Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 482#New York Post carve-outs

Per WP:NYPOST the New York Post is generally unreliable with the exception of issues pre-1942 and its entertainment coverage which (WP:DECIDER) is "marginally reliable".

Steven Greenstreet -- formerly at the Huffington Post -- has been a video producer at the New York Post for a few years. His critical ("skeptical") reporting on UFOs and UFO subculture has been cited by the Washington Spectator [https://washingtonspectator.org/ufo-tales-falling-apart-after-hearings/], Futurism [https://futurism.com/the-byte/pentagon-whistleblower-admits-photo-fake], WABC [https://wabcradio.com/episode_guest/steven-greenstreet/], etc. He's a potentially valuable reference as there is a dearth of reporting on the sociology of this fringe topic.

My question: what is the group's feeling about Greenstreet's reporting being citable in the narrow category of fringe topics as a subject matter expert as per WP:SPS? Traditionally this isn't "self-published" but, if we're approaching the Post as having inferior or no editorial controls, it might be in an oblique way? Chetsford (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seems like a stretch. First, a tabloid with a poor reputation for fact-checking is different from self-published. Second, it's not clear he has been published anywhere reliable that would establish him as a credible "UFO researcher" and a handful news sites quoting him isn't enough. Third, fringe topics require particular care. If other sources that quote him are generally reliable, those statements could perhaps be used with attribution in certain contexts. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm curious about this because there's some (as far as I can tell) NY Post-level non-reliable in some Australian media I wanted to use before but left on the shelf. Is it the publication alone, or does the author factor, are you asking? Like if Bob the Journalist is trivially lifetime WP:RS for anything he's ever written. He's the most cited writer here in the past ten years even. But if he writes on article under WP:NYPOST, does that one not count?

:If so, that's a super interesting question, because quality writers post stuff to more independent spaces sometimes, that people will kvetch about. I'm sure many of us have been stung by that before!

:If you have RS that says "Person XYZ is a notable expert on brining shrimp," and Person XYZ is indeed rather reknowned in preserving shrimp... but can we not use an article on shrimp brining from him just because a piece of shit source published it?

:The specific who+what is more important I think--prove who (author) is relevant about (what) with RS, get that into the author's article, and then you've got an argument about poking an expert exemption into shitty RS as a precedent for any proper who+what outranking the where going forward. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::With newsmedia a lot of reliability depends on editorial standards which means that the reputation of the author is not the only factor. If our shrimp brining expert can't be found on a subject except in a shit source this might indicate the shrimp-pickle related subject is of minimal importance and inclusion is likely undue regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Totally agree. I mean our shrimp guy here in the hypothetical -- he is published in RS that qualifies for all things shrimp. The guy is a more notable shrimping expert than Forrest Gump or that old timey cajun cooking show guy in the old days whose name I forget (super thick accent).

:::But, for whatever reason, a piece by shrimp guy shows up in an other WP:NYPOST-type barred sourced, and someone wants to use it. Maybe one particular factoid/citable thing they want to include ONLY appears there? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Then no. Sorry. That's not a usable piece of information. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I noticed that Greenstreet has been an interesting case of a reporter at The New York Post exercising editorial independence: likely because the editorial oversight doesn't really care if he toes this line or not and, for whatever reason he has a unique perspective on this story that really has no parallel at any other journalist outfit. (I'll keep my own speculation as to motivations of the relevant parties to myself, but I do have my ideas about this.) Anyhoo, what I have noticed in the five or so years I've been following Greenstreet's work and interactions is that, generally, once his ideas are noticed by third parties they receive due accolades from pretty good sources. My predilection, then, is to wait for those accolades before mentioning his work and, perhaps, rely mostly on the mentions of others rather than Greenstreet himself. However, I think that if we are mentioning a work that Greenstreet should get priority for, it is best for us to give credit where credit is due. That he published in NYPost is not for us to judge right or wrong if WP:Independent sources see way to identify the work as transformational. I can think of two instances where this is the case: one) in his quick adoption of Jason Colavito's analysis that the UFO caucus within Congress and the (ex-)DOD have religious tinges to their argument and two) criticizing the government funding that went into all this as well as being one of the first reporters to really bring the Bigelow-Reid connection to light and especially for calling-out the Skinwalker Ranch-paranormal connections to the UFO "investigations" that were funded by semi-secret Congressional appropriations. This point is now largely regarded as salient by most UFO skeptics. Mick West brings it up a lot. So I think when we discuss these framings, it may be appropriate to link to those early NYPost pieces where Greenstreet makes the case along with the references to his work found in other sources. jps (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I remembered one more instance where priority may be relevant and, in my estimation, ought to be given: Greenstreet was the first reporter to question Elizondo's story about his role in Government UFO investigations. I think this is mentioned by others too. jps (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:SOURCE policy says the creator of the work matters, please cite the article and not an article about the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Are the articles reporting, that should be under the editorial control of the NYP, or are they opinion? I could see a case being made for WP:EXPERTSPS for the latter, as such peices may not being under the same level of control. However then using it in BLPs could be a concern.
In part the concern about the NYP is it's editorial control, so things my be published that other more reliable sources would not. So I'd be against any cutout that resulted in statements in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I had no idea, but it seems his videos are directly published on the WP:NYPOST Youtube channel. It's very hard to see on the way he does some embeds off Twitter (I had to click through a bunch of pages to get to like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RUoYqBewC8

::I'm still curious about the angles around this for my hypothetical shrimper thing. There's potentially a lot of useful corner case stuff that could be useful with the tiniest expansion of this allowance, which the more I read seems to allow WP:SPS as a passthrough option for perennial disallowed sources? Is that a correct endgame read {{user|Chetsford}}? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The book, History of Medieval India: From 1000 A.D. to 1707 A.D.

