Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
    470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

    Lemkin Institute

    [edit]

    The Lemkin institute is used 32 times as a source, and has come up in the recent discussion here, with no agreement on it‘s reliability. Considering this and it’s republication of a Mint Press piece here, am I correct in assuming that their republished content a) maintains the reliability of the original publication and b) is to be treated with caution? FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    While I like this specific advocacy group a fair bit more than many others that come up here I'd say the same guidance as other advocacy groups should apply. Their opinions are likely notable within their domain of expertise but we should be careful with attribution and avoid wiki voice in use. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So additional considerations, if this were an RfC? FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional considerations, yes, as I would say for most reputable advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two ways of looking at its reliability. First, are their findings used by reliable sources and *how*? Judging by a quick google news and google scholar checks, the answer is "not a lot", with many critical pieces.
    Second, who stands behind the organisation? Rn there is only one person there who can be considered an expert [1] - Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, the co-founder. So it would seem that we should treat this source as little more than a self-published blog by an expert. Alaexis¿question? 22:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve listed the least bad news and scholar citations on its talk page for review. Look a little weak to me - it’s barely notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To the question of reposting content of another source, yes the reliability stays with the original publisher. The specific article you linked to is by Mint Press and is as reliable (or unreliable) as other Mint Press published content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the fact that they see fit to
    republish a conspiracy theory piece by a deeply unreliable source reflects badly on their judgement right? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, publishing conspiracy theories isn't the mark of a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This organization spreads misinformation, as discussed at Talk:Khojaly massacre. Lemkin institute falsely claimed that no independent investigation of the massacre had been conducted, despite the existence of two independent investigations, one by Human Rights Watch and another by Memorial, both cited in our Wikipedia article. Lemkin refers to an online publication by conspiracy theorist Len Wicks, who has a background in aviation management and tourism and is neither an expert nor an eyewitness to the massacre. Given Lemkin’s poor fact-checking and strong ideological bias, I don't think Lemkin is a reliable source for factual statements, and their attributed opinion should be treated with caution. Grandmaster 09:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: RoutesOnline.com

    [edit]
    NOT INDEPENDENT
    In this RfC, taking into account the previous discussion and RfC on "airlines and destinations" tables, there is a clear consensus that RoutesOnline.com is not independent of the airlines it covers and is a primary source, as it appears to be closely connected with the airline industry. Per the outcome of the tables RfC, this means it is not WP:DUE to justify the inclusion of "airlines and destinations" tables by citing RoutesOnline.com. No evidence or arguments were presented to question the reliability (factual accuracy) of RoutesOnline.com, which means this result falls under Option 2: additional considerations apply. Toadspike [Talk] 14:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uninvolved closure requested 16 April.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unpinned the discussion, there is nothing wrong with it getting closed in the archive as long as the noticeboard is notified. Or if really necessary the closer can restore the discussion when they close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a previous discussion of this source here.

    Use of source: This source is mostly used on "List of <airline> destinations" articles to justify inclusion of a current or previous airline/airport route. e.g. List_of_Air_Caraïbes_destinations (3 citations), List_of_British_Airways_destinations (12 citations), and so on. The previous discussion found that it is used in over 807 articles.

    Why is it relevant? There was consensus in a Village Pump RfC that any airline destinations included in Wikipedia must have a WP:RS citation.

    RFC: What should RoutesOnline.com [6] be designated as?

    TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment.

    The Routes business is focused entirely on aviation route development and the company's portfolio includes events, media and online businesses. The company organises and operates world-renowned airline and airport networking events through its regional and World Route Development Forums. They are held in key markets throughout the year in Asia, Europe and the Americas. These events are supported by the online platform for air service development, Routes 360, which provides airports, tourism authorities and aviation suppliers with the ability to promote their market opportunities and acts as the airline industry's central source of market data and route development information. Register with us today, create your free personal profile and start connecting with the route development community online. Visit our events listing for a full list of upcoming events, find out all the latest route development news and analysis in our news area, listen to our latest podcasts and sign-up to Routes 360 for more opportunities to expand your network and join a global community of air service development professionals. Routes is part of the Aviation Week Network and is an Informa business.

