Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 458

Archive 455

Archive 456

Archive 457

Archive 458

Denofgeek.com

Is the website Denofgeek.com ([1]) a suitable source on Wikipedia? I see that it's being used to support genres on the article Purple Rain (song), and a search of Wikipedia ([2]) shows that it is currently being used on thousands of articles. Their staff page ([3]) shows multiple writers, many of whom have credentials -- certainly a promising sign -- but given that this website has not been thoroughly discussed on Wikipedia previously, I do want to open up discussion here to know what others think about the potential reliability of this site. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a pretty shabby source. Like it's a pop-culture website - these are a dime a dozen and rarely have particularly strong editorial controls beyond algorithm chasing. It might be reliable enough for low-risk statements of fact like "Purple Rain is a pop song" or whatever. But I would hesitate to treat any opinion it generates as WP:DUE and I wouldn't use a pop-culture churn site to establish notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would note that the article used in Purple Rain (song) does not appear to exist as it's pointing to a dead link. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also there's a fair bit of WP:SYNTH coming from Denofgeek.com citations such as this: [4] to support general structural changes to Doctor Who that are not explicitly stated in the accompanying article. However that's neither here nor there for the outlet's reliability as it's to do with use of the material rather than the material itself. Still, it's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it not really just a blog? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's listed as a reliable source by WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources, linking to several prior discussions. So, probably good for media stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Even for video games I'd be hesitant to use them to establish notability. They're a content churn - they comment on basically every game at some point. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking further into this source, I honestly concur with User:Simonm223. This site very much strikes me as a content farm, seems comparable to churnalist bilge like WhatCulture (see WP:WHATCULTURE at RSP) and other "Top 10 [fill in the blank]" listicle variants (see also: Boredpanda, Listverse, et al). Another comparison point is WatchMojo, which is not listed on RSP but has been found to be unreliable in prior RSN discussions. Denofgeek strikes me as being in the exact same boat, and it leads me to believe that the source is unreliable for statements of fact, and WP:UNDUE for attributions of opinion. In particular, should be nowhere near BLP articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I went and removed it from ten BLP articles. While I will shy away from removing it from non-BLP articles due to a lack of consensus here so far, I firmly do not believe it has any place on BLPs given the very strict sourcing for those articles per WP:BLP. I would also recommend nobody restore the citations of the site on BLPs that I removed, because of the sensitivity surrounding such articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Whatever happens it should be brought up at the VG project since their list is fairly influential in what people deem a reliable source in media areas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Alerted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Discussion at RSN. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the previous discussions on Den of Geek (Which can be found at the WP:VG sourcing list) there seems to be a general consensus that their staff is experienced and they have solid editorial standards. I've used Den of Geek extensively in the past, and their content tends to be of a relatively high quality, especially compared to content farm sites like Screen Rant and Game Rant, which are far less consistently detailed and accurate compared to Den of Geek. In terms of pop culture content, they're one of the higher quality sources I've seen all things considered, and nearly everything I've cited them for I'd call relatively in-depth and strong coverage.

I'm not saying Den of Geek is a paragon of sourcing, but its content is good and there's no significant issues with its staff and standards, at least from what I can find. I wouldn't be opposed to a restriction on BLPs given I never see it covering it BLP-related topics anyway, but I'll leave that up to discussion from other editors who are also familiar with Den of Geek's content. I feel it's reliable, but perhaps with a comment saying its usage in BLP-related articles should be shied away from depending on how further discussion goes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I second everything that Pokelego said. This feels like people are just using "content farm/churn" as a buzzword without actually looking into the site and/or actually using it as a source. WP:VG has considered them reliable for a while now with no problems. And if there's really concerns about how they look like a "content farm", I would like to bring up that any online source can produce low-quality content. I do not think there is any reason to downplay a site that ticks all of the boxes we desire in a reliable source (staff team with valid credentials and past experience, editorial policy, etc) because they sometimes can produce content that any site can, and probably has in the past, produce. As for BLP issues, once again, any site can make material that could be deemed unfit for usage to source for a BLP. But their good content absolutely outweighs whatever bad content they have made in the past (which I'm yet to see examples of), as is the case with sites like IGN (look at earlier IGN articles and/or their game guide content to get what I'm referring to). I say the site is reliable. λ NegativeMP1 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Den of Geek cannot be reasonably described as churnalism. As a personal anecdote, I once searched Dexerto for good sources to use on a regular basis, but eventually, I came to decide that the content they produce is consistently of low quality and/or churned out, and stopped searching Dexerto. Conversely, I do not find Den of Geek producing anywhere near what I would consider a disqualifying amount of churn or low-quality content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS & a quote from a dermatologist

In Torture during the Israel–Hamas war, I added the following passage:

"In September 2024, +972 Magazine reported the spread of scabies among prisoners, with a dermatologist stating that "scabies can be effectively treated, but containing the outbreak requires sanitary living conditions. The failure of the IPS to do so suggests that the spread of the disease among prisoners has become, in effect, a part of their punishment"."

@Andrevan has questioned if "the dermatologist's medical view meets WP:MEDRS" & I was unsure.

As such, I'm asking here to clarify, is this considered a breach of WP:MEDRS? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I also generally don't think 972 magazine would be reliable enough for such an extraordinary claim. Andre🚐 20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I know, but I wanted clarification in regards to the issue of medical neutrality so I could better handle such cases in the future.

I'm fine with discussing if the claim is WP:DUE in general, but would prefer to do so separately, either at the talk page or in a new section here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• I find 972 magazine to be reliable, albeit biased, similar to other Israeli sources like Times of Israel. The previous RfC on its reliability seem to have found it to be reliable enough.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Times of Israel AFAIK is a major WP:NEWSORG. 972 appears to be a group of maybe a handful of people, independently operated advocacy nonprofit, practically a blog. I don't see any kind of standard boilerplate stuff or the usual newsorg standards and practices junk, let alone a public editor, ombudsman, or corrections policy. I found an example of a correction from many years ago[5], one from 2015[6], and perhaps many of the editors or journalists there are reliable on their own due to previous bylines. I know it doesn't take much to publish a blog/magazine these days and Wikipedia has significantly liberalized the view of accepting glorified news blogs as occasionally reliable sources, For simple facts, I probably wouldn't have a problem with 972 magazine, but I do think they're out of their depth when making the claim that Israel is intentionally torturing prisoners by effectively deliberately giving them skin conditions. Butterscotch improved the text in the article by attributing it to the dermatologist quoted in the story, but that still seems problematic from a MEDRS perspective. Andre🚐 01:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies, I shouldn't have compared 972 to Times of Israel.

  Here are some more corrections: 2024, 2022, 2020, 2016. If their article output is lower, than it makes sense their corrections will be infrequent. Moreso if they're a magazine, as opposed to a news organization that rushes to publish before the story is fully known.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems bizarre to use WP:MEDRS, which is mostly about biomedical research, to remove info about humanitarian crisis.

By that logic, we need to remove any source where doctors are stating that the Gaza War's famine and trauma are causing death, as that would be non-peer reviewed assertions by medical professionals. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say fatalities were the domain of medical doctors, but skin conditions are. Andre🚐 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

seems similar, and you're missing the point of the analogy. This is run of the mill testimony of folks in some humanitarian crisis. Its not some biomedical literature or research, and using WP:MEDRS like this is a troubling precedent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• As a side note, from Scabies#Communities it seems the question of how to contain outbreaks is not a simple one. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There's probably some way to give the information about the disease outbreak properly but the way this is phrased so sweepingly seems to be somewhat a MEDRS issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be treated as a MEDRS issue - I doubt it is saying anything special about Scabies as a disease that you can't control an outbreak of it in unsanitary conditions. Disease, in general, thrives in unsanitary conditions. This seems like a lampshade to remove political comments that go against some editors POVs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's another question, but strictly speaking what causes or ameloiorates scabies in this location is WP:BMI, and not so simple as the OP's quote makes out.[7][8] Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the source originally mentioned in this thread those two sources definitely should be used. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

How should they be used? Both of them predate the Israel–Hamas war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that this is not BMI and thus MEDRS is not controlling, making DUE the relevant question here. I'd also agree that the original wording, including was being used, carried some implied degree of intentionality, which would require heightened scrutiny towards whether it is actually stated by the source, and whether the attribution is done appropriately. The current wording does not feature such implications, so may be preferable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Physicians for Human Rights (presumably composed of physicians) "submitted one of several petitions to Israel's Supreme Court, warning of the spread of scabies".[9] “The disease is spreading to all prisons, and the prison service is doing nothing...A detainee in Nafha prison received treatment for scabies after a court appeal, but was reinfected within a month because of overcrowding in their cell and no fresh clothing...[Palestinian prisoners are] wearing the same clothes since October. We visited people in January, in the middle of winter, who were wearing the same short-sleeved clothes they had arrived in." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The 972 source says:

"As dermatologist Dr. Ahsan Daka noted in the petition, scabies can be effectively treated, but containing the outbreak requires sanitary living conditions. The failure of the IPS to do so suggests that the spread of the disease among prisoners has become, in effect, a part of their punishment."

It's not entirely clear to me whether that second sentence is something Dr Daka said, or if that's a comment by the article's author; therefore, I'm not sure whether this source is reliable for the second sentence. Also, it's not marked as a quotation in the 972 source, so we should be wary of accidentally putting words in the dermatologist's mouth.

Whether scabies "has become, in effect, a part of their punishment" is not Wikipedia:Biomedical information. That it can be treated effectively and that this requires sanitary living conditions should probably have WP:MEDRS-quality sources.

I also wonder whether it is DUE, etc. I think that a more pointful thing to say would be "Scabies is spreading in the prisons, which some people have likened to torture" rather than "Scabies is a treatable disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Infowars

Seeing as The Onion now owns Infowars, should the rating be changed seeing as it's unlikely that it remain a far-right fake news site? Tavantius (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

They plan to turn it into a parody site, so it still wouldn't be a reliable source.

The satirical news site planned to turn Infowars into a parody of itself, mocking “weird internet personalities” who peddle conspiracy theories and health supplements.[10]

Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I know. That's why I was asking if its rating would be changed to The Onion's rating. Tavantius (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Onion is not a reliable source either. Vegan416 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Onion should never be used unless we are trying to link to something it published itself. Same with infowars. Not reliable for anything except when if we wanna say "the onion published a satirical piece", and even then questions of WP:DUE/notability probs would matter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For verification purposes very little will change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The one thing to watch out for would be merry pranksters using the new Infowars for WP:ABOUTSELF claims about Alex Jones. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Very good point, and given it's The Onion quite likely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Description at WP:RSP should probably be updated, but seeing as The Onion is also GUNREL, the rating won't change. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait: the purchase only happened today, so it is unclear what InfoWars will exactly become under The Onion. In my opinion, I did not expect The Onion to be the buyer, considering how Elon Musk would pay $44 billion for Twitter/X. --Minoa (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, we would need to keep its history rating for its past material... which I suspect may not survive onto the new site, but likely exists at archive sites. Given what The Onion has announced as their plans, it seems unlikely that the site will host anything usable; it would even be a problem for WP:ABOUTSELF, given The Onion's own announcement of the purchase. However, the Onion has operated The A.V. Club, which is often lighthearted but traffics in truth rather than satire, so we cannot simply assume what the rating for a site will be based on The Onion's ownership.

