an approved group of editors and not users in general. The photos and comments on Bugguide come from users in general, but the information pages are maintained by knowledgeable editors. Bob Webster (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Is that group just self-selecting or do the contributors have professional backgrounds in the subject area? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:I suspect that a lot of the 25000 "uses" come from automatic transclusion in {{tl|Taxonbar}}, and/or External links sections, and External links do not necessarily need to be RS. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::Using an 'insource' wouldn't pick up the taxonbar, as it would be transcluded. Look at the search results [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22bugguide.net%22] although some do appear to be in the 'External links' sections most as being used in references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::A large number of those citations will be leftover extraneous citations from numerous bot-created (or human curated, script-generated) stubs created by {{U|Qbugbot}} or its operator or other prolific stub creators who tack on a handful of tertiary databases attesting to "X is a species of Y found in North America" (:Category:Articles created by Qbugbot has over 20,000 entries). See for instance initial state of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xylosandrus_crassiusculus&oldid=837594565 Xylosandrus crassiusculus] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goniaceritae&oldid=836029256 Goniaceritae] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javesella_pellucida&oldid=447264795 Javesella pellucida]. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:Buguide is different from iNaturalist in some important ways. As a well established online resource, BugGuide does attract professional entomologists, grad students, taxonomists, and expert amateurs who have created, curated, and edited most of the taxon pages. While anyone can contribute photographs, not anyone can create or edit the guide pages. Per [https://bugguide.net/help/guide], status of "contributing editor" is by request or invitation only, and I believe only these users can create and edit pages. The initial creator, and subsequent editors, are listed at the bottom of each taxon page. So it is possible that WP:SPS may apply in some cases. However, the taxon pages themselves are usually tertiary sources, even if authored by an expert, often referencing salient journal articles, books, field guides, etc. So in most cases, any content on the taxon pages should already be found in scientific literature, and any unique expert commentary and/or primary photographs are probably WP:UNDUE for inclusion. I don't see previous discussion of BugGuide on this board, so it may be premature to add it to WP:RSPS, but as I said during the last iNaturalist discussion, it may eventually be warranted to have one single umbrella RSPS entry covering all similar citizen science/online encyclopedia projects such as iNaturalist, eBird, observation.org, Project Noah, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Book published 2025 says published 2026
I have a (signed) copy of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries, OUP, 11th edition. It says published 2026. I assume I ignore that and put 2025. Its author tells me this isn't unusual: "That way a book appears to be newer (and more up to date) than it actually is. I believe publishers think this lengthens the shelf life of textbooks."
So I presume it ignore that and put 2025 so we don't have any problems with time travel, right? Doug Weller talk 13:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:So it says it was published in 2026, as such how do you know it was not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::Presumably because he is in possession of a copy, and it is [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/frauds-myths-and-mysteries-9780197757796?cc=us&lang=en& available for purchase] now, and it is currently 2025, so unless Doug Weller acquired the book from a time traveler it must have been published prior to 2026. -- LWG talk 15:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
:::LOL, then that does not, inspire much confidence as to its reliability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Nah, this is a pretty normal practice and is a byproduct of the many moving parts of the scholarly publication process, in addition to the more cynical reasoning identified by the author in correspondence with Doug. Provided there's no other reason to doubt reliability, the source is fine to use. As noted by fiveby at FRINGEN, the publisher appears to have already corrected the error for their website and Worldcat, the most relevant bibliographic authority, has followed suit.signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is pretty normal in the publishing industry. Like all over it. For instance by-monthly magazines that are dated January / February usually arrive on your doorstep in December. This not an indication of unreliability of publication so much as unreliability of supply trains in publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{oclc|1495097821}} and {{lccn|2024059284}} both have 2025. fiveby(zero) 21:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
: Unfortunately this practice is quite common. It should run afoul of laws against misleading advertising in most countries, but publishers continue to get away with it. Our problem here is to be sure that the correct edition will be identified if someone wishes to find it in the future. Writing a year different from the publisher's year might make that difficult, though it is less of an issue if the isbn is given. Zerotalk 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:This happens very, very often. Much to my chagrin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:Both {{para|date}} and {{para|publication-date}} are available in {{tl|cite book}}, maybe this is an instance where the latter is useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::That is (of course) the big issue, this makes verifying it difficult, and could lead to exactly the kind of statement I made above. So seems to me best to keep the "official" date. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I can't use a book as a reference with a date next year, it would either be deleted or changed if someone notices. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::And the same might well happen if someone else notices the books stated publication date, so it might be best not to use it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Best not to use what? Doug Weller talk 11:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What we are talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I thought you might be talking about the book, but I am not sure. In any case there is the ISBN number so we can ignore that date. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, the book we are talking about. Why not use another source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::As an aside, if it is an issue and is common practice, then we might want to amend Reliability in specific contexts to note this issue and that both books and magazines may have a publication date that differs from when it is actually published. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- My advice: wait a few months and then add the source with the “as printed” date (2026). Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- :That is of course, then the other option, wait until 2026, then add it. Does what it says need to be added now? Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- ::@Blueboar@Slatersteven AsI am updating the book's article and will use it as a source, it does. I'll just leave the date out as I said. We wouldn't avoid writing about a new car called a 2026 model but released this year, would we? Doug Weller talk 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I think it's ok to add the source now with the publication date (2026) and the access date (whatever day you add it as a source). Books are like cars--newer models can come out a year prior. 2026 is in fact the publication date, but you are in possession of the book now. If you want to avoid anyone coming along and removing the source, perhaps add a hidden note or post something about it on the article's talk page. Marquardtika (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. We don't ignore experts because there is something odd about the date in their book. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::As someone with experience in publishing my recommendation is to just use the source and put 2025 for the publication date. Forward dating is common practice and it's rather silly to wait half a year to use a source just because it would otherwise cause a minor template issue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::In any case it’s clear that reliable sources, ie Worldxat, the LOC, have it right. Just someone’s mistake. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:There's absolutely no issues with using that book, @Doug Weller.