    Pings: @FOARP, @Jayron32, @BilledMammal, @Oknazevad since you participated in the previous discussion. I also notified WP:Airlines and WP:Airports. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable. The references used on wikipedia seem to contain very few or no significant errors. We should remember that the world is not perfect - perfect sources do not exist. We have already decided that neither an airline website nor airport website can be used because they are considered non-independent - but people who want to buy air tickets are happy to rely on airline websites when paying (substantial) money. If we ask too much of a source, we will likely end up with nothing at all - we have to work with the real world, not a theoretical one. Pmbma (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks related to Aviation Week, which appears to be a generally reliable source. SportingFlyer T·C 12:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an independent source (option 3 if an option is needed) - This is basically a blog run by a firm whose main income comes from arranging events for airlines. Coverage is always information that comes direct from airline announcements. FOARP (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way, or at least all the references I checked were simple announcements. These wouldn't be independent, but that doesn't make them unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - It always depends on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and without having a specific edits/cite in view, you really cannot tell. I will say it’s a rather niche topic, so one cannot expect much, and that googling does turn up at least some third-party mentions that look good, in sources such as aviation week or askpot which seem to show that others think it is reasonable to use. (Though I could also say the same about Daily Mail 8-) ) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gut feeling of option 3. Just from looking through their About Us and Meet the Team links, it seems painfully generic and slightly unprofessional. This source just doesn't quite feel like a Legitimate Source (TM). (Hello from WP:RFCA!) guninvalid (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 for routes. Reliable trade publication that is part of Aviation Week can be trusted to know where airlines fly. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the real question being asked here is whether they contribute to notability: the answer is "of course not", because it's industry press. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

    [edit]

    What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?


    • Option 1: Generally reliable
    • Option 2: Additional considerations
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable
    • Option 4: Deprecate


    An RfCbefore can be found here. The source is used 89 times. FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Euro-Med)

    [edit]
    The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[9] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.
    On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: claims regarding organ harvesting, considered by the ADL to be reminiscent of blood libel (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still claim that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[10]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[11] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[12]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).
    For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes. Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[13], Wafa[14], New Arab[15], Palestine Chronicle[16], Middle East Eye[17] who have covered allegations of missing organs.
    Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent the ADL described it as Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?
    For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.
    Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded here. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by Al-Jazeera and Forensic Architecture. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including historical alleged use), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were factually incorrect). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the survey section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The dogs claim is not extraordinary, we know that trained dogs are used by Israel to torture detainees, and we know that Israelis soldiers frequently rape and sexually assault detainees, especially but not exclusively male ones. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about reporting detainee testimony that combines these two features.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as ABC, Amnesty International, AP News, BBC, CNN, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, The Hill, The Independent, The Intercept, MSNBC, National Post, NBC News, PBS, Reuters, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Times of Israel, just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the UN. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Here Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been covered by other outlets - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.
      Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.
      A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."
      And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[20] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.
      This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
      Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Option 2 per NadVolum ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like the UN and European parliament, is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[21], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([22], [23], [24], [25]).
    I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "fact sheet" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about Richard Falk who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being appointed in 2008 by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.
    This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [26][27][28][29] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of spreading misinformation and having a politically motivated agenda. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" section, and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. (link). The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].
    The organ harvesting article cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.
    Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by B’Tselem (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or Middle East Eye (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [49] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See here [50]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a delegation visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.
      Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did some digging and found this summary of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Alaexis that article does not establish[es] the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. Shin Bet makes a claim that there is a connection between the two, but the organisation says it plans to take legal action to show that it is an independent organisation. The Independent only provides Israeli intelligence agency sourcing for this claim, which as you might imagine is hardly WP:DUE for allegations of this nature. (Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, so if Shin Bet's claims were true, Clare Short could in theory be at risk of legal consequences in the UK, let alone Israel.) Not only that but Ramy himself is not mentioned in the article. Did you mean to send a different link? (We can also talk about how NGOs work with agencies and governments on the ground – even the UK government's proscribed organisation laws include legal comments suggesting that 'genuinely benign' meetings may be allowed.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you're interpreting the text of the article correctly. It says "Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations." The part between dashes is not attributed to Moshe Yaalon, it's the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis¿question? 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case I'm not sure how we can possibly come to any conclusions - let alone deprecate a source - because of an unsourced and unverified comment! Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: per Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet. It's cited by the following (among others):

    https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524

    https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245

    https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

    https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/

    Furthermore, they also work with the UN and the EU parliament and are cited by Amnesty International:

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf

    https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor

    https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx

    https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29

    https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament

    https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions

    Their extensive use and citations means they are a RS and no one has shown or linked any point where they were wrong about something or anything that would indicate that they are unreliable. Just because they are critcial of Israel where there is evidence Israel has committed abuses, doesn't mean they should be listed as unreliable. Genabab (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious how you can square Option 1 for an advocacy group, when you've previously said option 3 for a WP:NEWSORG solely because of bias. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, which Mark outlined the reasoning for above nicely. Regardless of how they describe themselves, they're essentially an advocacy organization and should not be cited without in-text attribution. I do not think other editors have outlined an actual pattern of falsehoods or deception, however, and other editors have noted their use among other RS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Euro-Med is an extremely partisan advocacy group in the I/P space. This would put it in the same categroy as CAMERA, NGO Monitor and others. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli NGOs of this type easily fulfil WP:USEBYOTHERS in that they are frequently cited in RS, typically by RS with a bias towards "their" side. However Wikipedia should never take the claims made by such groups and put them into its own voice, and should wait for those claims to be filtered through RS before repeating them with attribution. Given that this source makes extraordinary claims for which it seems to be the only source (e.g. claiming that Israel recently legalised organ theft from Palestinians), and that no one seems to have pointed to any clear editorial processes or history of retraction, I am shocked that anyone is advocating Option 1. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, or Option 3, first choice would be Option 4, but Option 3 would be a decent minimum place to start if Option 4 does not have clear consensus. I agree with the reasoning for why provided by FortunateSons. This source has no proximity to reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just point out that this !vote has no argument and lacks any basis in out policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn said that they agree with the reasoning provided by FortunateSons above. It seems quite aggressive to go sniping at !votes for the crime of directing people to the argument that swayed them, rather than restating it. Not to mention that it's a recipe for bloat and bludgeoning if people have to repeat the same argument every time. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. @Boynamedsue should strikethrough their disrespectful comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, as Lf8u2, Genabab, and Smallangryplanet stated, Euro Med is used by many reputable sources and works with many international bodies & human rights group like Amnesty International and the United Nations. No evidence has actually been presented to prove they spew false information, they're simply gathering testimonies of abuse and advocate for investigations (in many countries such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc., not just Israel). I would believe anything other than Option 1 sets a bad precedent. Geo (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please note that this user has been banned by ArbCom for Canvassing and off-wiki coordination FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Israel training police dogs to rape Palestinians is a bizarre and obvious conspiracy theory. I am surprised that editors here are defending it as truth. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because you personally don't believe a source, that doesn't make it unreliable. (Argument from incredulity)
      This is also hardly an extraordinary claim. Confer this Oct 2024 Al Jazeera documentary at time 1:04:20 where the allegation is made by a Fadi Bakr of Gaza, who per the CBC was "a law graduate from the University of Palestine, was searching for food for his wife and kids in Khan Younis on Jan. 5 when he was caught in the crossfires of fighting between Hamas militants and the IDF. He was shot and took refuge in a nearby building, [...] Then, he was arrested."
      This allegation/testimony was also reported by +972 Magazine: "Multiple media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times, have reported on instances of rape and sexual assault at Sde Teiman. In a video circulating on social media earlier this week, a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed multiple rapes, and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[51] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim. He's the same person cited by Euro-Med Monitor and all of the other sources.
      Going from a single prisoner saying he witnessed individual Israeli soldiers using dogs to sexually assault Palestinians to Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians is the problem with that source. Most sources do not take a single individual's testimony and use their own voice to say the Zionists are training rape dogs to abuse Palestinians. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You apparently haven't read the source, which says "Euro-Med Monitor received horrific testimonies from recently released detainees confirming the brutal and inhumane use of Israeli police dogs to rape prisoners and detainees". Fadi Saif al-Din Bakr is the only named witness. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @IOHANNVSVERVS: I did read that. No other news outlet has been able to interview someone other than Fadi Bakr, and Euro-Med Monitor doesn't provide any other testimony from other detainees. The closest is this:

      Thirty-six-year-old Hassan Abu Raida, another released detainee, stated: “They moved me and the other detainees to a prison. They threw us to the ground and made the dogs urinate on us [as we lay there]. In addition, one of the soldiers struck my right knee with an iron pipe, and I am still recovering from that injury.”