By Radhey Shyam Chaurasia is used on the article Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq. Google Books link:[https://books.google.com/books?id=8XnaL7zPXPUC&dq=tughlaq+jat&pg=PA50&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tughlaq%20jat&f=false]

In the early life section. Having read through the source, it seems very poorly written with frequent spelling and grammar errors. I am also not familiar with the publisher, Atlantic Publishers. In my mind, it doesn't seem very reliable but I would appreciate some other opinions.

Thanks! Ixudi (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Atlantic seem like a reputable publisher[https://atlanticbooks.com], and Chaurasia appear to have an academic background in history[https://atlanticbooks.com/products/history-of-medieval-india-from-1000-a-d-to-1707-a-d?_pos=1&_psq=History+of+Medieval+India%3A+From+1000+A.D.+to+1707+A.D&_ss=e&_v=1.0]. oweverreading some the book I'm left very uncertain of its quality. Maybe avoiding anything exceptional and finding a better source when possible is best. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Past: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 111#Are Google N-Grams a reliable source?

Whan using Google N-grams as a WP:RS, what should be done about the inconsistency in the results it returns? How do we handle the problem that they don't all agree? If I'm looking (as an example) for a spelling or capitalisation issue, what is the threshold criterion for this to be seen as "consistently capitalized" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why are Google n-grams ever used as a reliable source? They are made by scanning everything in the shape of a book that Google could get their mitts on. That includes good books, sure, but also a lot of trash. I don't see why anyone should rely on them for deciding anything. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's not a source. It's a search engine that searches a large corpus of books interpreted via optical character recognition (which is imperfect) and assigned a date via metadata of some sort. Even though the corpus is large, it's still only a small % of all books, and as far as I know, Google doesn't provide enough info about the corpus to assess how representative it might be. The discussion you linked to provided a striking example of clear errors. It's not clear to me what "they" refers to in "they don't all agree." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is anyone using it as a WP:RS -- a source for content of an article? That would be a problem, as it doesn't make statements itself, and it has both imperfect OCR (unsurprising with old documents) and imperfect date marking. However, it can be very useful in discussion -- giving a quick read on the more common phrasing of a term, finding portions of time that might be worth looking more into, etc. We do not require discussion fuel to reach full reliable source standards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:There is no question that G N-grams have a certain amout of randomness that renders them far from determinate. They are NOT WP:RS except in a statement that the N-gram said so. And that type of statement is not encyclopedic. Just forget about them. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:: How about using them to decide capitalisation in proper (or not) names? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't see why they'd be useful for that purpose. Different style guides, most books being too indifferent to follow any style guide at all... I know that [https://xkcd.com/1167/ Wikipedia editors take capitalization deadly seriously] and want to believe in numbers that settle everything, but I just can't imagine that n-grams are at all viable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They should be used with at least a bit of caution there, not due to inaccuracy, but because they aren't tracking exactly what we're looking for. If you want to know if, say "hocus pocus" is normally capitalized in usage, N-gram will be weighing in not just normal in text usage, but its use in chapter titles, , in headlines, in references to the film of the name, in references to a song of that name, and so forth -- places that will capitalize the term for reasons outside of whether the term is capitalized in standard usage. This will weigh the results. But it can make a good sniff test, a first level of building your thoughts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: So how about [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Berlin+airlift&year_start=1940&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true this] for showing that Berlin Airlift needs to be renamed to Berlin airlift ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That doesn't look like a definitive statement to me, with tBa getting about twice as much as tBA in 1950... but a reversal of that ratio in the current decade. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::As others have said, Ngram is not an appropriate source to cite in an article but can be useful in discussions. They are frequently invoked in renaming (requested move—WP:RM) discussions, including capitalization and other spelling and usage issues. The article's title is Berlin Blockade, with Berlin Airlift and Berlin airlift as redirects. Ngram can also be useful in discussions of appropriate capitalization in article prose. For the record, I agree with Nat that the Ngram shared does not appear to support lowercase. Contextual Ngrams (like these: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+Berlin+airlift%2C*+Berlin+Airlift&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3][https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Berlin+airlift+*%2Cthe+Berlin+Airlift+*%2CThe+Berlin+airlift+*%2CThe+Berlin+Airlift+*&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3][https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Berlin+airlift+was%2Cthe+Berlin+Airlift+was&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3]) may provide more insight, as can an actual assessment of usage in reliable sources (as opposed to this aggregate Ngram view). Any concerns about the article title or its content should be raised at Talk:Berlin Blockade. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{mdf|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|— Newslinger talk 20:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

This source is identified here as unreliable because it is self-published. However, the wikipedia page about the source,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

confirms the despite questions about its methodology the source's results tend to be very reliable and consistent with other sources. Time to change the rating? 104.195.222.88 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:I recently found a peer reviewed paper that looked into several of the rating sites. Their general conclusion was despite the different methodologies the sites generally agree. There are also instance of peer reviewed sources using these sites as references for research. That said, I agree with the idea that the material shouldn't be used in articles on various media sites. So, we shouldn't use MBFC (or similar sites) to make the claim that a site is reliable/unreliable right/left etc. Springee (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I still say no. It's far too subjective to be useful for an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I've recently noticed that there are a couple of list articles on Wikipedia that purport to be lists of fact-checking websites and one is: List of fact-checking websites. It includes Media Bias/Fact Check. That's not a strong enough reason to have it declared RS -- I have been thinking about these list articles because I'm not sure they have good editorial standards. Novellasyes (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The list articles generally don't. Simonm223 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think keeping it out of article space still makes sense. Unless a 3rd party source makes the connection for us I don't think we should reference rating sites in articles. However, it can be useful in talk page discussions. Like Ad Fontes, this is a source that scholarship has used. Also, the paper High level of agreement across different news domain quality ratings H Lin et al, found that despite different methods, there was generally good agreement between the ratings sites. Basically, these are useful resources if we want to discuss if a source is generally biased/factual etc. However, I don't see these as good article space references. Springee (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with @Springee. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Re: whether it's self-published, there is no agreement on what SPS means. As for whether it's reliable for WP's purposes, no. These sites all limit their reviewers to Americans, which introduces an American-centric bias into the results. There is no objective way to determine where neutral is. These are subjective judgments, and they shouldn't be presented as if they're objective. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable for what? American public opinion about sources, then yes but it would rarely be due for inclusion. That it gets used elsewhere sometimes doesn't change what it is or what it's showing. Is it reliable for stating in wikivoice the reliability of a source or it's political position, no. Is it useful for discussing sources? Not really. It could be a useful place to looking when researching a source, but it's ratings are not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. They are ultimately just the opinions of MBFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