COI notice: I subscribe to the physical edition of The Onion, so it was really my money which made this all possible. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Onion does not yet own Infowars, as the sale has not yet been consummated, and the sale has been put on hold, so any change is premature. John M Baker (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sentientism

The reliability of the website on sentientism [11] has been raised on the Sentientism talk-page. Sentientism.info is a website operated by Jamie Woodhouse (he's on Wikipedia under his own name [12]). He created the sentientists category and has a large list of sentientists on his website that he has interviewed [13]. The website hosts a podcast, is involved in activism and contains some historical information about sentientism.

I am not sure if this website passes WP:RS. As explained on the talk-page my suspicion is that this is a kind of WP:Advocacy website. Any comments would useful about if this source can be used on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for context, the question is about whether to say in the article that Andrew Linzey coined the term "sentientism" in 1980. This is exactly what is said in the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (page 311). There is this paper though that says that it was coined by John Rodman in 1977. And this FAQ from the website Sentientism that points to this (paywalled) article, saying it was coined in 1975. The alternative to saying that Andrew Linzey coined the term in 1980 would be to omit the sentence, or to soften the claim (e.g., saying that he "popularized" the term or was "among the first ones" to use it). Alenoach (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure it really makes a difference for the debate whether the website sentientism is a reliable source. It can probably be considered a self-published source, I agree on that. But it just claims that the word "sentientism" was used in the 1975 paper. So perhaps a third opinion would have been a better and more lightweight way to settle this debate. Alenoach (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it’s a self-published source? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Two Ohio Glassmaking History Books

I have two books about Ohio glass companies that Wikipedia sometimes questions as a reliable source because they are self published. One is by Jack K. Paquette and the other is by Melvin L. Murray. I contacted the Fostoria Ohio Glass Association to see if they had any good books to recommend. Their response was that the Paquette and Murray books were the two best books.

The first book is called "Blowpipes: Northwest Ohio Glassmaking in the Gas Boom of the 1880s" by Jack K. Paquette. This 559-page book has citations and end notes. Chapter V, the chapter on Fostoria, has 360 citations plus end notes. Jack K. Paquette is a former Vice President overall of Owens Illinois, Inc., a.ka. O-I Glass. His work papers, and a biographical outline, are available at the University of Toledo. Here is a link. Because his book was published by Xlibris Corporation, it gets "flagged" when it is actually a well–researched publication. This book focuses on the business side of glass companies.

The other book is called "Fostoria, Ohio Glass II", by Melvin L. Murray. This book contains glass company history, but also gives attention to the products made. It is 184 pages. Murray uses newspaper articles and advertisements, plus photos of products, to support his information. His "real" job was operating a radio station broadcasting college and high school sports. However, he was also a trustee for Bowling Green State University, member of the Fostoria library board for 50 years, past president of the Ohio Library Trustee Association, past president of the Fostoria Glass Association, and founder of the Fostoria Glass Heritage Gallery. Here is a link to Murray's obit: link. With Murray's links to libraries and Fostoria glass, I believe he had good sources and his book can be trusted.

If someone is wondering if old glass companies are Wikipedia-worthy at all, I believe many are. Check out the page views for Fostoria Glass Company and Indiana Glass Company. TwoScars (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As always, whether a given publication is a reliable source depends in part on what WP statement you want to source to the book. Both books are in the Corning Museum of Glass library collection, which suggests to me that they're seen as generally reliable. CMoG also references Paquette's book here. CMoG has an ask the librarian service, so you could double-check with them if you wanted, though that would be only for your own reassurance, as there's no way for an editor here to verify their response. WorldCat shows that both books are in some scholarly libraries (Murray results here and Paquette results here). I see that both were already used on the Fostoria Glass Company page, which was rated GA, so that suggests that they were acceptable, though I can't be certain that the reviewers noticed that they were self-published. I'm inclined to see both as falling under the expert SPS exception. Note that although you can use them as sources about old glass companies and about people who are no longer alive, you cannot use them for material about living persons (see WP:BLPSPS for that policy). Given the title of Paquette's book, that shouldn't be an issue, but I don't have a way of knowing from the title of Murray's book. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-published works by Jack K. Paquette would qualify as reliable per WP:EXPERTSPS, given his career and other published works.

The same may not be true of Melvin L. Murray, but the Fostoria, Ohio Glass works have WP:USEBYOTHERS. So reliable but for a different reason.

In both cases, as FactOrOpinion said, they should not be used in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

narod.hr

This Croatian news portal (currently being used by several newish editors to cite articles on the Balkan Wars of the 90s, was identified several years ago by the left-leaning Novosti Croatian Serb news magazine as an "extreme right-wing portal known for spreading of Ustasha mythology in the daily "cultural" column." The same 2021 article (here) also claims the editor of narod.hr is a former hr WP administrator from the pre-2021 period when hr WP was highly questionable (with all that entails). This story was also carried by the Croatian Index.hr online newspaper here. The narod.hr news portal is run by an highly conservative organisation called “U ime Obitelji” (which translates as "In the Name of the Family"). It seems to me that narod.hr cannot be considered a reliable news source on the highly controversial wars of the 90s in the Balkans. Interested in the views of the community on this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Balkan dweller here, Croatian to be precise, having looked a bit into the history of narod.hr and their writing, and also taking into account the fact that there is an article published on narod.hr here calling the removal of the pre-2021 admins an 'aggression on and occupation of not only Croatian Wikipedia, but an aggression on and occupation of the entire Croatian society' (translated from the original Croatian, a Dec 2021 article), I'd definitely agree with you that they cannot be used as a reliable source, definitely not on something as highly controversial as the wars of the 90s. Lackadaisicalnereid (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

insource:"narod.hr"

Special:LinkSearch?target=narod.hr

Perhaps this and this and that is of interest.

Polygnotus (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be used for anything related to the balkan wars, that was thirty years ago and academic sources are available. There is simply no need to be using potentially biased news sources for such topics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's also a very good point. Lackadaisicalnereid (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep, we are past the point where news should be the go-to sourcing. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Al-Manar

Hezbollah's official media outlet, Al-Manar, has not been discussed much here (e.g., here is the most recent) but it seems to be getting more cites in the past year.

• almanar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is this worth an RfC? - Amigao (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

1. There’s no question as “Is this worth an RfC?” The way RfCs work is that, after the discussion ends, you can make an RfC about it if you want. This notification pops us when you want to start a new discussion here, but I guess you ignored it.
2. I’m in favour of prohibiting Al-Manar on Wikipedia, as it serves as Hezbollah’s propaganda news outlet. It’s also an unreliable source for many objective reasons that make it deem unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Hadjnix 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Aren’t they the ones who always refer to Israel in quotes? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be an RfC. You haven't explained any specific factual errors with the source, so I would be in favour of treating it like state-sponsored media that does not have independent editorial control. That would be WP:MREL along the lines of WP:XINHUA.

In terms of how it's being used on Wikipedia, Al-Manar seems to be used for coverage of terrorist groups and Iran. WP:ABOUTSELF should extend to its coverage of Iranian government statements as Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. In terms of Al-Manar's coverage of non-Hezbollah terrorist groups, I would treat the source with caution, especially outside of the Axis of Resistance. Hezbollah has fought against ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Syrian Civil War and might not be objective regarding them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar for spreading known disinformation narratives against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Interestingly, Al-Manar has been found to republish WP:RT.COM reports in a 2024 information laundering study. - Amigao (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at this Al-Manar article that is cited as a case of "disinformation". In it Al-Manar quotes Syrian officials as making allegations against OPCW, but such allegations are attributed to Syria and not stated in Al-Manar's own voice.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar in more than a few of their studies. For example, republishing WP:SPUTNIK conspiracy theories and spreading COVID-19 disinformation about the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. - Amigao (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not republishing a SPUTNIK conspiracy theory, rather it is quoting Russian president Putin as having made those statements.

This article in the Deccan Herald, a reliable Indian newspaper, does the same. I'm unable to access EUvsDisinfo's screenshot of Al-Manar's covid article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo cited a direct re-publishing of WP:SPUTNIK. Here is their screenshot of the relevant Al-Manar article. Here is the same article over at Sputnik. - Amigao (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They cited the source (very professional of them to let the readers make up their own mind instead of formatting them like sheep). What's wrong with that content? Please, enlighten me. M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that Al-Manar directly re-publishes WP:SPUTNIK and often labels it as such. Also, if you believe a deprecated source like Sputnik and its content are reliable, you are more than free to propose an RfC to gather input from the community on whether a change of status is warranted. - Amigao (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

if you believe a deprecated source like Sputnik and its content are reliable please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable). I suggest you read what I wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjnix has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like deprecating media outlets, most of them can be used in some contexts. Al-Manar def should be generally unreliable though. In addition to the issues mentioned by u:Amigao they are infamous for inventing one of the most widespread 9/11 conspiracy theories [14]. Alaexis_¿question? 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: What about the case of Lebanese soccer players?[15] It covers things other than politics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This would probably qualify as a legitimate use of a GUNREL source. Alaexis_¿question? 22:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chess tagging you as you've asked. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is from >20 years ago, and as the article noted, it was a conspiracy theory that had "swept the Arab world" at the time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they were not alone in spreading a conspiracy theory does not make them more reliable though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor does it make them less reliable that the others. Just last week, a video about Israeli fans attacking people has been misrepresented to portray the opposite by a number of sources that we describe as "reliable". M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with @Chess that the best way to handle this source is as a state-media source. State media inevitably has issues whenever the assumed national interest of the state differs from communication of fact. This is something of a systematic problem with state media. It's not unique to Al-Manar. However, rather than using the WP:XINHUA example (which is basically the carve-out for handling state media from enemies of the United States differently from the state media from friends of the United States imo) Instead I think we should treat it as being roughly equivalent in reliability to Kol Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The differentiating factor isn't whether media is friendly or against the United States, it's whether or not a source has meaningful editorial independence from the sponsoring country.

Al-Jazeera is reliable for this reason and WP:RFE/RL is not.

In this case, Al-Manar promotes disinformation to serve Hezbollah and its allies. It would make sense to avoid using it for claims that unduly serve Hezbollah. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware that's the argument. It's been a long-standing complaint of mine that Wikipedia tends to over-estimate the independence of state media in places like the UK. IE: I don't contend that Xinhua is editorially independent. I contend that the BBC is not. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

BBC is not state media any more than NPR is. One key distinction within state media (and why RFE is yellow flagged not red flagged) is state media in a country that has democratic elections and changes government vs state media in a dictatorship or one party state where dissenters are routinely imprisoned and disappeared. Hezbollah is not a state, but it de facto resembles a one party state. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Technically, Al-Manar is party media, not state media. It is the media arm of Hezbollah, not the Lebanese state per se. - Amigao (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It actually does, because reliability is relative. If every reliable source is fooled by a theory, we can't get rid of them all.