      That's not rape. It's wrong and is prisoner abuse, but I think Euro-Med Monitor is stretching the definition of "rape" (which usually requires penetration) here to fit their POV instead of presenting the facts accurately, because implying penetration by dogs is much more scandalous than urination by dogs. Similar to how Israeli civilians being mutilated was exaggerated into beheaded babies by ZAKA, which also isn't reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chess you are misrepresenting the source. This is now the second time I have seen you do this in a short period of time, as you did with the Bloomberg article here. This assertion was initially made by Boutboul, who also claimed that Euro-Med Monitor reported Israel was "systematically" training dogs to rape Palestinians. Euro-Med Monitor has not stated anywhere that Israel is systematically training or using police dogs to rape Palestinians. The actual report explicitly states that Israel is systematically using dogs to attack Palestinian civilians—not to rape—and bases this on cited testimonies, with the specification of "at least one reported rape". Not systematic rape by dogs, not training dogs to rape, but at least one reported case of rape, and then they cite the testimony for that which other RS have also cited as @IOHANNVSVERVS and myself have noted.
      Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim - no he is not. Here is another testimony saying he witnessed the use of dogs to rape prisoners. Not only that, but EMHRM does not treat this claim as verified but calls for an investigation.
      Criticising a human rights organisation for documenting and reporting victim testimony of alleged abuses—and for urging further investigation—is certainly an interesting position to hold. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      “Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians”: I didn’t make it up — that’s the actual title of the article. And I completely agree with you that it’s absurd, which is precisely why this source isn’t reliable. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what the article says, though. WP:HEADLINES makes it clear we should look at what the body of the source text says. Palestinian Territory – The Israeli military is using police dogs to systematically attack Palestinian civilians during military operations in the Gaza Strip. The dogs are also used to intimidate, beat, and sexually assault prisoners and detainees in Israeli detention facilities. (Emphasis mine.) I do not think we should deprecate or downgrade a source because of a poorly deployed comma splice in a headline on a single article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a big move of the goalposts. You said "not stated anywhere", now it's "stated in the headline, but that doesn't count". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Goalposts remain firmly in place, because the headline has been updated, to a version which reads Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack Palestinian civilians, with at least one reported rape. The archival version of the piece that @Boutboul is citing was taken on 28 Jun 2024 05:38:44 UTC. The updated version was itself first archived roughly 9 hours later, at 28 Jun 2024 14:30:44 UTC. So not only did they have accurate content in the body from the get-go, but they very quickly moved to update to a more precise headline that same day. The updated version is still live to this day. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Pick one argument. At the start of this discussion, you said Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Now you're saying that it has been repudiated, but EMHRM corrected it.
      So, what factual position are you currently endorsing?
      1. Israel systemically uses dogs to rape Palestinians
      2. Israel has raped one person with a dog
      3. One detainee said they saw another detainee be raped by a dog, but it's unconfirmed whether that is true