: Like a few other people above, I think MBFC is likely biased in itself partially towards the US angle. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:No. I do not think "it is time", or ever will be most likely to change the consensus on this one. At last not based on what I've seen so far. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also no. These are amateurs who use a novel rating system that, more-or-less, amounts to a gut feeling. Best practice in content analysis is to evaluate two constructed weeks of content for every six months using two independent coders. Insofar as I can tell, they just have someone with questionable qualifications or training Google the site they're rating. By way of comparison they call The Palmer Report "medium credibility" -- our own article on said outlet sources 11 different academic studies to call it a "conspiracy theory" and "fake news" site ... and that's just in the lead! Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:Fact check sites are replete with problems and really an opinionated assessment of existing sources. There isnt really a need for them here when we can just go directly to the sources they use. Metallurgist (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I could not find any discussion regarding the reliability of SuperHeroHype as a source for discussing media. Their "About Us" page alludes to a team of editors, but I could not find anything else suggesting one way or another.

Specifically I was looking into [https://www.superherohype.com/features/603479-doctor-who-poppy-belinda-chandra-weird-abortion-allegory this article], which provides an analysis of the ending of the recent Doctor Who episode "The Reality War" that I was hoping to use both to (eventually) confer notability for the character it discusses and as a point of discussion regarding the character herself. Thoughts are much appreciated!

EDIT: Meant to say "discussion" in the first sentence, not "source." -Jessica3801 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like it is written by super fans [https://www.superherohype.com/about-us]. It seems like user generated content. It may not be usable on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I am attempting to write a full article for Mythos (restaurant) but it is well outside of my expertise. Many sources appear upon a quick Google search. However, many of the sources are formatted as blogs and other, more informal sources. [https://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/chicago-today/exploring-the-universal-orlandos-mythos-worlds-best-theme-park-restaurant/3547806/ This article from NBC Chicago] is the most reliable that showed up, but I am not certain how it would apply to GNG. [https://www.cinemablend.com/theme-parks/universal-orlando-mythos-world-best-theme-park-restaurant Cinemablend] also shows up, posing as a general entertainment website.

Most of the sources that appear are reviews for theme park-specialized sites. Here are a few I found on the first page of Google:

• [https://thekingdominsider.com/review-of-mythos-restaurant-at-islands-of-adventure-ks/ Kingdom Insider]
• [https://orlandoinformer.com/blog/gluten-free-you-need-to-eat-here/ Orlando Informer]
• [https://mouseplanet.com/mythos-universals-finest-cave-dining/6799/ Mouse Planet]
• [https://wdwnt.com/2024/05/mythos-restaurant-new-lounge-ioa/ Walt Disney News Today]

Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ 20:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Which ones do you want us to look at? It seems you have some idea of what a RS should have. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::The issue I have with this type of site is that they may fall under WP:BLOG. However, maybe they could be reliable as local sources (I forgot the name of the guideline/policy). They may also just be reliable in their own right but my skills for checking that aren't very good. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Considering that you are writing a new article on a small restaurant, I thnk you should use better sources than the ones provided. NBC source looks ok. I am not sure the restaurant meets notability standards and I see a redirect already for it. It may be better to simply expand the section on Universal Islands of Adventure with a few good sources. If it is hard to find RS, then the topic is not notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Should primary government sources laden with propaganda from both sides (Pakistan and India) be allowed in the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article? I am not referring to secondary media sources from either country, which, in my opinion, can be used to convey government claims and sometimes help filter out the worst propaganda language. In my view, Wikipedia should not serve as a propaganda tool for governments. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Statements made by govts directly involved in a conflict can be used but should clearly be attributed and definitely should be selected with care to stick to the most objective information (eg estimates of the number of dead in an attack, for example) since these are dependent sources. For more subjective statements or claims that can't be easily backed, we'd rather see the statements propagated through reliable independent third-parties so that editors are not trying to judge which statements are important or not, but what these reliable third-parties think are critical aspects of the gov't. (Independent is key here, its why we don't use something like RT for discussing the positions of the Russian gov't since its state owned). Masem (t) 04:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Government sources are always reliable for their official opinion and stance, and should also always be attributed if used. Secondary sources are useful in determining if such comments should be included. A typical example would be 'Reaction' sections in article about a world event, every government ends up publishes a statement but such sections shouldn't become a collect of every reaction. If no secondary source notes a particular governments response, it's a good sign it shouldn't be included.
The language in an article should also be as neutral as possible, MOS:TERRORIST for instance deals with labelling of individuals and groups. But those concerns are more about WP:NPOV than WP:V. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly. If you can't find a secondary source describing the government stance and providing significant analysis on its meaning or what makes it important, then it's just random trivia and should be removed from an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a difference between inclusion and verification. If something's worthwhile to include it could be verified by a primary source, but yes it's usually best to include a secondary one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm aware of the difference, I just don't believe in it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There's been a spare of editors wanting to use recent newspaper articles for decades old wars who could learn from reading that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @Masem These go yonder than mere estimation of the dead or dates. Currently, the following primary sources are being used in the article, which, in my opinion, should be removed. The first two are being used to label certain sites in Pakistan as terrorist camps; we introduced the term "alleged" after much back and forth.