:But I wonder if course syllabi cited in the article are WP:RS? A course syllabus is self-published, doesn't undergo any kind of review, and often contains factual, grammar, and spelling errors, as they're meant to be given to a class as a guideline and aren't meant for public consumption. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::@TurboSuperA+ Not sure what you are referring to. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Three of the sources in the article are syllabi from university courses: [https://web.archive.org/web/20210126202848/https://people.clas.ufl.edu/kgrillo/files/ANT2149-Lost-Tribes-Spring-21-Grillo.pdf] [https://web.archive.org/web/20221006170202/https://ininet.org/myths-and-mysteries-in-archaeology-anth-3821-dr-susan-johnston-v2.html] [https://web.archive.org/web/20150911210720/https://www.sjsu.edu/anthropology/docs/fall2010/Anth_160_02.pdf]. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::::They are reliable for information about themselves. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::I found where the sources are used: {{tq|The book is required reading in many archaeology courses.[5][6][7]}} Is this WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Not accusing, but genuinely asking, as I thought we need a RS to say it before we can. Or is this similar to WP:CALC where it is an acceptable bit of OR? Would it make a difference, w.r.t. use of sources, if the claim was "some" archeology courses, rather than "many"? TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes. It should not say many.. And maybe "has been" Doug Weller talk 09:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
There is no need for anyone to be concerned or alarmed here, given that there is an rfc about The Debrief website just above here. I am sure someone from that site will notice this discussion and within 7 days that site will have a complete and irrefutable explanation of how the book was transported back in time. Then that explanation can be used for the rest of this year, and the problem will disappear next year anyway. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
: I've cited academic sources that were post-dated because they were released online by the publisher (the final version, not a preprint) before their official publication date. This is slightly different because it's a physical copy, but post-dated publication dates have no bearing on whether the source is reliable. The 11th edition of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries is still reliable for the subject matter as a Oxford University Press publication. Editors can use their discretion to exclude the date from the citation template if it causes a dispute, although I would personally leave it in until a dispute actually happens. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::Yes I have experienced this with a textbook. I was able to use the textbook PDF many months before it was published on paper. Online pre-relases do happen. Could alos be a typo. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:Thinking about this some more… yeah…just cite the source with the 2026 date. Chances are, no one will even notice … and in a few months it won’t matter. IF it causes a dispute (which I doubt) we can deal with it then. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Any chance anyone can do a copy of the books cover I can use for the article? I gather it has to be low resolution? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
: I've uploaded a scaled-down version of the book's cover from Amazon to :File:Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries cover (11th edition).webp and added it to the article.{{bcc|Doug Weller}} — Newslinger talk 06:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::Fantastic, thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Ain o Salish Kendra
Hello. I found [https://www.askbd.org/ask/2024/12/31/violence-against-religious-minorities-jan-dec-2024/ this] statistics by a human rights organization called Ain o Salish kendra. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I wanted to know whether it can be used as a source on wikipedia.
Thanks! Ffmyfydtfdtf (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:They should be reliable, but it might be useful to include inline attribution (e.g. "According to Ain o Salish Kendra such and such ..."). Is there something specific you want to use the source for? It would help with giving a more specific answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
min.news
We have 123 articles which use min.news/en as a source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22min.news%2Fen%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=86acuo5ef6177mqdqczyxn1m6]. It looks to be computer-generated rubbish. It has no byline, the "date" given is always the current date, and the contents are worthless. Sources used in articles here include things like [https://min.news/en/entertainment/ee0db7a82cf73123025ff4e53ec69dfa.html], [https://min.news/en/auto/1dc8a3bb230cfda90e1b169e704f327d.html] and [https://min.news/en/history/d789b6687846ef6633af742b3aeded89.html]. Is there a reason to keep these links or can I remove them all? Fram (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Looks like internet scrapping fed through a LLM. I can't find any use by others, or anything to indicate it should considered a reliable source. I would remove or replace it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:AI rubbish, it should be blacklisted. 206.83.102.59 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Blacklist. Non-notable sites that almost exclusively contain AI-generated content, such as min.news, have no valid use case on Wikipedia and should be added to the spam blacklist when there is a pattern of inappropriate use. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::Okay, thank you all! I have posted it at the page for suggested blacklist additions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{added}} to spam blacklist in Special:Diff/1291263348. Thank you for requesting this. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you! Fram (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:Will work on removing this as a source. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)