That being said, I don't see other reliable Arab sources that promoted this theory. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Al-Manar has been part of a Hezbollah-directed online defamation campaign aimed at “electronically assassinating” Tarek Bitar, the Beirut port explosion probe’s lead investigator, through a systematically manipulated operation with clever disinformation, per L'Orient Today, 2021.[16] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the source claims. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What does it say? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It says: "There are also the pages of public figures, like journalists from the Hezbollah-affiliated al-Mayadeen and al-Manar television channels, who have tens of thousands of followers ..." and that's all it says about al-manar.

In other words, it doesn't say what you wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

M.Bitton is correct. Other than that, what exactly is the "defamation" or "disinformation"? If all Al-Manar is doing is quoting Hezbollah officials who've criticized Bitar – well politicians do criticize each all the time, no? You would have to show that Al-Manar is disseminating demonstrably false information.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, regarding the 2020 Beirut explosion, Al-Manar re-published a WP:SPUTNIK disinformation piece insinuating that it was caused by the United States Navy. - Amigao (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They attributed it to the original source (which is the right thing to do). How is that a problem? Do you expect newspapers to follow the irrelevant Wikipedia RfCs? M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of an RSN discussion and related RfC, it is highly relevant that Al-Manar directly re-publishes WP:DEPRECATED sources. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Sahara Reporters considered reliable?

So while reading this article Sadiya Umar Farouq I noticed the entire "Controversy" section is from one one news website Sahara Reporters, I looked it up in the reliable sources page and found no consensus regarding it, there was a discussion on the topic but It doesn't seem like a consensus was reached .

I think since this is a living person and this section can amount to defamation, it is an important matter that should be examined. Tashmetu (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It may be wise to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources and more generally Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List. But I do think that both that article and that section are not NPOV. And we would need more than one source. See also https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/657040-efcc-detains-ex-humanitarian-affairs-minister-over-alleged-n37-1-billion-fraud.html?tztc=1 Polygnotus (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and adding a neutrality warning to the article, I don't know if I'm the right person to do try and improve the neutrality as I don't speak the local languages and I believe that would be necessary for finding the best sources. Hopefully now with the warning some expert will take on the task of improving that article. Tashmetu (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC OurCampaigns

Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There are currently nearly 4,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia, not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

• Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
• Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
• July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
• Dec 2017: brief discussion
• May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
• Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure
• April 2021: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable"

To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the 1830–31 United States House of Representatives elections (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the IL At-Large election cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup.

In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided.

Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists Caleb Cushing as running as an independent against the National Republican candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the page again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the MA Bristol page for the first trial, the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book.

My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this edit to the 1864 United States presidential election in Kansas where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, even though he was only a candidate for the electoral college on the National Union ticket.

There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend A New Nation Votes, a website created by Phil Lampi and run by the American Antiquarian Society, for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the Tribune almanac and political register (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on archive.org (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 (also on archive.org) (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on WP:RSPS as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Wikipedia, IMDB, Discogs, etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have a grudge against websites that have consistently provided incorrect information, something OurCampaigns has done multiple times beyond the examples given here, including reporting incorrect numbers, falsifying candidacies, and including unsourced maps. I don't believe we should allow people to continually add potentially incorrect information to articles and reward their laziness. I understand that most editors don't have access to non-online sources, which is why I am willing to share mine and have provided links to online freely available election data from archives like the Internet Archive, as well as dedicated, professionally run sites like A New Nation Votes and Ballotpedia. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are people actively adding them to articles still? if so, I suppose adding it to the edit filter might be appropriate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, It should be blocked. If it is't then people will keep using it, instead of other sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support deprecation. I have encountered plenty of inaccurate information on OurCampaigns in the past, including outright fictional candidates and fake sources. It has the same problem many other UGC sites have, which is a serious lack of quality controls and an ease for vandalism, especially in lesser-known races. Deprecation solves this problem and prevents it from spreading and we've historically deprecated other UCG sources with a higher likelihood for having false information. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Anandabazar Patrika (anandabazar.com) a reliable source?

I would like input from the community on whether Anandabazar Patrika (available at anandabazar.com) is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia.

Background:

• Anandabazar Patrika is a major Bengali-language daily newspaper in India, published by the ABP Group, which also owns The Telegraph and other media outlets.
• The publication has been in circulation since 1922 and is regarded as one of the most influential newspapers in West Bengal.

Context for Citation: The website anandabazar.com is frequently used as a reference on Wikipedia, particularly for topics related to Indian politics, Bengali culture, and regional news. I would like clarification on its reliability for:

• Factual reporting (e.g., news events, data).
• Opinion pieces or editorial content.
• Cultural reporting or regional insights.

Concerns:

• Are there any significant issues related to editorial oversight, accuracy, or sensationalism?
• Is there any notable history of misinformation or bias associated with this source?

Questions for RfC:

1. Can anandabazar.com be considered a reliable source for factual content on Wikipedia?
2. Are there any specific limitations or caveats for its use?
3. Does its ownership by the ABP Group contribute to or detract from its reliability?

Your feedback will help clarify the use of this source in relevant Wikipedia articles. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

They seem like a standard news organisation, so all the the normal advice of WP:NEWSORG applies. Including the caution over statements versus opinion, per WP:RSEDITORIAL.

As an Indian news source caution about paid reporting and advertorials is appropriate, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also all news sources should be used with care in biographies of living people.

The fact it's owned by ABP Group isn't a big factor in it's reliability, as it's possible for a publisher to own both very reliable and very unreliable sources.

A minor point, no source is considered 100% reliable, at best it's generally reliable. The exact reliability of any source is dependent on it's context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested:Is it reliable enough to use for reporting Bengali film box-office figures?Anoop Bhatia (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes it should be reliable for that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sky News caught manipulating footage

I think we really need to be careful with Sky News as a source for the Amsterdam anti-islamic soccer hooligan story in light of their manipulation of film media. [17] Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I heard about that, best not use Canary to source it, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not suggesting we use Canary as a source in an article. But I think the information in this Canary article casts doubt on the reliability of Sky News and we should avoid using them either. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Marc Owen Jones qualifies as a source. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We should be careful about all news reporting. Even those outlets we consider the most reliable. Especially when it comes to breaking stories. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Using news as a source at all should really only be a last resort, if there are essential facts that can't be covered with high quality sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link for his article on the topic. [18] Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say manipulating footage? That makes it sound like they have done something akin to photoshopping, but the linked article talks about some kind of re-cutting of their original segment to give a different weight to certain parts of the story? That sounds more like a charge of bias than of unreliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing videos to support specific narratives while hiding others makes this outlet unreliable. This is, if anything, a case study with one of the main problems with using newsmedia sources for an encyclopedia. But certainly means we should not be using SkyNews in this specific instance as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Did they "edit video" to any degree greater than showing a subset of the events of that night? That would simply be them being selective about what to report. It doesn't make them unreliable for the facts that they have reported. It is completely true that there was antisemitic violence, and Sky News have reported this reliably. That there was also other violence, and wider context, doesn't make what Sky News said unreliable. It makes them biased. That means we should be cautious about inheriting their framing of the situation, but there is no reason not to use them as a source for the fact that there was antisemitic violence. We can use other sources for other facts and perspectives. As far as this board is concerned, there is no downgrade of their reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add on this topic this footage was also misused by several sources:

Here's an article from the NLtimes talking to the photographer who took one of the primary videos being used by major news sources, the video she took involves Maccabi fans assaulting locals and many sources (BILD, CNN, BBCWorld, Guardian, nytimes, TimesofIsrael) have described the footage as locals attacking people instead. Just to keep in mind for the topic. Galdrack (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would consider the fact they took down and altered a video because it didn't meet their standards to be a quality that makes them an RS rather than saying they 'manipulate' footage. RS should make corrections and alter mistakes. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Since my comment above I've seen Sky News's original and edited segments, and I have to agree that this affair is probably a net uplift to their reliability. What seems to have happened is they put out a report making a specific claim, then backed away from that specific claim in the re-edit. They appear to have acted cautiously, in a breaking news environment with significant fog of war. That's exactly what we would want a RS to do. There are other outlets who have published false claims about who the men in the video were, but Sky News, as far as I'm aware, is not one of these, and some of the complaints appear to conflate Sky News with those outlets. Claims of "editing video" and "manipulating footage" are wild exaggerations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When_sources_are_wrong may be appropriate... mostly says unless there is a clear pattern of falsehood, probs not wrong Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note for all, this appears to concern November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And yes, per WP:RSBREAKING, everything written today, yesterday, and the day before should be scrutinized and revisited as better consensus and evaluation of facts and claims emerge, although in most likelihood will never be, as Wikipedians trip over themselves, cosplaying as journalists, to stuff every new development into an article as soon as it pops onto the internet. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A source Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Journalists make mistakes, it's also hard to put the cat back in the bag once it's out there. I don't think this is an indictment of the outlet. Andre🚐 21:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The Listening Post criticizes NYT and Sky, especially the latter. Marc Owen Jones "This is going to be a case study for journalist students, for media students for years to come, especially the Sky News edit" Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that a Sky reporter first identified football hooligans as belonging to Maccabi Tel Aviv, then changed the wording to indicate they were unidentified. However the broader report left in all the criticism of locals and claims of antisemitism, making it look as if all the violence and racism was against the Israeli supporters. The citizen journalist who produced the footage complained to Sky, but was ignored. Another citizen journalist with even more detailed coverage identified the same hooligans with Maccabi colours on his footage, but this was also ignored. Subsequent analysis from the Guardian (who originally made the same mistake) confirms the citizen journalists view, but of course by then it was too late. Incidentally I can't post one link, because YouTube seems to have been banned Andromedean (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

HK01 for gaming news

HK01 is a new media website from Hong Kong. It may be as generally reliable for local news as any other newsmedia outlet but when it comes to gaming it's a mess.

Specifically I'm noting that I removed the following article: [19] from Game Science where it was being used to argue that the IGN investigation into sexism mistranslated statements made by the CEO. It was also being used to insert rumours that the IGN investigation was retaliation for Game Science refusing to pay consulting fees to Sweet Baby. These allegations were sourced to a Youtuber (Asmongold) and a right-wing Twitter personality and former gaming executive Mark Kern respectively. My understanding is that Asmongold relied on ChatGPT or some similar tool for his translations. Kern's comments on Twitter do not demonstrate any reliable source of reportage that Sweet Baby is shaking down game developers in China in collaboration with IGN. This seems like flat-out conspiracy theory stuff. I expect this removal will likely face backlash at the Game Science article. As such I'm opening up this noticeboard discussion now to review the decision to exclude the source. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I’m gonna be the first to participate in this discussion as, with its growing popularity in Hong Kong, which has a large Anglophone population, the news outlet will be used more frequently in Wikipedia, whether by a registered or IP user. I suggest banning this source for gaming, as you’ve mentioned that it’s an unreliable source of information for gaming, but that it can be allowed for other things as a reliable source of information, such as local news in Hong Kong. Hadjnix 15:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Supporting this after being involved in discussions regarding HK01's gaming coverage on Game Science. I brought up many of the same points in Talk:Game Science.[20][21] Snakester95 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• HK01 is a reputable mainstream media source from Hong Kong. The fact is: That HK01 article is a secondary reporting about an online game-related controversy that involve online personalities; that means reporting about the whats and whos. Instead, you falsely represent it as HK01 "citing" online personalities. It is simply a dishonest effort to disregard a reliable source.
  In fact, if you actually read the part where they report about the Sweet Baby Inc incident (the thing you are using to disregard HK01), HK01's own commentary specifically mention that there is no evidence for it. And I quote: "當然，以上推測雖然符合情理和邏輯，但始終來源只是網民的帖文，並無任何實質證據支持；因此不能一口咬定是 SBI 有向遊戲科學提出收取指導費，也不能斷言是 SBI 因為收不到錢而發動輿論攻勢，自然也不能斷定 IGN 和 SBI 有任何關係。" So your claim that they are supporting conspiracy theories is false, while it is clear they do not. --Cold Season (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that article does HK01 "stated that the article's examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context", they report that people online have stated that referencing a community note from twitter. Better wording would be something like "HK01 reported that a twitter community note stated that the article's examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context".