• The transcript on Operation Sindoor Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India{{Cite news |title=Transcript of Special Briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 07, 2025) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39474/Transcript_of_Special_Briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_07_2025 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250510234544/https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39474/Transcript_of_Special_Briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_07_2025 |archive-date=2025-05-10 |access-date=2025-06-04 |work=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India |language=en-US}}
• A document hosted by Consulate General of India in Istanbul{{Cite web |title=Ooeration Sindoor: Media Brief DGMO |url=https://www.cgiistanbul.gov.in/content/BRIEF-MEDIA-DGMO.pdf |website=Director General of Military Operations (India) |publisher=Consulate General of India, Istanbul}}
• Briefing on Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos by Inter-Services Public Relations of Pakistan military{{Cite web |date=12 May 2025 |title=Marka-e-Haq - 22 April 2025 to 10 May 2025 The conduct of Pakistan Armed Forces Operation "Bunyanum Marsoos", on 10 May 2025 as part of the military conflict Marka-e-Haq, was in response to Indian military's dastardly attacks that began on the night of 6 & 7 May 2025, resulting in the loss of innocent civilian lives, including women, children, and the elderly. |url=https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=7283 |website=Inter-Services Public Relations}}
• Another briefing by ISPR{{cite web |last1= |first1= |date=9 May 2025 |title=Tri Services Joint Press Conference - 9 May 2025 {{!}} ISPR |url=https://youtube.com/watch?v=ax0FBm8jazs |website=YouTube |publisher=ISPR Official |language=en |format=video}}
• Another transcript by Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India{{Cite news |date=10 May 2025 |title=Transcript of Special briefing on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 10, 2025) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39486/Transcript_of_Special_briefing_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_10_2025 |access-date=10 May 2025 |work=Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India}}
• Another transcript by the same{{Cite web |title=Transcript of Special briefing by MOD on OPERATION SINDOOR (May 10, 2025) |url=https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/39491/Transcript_of_Special_briefing_by_MOD_on_OPERATION_SINDOOR_May_10_2025 |website=Ministry of External Affairs of India}}
• India's Press Information Bureau{{Cite news |date=14 May 2025 |title=Operation SINDOOR: The Rise of Aatmanirbhar Innovation in National Security |url=https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2128746 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250516170223/https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2128746 |archive-date=16 May 2025 |access-date=16 May 2025 |work=Press Information Bureau}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:As both I and Masem said these comments should be attributed, the Indian government can claim they are terrorist camps and the article can contain "India alleges these are terrorists camps" but it can't be used to say "these are terrorist camps" in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:For official (and attributed) claims, yes. For statements of facts, no. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

The Chinese Wikipedia had recently deprecated and blacklisted a Hong Kong-based English-language news blog [https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/ Dimsum Daily].(See :zh:維基百科:可靠來源/常見有爭議來源列表#DimsumDaily) The decision is due to its ongoing publication of fake news (e.g., according to FactWire, they fabricated a quote from a Czech TV interview with a scientist who claimed that COVID-19 was created in an American laboratory, but this interview did not exist and the scientist denied making those statements[https://www.factwire.org/investigation/fact-check%E6%8D%B7%E5%85%8B%E5%B0%88%E5%AE%B6%E6%8C%87%E6%96%B0%E5%86%A0%E7%97%85%E6%AF%92%E6%BA%90%E8%87%AA%E7%BE%8E%E8%BB%8D%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97%E5%AE%A4-%E8%A8%AA/]), poor journalistic practices (e.g., they admitted to "always troll people" and "flattered" for being labelled as a fake news outlet in one of their apology statements after publishing a misleading report[https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/clarification-to-quash-rumours-with-regards-to-ownership-of-dimsumdaily-and-our-pro-beijing-stance/]), a lack of editorial independence and oversight (e.g., most contributors are students rather than journalists[https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/clarification-to-quash-rumours-with-regards-to-ownership-of-dimsumdaily-and-our-pro-beijing-stance/]), and a controversial background (e.g., it was founded by a wanted Malaysian businessman and is controlled by a Chinese-funded marketing agency with ties to a social media influencer[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3030378/controversial-hong-kong-website-dim-sum-daily-linked-company][https://web.archive.org/web/20190916102543/https://twitter.com/selina_cheng/status/1173542313320046592]). I did a cleanup in late May to replace all 160+ articles that cited this source with better sources, during which I also found some discrepancies between the source and other reliable sources. But after my initial cleanup, this source continued to be added to various articles over the last two weeks, and its extensive usage worries me about whether we should take action against this news blog to prevent editors from unknowingly citing it, which might perpetuate misinformation. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 15:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see any issue blacklisting this, at first glance I would of though this was a spam site with the generic website layout, no contact details, ties to cryptocurrency... Jumpytoo Talk 17:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Not every terrible source needs to be blacklisted as that would be an endless task. As it stands the site is used in zero articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22dimsumdaily.hk%2F%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1], so there's no compelling needs to do anything (unless I missed something). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::ActivelyDisinterested, yes, I have already mentioned that this source was originally cited in 160+ articles before I cleaned them up with better sources (you can check my edit history from 26 to 27 May[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Prince_of_Erebor&target=Prince+of+Erebor&offset=20250527150213&limit=250]), but it continues to be added to Wikipedia on a daily basis (I just cleaned up an article citing it yesterday: Special:Diff/1294519606). So quite the contrary, this source has been cited extensively on Wikipedia and I believe requires some degree of attention, as manually cleaning it up myself is definitely not an effective solution. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 21:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I did wonder, as absolutely zero usage is unusual. Do to have any other secondary sources like the one from Factwire? It would be helpful to have more sources being critical of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is also an article from Radio Free Asia that debunks its misinformation regarding COVID-19,[https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/huanjing/hc-08022021103033.html] and South China Morning Post[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3030378/controversial-hong-kong-website-dim-sum-daily-linked-company] and Free Malaysia Today[https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/09/26/hk-website-under-fire-over-protest-coverage-linked-to-1mdb-fugitive] have reported on its controversial reporting methods and management background. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 22:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Blacklisting is meant to be for spam or sites that are unredeemable, and I don't think there's enough here to say that. I have several sites I check every now and again to clear down, I fear like those this isn't bad enough for blacklisting even if it's not really a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Destructoid articles need to be evaluated based on the author's credibility. Does [https://www.destructoid.com/super-mario-odysseys-pauline-is-on-her-way-to-mario-tennis-aces/ this source] have a reliable author? Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:His job title is "Senior Editor", so yes, that's probably the sort of person that would be acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to know if official music stores or official stores in general can be a source for identifying genres of music, shows, etc.? The thing is, I got into an argument with another user about defining genres for music releases in the absence of other authoritative sources. I think that in such a case, articles should formally include the artist's main genres, while the user seems to insist that in such a case, the genre should be filled in based on personal evaluation of the album's sound (for example, sources describe the band as gothic metal, but the user removed the "gothic metal" tag, believing that it incorrectly describes the release). Which, of course, I consider to be obviuous original research. I don't speak Japanese, so it would be difficult for me to find Japanese reviews of a Japanese EP, so I was hoping that at least I could use release targeting in the official stores where it is sold. For example, in this case Amazon Japan or CD Japan. As long as it complies with the project's rules, of course. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