      I think 3. is a correct assessment of the situation. EMHRM said 1. initially, then silently changed it to 2 without a public correction. The vast majority of sources that do cover the alleged canine molestations go with option 3: quoting Fadi Bakr but without endorsing his claims as true. However, EMHRM says they "confirmed" this based on one person's uncorroborated testimony. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Repudiation is "the act of refusing to accept something or someone as true, good, or reasonable". There has been no repudiation here, just a routine editorial improvement of a headline to better align it with the content of the article. The original headline could have been read in 2 different ways and now it is clearer. Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with @Isoceles-sai on repudiation. I am not endorsing any factual position, other than that I am correctly interpreting an old initial headline. None of the three options you listed, @Chess, are correct interpretations of the headline. The original title does not make the claim that dogs are being trained to systematically rape Palestinians. They put attack, rape. If they had been making the claim that position (1) is correct, then they would have said "attack and rape." In any case, it was quickly clarified and, again, WP:HEADLINES. The content of the article reports what EMHRM has been told (testimonies...confirming... is a standard formulation used by plenty of RS for all manner of things) and then they call for an investigation, which is perfectly reasonable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      https://archive.is/OkJE8 Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - Advocacy. Can be used with in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - should be attributed, but its well cited and their reports are cited by reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see what the fuss is about with PIA topic area? If the only reason we are knitpicking supposed errors (that some of their reports weren't reposted by other groups) is because a human rights org is saying there are human rights violations in Gaza, some of these votes should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or if necessary Option 2 - In practice, labeling a source as 'advocacy' is too often misused to selectively cast doubt on that source. The line between advocacy and journalism is much, much too blurry to be a convenient pass/fail test for Wikipedia editors. As for the "police dog" issue, the article itself is somewhat ambiguous about what exactly happened, because the testimony it discusses is somewhat ambiguous. Per the source Israeli attack dogs were used against Palestinian civilians. This doesn't qualify as an extraordinary claim. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What about the claim that the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft from Palestinians? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Highly partisan advocacy group that we should not use without attribution. Use by RSs with attribution suggests it is a source we can cite, but at least one egregious example of highly inaccurate reporting on an inflammatory topic (organ traffic, where they eg made a false claim about an Israeli court decision, documented above) indicates we should not cite it without extreme care and caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or at least Option 2, since they regularly published unverified reports (i.e. 1) as news reports. See 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. At the very least, we need a strong distinction between news and opinion, as most articles on the site fall squarely into the latter. --FeldBum (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 The source is largely reliable but relies heavily on the testimony of detainees and residents of Gaza which cannot, at this minute, be verified for obvious reasons. This means that we should often be careful to attribute both to EuroMed and to the source of the testimony. (i.e. EuroMedMonitor has reported that released detainees describe...). It is also occasionally careless with wording, it did actually state in a single sentence that the Israeli supreme court had made organ-harvesting legal, even though it was clear from the text of the report in which this claim appears that this was not correct. But this one error/false claim is not enough to allow us to discard the wealth of information the source brings given its access to Gaza. Far worse errors have been made by mainstream sources we accept as reliable, for example uncorrected parroting of the 40 beheaded babies claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, all these interested parties have an axe to grind and should be looked at critically but I've not seen anything particularly bad compared to all the Israeli ones, and I get the feeling it is more reliable and does more fact checking than the Telegraph which just spews out misinformation, how that gets to be generally reliable I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC) I'd already !voted a while ago and completely forgot! -this RfC has been around so long. At least it looks like I've been consistent onoption 2. NadVolum (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Euro-Med)