  News organisation are generally very careful in saying either 'this thing is fact' or 'this thing was said by someone'. This is an instance of the second kind. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

HK01 has both reported about the situation and provided their commentary. Quoting in their voice: "不過這篇文章的真實性也存疑；在網上早就有人指出該文中引用的性別歧視例子，基本上都是將遊戲科學成員在社交媒體上的發文斷章取義，以至惡意翻譯而成。而文章中引用了不止一位「來自中國的女性遊戲開發者」的批評遊戲科學的發言，均全都以化名（pseudonym）記載，完全無法查證真偽。" Note how they provide a comment on the correctness of the IGN article.

In any case, I have clarified how OP ignored the context of the HK01 article to wrongly portray that HK01 is uncritically "sourcing" online personalities... when the actual fact is that they are reporting about a situation involving multiple parties. --Cold Season (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is again them saying that other people have said something. The second is HK01 saying in their own voice that the criticism of the game has come from anonymous accounts that are hard to verify. The content said that HK01 stated that the article's examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context, they never did that. HK01 reported that people online (specifically a twitter community note) stated that the articles examples had been mistranslated and taken out of context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course this raises the question of WP:DUE - what is the encyclopedic relevance of a comment on Twitter that got into an HK newspaper? Simonm223 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadjnix has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your effort to get this mainstream media source banned, based on false and disproven premises, has clearly failed. Secondly, HK01 themselves, a reliable source, puts the correctness of the article in doubt and is due. I have adjusted the content per user ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion. --Cold Season (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You have completely failed to address my WP:DUE concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I literally said why it is due. HK01 questions the correctness of the article. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

All you've said is that you think it's due simply because it is mainstream media. Frankly that is insufficient in the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what WP:DUE is about. The fact that the IGN article is flawed is a viewpoint reflected in reliable sources. What's more extreme, is you trying to ban HK01 on disproven premises. --Cold Season (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Except HK01 does not provide a critique of the article. It says guys on Twitter did and it couldn't verify their claims. That's not due inclusion. It's nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong again about HK01. Quote: 不過這篇文章的真實性也存疑. It does explicitly says that the article is questionable. --Cold Season (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on what though? Twitter speculation? A dream that came to the author? This is what I'm getting at - it's a bad article. It should not be used as a source. And it's definitely undue inclusion on those grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And it is now being used to source WP:PROFRINGE allegations of an IGN / Sweet Baby Inc. protection racket conspiracy. Again. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(1) Based on a viewpoint that have been published by reliable sources. (2) I am not the user that tries to insert the Sweet Baby Inc content. And have repeatedly noted, to you here and that user there ([22]), that HK01 is reporting about the Sweet Baby Inc situation but that they also say that there is no evidence to the rumors. --Cold Season (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok we're going around in circles here. Twitter speculation and vague allegations should not ever be due based on a single newsmedia source. I'll wait to see if anyone else besides the two of us wants to weigh in on this further. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone, including me, has argued against HK01's coverage of this topic. I tried having a discussion about it after you gave me an edit warring warning and then you stopped responding. As far as your content adjustment goes, it still buries that the claims from HK01's article are from social media, "they explained that online claims have long pointed out". Which I believe is what @ActivelyDisinterested was addressing. The portion of the article being referred to cites Asmongold.

I don't know why you're claiming the sexism allegations against Game Science have anything to do with the "online personalities" included in that article. Going by those standards, anyone who posts on social media is involved in this situation. As I previously discussed at Talk:Game_Science, HK01 is relying on an Asmongold YouTube video using ChatGPT for translating Chinese to push nefarious claims, that other reliable Chinese sources have pushed back on years ago. Not to mention how goofy it is that the Asmongold video HK01 is citing for their claim that they did no fact checking for is, "F*CK IGN".

HK01's article relies on social media rumors and conspiracies without doing any original reporting. Which @Simonm223 accurately explained in the first post of this topic. Snakester95 (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the proper translation of "以上推測雖然符合情理和邏輯"? Is that HK01 seeing value in a Weibo post that seems to offer no evidence for the claim related to Sweet Baby Inc.? If so, what does that tell us about HK01 as a whole? Daisy Blue (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that Simonm223 accuses me of citing online rumors, but when I referenced it, I clearly noted “According to online rumor” not “According to HK01,” because this matter does not represent HK01’s viewpoint. HK01’s article explicitly states that the source of these claims is “some online speculation,” and they even clarify that “although this speculation may seem logical, it ultimately comes only from netizens’ posts, with no substantive evidence; therefore, it cannot be concluded that SBI requested consulting fees from Game Science, nor can it be asserted that SBI launched a public relations campaign due to unpaid fees, nor that there is any connection between IGN and SBI.”

When HK01 wrote about this topic, it was portraying the sequence of events and the ensuing controversy from a neutral, third-party perspective. HK01 itself did not endorse or confirm this view. If you look at my discussion with Cold Season on the Game Science talk page, you’ll notice Cold Season pointed out that HK01 only reported the events from a neutral viewpoint without expressing support for the claims and even clarified “with no substantive evidence to support it; therefore, it cannot be concluded that SBI requested consulting fees.”

In my citation of HK01, I wrote “According to online rumor,” not “According to HK01.” The intention was not to express a specific viewpoint but merely to provide a third-party account of the event, which HK01 happened to report in this way without any editorializing. It’s standard practice for media to neutrally report online opinions when covering the origins and development of a controversy. For example, IGN reported on online rumors about supposed behind-the-scenes manipulation in voting https://www.ign.com/articles/explaining-and-fixing-igns-face-off-controversy. In this article, IGN also referenced a significant amount of online commentary.

The claim that HK01’s account comes from Asmongold is incorrect. Rumors about this incident had already circulated in the Chinese online community before Asmongold’s involvement, and HK01 never mentions Asmongold at all. Snakester95’s point that Asmongold used ChatGPT for translation is irrelevant to HK01. As a Chinese-language media outlet in Hong Kong, HK01 certainly doesn’t need Asmongold or ChatGPT to understand or translate Game Science’s Chinese statements about gender discrimination. You don't actually think a Chinese-language media outlet can't understand Chinese, right? And surely you don't believe a Chinese-language outlet would need a non-native Chinese speaker to explain the meaning of Chinese to them.Furthermore, HK01’s coverage was solely a third-party report without presenting its own opinion.

This discussion also proposes to ban HK01 as a source on gaming topics while accepting its reliability for local Hong Kong news. However, this is a contradictory stance. If you question HK01’s credibility as a media source, it would logically lead to its removal from Wikipedia as a source altogether. Accepting HK01 as a reliable source for general news while discrediting it on gaming topics implies inconsistency. If HK01 is considered reliable for reporting on Hong Kong or Chinese affairs, then it should be equally valid as a source for game-related topics. In fact, topics related to Game Science do not only fall under the category of gaming but also involve local Chinese news. Game Science is a Chinese company, and coverage of it is not solely due to its connection to gaming but also because it involves aspects of local Chinese news. Any topic has multiple dimensions, making it impossible to simply exclude a media outlet based on subject. Since HK01 is a mainstream media outlet in Hong Kong, there should be no issue with it being used as a source, and there is no reason to exclude it. Unless you believe that all media from Hong Kong is untrustworthy and should be entirely excluded.YuelinLee1959 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You have to read the sources you're discussing more, I spend a large chunk of my replies explaining your own sources to you. You're trying to explain the reliability of the HK01 article addressed in this topic and wrote a whole a paragraph that is wrong. Assuming good faith, you probably missed information. The first paragraph after the embedded IGN tweet links to the Asmongold video I and others have addressed. Agreeing with you as I've explained to others in Talk:Game Science, yes, it is bizarre that a Chinese media outlet would rely on a YouTuber using ChatGPT to translate Chinese to English. This is why it continues to show how unreliable HK01's gaming coverage is. Especially when it's regarding information reliable Chinese outlets like The South China Morning Post have also reported on[23][24].

Regarding HK01's reliability for general news and not gaming news, this isn't unheard of. WP:GREL explains how a generally reliable source can be unreliable in areas outside its' expertise or when making exceptional claims which is applicable here[25]. Snakester95 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You're correct. So, what you're saying is that IGN's article linked to Asmongold's video, not HK01, meaning that Asmongold's video has no connection to HK01. The fact that you referenced Asmongold’s video cannot undermine the authority of HK01 as a mainstream media outlet. Asmongold's video has nothing to do with HK01. Therefore, using Asmongold's video to question HK01's reliability as a mainstream media outlet is unrelated, and the video should not be used to challenge HK01’s credibility. Thus, your previous use of Asmongold's video to question HK01's legitimacy was misguided. HK01 is a mainstream Hong Kong media outlet, and unless you're planning to exclude all Hong Kong media as sources, HK01 should not be excluded as a source.

Also, I have never mentioned anything about Asmongold in my edits to the article. The first time I encountered this person was when you brought him up. If you hadn’t mentioned him, I wouldn’t even know who he is. I don’t recall ever referring to this person in anything I wrote. I truly don’t understand how you found a connection to Asmongold in content where I used HK01 as a source. I’ve never written about this person, nor do I know him. Even on the talk page, I never brought him up. As far as I remember, you were the one who mentioned him, and at the time, I didn’t even know who he was. Please look over our discussions—when have I ever referred to this person?

If we’re assuming good faith, you shouldn’t be deliberately misrepresenting my edits and statements. I completely fail to understand how this topic got redirected to Asmongold through your interpretation.

So, from the very beginning, there was no basis for the claim that HK01’s content was sourced from Asmongold. You’re the only one who has mentioned Asmongold—I never referenced him in my article edits, nor did I mention him in the talk page discussions. I didn’t even know who he was initially. As a Chinese-language media outlet, HK01 can fully understand whether Game Science's Chinese statements are related to sexism on its own. What reason would there be to rely on a non-native Chinese speaker for translation? The fact is, HK01 did not use Asmongold as a source; this was simply a misunderstanding on your part. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you can be involved in this topic if you have no idea what you're talking about or replying to. It's becoming difficult to explain to you repeatedly what you're not listening to and then doubling down on. Please read the HK01 article and first post that @Simonm223 made if you're going to discuss HK01's reliability. Snakester95 (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have read Simonm223's comment. The first comment I wrote in this discussion, that large initial paragraph, was actually a response to his comment and not yours. In fact, I hadn’t replied to any of your comments before that—my reply was directed solely at his comment. It was only afterward that you replied to my comment, and then I responded to you. So, the first comment I wrote was originally a reply to his initial comment, not to yours. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Then, instead of arguing against facts, you can see that HK01 cites Asmongold's video and translation. Here's where HK01 linked to the video both in Chinese, "在網上早就有人指出" and the English Google translation, "have long pointed out that". In the English translation, "pointed out that" has the link in their article. That aside, this source is far from the only reason to question HK01's reliability in gaming coverage. Snakester95 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

HK01 mentioned that some people online pointed out the same thing, and HK01 didn’t say anything incorrect. This is just an opinion expressed online. HK01 simply described the events from a third-party perspective and didn’t state this as its own viewpoint. Moreover, HK01 never claimed this was Asmongold’s opinion, nor did it even mention him. In fact, this view didn’t originate from Asmongold in the first place.