: UPD. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elements_%28Ave_Mujica_EP%29&diff=1295378052&oldid=1295371630 I've already put a couple of genres in the article mentioned based on the English language review I found], but the question still stands due to the difficulty of finding authoritative enough reviews for Japanese releases. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

I am seeking input on the reliability of several Moroccan media outlets, particularly:

- Hespress

- Morocco World News

- L’Opinion

- Telquel

These sources are prominent in Morocco and have been cited for their coverage of the subject Ilyas El Maliki in the context of his achievements as a major streamer and chairman of Morocco’s team in the Kings League World Cup.

In a recent deletion discussion, some editors dismissed these sources as unreliable without providing evidence. But they are widely regarded as leading media outlets in Morocco, and I could not find prior evaluations questioning their editorial standards.

Could the community please assess whether these sources meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards?

Thank you for your time!

Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:It would be helpful if you could supply the specific articles you were using. All of these sources might be more reliable for news and less reliable for other things. Articles on streamers tend to be part of the lighter side of news organisations output, and so may not carry the same weight as reporting on major events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, here are some of the articles used: (for context, the official languages of Morocco are Arabic and Amazigh, and the primary foreign language is French, so there's mixed coverage in all these languages by Moroccan media, see Languages of Morocco)

::* Telquel: Covering his trail and imprisonment in 3 article [https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2024/10/23/des-militants-amazighs-portent-plainte-contre-le-youtubeur-ilyas-el-maliki-pour-incitation-a-la-haine_1900185/ 1] [https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2024/10/30/retour-a-la-case-prison-pour-le-streamer-ilyas-el-maliki_1901659/ 2] [https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2024/11/20/le-youtubeur-ilyas-el-maliki-condamne-a-quatre-mois-de-prison-ferme_1905199/ 3]

::* Hespress: English site has 15 articles about him [https://en.hespress.com/tag/ilyas-el-malki] covering mainly his trails and prison, and his Kings League role,[https://en.hespress.com/110465-ultra-chmicha-team-targets-kings-league-world-cup-club-glory.html] award as the Streamer of the year,[https://en.hespress.com/102290-ilyass-el-maliki-named-moroccan-influencer-of-the-year-at-les-imperiales-week-2025.html] etc. Arabic site has 12 articles on him [https://www.hespress.com/tag/%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%8A] French site has 5 articles [https://fr.hespress.com/tag/ilyas-el-maliki]

::* L'Opinion: Kings League role [https://www.lopinion.ma/Kings-League-Ilyas-El-Maliki-va-participer-a-la-Coupe-du-Monde-des-Clubs-avec-une-nouvelle-equipe-en-tant-que-Wildcard_a63917.html] and trail [https://www.lopinion.ma/Le-streamer-Ilyas-El-Malki-condamne-a-quatre-mois-de-prison-ferme_a60386.html]

::* Morocco World News: they wrote about 20 articles about him mainly covering Kings League role [https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/tag/ilyas-el-maliki/] and influence on sports ([https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2025/02/175024/achraf-hakimi-scores-brace-celebrates-ilyas-el-malikis-style/ Hakimi])

::Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks for your time. Rap no Davinci (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::These all appear to be established news organisation, so the normal things apply. WP:NEWSORG gives advice on dealing with news organisation, WP:RSOPINION on the difference between opinion peices and news eeporting, and WP:RSBIAS on dealing with sources that may not always be neutral (all news organisation have some kind of bias).
It would be up to anyone disagreeing to show why they shouldn't be considered generally reliable. As to the specific articles my main concern was whether they were promotional, as that's not uncommon with streamers, but they don't appear overtly promo. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it, thank you for your time.

::::What's next, is there anything I should do moving forward in relation to these sources? and how can I link this interaction in a future discussion if ever needed?