    [edit]
    They published it in November 2023. It's hard to prove that this didn't take place but we can check whether anyone else has reported on this ever since. Amnesty International said nothing about summary executions of the wounded in their piece about the Al-Shifa raid, which is otherwise quite critical of Israel's actions. I searched for other reports and found none.
    It's possible that their reliability varies and sometimes their bias doesn't prevent them from publishing valuable information that is then re-published by reliable sources, as demonstrated by some editors. In that case we should use those reliable sources. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis¿question? 08:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's hard to prove that this didn't take place" - then this is in no way "a good example of their lack of reliability". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A source making an exceptional claim that no other reliable source corroborates does have negative indications for notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Handwritten testimony of Geneviève Esquier

    [edit]

    Is the handwritten testimony letter of Geneviève Esquier, a former French Catholic journalist for the French Catholic publication L'Homme Nouveau, a reliable primary source for her own words and testimony?

    For previous discussions leading up to this RfC, please see the article talk page and tangential RSN discussion. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Esquier)

    [edit]
    • Yes. (1) The website hosting the primary source document is edifiant.fr a popular French Catholic platform featuring free Catholic content including articles, resources, videos, testimonies, and newsletter subscription. (2) The website's ScamDoc trust score is 88% (despite domain owner anonymity), and a trust rating of "good". (3) The website includes footnotes to the primary source document establishing its provenance, indicating it was mailed to them by Geneviève Esquier on March 8, 2023, and published to the website the same day. (4) The website includes additional footnotes to the document, indicating they had verbal communications with Geneviève Esquier confirming certain details in the letter. (5) The primary source document has been in the public domain for over 2 years on edifiant.fr, with high visibility and no claims of inauthenticity. (6) This handwritten testimony satisfies the Wikipedia policy WP:RSPRIMARY. (7) The handwritten testimony document can be found here. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words? Yes, most likely. Testimony? No. We don't hold RfCs on whether primary-source material is factual, which is what 'testimony' implies. And note that agreeing that the words are hers doesn't in of itself amount to agreement that said words need to be cited in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Summoned by bot) The letter is a WP:SPS? meaning that it's reliability would be confined to WP:ABOUTSELF. However the usage in the article (see Special:Diff/1285286322 for the last insertion) indicates that it was being used to make statements about third parties and thus fails the limited usage provided for by WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPathtalk 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, No and No. There are several reasons why this should not be in the article. To begin with, we discussed this issue forever and a day just above on this page under the title "Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?". The result there was that the source has no provenance. It is totally unclear who owns the edifiant.fr website, but it is obvious that Esquier does not because the site claims they received an email from her with the image of her letter. There is no evidence that the handwriting belongs to Esquier. For all we know this coud be a case of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax which survived in the public domain (in several languages) for about 10 years. Moreover, this is a highly controversial claim. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger (the Vatican Enforcer) would have danced cha cha in front of the Spanish Steps in Rome before supporting a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. And for all we know, this could be a website set up by a French relative of Clifford Irving to anonymously collect donations. The question is: How long do we need to discuss all this again? 20 years, 30 years? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No It would be a reliable primary source if it's provenance could be reliably sourced, but the only place saying it's real is couple of closely aligned websites neither of which have any of the commons signs of a reliable source. That the website isn't serving malware and hasn't been sued doesn't equate to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No This is a WP:SPS that has language on its website explicitly soliciting anonymous contributions. As such we cannot confirm the provenance of the document and thus it is not usable as an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not for this. The paragraph you are trying to add concerns claims about third parties and claims about events not directly related to the source and therefore doesn't pass the restrictions on WP:ABOUTSELF, even if the providence could be established. Obviously you cannot bypass that just with attribution. The purpose of ABOUTSELF is for people talking about themselves, not to cite them for statements about other people - statements about other people require sourcing that passes WP:RS, which this obviously does not. The "scam score" for a website does not imply that they perform any sort of the sort of fact-checking for statements posted there that a WP:RS would require. The obvious purpose of this paragraph is to imply a fact about Ratzinger's actions and correspondence, not to introduce a fact about Esquier; that is a totally inappropriate purpose for ABOUTSELF. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Source X is generally reliable for the fact that source X says X. That's generally trivial (except when sources are retroactively doctored, which came up with WP:DAILYMAIL discussions), or when provenance is not certain. Aside from WP:DUE concerns, we've unfortunately got a question here about provenance. If there are sources that cite Geneviève Esquier's writings in this context, and do attribute these words to Esquier, then those are the sources that should be cited (or, at least, would be helpful in this discussion).