Now, answer me one question: Was Asmongold the first person to propose this view? Yes or no—give me a clear answer. Was this view already present before Asmongold mentioned it? Yes or no. Lastly, as a Chinese-language media outlet, does HK01 need someone like Asmongold, who isn’t a native Chinese speaker, to help it understand Chinese? Yes or no?

Actually, you don’t even need to answer, because the answers are obvious:

HK01 is a Chinese-language media outlet and does not need Asmongold to help it understand Chinese.

HK01 simply described the events from a third-party perspective and didn’t express its own opinion. Its descriptions of the events are factual—people online did propose this view, and HK01 merely reported on it without endorsing it.

This view did not originate from Asmongold. It existed long before him, and HK01 didn’t mention him at all. This view has been present on Chinese-language platforms for a long time. Therefore, HK01 did not rely on Asmongold to “translate” or interpret Chinese.In fact, the idea that a Chinese-language media outlet would rely on someone who isn’t a native Chinese speaker to understand Chinese is illogical. Only a fool would believe that Chinese news needs non-native speakers to interpret the meaning of Chinese expressions. YuelinLee1959 (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth and implying that I'm a fool for directing you toward the facts on HK01's reliability using their own words. Regardless of what you say about Asmongold or HK01, the fact is that they used Asmongold to support their claim that "the authenticity of this article is also questionable" when discussing IGN's report. Instead of verifying IGN's translations, as a Chinese media outlet, they opted instead to use a ChatGPT translation from Asmongold's video.

Relevant policies include:

• WP:NEWSORG, "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
• WP:QS, "relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion."
• WP:FALSEBALANCE, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
• WP:DUE, "If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof." HK01's article relies on user generated content such as a tweet, a Weibo post, and a YouTube video.
• WP:PROFRINGE, using a Weibo post to push conspiracies as Simonm223 pointed out.

Snakester95 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Fansided / Beyond the Flag

Pings to relevant editors: @Atlantic306, Piotrus, Someguy1221, Spinixster, Scu ba, and ActivelyDisinterested: editors who've discussed (or attempted to discuss) Fansided at RS/N who are still active,

I'm wondering if we can get some kind of consensus on Fansided. In my opinion, it is nothing more than a blog which accepts user-generated content with limited editorial oversite. However, it is still frequently cited in articles, mostly by SPAs who edit various sports topics, but also by more generally-experienced editors as well. Clearly, by the amount of times it has been brought up here in the recent past, I'm not alone in this thinking. I'm wondering if an RfC is the best way forward here to get Fansided and its many various websites listed at RS/PS.

To satisfy the yellow box that's been shown to me, this post was spurned specifically by the addition of a Fansided blog, Beyond the Flag, at 2025 IndyCar Series, that was used to support a claim of entrant numbers for team entries which don't have official confirmation in the usual RSs used in the topic area.[26] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like Fansided has somehow straddled the middle ground between a blog and a actual sports news site, namely because although they allow almost anyone to become a writer, there is still an editorial staff, at least according to their about page. I personally don't have enough experience with this site to cast judgement either way but the way they let basically anyone write for them doesn't do them any good in beating the WP:SPS allegations. Scuba 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Fansided blogs are self-published. Yes Fansided have some central staff, but having a few editors to covers 300 odd blogs is not editorial control. Most of the people listed on the about us page are contributors or site leaders, these are independent contractors[27] who are compensated based on the views their articles recieve.

Articles that are written by expert who have been previously published by other independent reliable sources (WP:SPS), or blogs that are regularly cited by other reliable sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), will be reliable. Otherwise the best idea is to find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Military Watch Magazine

This source should be deprecated for consistently echoing Russian propaganda and their articles are almost always in line with the Russian government narrative. Furthermore, the site has little to no transparency regarding their origins and authors. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the internet militarywatchmagazine.com is written by Abraham Ait-Tahar[28]. Some of the articles appear to be republished on strangemilitarystories.com. The site has been called out for spreading misinformation.

militarywatchmagazine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

strangemilitarystories.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Polygnotus (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Steve7c8: Do you want to get rid of this unreliable source? I may be able to help. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be appreciated. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we make this source deprecated or blacklisted to prevent their future additions? Steve7c8 (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Steve7c8: See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Polygnotus (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much which would suggest notability and a lot which goes the other way (they do seem to republish a lot of sketchy stuff)... Barring any signficant change I would say generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Kampala Dispatch

Kampala Dispatch. Is this independent reporting? Would this count as an independent reliable source? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bash Luks the legitimacy of this source came into question. I read the articles cited and concluded they were promotional placements and not independent. Another editor says they "have an editorial staff and a staff of independent journalists" and "the articles are indeed independent given they have by-lined authors and they are local media with staffed editors and journalists." Following is some quotes from the cited articles, all bylined to the same author, Michael Wandati.

[29] "Since signing with Lot Fire Records a year and a half ago, Off Ryine has embarked on an extraordinary journey in the music industry. His exceptional songwriting skills have propelled him to become one of Uganda’s most promising songwriters." "This milestone is a testament to his dedication and talent, inspiring aspiring musicians and solidifying his place in the music industry." [30] " Notably, this record label boasts a roster of esteemed artists, including Bash Luks, who is both a member and the visionary founder of the entertainment company." "The partnership between Jim Siizer and Lot Fire Records is poised to set new standards in the industry, ushering in a promising era of musical excellence." [31] "As Bash Luks embarks on this new chapter, he remains committed to empowering artists and delivering exceptional music to audiences worldwide." "Through perseverance and a renewed sense of purpose, Bash Luks is on a path to making a significant impact on the music industry once again." [32] interview - "Join us as we embark on this melodic odyssey with Bash Luks and uncover the passion, dedication, and creativity that propel this remarkable artist forward." " Bash Luks takes us on a journey through the intricate layers of his creative process. Get ready to immerse yourself in the unique blend of sounds that shape his artistry." [33] "The composition not only highlights the duo’s musical prowess but also showcases their artistic vision, appealing to both their established fan base and new audiences seeking innovative sounds. The song serves as a testament to Bash Luks and Off Ryine’s steadfast commitment to their craft, setting a commendable standard for their forthcoming releases." "“Masannyalaze” gears up to become the next big sensation in the industry! Get ready to groove along and explore the rich musical tapestry created by Bash Luks and Off Ryine."

Then there was This in another article dated September 2024 [34] "Looking to the future, Big Size Entertainment shows no signs of slowing down. With its forward-thinking approach and dedication to fostering the next generation of Ugandan musical talent, the label is poised to continue making an impact, both in Uganda and on the global stage. It stands as a testament to the enduring power of African creativity and innovation in the music world." Except Big Size had shut down 6 years beforehand.
A search of their site found no sign of their "editorial staff" nor of a "staff of independent journalists", in fact every single article I saw on the site seemed to be by-lined to that one same writer. Comments? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting scam adverts statingy mobile device is out of memory when I try to access the site, which is definitely negative. Looking at the links from the Bash Luks article, the references appear to be either promotional or an interview (not independent). I suggest that editors only access them with care due to the scam advert issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Asianet News (asianetnews.com) a reliable source?

I would like input from the community on whether Asianet News (available at asianetnews.com) is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia.

Background: Asianet News is an Indian Malayalam-language news channel operated by the Asianet News Network, a subsidiary of Jupiter Entertainment Ventures. Based in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, it was launched on September 30, 1995, and is one of the oldest television news channels in India, with a strong team of experienced journalists.

Context: Asianet News is frequently cited in various Wikipedia articles, particularly those related to Malayalam cinema.

Questions:

• Is Asianet News trustworthy for celebrity news and entertainment updates?
• Can its box-office figures be considered credible enough to cite on Wikipedia?
• How dependable is Asianet News for reporting on general issues in Kerala and other parts of South India?
• Does its coverage extend beyond Kerala, and is it reliable for reporting on Kannada or other Indian news?
• Are there any limitations to using Asianet News, particularly for sensitive topics or commercial content?
• Are there any significant issues related to editorial oversight, accuracy, or sensationalism?
• Is there any notable history of misinformation or bias associated with this source?

Your feedback will help clarify the use of this source in relevant Wikipedia articles. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Their article Asianet Suvarna News points to sources highlighting some issues. I would suggest avoiding it for contentious issue or political issues. It should still be usable for box office figures or celebrity news. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated translations in multiple articles - topostext.org

Editor @Michael Aurel: has flagged up the use of https://topostext.org that is being used in multiple locations in at least 175 articles at the WP:AINB with @Chaotic Enby:. These are translations of the source text by a chat-gtp style product. For example, in Daphne there is at least 9 links in various urls and reference uses. The core of it whether the foundation is valid and whether the translations themselves are accurate. The underlying text hasn't been translated into English by anybody, so they purely machine translated. You would assume they would have been checked though woudn't you, if the foundation is genuine? scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

(Link to preceding discussion) To clarify a little, I don't have any issues with https://topostext.org itself, as most of the translations on the website are copies of reliable translations published elsewhere by scholars, and these other translations are linked quite widely in articles on Greek mythology. My only issue was with this translation (which, from what I can tell, is the only AI-generated translation on the site). As noted at the head of that page, the text was translated by CHATGPT 4.0 with more speed than accuracy, with prompts and work-arounds by Bruce Hartzler and a few manual improvements (?) by Brady Kiesling. In the preceding discussion, I was under the assumption that we didn't use such sources, in the same way we wouldn't use a translation from someone who isn't a qualified scholar of Greek mythology, but I would be interested to hear the opinions of others. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this an external link issue rather than a reliability one? As far as I can tell no-one is questioning the reliability of the original source, just the translation. Using links in a reference is a courtesy to aid verification. A courtesy link to what could be an AI hallucination does not appear that useful, linking the untranslated text would be a better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is an overview of a report by market research firm technavio RS for claims on dark chocolate?

Dark Chocolate Market Analysis Europe, North America, APAC, South America, Middle East and Africa - US, Germany, Belgium, France, UK - Size and Forecast 2024-2028

Sourcing multiple sentences, for instance: "As of 2024, Europe was one of the largest producers and the market had grown by over 8 percent since the previous year. About a third of sales were from organic chocolate. The market was influenced by the volatile cost of cocoa beans."