::::Cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::This noticeboard is for advice, and my opinion is just that. But if you think I can help in a discussion ping me, I'm always happy to offer a third opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I see, I mistakenly thought the noticeboard is related to WP:RSPLIST. Well, thanks for offering support. If needed, I will ping you. Rap no Davinci (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The RSP is just a list maintain by some editors of sources that have been repeatedly discussed here. There are inclusion criteria for the list, see WP:RSPCRITERIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with u:ActivelyDisinterested. I !voted at the deletion review, I think it's clear by now that it will succeed. Alaexis_¿question? 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

We use it quite a bit. However, it publishes Airbursts and Cratering Impacts [https://www.scienceopen.com/collection/9aae92f3-66ba-4b71-a74b-51b9995c56e5] which is published by the Comet Research Grouphttps://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/ACI.2025.0003]ee] which is very fringe. See [[Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Comet research group Doug Weller talk 16:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:That seems to be a repost of their article published in Scientific Reports that had to be retracted[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3]. Given that and the language in the Editor’s Note, which seems deep into a galileo fallacy, I wouldn't use it for anything exceptional unless backed up by another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:As to ScienceOpen in general they say everything is peer reviewed, but I might base my judgement on the authors rather than the publisher. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Isn't it a platform or host for publishers, not a publisher itself[https://about.scienceopen.com/open-access-hosting/]? It does not publish Airbursts and Cratering Impacts, it merely hosts the journal. fiveby(zero) 17:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::So in itself not a reliable source, right? Doug Weller talk 18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::ScienceOpen is an WP:ACADREP, for the most part. It's a plaftorm that hosts papers and preprints published elsewhere. It does have a minority of reviewed-on-scienceopen.com papers, a bit like Cureus did post publication peer review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just to note that I agree with Headbomb. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

After stripping a lot of Cambridge Scholars stuff out, I still think most of the sources are not RS. I can't find "Just Us Boys. Vol. 3, no. 5. p. 46.", others just seem to be porn sites, some are clearly rs. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:To be clear, when I ran a search this was the most obvious with lots of use of one CS source Doug Weller talk 15:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with the term, but I don't envy you or your browser history the job of finding good sources for it, given that it's mainly a porn industry term. Looking at the article, it's kind of a crapshoot of sourcing. Some obviously good like Pinknews, some sketchy like Klixxx, and some bad ones like "Just Us Boys. Vol. 3", which I also cannot find mentioned anywhere on the web through Google, Yahoo or Bing. Well, except for this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it might be this magazine (this link is not safe for work) [https://www.justusboys.com/magazine.html], {{tq|"We currently print 125,00 copies each issue and distribute to the largest gay centers in North America"}}. This appears to be volume 3, issue 5 as (again I very much doubt this is safe for work) [https://www.justusboys.com/assets/pdf/JustUsBoys_3_5_web.pdf a pdf], but I haven't downloaded it to be sure. Given it's small circulation I'm not sure it's a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Nice find. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::I doubt it and if there are no obviously reliable sources for the text it’s UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure how big a circulation "125,00" is, because I don't know if it's missing a zero or they just put the comma in the wrong place. However, I wouldn't rest reliability on print run; we cite many things to works with far fewer copies produced than 12,500, much less 125,000. However, this chronicle of America's shirt shortage doesn't really scream "reliable source". A quick google Scholar search finds a website of this name being used as a topic, but not as a reference. I don't think we can claim it an RS without further evidence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::So, I read the piece. The way it's cited in the article is WP:OR. It doesn't say what the sentence in our article says about studios' motives. It's also a rather passing reference to set up a movie review, not an article discussing the phenomenon generally. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Cite book |last=Harvey |first=A. D. |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Body_Politic/LKghEAAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA42 |title=Body Politic: Political Metaphor and Political Violence |date=2007 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars Publishing |isbn=978-1-5275-6649-1 |language=en}}

I know of one [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#Discussion_(Cambridge_Scholars_Publishing) previous discussion] concerning Cambridge Scholars Publishing, but its outcome was rather questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:A print on demand service masquerading as a reputation publisher. The author A. D. Harvey has an interesting past that might explain why he's now self-published. The link in his article is now dead but here's [https://archive.is/0fOfv an archive]. A self published work from someone known for carrying out elaborate hoaxes should be handled with due care, even if they might otherwise have an appropriate academic background in the subject area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Whatever one might think about the publisher, the author does not appear to be reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Terrible publisher, so unless the author is an actually recognized expert, and not just a guy with a PHD, this is unusable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Exploring_Language_Contact_in_the_Border/sotiEQAAQBAJ this] reliable? It's published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which is apparently just like self publishing, but the book seems fine. I might use it for information about Byrnihat. KnowDeath (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's the same publisher as mentioned in #Body Politic: Political Metaphor and Political Violence (Cambridge Scholars Publishing) above. The author has some other published works in the area of linguistics[https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=mZvcdQMAAAAJ&hl=en], so it might be reliable for non-controversial linguistic details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to get editors' thoughts on the reliability of [http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/ The Hayao Miyazaki Web], a subset of Nausicaa.net, a site that used to be run by members of the Miyazaki Mailing List fan group. This source is cited in a number of articles related to Studio Ghibli and animation. For clarity, I'm not concerned here about the [http://www.nausicaa.net/wiki/Main_Page Ghibli Wiki], which seems to be a related but separate side of the site. Both sites now appear to be unmaintained, but The Hayao Miyazaki Web has been mentioned by multiple scholars, some of which I've listed below.