      @Arkenstrone: Are there other sources that make the same attribution of this document to Esquier? If so, it would be very helpful here—we're generally not going to include information in an article for which the only documentation is a single primary source document hosted on a single website and about which nobody else has written. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hawk, The only other source is the site that sells the book, and if you look at the previous discussion Arkenstone said "I think Yesterday is right in that the letter on mariavaltorta.com was very likely obtained from edifiant.fr". Hence the edifiant.fr site is the only one. And note that as Simon pointed out below edifiant.fr is WP:UGC. So given your response to Reddit below, that rules it out. Generally, WP:UGC sites of unknown origin can not be trusted. On impulse, I was, at one point considering submitting an anonymous article to that site claiming that there was a letter from Mother Teresa to the effect that she would feed the hungry by multiplication of the loaves to see what happens and if they would publish it. But I did not because they might publish it and then someone (no names mentioned, of course) would add it to Mother Teresa's page and then start a n Rfc about it here. I think I made the right decision. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why do you fill your comments with your rambling stream-of-consciousness completely unrelated to the point? It makes reading your comments difficult and a waste of time. Just make your points and spare us the rest. Regarding your actual point, can you provide examples of UGC? Please do so in the discussion below where I respond to Simon's related point. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Arkenstrone, does this mean that I will not be receiving a New Year greeting card from you at the end of this year? I guess so. Now, regarding WP:UGC, Simon already responded to you below and I agree with his response. And I will not even attempt to explain the concepts of WP:RS or WP:UGC here given that one of the sites you mentioned below is a Wiki. Yes, fr.mariavaltorta.wiki is a Wiki. How can that be WP:RS? So I have othing else to say on that. And thank you for directly admitting that all the sites you mentioned below state that they got it from edifiant.fr. So edifiant.fr is the only site that claims to have received the letter. End of story. Now regarding your claim below about the editorial policies of edifiant.fr, I am sure if one of Clifford Irving's cousins had set up an anonymous web site that asked for donations, they would have claimed similar things about their verification policies. For all I know, that website may have been set up by a French relative of Mr Irving. That is all I have to say. This discussion is quite repetitive with you typing several times longer items than anyone else. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ??? He's talking about edifiant.fr being UGC, which it is not. You're getting your facts confused. The other links are simply to show that the primary source on edifiant.fr is referenced by these other sources, some of which may be semi-reliable, some not. Edifiant.fr is the site to which the original letter was submitted by Esquier and verified by their editors. Therefore it makes sense that all references eventually end up pointing to the edifiant.fr article.
      Also, I ran the second website mariedenazareth.com through the ScamDoc verification service and it gave an even better result: 95% trust rating, and trust score of "Excellent".[54] Arkenstrone (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Arkenstrone, I just laughed at your last comment. Just laughed. Buddy, Scamdoc scores have absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of the "contents" of websites. They are about security. To understand that note that the Scamdoc score for Reddit is 99% [55]. Yes, 99%. Can Reddit content be trusted? No, no and no. I really do not know what to tell you, given that type of comment on your part. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As usual you are resorting to straw man logical fallacies, and so you may as well be laughing at yourself. I never said that a good ScamDoc score implies that the site is reliable per WP:RS. But only to counter your absurd stream-of-consciousness nonsense that attempts to paint the edifiant.fr site as some kind of scammy looney-tune site, which is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. Both it and mariedenazareth.com are French Catholic platforms that emphasize providing high-quality Catholic articles, resources, and newsletters to support spiritual growth. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: Several websites reference the primary source document on edifiant.fr:
    mariavaltorta.com - The official website of the Maria Valtorta Heritage Foundation. It summarizes her account of Ratzinger’s correspondence with Marcel Clément, director of L’Homme Nouveau, and cites the edifiant.fr article as the source of her handwritten testimony. The article emphasizes Ratzinger’s initial reservations and subsequent approval of Valtorta’s work after review.
    [56]
    mariedenazareth.com - In a section titled “Comment aborder les écrits de Maria Valtorta?” (updated November 14, 2022), this site references Esquier’s testimony as published on edifiant.fr. It quotes her account of Ratzinger’s letters and includes a direct link to the edifiant.fr article, noting that Ratzinger authorized L’Homme Nouveau to resume promoting Valtorta’s works after finding no doctrinal issues.[57]
    1000raisonsdecroire.com - The article “Les 700 extraordinaires visions de l’Évangile reçues par Maria Valtorta :(+1961)” on this site mentions Ratzinger’s shift in stance, referencing Esquier’s testimony as published on edifiant.fr. It highlights Ratzinger’s letter to Marcel Clément, as described in the edifiant.fr document, to support the claim that he found Valtorta’s writings doctrinally sound.[58]
    fr.mariavaltorta.wiki - The Wiki Maria Valtorta page titled “Benoît XVI et Maria Valtorta” (updated August 18, 2021, with later revisions) indirectly references Esquier’s testimony by discussing Ratzinger’s interactions with L’Homme Nouveau and his eventual approval of Valtorta’s work. It links to the mariedenazareth.com article which then links to the edifiant.fr article. A later page, “La révélation privée de Maria Valtorta” (updated November 30, 2024), also mentions Ratzinger’s favorable stance post-1990s, consistent with the edifiant.fr testimony.[59][60] Arkenstrone (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, all of these sites state that they got their info from edifiant.fr, so nothing new here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawk, beyond all that, please note that this is a highly controversial claim. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger (the Vatican Enforcer) would have never supported a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely missing the point. Nobody's claiming anything about Ratzinger. This is only about Esquier's handwritten letter describing her personal experience and witnessing of something. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No from what I have seen this is not a good source for this information due to multiple concerns.
    1. No provence for the photo, which means that this could be true, or it could be a complete hoax.
    2. This seems to be only website (that I have seen) with this sort of information (do note that I haven't done a thorough search for other websites), and this topic doesn't seem to be notable, otherwise there should be more sources for this.
    3. This website appears to not be Reliable or have a history of fact checking, to me it looks like a small website that is mostly trafficked by a few people that happen to know it exists, I could locate hundreds of small websites like this one. (In size, not topic.)