Technavio's market research on dark chocolate has been covered by ConfectioneryNews repeatedly over many years [35]. They have reported specifically on their dark chocolate market research [36]. ConfectioneryNews has an editorial board, on which at least one SME expert, Kristy Leissle serves. Leissle is an academic who publishes on chocolate [37][38] and is the author of Cocoa (book). ConfectioneryNews clearly distinguishes promotional and non-promotional content.

Some concerns regarding the reliability for statements has been raised at Talk:Dark chocolate#Variants section. It's best to read that discussion, but I'll try to sum up the concerns. Zefr will be able to articulate them better.

1. Discusses trends using "marketing language" (i.e. gluten free chocolate, gourmet chocolate markets).
2. The source is "promotional, commercial (crazy expensive), and not WP:RS"
3. Text attributed to technavio, "growing in popularity" is "subjective, non-WP:NPOV, and not sourced to RS."
4. The source discusses what ingredients are commonly used to make gourmet chocolate, but does not explain why, which is necessary.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's probably reliable, but is WP:PRIMARY. In text attribution might be required.

1. Although a source might use promotional language doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Any source should be summarised in an appropriate tone.
2. Promotional or commercial reports can be used, but they should be used with caution. Wikipedia isn't the place to repeat advertising. How expensive a source is doesn't matter, see WP:SOURCEACCESS.
3. As per my previous comment the language used and it's time needs to be appropriate, but whether it should be included or not is an NPOV matter not a reliability one. It should be discussed on the articles talk page.
4. Context is required, otherwise it would be a bit indiscriminate, but that again is about inclusion (NPOV) rather than reliability.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested Thankyou Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Politico status update

(non-admin closure) apparently WP:1AM situation spilling onto RSN… boldly closing Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, Politico is listed as a generally reliable source despite creating a "Biden laptop is a Russian disinfo" hoax. I propose to downgrade its status to generally unreliable because that source purposely spread misinformation to change people's perception about a political event. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 WP:WAPO says https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/ The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That’s what Biden referred to in the presidential debate and on “60 Minutes” — though his wording was much stronger than the letter’s. Biden said the letter said the laptop story was a “Russian plan,” “a bunch of garbage,” “disinformation from the Russians” and “a smear campaign.” The letter artfully does not say any of those things. In fact, it does not even say what the Politico headline claimed — though that headline likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day. The article itself does not say the letter made a disinformation claim “There was message distortion,” former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. told The Fact Checker in a telephone interview. “All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation. Politico deliberately distorted what we said. It was clear in paragraph five.” He said he was unaware of how Biden described the letter during the debate. Отец Никифор (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC) I thought you were going to do cool nerdy stuff instead of wasting your time trying to right great wrongs in a fight you can't win. Look around brother. There is no way you can win the gender debate or the political debate. But you can have fun writing useful bots and scripts. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC) How is it connected? I just checked the sources and found one that spreads fake information. I wrote about it on the appropriate page. Отец Никифор (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC) And what the heck? Is it a bad faith accusation? Отец Никифор (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC) RSN is only for discussing the reliability of sources, try to keep your comments to the source not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC) And no, we don't downgrade sources because one guy said another guy said one guy distorted information. People make all kinds of claims about people they dislike. Polygnotus (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC) It's not one guy. It's a reliable source that provided proof. Отец Никифор (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources, only the content on the articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) To be clear although the Politico headline states "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say", the first paragraph correctly quotes the letter "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."[39] The lack of context and sensationalism is exactly what WP:HEADLINES warns of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC) You are right. Thanks for the detailed answer! Отец Никифор (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Why are we beating this long dead horse? Politico is reliable as is Politico Europe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC) In addition to the WP:HEADLINES bit, one inaccurate/wrong story does not make a source generally unreliable - there must be a pattern of issues. The Kip (contribs) 04:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Eurasian Times

This is another questionable source with highly sensationalized headlines, lack of disclosed ownership information, inconsistent sourcing, and failed fact checks. Issues noted here. Should be deprecated or blacklisted. Steve7c8 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be one dude in Canada (Nitin J Ticku) and a few in India.[40] Partly WP:USERGENERATED EurAsian Times also provides a platform for people to report their news online, besides serving as consumer complaints portal so that their story does not go unnoticed, and reaches millions of people and relevant authorities.[41] Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully Support under no circumstances should Eurasian times be cited in any wikipedia article. Scuba 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about blacklisting but I don't think that its reliable, I believe the technical term for what they do is churnalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: used 632 times in article space at the moment. Most of those (at a quick look) don't appear to be too problematic, but I agree it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Environmental Research: Climate

Is this journal considered a reliable source for the issue of whether climate change has made Atlantic hurricanes more severe? I ask because I frequently read someone saying that hurricane severity and frequency cannot be attributed to climate change or global warming, so I I would like to know if D.M. Gilford, J. Giguere and A.J. Pershing. Human-caused ocean warming has intensified recent hurricanes. Environmental Research: Climate. Published online November 20, 2024. is from a reliable source. Edison (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Who? Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be a preprint but the lead author has published articles in journals about climatology and oceanography, so the paper should be reliable. As far as I'm aware the prevailing view is that climate change is increasing hurricane severity and frequency, it would appear to be a logical effect of a warmer atmosphere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

AcademiaLab

Its name sounds like a reliable site, but found [[42]] which is literally the Acre with confirmed errors + no attribution to Wikipedia. I am new here on this page, so I though I should put it here. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be a community and collaborative project. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia mirror with user generated content thrown in, unusable WP:CIRCULAR and unreliable WP:UGC. Mirrors can be listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks if you're interested, it also has advice on dealing with lack of attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Shahada News Agency

I recently created the Wikipedia article for the Shahada News Agency and while I was looking to unorphan the article I saw that the news website was used as a reference (https://shahadanews.com/?p=5863) in the article Murder of Giulio Regeni, and I was going to delete but I wanted to reach consensus of the reliability of Shahada News Agency. The main factor that I believe this news agency is unreliable is due to the fact of its association with the Somali militant terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. The article itself seems biased against the supposed involvement by Egyptian authorities, blaming them. RowanJ LP (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing the person that cited it probably didn't know the background of the agency. RowanJ LP (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikizilla

[43]. Currently used in ~10 articles. It's Wiki, so UGC, no editorial board, no oversight particularly, and fan-based. It makes no guarantees of accuracy and states that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

Suggest removal on sight, except in the rare moments where it references itself (in none of which its current uses is the cases). SerialNumber54129 13:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep standard user generated content. We could use an edit filter for such sites, so editors are warned. Similar to deprecated sources but with an appropriate message for UGC sites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Although the site is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0, it is a standard Wiki website and should be treated as such. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we use images of a building to describe the form of architecture?

User:Saccharinesilk says that[[44] and [45] can be used as sources.

WP:OR is policy. Polygnotus (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Marble House is Beaux-Arts architecture according to a reliable source: nps.gov. Polygnotus (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Winchester Mystery House is Late-Victorian according to a reliable source: nps.gov. Polygnotus (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Images can only be used to verify obvious facts that can be seen in the picture. I don't believe that would extent to architecture form, which is a matter of opinion (there can disagreement of the exact form used). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

my claim about marble house was that the front portico is not a porte cochere, which IS an obvious fact that can be seen in the linked picture. a porte cochere by definition must extend over the drive, and one can see in that image that it does not. Saccharinesilk (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Your claim about Marble House was about the comparison of the portico to that of the White House, neither the article nor your edit summary said anything about a porte-cochere. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

i'll be honest, i dont remember that being the case, and the source for the comparison to the white house DOES falsely claim that marble house's portico is a porte cochere, so unless someone changed the edit history, i'm at a loss for what's happened here, perhaps my memory is faulty given it has been months since i made that edit. while i dont think marble house's portico is reminiscent of the white house's, i agree that's a matter of opinion, and if anything i would suggest it shouldn't be part of the article for that reason Saccharinesilk (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Collider

This is one of the few Valnet-owned sites that haven't been assessed yet, so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion now to work out what its status is. I've used Collider in several articles before, and it's currently used on several thousand articles site-wide. Their content output and article quality is comparable to TheGamer, another Valnet-owned source currently considered reliable post August 2020, though Collider's own output mostly ramped up (From what I can tell) after its Valnet buyout.

I've used them for several things before, such as for their opinion pieces (Which tend to be pretty in-depth like this one), reviews, (Which in my experience have been of similar quality to reviews from most other sources) and feature pieces (Like this one that covers a lot of information in a relatively in-depth manner). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If no-one is questioning it, then it doesn't need to be discussed. The vast majority of reliable sources will never be discussed, because no-one has thought to question them. Also the idea of pre-approving sources doesn't work, as anyone who might object to there inclusion couldn't know to object until the source is used in an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There's quality in Collider.com's output, especially considering their coverage of superhero films. here's a few interviews they did with producers and directors of the film Across the Spider-Verse, just to give a taste of their output. [46] [47] [48] These articles are of journalistic quality.

I see no concerns about Collider's output, nor nothing questionable concerning the fact that they are Valnet-owned. Collider conducts plenty of helpful, informative interviews with important people, and, well, they also publish exclusive reports. I wouldn't call them an industry trade, but they are a cut of nice journalism. BarntToust 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Zsa Zsa Gabor and Kemal Ataturk

This has been discussed at length in the past, most recently at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mustafa_Kemal_Ataturk,_Zsa_Zsa_Gabor. Is the autobiography of Zsa Zsa Gabor a reliable source to report that she had an affair with Kemal Ataturk? More specifically:

• 1. Is it sufficient to report it in the article about Zsa Zsa Gabor? If so, should it be attributed to Gabor?
• 2. Is it sufficient to report it in the article about Kemal Ataturk? If so, should it be attributed to Gabor?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Have secondary sources said anything about the claim? It seems a bit self serving on Gabor's part if there isn't any meaningful corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

She certainly isn't a reliable source for anything other than the claim, whether or not that claim has due weight to be included in the article on Ataturk is a question for NPOVN, not RSN. But is her tell all a reliable source about third parties? Of course not. nableezy - 20:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not, unless the claim is explicitly attributed to Gabor. Agree with Nableezy that this is more a question of WP:DUE, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's probably worthwhile looking at what others sources say. For instance Andrew Mango mentions that Ataturk had an affair which could have been with Zsa Zsa Gabor, but that second part is only in a footnote[49]. I suggest the involved editors look for other sources to back up, or refute, the claim. Rather than just relying on Zsa Zsa Gabors autobiography. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your questions are backwards. The first thing to resolve at RSN is whether the source is reliable enough to make the claim in Wikivoice. That's an obvious no. The second question is whether or not the claim is WP:DUE. That's not an RSN question.

Obviously, the autobiography isn't sufficient on its own, but the underlying dispute has other reliable secondary sources that are commenting on the claim. That's what makes it a difficult dispute. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's actually two autobiographies, Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story (1960) and One Lifetime Is Not Enough (1991). The purported love affair with Ataturk received plenty of coverage during the promotional rounds for both books. As far as I can tell, nobody "in the know" has ever come out and publicly disputed the claim. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Tangle of a Seattle P-I reprint of a Motley Fool article on an FDA food safety law

Background on RS dispute here.