• Helen McCarthy: "very useful and easily accessible", "mine of information on the Internet maintained by the owners and members of the Miyazaki Mailing List, an international fan group devoted to spreading information and discussion on the works of Studio Ghibli."{{cite book |last=McCarthy |first=Helen |author-link=Helen McCarthy |year=2002 |orig-year=1999 |title=Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation |publisher=Stone Bridge Press |isbn=978-1-8806-5641-9 |p=235}}
• Susan J. Napier wrote a paper about the Mailing List in 2006 and interviewed several of its participants: "particularly articulate, engaged, and varied group, encompassing a wide range of ages and a fair number of female participants and representing numerous countries"{{cite journal |last=Napier |first=Susan J. |author-link=Susan J. Napier |title=The world of anime fandom in America |journal=Mechademia |volume=1 |issue=1 |date=2006 |issn=2152-6648 |doi=10.1353/mec.0.0072 |pages=48–49}}.
• Raz Greenberg included it in "A guide to further research": "offers extensive information on Studio Ghibli"{{Cite book |title=Hayao Miyazaki: Exploring the Early Work of Japan's Greatest Animator |last=Greenberg |first=Raz |author-link=Raz Greenberg |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |year=2018 |isbn=978-1-5013-3594-5 |url=https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781501335976&pdfid=9781501335976.0006.pdf&tocid=b-9781501335976-FurtherResearch1 |p=157}}
• See also {{slink|Nausicaa.net#Awards and recognition}}

Given the comments above from — and the source's extensive citation by — experts, I believe it would be appropriate to designate The Hayao Miyazaki Web as generally reliable. I'd appreciate input anyone else has about this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Notified Talk:Nausicaa.net, WikiProject Anime and manga, and its Studio Ghibli task force. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Your quotes appear to show they believe the source is a good research aid, rather than them citing Nausicaa.net as a source. The same way you could use Wikipedia as a research aid, but it wouldn't be a source you would cite. I'm not finding a lot of the later.
They also seem to host primary sources, copies of interviews and such from other sources. These would be as reliable as the original source, or the interviewees words could be used for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Users comments from the mailing lists would definitely be unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested: I agree with your assessments of the other content hosted on the website. I believe, though, that the majority of the content is original material of some kind, like [http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/mh/faq.html this FAQ page] currently cited on Princess Mononoke. That being said, what evidence would you need to see to consider this a reliable source? Being a fan site, it obviously lacks any of the usual marks of reliability, but these scholars' recommendations (and use in their own work) are higher praise than I've seen for some established news publications. I don't think it's accurate to compare the site with Wikipedia, since it has a much narrower scope and is not open to general editing. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 08:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The best way to proof it's considered a reliable source would be WP:USEBYOTHERS. That is other (preferably academic) reliable sources using it for citation, e.g. "A is true.[Nausicaa.net]", rather than praise for the website. Wikipedia receives a lot of praise for it's content, and it can be a great source for researching a topic, but it's not a reliable source or one you should cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with that too, and I mentioned that the source had been used by experts in the original post. McCarthy's book is a little lighter on inline references compared to the more recent books, but Rayna Denison cites it in a 2008 paper{{cite journal |last=Denison |first=Rayna |author-link=Rayna Denison |title=Star-spangled Ghibli: star voices in the American versions of Hayao Miyazaki's films |journal=Animation |volume=3 |issue=2 |date=2008 |issn=1746-8477 |doi=10.1177/1746847708091891 |page=133}} and you can see Greenberg does a couple times in the footnotes of {{URL|1=https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781501335976&pdfid=9781501335976.ch-001.pdf&tocid=b-9781501335976-chapter1#ftn.b-9781501335976-ch1-fn34|2=this chapter}}. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It would be helpful if someone else would chime in, but for me this is still quite weak. This is at heart WP:user generated content, it should have to clear a high bar to be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::So I guess Option 2 is the way to go? 73.75.170.176 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::: {{smalldiv|1=Did you mean this comment for the RfC above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::::Nausicaa.net appears to redirect to a wiki. Wikis are WP:user-generated content, and as self-published sources, they are therefore not reliable. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|5}} {{Reply to|Z. Patterson}} I'd urge you to reread my original message. I'm in agreement with you that the Ghibli Wiki is unreliable, but I'm not referring to the wiki in this discussion. The Hayao Miyazaki Web is self-published, but not user-generated, since it's not open to general editing and has a [http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/ghiblink/ defined editorial team]. I've provided several other arguments on why I think this side of the site should be considered reliable, do you have any thoughts on those? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|TechnoSquirrel69}} I see. Seeing how it is a fan site, but otherwise is considered reputable by independent, reliable sources, I would attribute statements from that site if they were to be used from that site. I would not use it in biographies about living people, as the front page says it is a fan site.{{cite web |url=http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/ |title=The Hayao Miyazaki Web // Nausicaa.net |access-date= 14 June 2025}} Z. Patterson (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Z. Patterson (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{rlt}}