The tangle occurs from a current article on the frozen desserts company, Breyers, where sources are from a) the US FDA Code of Federal Regulations on safe amounts of an ingredient used in manufactured foods, b) The Motley Fool, c) the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (SPI), and d) the use of which reference is RS for the Breyers article.

Chronology:

1. in 1982, the FDA issued a law (current as of August 2024) on the safe limits for using propylene glycol in food manufacturing.

2. in 2014, The Motley Fool published an article about propylene glycol (author Rich Duprey, redated link to 2018) with the provocative title implying that "antifreeze" (propylene glycol) used in various manufactured foods is a significant health concern. The article includes an added red marking on the food label for a Breyers frozen dessert product to highlight the presence of propylene glycol on the ingredients list.

3. on the same day in 2014, the SPI reposts the Motley Fool article.

4. on 27 October 2024, an editor adds the SPI reprint of the Motley Fool article to the Breyers page, to raise the criticism that Breyers uses antifreeze in its products, which was disputed and removed, then added back yesterday in this edit.

5. disputes ensue on the Breyers article and talk page, with specific talk page discussion on what is a RS for propylene glycol used by Breyers in manufacturing frozen desserts 10+ years ago here. As of 2024, there is no evidence that Breyers product ingredients include propylene glycol.

The RS issues to consider may simplify to:

1. is the Motley Fool article a RS for the FDA position on propylene glycol?

2. is the SPI repost of the Motley Fool article a correct RS to use, as supported by two editors on the talk page?

3. is either a 2014 Motley Fool opinion article, or SPI as a republisher, an acceptable RS for use of propylene glycol (or any ingredient) in food manufacturing?

This RS issue has a more general application seen commonly (mostly by novice editors) on Wikipedia: which "source" gets attribution? The original author, the original publisher, or the more recent reprint version?

In science publishing, attribution goes to the original author(s) ("Smith et al. reported..."), not the journal (incorrect to say "the Journal of X said...), or to the US National Library of Medicine for a PubMed search retrieval, or to the university where the scientist-author works.

But in the case of this RS topic, the author of the Motley Fool article mentioning an FDA rule on a food additive is given attribution, but the Motley Fool is not. Rather, the SPI which reposted the original article is now in the Breyers article and posited on the talk page as a "reliable source".

This topic may be useful as a WP:REDFLAG example for opinions in non-expert publications on product manufacturing issues where laws exist. Zefr (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't gone through everything but there is no SPI article, it is simply the Motley Fool article at a different URL. You can see in the byline of the article [50]. This is the same as when MSN or Yahoo repost news articles from other sources, the reliability depends on the original source. So the only question is whether The Motley Fool article is a reliable source or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood and agree, although because SPI reprinted the MF article, other editors appear to claim the reputation of Seattle Post-Intelligencer (founded 1863) makes the SPI repost the RS source. Zefr (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If SPI had written a story citing MF then that would be different, but they just reposted the MF article so it's reliability depends on MF not SPI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This 2014 MF piece on propylene glycol led me to question: how often have MF sources been used in Wikipedia articles outside the MF expertise of analyzing stocks?

As of today, there are 941 Wikipedia articles where a MF source is used. I browsed through them to see if an MF article or opinion essay - without specific financial analysis of a company or its stock performance (their expertise) - had been used on issues of government regulations for manufacturing foods, drugs, medical devices, etc.

The answer is that the propylene glycol source used in the Breyers article (incorrectly attributed to SPI) is the lone exception, i.e., an outlier, indicating that MF is not likely a RS for the content. Zefr (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This could also be a case like WP:HUFFPOCON where each individual source should be evaluated individually. Wouldn't being chosen to be re-posted in SPI mean a thing or two? They'd rather not trash under their own domain. Zefr has complained about in the Breyer article about sources that are not WP:BMI, but I don't think that's really applicable in an ice cream article... And also, their addition of all the primary source .GOV sources seem to be POV pushing. We shouldn't be downplaying or drumming up the concerns by citing various primary sources no matter how reliable they are per NPOV. Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that this would be WP:DUE even if the article is a reliable source. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean the edit that added it a few days ago is obviously a massive undue weight situation, with a strong WP:RGW vibe in the edit summary. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Rfc Can three chinese agency: TDM (Macau), The Paper (newspaper) and Xinhua News Agency as RS in this case?

I have citted one news from three chinese agency but some other editors insist to remove these reource with the reason "Not RS because of not independence / state media". I have pulished one Rfc on the talk page. Thank you in advance. MINQI (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

IGI Global

IGI Global is known for "write-only publishing" and has been described as an academic vanity press. In a relatively short time, well over 100 citations to IGI publications have been added, many of them to https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/ - this appears to be, primarily, a vehicle to advertise IGI books. It looks like a bad idea to make such widespread use of a thoroughly dodgy publisher. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

IGI Global was recently discussed on RSN here. - Amigao (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As the person who brought it up last time, people keep using it. Unsure of solutions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I recently came across IGI Global publications in academic work for my field and was generally unimpressed by its quality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that matter was settled the last time it was brought up, this is more a "how do we stop people from using it" question now. It is used on many pages and people keep adding it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's being used for spam probably spam blacklist? Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is an option to BLACKLIST the website. --Altenmann >talk 21:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031 @Altenmann People aren't citing the website nearly as much as they're citing books they've published. We can't blacklist that, to my knowledge, unless they link it, which they usually don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be possible to do some sort of edit filter for books if people are including the ISBN, but my suggestion to blacklist mostly arises from Guy's mention that links to the dictionary are somewhat, well, spammy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't care either way. I don't think that is possible with ISBNs, as they don't work like DOIs in that the prefix has no association with the publisher. I could be wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the International ISBN Agency, IGI Global has been assigned the following ISBN prefixes:

978-1-4666, 978-1-5225, 978-1-59140, 978-1-59904, 978-1-60566, 978-1-60960, 978-1-61350, 978-1-61520, 978-1-61692, 978-1-6684, 978-1-68318, 978-1-7998, 978-1-878289, 978-1-930708, 978-1-931777, 979-8-3693. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I was wrong. I've never seen us blacklist a source by ISBN, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Using birth certificate as source for someone's middle name

The article Robert Stewart (entrepreneur) claims that Robert Stewart's middle name is "La Rue", which cites GMA Network's website. But according to his birth certificate, birth record index, and supplementary report of birth on FamilySearch (registration required to view), his middle name is "Clarence". I know that FamilySearch isn't a reliable source, but I presume that birth certificates are more reliable than a corporate "About Us" web page. At the same time, I wasn't sure if I am allowed to use the birth certificate as a source. EJPPhilippines (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If he was still alive, or had recently passed away, WP:BLPPRIMARY would be appropriate. However as he died in 2006 so this isn't a BLP matter.

I would expect GMA to know what they're talking about, seeing as Stewart founded the network. I was worried this could be citogenesis, but I found a report from 1962 that uses 'La Rue' as his middle name[51]. For whatever reason he used 'La Rue' and GMA are reliable for that fact. Whether he just didn't like his original middle name, or changed it latter in life I can't be sure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Junk source like WP:FAMILYSEARCH isn't allowed because they contain user generated contents. Such as amateur published research connecting birth/death index of a John John Smith of California USA as the John John Smith the herder of flamingos even though the record chosen could have been the blacksmith John John Smith. It's a secondary source, because some internet amateur genealogy enthusiast published their own research of various primary sources. However, if a wiki editor went to the birth certificate identified within FamilySearch, it's not reliable, because that identification is based on amateur research. If a wiki editor did their own search of primary sources, then drew their own conclusion, that's original research which is not allowed. Graywalls (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Pollstar

Would Pollstar be considered a reliable source for tour boxscores? I searched recent tours like The Chromatica Ball and Renaissance World Tour and they are using it, but since those are not GAs I thought I would ask here to make sure. Apologies if the answer is really obvious.--NØ 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Trade magazines are not always the most independent of sources but I don't see why it shouldn't be reliable for those details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

History of the compass

See [52] - not only is the source unreliable, when it was used by a blocked editor (the IP may be evading the block) they wrote: ""Where is the passage through this sea? We must be shown the right path. He said to him, With iron from the water" - is that a compass? I don't think it is. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

A poor secondary source that doesn't mention the quote, and a primary source for a quote that unclear about it's subject. I've reverted the edit, it requires better sources. Events that happened 3000 year ago should be covered by academic sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

SurnameDB

Is Surnamedb.com a reliable website for the origins of surnames? It is used in several articles on Wikipedia. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:D010:EC5C:4731:FF29 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We are a family run web site, that has built up a database of surname origins over the last 20 years. The research was started by the founder of "Name Origin Research" Michael Brook and the requests for surname researches came in via mail order and off the page advertising. The business grew to a team of 5 researchers based in the Republic of Ireland, and ran for many years before the mail order market became much tougher and business became unprofitable.

Why would it be? Remsense ‥ 论 14:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. It has some very limited use by others, but nothing I can find in high quality sources. It currently has 750 odd uses[53] in main space, and even a template {{Cite surname db}} (that thankfully seems rarely used).

If we decide to deprecate the website, then the template must be sent to AfD. --Altenmann >talk 21:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've left a notification at WikiProject Anthroponymy[54]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this website is that for articles there are no names of authors nor sources of information. Quite recently it popped up in search when I was writing some surname article, but after looking there I refrained from using it. There is a similar website, "forebears.io", which I and some other people are actively removing from Wikipedia (see eg Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257), but it is still all over the place. --Altenmann >talk 21:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussions have no effect on a sources usage. That requires that editors go and replace it remove the source themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no explanation about the existence of the template, but the presence of template isn't a doorway to use poor quality sources. See Wikipedia:RSPFINDAGRAVE and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Find_a_Grave as well. Find a Grave is a poor quality source that should rarely be used. Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Are any or all of these metal-oriented music journalism sites reliable? No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught?

Rather than open a bunch of separate discussions, I thought I'd get all of these out of the way with one large discussion. Specifically, the question is which, if any, of the following sources are generally reliable as sources for music journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No Clean Singing

• Home - About page - Contact page

I was actually surprised that this one wasn't already listed at the albums sources list. I wasn't sure of its years ago, but since then it's become a well-used source on here, including on articles that have passed FA review. And I believe this is because of the reputation of the site, which I'll get into below. I almost was bold and went ahead and added it to the list, but I figured I should make sure a discussion takes place as there has never been a formal discussion regarding this source apart from a brief mention 14 years ago.

- It has an (albeit small) editorial and writing staff: Islander, Alexis, and IntoTheDarkness

- It has a good reputation, which indicates fact-checking and accuracy: this minor mention by MetalSucks, an interview by The Guardian, a listing as one of the Top 10 metal music resources by LA Weekly, and an inclusion in a book (page 24) jointly published by A-R Editions and the Music Library Association.

My personal verdict is Y Yes, with flying colors, it is reliable for music journalism Edit: N it is potentially reliable for self-published expert opinion, but not for BLP purposes--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

But, what you call "by The Guardian" is the blog section of the publication where they invited people to submit their blog to them to be considered for an interview, kind of like cute pets thing local media and papers do and if chosen, those pets get featured. It does clarify that it's a blog Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, it's not the same as a fully independent news report.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't see it. The MetalSucks and LA Weekly listings are nice, but I think that's about all you've got, and it's not much to go on. The about page never uses the word "edit", and makes no apparent mention of an editorial policy. None of the (current or former) writing staff beyond Andy Synn use a recognizable name so it's hard to search for them, but nothing about the descriptions of them suggests they have any significant qualifications beyond this site, and my search for Synn showed that he likely doesn't. The about page does include them self-referencing as a blog founded by a group of friends, which can be something that turns into a professional publication, but that isn't a guarantee, and I don't see anything here that suggests it happened here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I didn't check for this initially, but they do issue corrections, even though yes, the policy isn't stated: [55], [56], [57] (not an exhaustive list)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Doesn't address the editorial and credential concerns, and not as strong as the LA Weekly listing, but: it is referenced in this academic book for a (salty) opinion on djent; is mentioned on page 4 of this journal article, along with some other blog sources - but as some (Angry Metal Guy, Grizzly Butts) I think are still unreliable for music journalism purposes on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that this means much; and this magazine entry (pg. 83) mentions the site helping a song to popularity - not really helpful for reliability, but perhaps notability (which is irrelevant to this noticeboard). I'm not sure this helps at all toward reliability, but I figured I'd at least document it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

In light of the discussions I've had about publishers writing in their own publications, and the small team involved here, it's basically a group blog or, even if not, otherwise essentially self-published material. This isn't necessarily always unreliable for secondary coverage music journalism, but at minimum should never be used for BLP statements.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've always assumed No Clean Singing to be a blog which I would never use as a reliable source for notability and any original news published would have to be corroborated by a reliable source and cited to that source. As QuietHere points out, the lack of a visible editorial structure is telling. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Teeth of the Divine

• Home - Staff - About

I'd always assumed that this one was unreliable, even though there's no discussions saying so and it isn't included on the Unreliable sources list at WP:A/S.

- It has a professional editorial and writing staff, some with impressive credentials. The site claims Metal Maniacs, Decibel, Resound, Metal Edge, Hails & Horns, Unrestrained!, Exclaim!, Outburn, Blistering, DigitalMetal and MetalReview. I can't confirm all of those, especially since they don't clearly indicate who wrote for those publications (a knock against the source, imo), and some aren't necessarily reliable, but some of those are significant publications (a big positive to the source, imo). I could confirm that the site founder, Eric Thomas, worked for Metal Maniacs and now for Hails & Horns.

- It does have some usage by other sources, an indicator toward a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Some interviews from the site had excerpts re-published at Blabbermouth.net - here and here. Presuming that No Clean Signing is reliable, which imo seems very likely given the positive coverage of it, NCS calling it "one of the Internet’s leading metal e-zines" I think indicates a very positive reputation.

My personal verdict is Y Yes, it is reliable for music journalism.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read NCS's about page? https://www.nocleansinging.com/about/ Completely biased, POV fanzine and more or less a one person show blog. One thing you’ll notice pretty quickly is that we don’t publish negative reviews, and we very rarely publish any other kind of writing that slags bands or their music — though sometimes we do make an exception for big-name egomaniacs who can’t keep their mouths shut.. Graywalls (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

See that sub-section. I agree, and even already updated WP:ALBUMS/S to reflect the consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Metal Underground

• Home - Staff - About

This is another one that I've long presumed was not reliable. There are no discussions of it that I can find, and it's not mentioned one way or the other at all at WP:ALBUMS/S.

- It does have a professional editorial and writing staff

- There are some mentions of it in established RS that can indicate a reputation for reliability: MetalSucks: [58], [59], [60]; Metal Injection: [61]; Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles [62]. Again, presuming NCS is reliable, NCS mentions how the site put together a tribute compilation: [63]. However, I don't think the NCS coverage here or there, as it doesn't really get the content of the site, unlike those other examples.

My personal verdict is - I don't know. Maybe someone more familiar with it can weigh in.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, it's also listed in the Metaldata book on page 24.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Metal Onslaught

• Home - About - Staff

This one I only discovered recently, although it's been used on here for at least ten years - but in a questionable way. It mostly was used by an editor who was just blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Some of the articles it was used on are closely affiliated with the source, as a band member was a writer and site manager for the online publication. I don't know if that automatically precludes reliability, but it raises a question.

- They have an editorial staff.

I cannot find any citations of it in other RSes

My personal verdict is N No, it is not reliable as a secondary independent source for music journalism--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to mention another possible source for heavy metal - Heavy Blog has a clearly disclosed editorial board, and is independent of any given band or publisher. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Good to know. I've encountered that one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  "this website has always been and likely will be for the foreseeable future a volunteer enthusiast-run website." In other words, fanzine with the apparent interest of causing the purchase of merch to occur from its contents. Obviously, there's a difference between Wine & Food magazine with a board of professional trained critics vs a weekend gathering of local farmers who do tasting contest of local farmers/each others' produce and commenting on them even if they both have a name list. Graywalls (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

And it has been added 100+ times, but rarely added by anyone but Metalworker14. They have been chronically introducing this source into numerous articles from 2017 to 2021. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/themetalonslaught.com Graywalls (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Use of court documents for basic info?

I'm currently trying to improve the article for Kiana Tom. It's in pretty dire shape - it was filled with promotional puffery. I've removed some of the worst, but it still needs work in establishing notability. (If anyone wants to help, please do!)

I think I can probably do this, but there are some sources in the article that are dubious as far as usability goes. One of the sources is a divorce case against Tom, which is used to back up her date of birth and name. Would these be usable for sourcing this? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. — Masem (t) 18:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Masem What about in cases where the said court documents were taken note of by a reliable source, obtained by the newspaper, then a copy of it offered within the news article? Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The newspaper is not saying the document is accurate, but merely saying that the document is the document. And we wouldn't consider a primary document linked to by a single source to be sufficient sourcing to say that it is "widely published by reliable sources" required by WP:DOB. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Sources for 15.ai

I removed these sources[64][65][66][67] from the article 15.ai that were being used to support statements about 15.ai because they are blog content that seemed like an advertisements. I remain unsure of their suitability as sources because they are essentially advertisements for products which could be considered competitors of 15.ai (though 15.ai is now defunct). The sources have been reinserted since they are relevant figures in the Speech AI scene and have been argued counts as WP:EXPERTSPS. I was hoping to get broader opinion on its suitability considering they are advertorial in nature. The sources are currently being used to verify a wide variety of claims about 15.ai throughout the article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any prior publications for Weitzman (the second link here), and they're the only easily identifiable author as far as I can tell. I also struggle to think of any situation that we'd consider spammy blogs a good source even if there were no dispute to factual accuracy, not having a source is almost preferable. An initial review indicates that most of the statements they're used for are already WP:CITEKILLed, so I really see no reason why they might be considered appropriate to add. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The play.ht one is especially bad. It is simply an ad for their services. Polygnotus (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources are okay as long the information sourced from it are non-advertorial. All of the links above discuss 15.ai before going onto advertise other services (to mention, Elevlabs, Speechify and Resemble are notable enough to warrant their own articles) so as long as the advertisement parts are ignored, it’s citable.

It’s not any different from a New York Times article having an ad for a New York Times subscription in it. 172.56.77.163 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The difference, is that the New York Times is not self-published and their publication process has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy among other reliable sources. Even then, we still wouldn't consider the contents of an ad for the NYT published on the NYT or elsewhere reliable for anything other than what the NYT wants to say about itself. Ads receive far less editorial oversight (i.e., essentially none) than even op-eds and editorials, which we already don't consider reliable even if they're published in a much better source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but these sources are not advertising 15.ai, which makes it valid. In fact, they talk about 15.ai from a neutral stance and its impact on the voice space before transitioning into an advertisement for their own service. For that reason I believe the New York Times analogy is apt. 172.56.73.59 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ads on the NYT are reliable for limited content in line with ABOUTSELF for the NYT, they are not reliable for statements about third parties. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No, an advertisement is not a reliable source for claims about the advertiser's competition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but these sources also appear to potentially be a case of WP:REFLOOP. See [68]. Speechify is the oldest extant one, published November 19, 2023. The revision I checked it against is from November 1, 2023. As the check demonstrates, Speechify in some instances uses language verbatim from the article such as an assortment of fictional characters from a variety of media sources and otherwise makes small tweaks and changes to the language such as Launched in early 2020, 15.ai began as a proof of concept of the democratization of voice acting and dubbing using technology. Its gratis and non-commercial nature (with the only stipulation being that the project be properly credited when used) vs Speechify's The platform was designed for the democratization of voice acting and dubbing using technology and allowed anyone to use it for free, with the only stipulation being that the project had to be for non-commercial use only, and the platform had to be properly credited when used. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation of Discogs

Nipping RFC, this is unnecessary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb huh? What do you mean "Nipping"? Graywalls (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See wikt:nip/wikt:nip in the bud. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we depreciate the use of Discogs as unreliable source, as per previous discussion at 2019 RfC, there is a current consensus against discouraging and deprecating the use of Discogs as a source on Wikipedia. 45.221.76.126 (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it shouldn't be cited as a source. The scans of the cover art are fine to reference and cite as AV media. I do think linking as an external link should be encouraged, as exhaustive tracklisting of versions of an album, and exhaustive personnel lists, are discouraged on Wikipedia and thus Discogs is the appropriate resource for that information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Though the closer states that there was "consensus against discouraging and deprecating the use of Discogs as a source on Wikipedia", reading through the RfC it seems specifically that the use of Discogs as an external link was supported, but use of it as a citation is discouraged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As a frequent user of {{Discogs master}}, I fully agree with 3family6. Discogs is a user-generated source, so it should not be used (I routinely remove it), and when it could be used, you can just cite physical copies with {{cite AV media notes}}. But as an external link, it's incredibly useful. Listing 20 different versions of an album and minor differences between them, especially if there are no reliable sources discussing it, is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. But that's what Discogs excels at. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 15:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I've nipped the RFC as pointless. Consensus is clear on Discog. No as a source, fine as an external link. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There's an [unclosed RFC] related to this topic from two months ago, archived without action. Safrolic (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Forum post by a company employee

I was gathering information to expand the DJI Mini article and I came across the fact that the Mini 3 Pro variant has three different model numbers. This isn't uncommon for DJI drones, as differing model numbers usually indicate minor specification differences or upgrades. I went digging for answers, but the only potential source I could find with an explanation was this post in the official DJI forum by a DJI employee. Would this fall under the "subject-matter expert" (or similar) exception of WP:SPS? I assume it would, but I've never seen an example of a forum post falling under this exception, so I thought I'd ask here before attempting to use it. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe closer to an WP:ABOUTSELF (with associated stricter requirements), considering they are speaking as an employee "in the name of" the company? IMO, it can be used like this or analogously, but I would encourage a high degree of caution. FortunateSons (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All-time Athletics

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/index.html

This site lists various all-time performances in athletics events and appears to be singlehandedly maintained by Peter Larsson. Several athlete articles have a "track records" section that used this site as a source to determine the fastest performance in X event in X city.

Certainly an impressive collection of athletics results, but is it reliable for Wiki? The World Athletics all-time list is probably a better choice.

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

KnowledgeIsPower9281, per the guideline on self-published sources, this website is unreliable. This is a passion project with no editorial control over entries. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought...thanks for confirming! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)