Since VentureBeat is a bit of a perennial source at NCORP AfDs and the most recent discussion is something like a decade old now, I figured it was a good time to chuck things here for another look. Now, my initial view was that it was pretty much tech churnalism in the vein of TechCrunch, without any significant issues for actual reliability, but a fair few of the recent articles were showing certain telltale signs, and hey, would you look at that, turns out where there is smoke there apparently {{em|is}} an AI-generated fire.{{cite news |last1=Roush |first1=Chris |title=How VentureBeat plans to use AI in its content |url=https://talkingbiznews.com/media-news/how-venturebeat-plans-to-use-ai-in-its-content/ |work=Talking Biz News |date=3 May 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Fingas |first1=jon |title=VentureBeat is the latest publication to use AI in its articles |url=https://www.engadget.com/venturebeat-is-the-latest-publication-to-use-ai-in-its-articles-202514471.html |work=Engadget |date=28 April 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Dupré |first1=Maggie Harrison |title=VentureBeat Using AI to Help Generate Articles |url=https://futurism.com/the-byte/venturebeat-ai-generate-articles |work=Futurism |date=1 May 2023}} Now, a migitigating factor might be that the AI generated text still (allegedly) undergoes human review, however as Dupré points out, other publications have made similar promises. Additionally, said articles are unmarked, which means that we will unfortunately not be able to sort and identify non-AI articles easily. At the very minimum, I'd expect us to start excercising a lot more caution. Whether or not we would consider it entirely unreliable, I will put to editors here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:Also pinging all of the AfD participants in case they are interested leaving a comment: COOLIDICAE🕶, Darth Stabro, Sumosacerdote, Darkm777, Gheus, CNMall41 Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Could someone point out their latest article that's not a press release for funding rounds, marketing for a new feature/finding by a company or just news regurgitation? I feel like their in-depth journalism has become a negligible fraction of their publications. Sumosacerdote (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Venturebeat being a well known publication that sometimes posts first hand exclusive news and interviews,should be considered reliable. However, when it comes to AI, I am guessing that it would become the norm in the next few years and there is no avoiding it. In fact, AI may become so good that one day we won't be able to tell if an article is AI written or human. Even today tools exist to convert and humanize AI articles. My feeling is as long as the articles go through some kind of editorial review then it probably doesn't matter if AI assistant was used. However, I personally check to so what percentage of article is AI using gptzero and if it is majority AI then I may have some reservations of accepting it as a reliable source. What I am trying to say is that each article needs to be reviewed individually. If the reviewer feels it is low quality due to AI, they should mention that, but I am against making the full website of Venturebeat unreliable. Darkm777 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have always felt that TechCrunch and VentureBeat should be treated the same. They do have great content written by staff writers with editorial oversight, including some in-depth features on companies that allow us to expand information on Wikipedia pages. However, they are also in the business of generating views and clicks so the do even more churnalism and regurgitation of routine news. Each article needs to be looked at individually to determine its reliability.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that {{rspe|TechCrunch|TechCrunch|nc}} and VentureBeat are similar publications of similar quality, and I support reclassifying VentureBeat as marginally reliable to reflect the churnalism concerns, even before considering the impact of AI-generated content. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Newslinger. I would consider VentureBeat situationally reliable, but not a high-quality source, before it started using AI. Specifically, anything before April 2023 would be situationally reliable, but anything published in or after April 2023 would not be reliable. VentureBeat looks like it became a content farm at that point. Also, I do not think it should be used in any WP:BLP. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Similar to how WP:VALNET states that Valnet sources should not be used to establish notability, I do not think VentureBeat or similar sites should be used to establish notability, either. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:If they are publishing "AI" generated articles they should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Simon, yes, for now I agree. Alas in time that will apply to a large percentage of the media. So new starategies will be needed. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Against reclassifying wholesale - I've still been using them as a source and I haven't seen a dip in quality in the ones I've used. If there's a way to identify and section off their poorer quality AI generated content, I'd be for that. But I'm not for throwing the baby out with the bath water - their staff still creates good content. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think we shouldn't use this source for notability purposes. It is a good example of churnalism. Gheus (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Just as a note, [https://variety.com/2025/gaming/news/gamesbeat-spins-off-from-venturebeat-gina-joseph-dean-takahashi-1236373682/ GamesBeat now operates independently from the rest of VentureBeat], despite currently still living at the same URL, so we may need to evaluate the two separately. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

What are the reliabilities of Geeky Hobbies [https://www.geekyhobbies.com/] and Fun Board Games? [https://funboardgames.com/]

Context: User {{ping|Guinness323}} added citations to these sources to the Free Parking article, which I initially nominated for deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Geeky Hobbies is run by Eric Mortensen[https://www.geekyhobbies.com/author/mortee50/], who is also the author of the article used in Free Parking[https://www.geekyhobbies.com/free-parking-card-game-review-and-rules/]. The site is probably a self-published blog but if not the article should be considered so, as Mortensen is both the owner and writer. I can't find any use by others for geekhobbies.com or Eric Mortensen.

:There's nothing to show who runs Fun Board Games, how they operate, or who wrote the particular article in question[https://funboardgames.com/free-parking-feed-meter-card-game/]. Again I can't find any use by others for the site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that what you're saying is:

::* Geeky Hobbies is most likely a self-published source.

::* No consensus on Free Board Games.

::1isall (talk/contribs) 14:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Reliable sources are meant to have a reputation or fact checking and accuracy, or some other reason why should be considered reliable. That could be because other reliable sources consider them reliable, or because they are published by a recognised expert, etc.
Ultimately anyone can publish a website and post whatever they like, so there's a need to show why such sites should be taken seriously. I can't find any reason to see these two as reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Then again the WP:RSCONTEXT is board games so maybe they could be considered marginal. As to whether they should contribute to notability I'll leave up to the editors in the AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite being considered an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_240#militaryfactory.com unreliable] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_371 source] in previous noticeboard discussions, militaryfactory.com is used as a citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22militaryfactory%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=bjz0pmce6bdsd06aw64mku705 600+ times].

Can it be blacklisted/replaced with more reliable sources? Battlesnake1 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:One of the things editors seem to forget is that discussions, RFCs, or listing something on the RSP doesn't remove or replace unreliable sources. The only way that happens is an editor taking it upon themselves to do the actual work of clearing down the source. There's no automated process or simple way of doing it. Ultimately if you believe something should be done be WP:BOLD and do it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the Zambian Observer considered a reliable source?

For example, [http://zambianobserver.com/north-korea-pledge-to-provide-military-support-to-iran-amid-looming-war-with-israel this article] says North Korea has offered military support to Iran following the Israeli airstrikes. However, I could find mention of this in Google News; the only other sources that mention this are Twi-, err, X and Facebook accounts, and it goes without saying that social media is not considered to be a reliable source.

I do see the Zambian Observer being cited in a few articles, so I think we should make a determination one way or another. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I couldn't find their editorial team and contact details, also it's not mentioned [https://zambia.misa.org/media-directory/ here]. They may be okay for Zambian news, but it's not a good source for the assertion that NK supports Iran. Alaexis_¿question? 19:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, I'd be cautious about using it for non-Zambian news. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)