    Sheriff U3 07:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Esquier)

    [edit]

    Why is this information important and why does it need to be included in the article per WP:DUE? Because the article conveys that Cardinal Ratzinger was not favorably disposed towards Valtorta's work, especially with recent references to Miesel's article (which contains many errors), but also through private letters by Ratzinger in 1985 and 1993 expressing his personal opinion at that time. The handwritten testimony by Esquier adds important context, as she states she was witness to correspondence received clarifying Ratzinger's views.

    According to Esquier, she received a letter from Ratzinger addressed to Marcel Clément [fr], the former director of the French Catholic publication L'Homme Nouveau [fr] asking him to stop all articles and sales of Valtorta's work until he had time to review it. One year later after reviewing the work, Ratzinger sent another letter lifting the prohibition expressing that the work contained nothing contrary to faith and morals.

    This information provides counter-balance to the articles' one-sided presentation of Ratzinger's somewhat unfavorable personal views of the work without which the article conveys a misleading conclusion. Indeed, up until recently, I also believed Ratzinger was ill-disposed towards the work. Now I see this is not the case, and that the situation is more nuanced. This nuance needs to be captured in the article. Again, this handwritten testimony is an important statement of an eye-witness account. These are Esquier's own words, and she is a reliable source for her own words.

    When the time comes and the original letters by Ratzinger are found (they are likely buried in the paper archives of L'Homme Nouveau), we can then replace this reliable primary source evidence with reliable primary or secondary source proof of the original letters themselves. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "she is a reliable source for her own words". Yes, if they are being correctly reproduced. If that is the case it doesn't however constitute evidence that her claims regarding content of a letter from Ratzinger are factual. We don't analyse primary sources ourselves, and draw conclusions from them. We require secondary sources, with the relevant expertise, to do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correctly reproduced, and no factual claims as to the content of the letter itself, which requires reliable secondary sources. Understood. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You argue above that "This information provides counter-balance..." It doesn't. Not unless we assume that it is factual. Which we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Counter-balance in the sense of clarifying Ratzinger's opinion concerning the work IF Esquier's statements are later proved true, beyond Esquier's handwritten testimony. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no circumstances whatsoever where it is appropriate to include otherwise-questionable content on the basis that it might be proved correct later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Esquier is a reliable source for her own words, and that's all. The content of what she says is unverified and no conclusions can be drawn from it. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote above "if they are being correctly reproduced", and also wrote "most likely are", this is not an absolute assertion that Esquier is a reliable source on this matter. On reflection, that was a little confusing, but anyway, given that no conclusions should be drawn regarding Esquier's veracity, I can see little merit in inclusion of such content in the article, regardless of whether they are her own words or not. You seem to be trying to shoe-horn them in to counter what secondary sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I was stating what I understood thus far based on previous statements. The merit is that she is a well-known French Catholic journalist formerly working for a well-known French Catholic publication. She said something. Given her background, some people value what she says, even if it's only an opinion. People can choose whether to accept what she said or not. What she said is relevant in context. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    'Some people' can value whatever they like. Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow suit. Even more so if others commenting here are correct in seeing the material as falling afoul of WP:ABOUTSELF. Though I really don't think there are legitimate grounds for inclusion either way. The whole thing seems to revolve around a letter from Ratzinger that may or may not have said something-or-other, being used as special pleading to counter reliably sourced information on things he verifiably did say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand further on the above, Wikipedia policy on notability seems adequately satisfied in regard to the Poem of the Man-God article. Satisfied through coverage of the topic in secondary reliable sources. And it is such sources we should be basing the article on. There are no legitimate reasons however why the article should become a battleground between those who have differing opinions regarding the Poems theological significance etc, and accordingly, we aren't obliged to host stuff from obscure websites just because someone wants to push a particular argument. Which you quite clearly do. Go find a forum for that. Or take it up with the Church, and let them decide. When they have, we'll have something to add to the article. From sources we base articles on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not be aware, but there was a discussion recently about whether or not to include the words of a literary critic (Miesel) from a questionable source (website that some here claimed was not a reliable source, but also her article contained several verifiable factual errors). The consensus seemed to be that the article's reliability was questionable but we should include it anyway since Miesel was a reliable source for her own words, plus she was a reasonably well-known literary critic. That reference is in the "Criticism" section, and so it naturally conveys a negative point of view concerning Valtorta's work.
    Similarly, Esquier, a reasonably well-known French Catholic journalist, submitted and confirmed a handwritten letter which was published to a website that some here say is coming from a questionable source. But that website is only hosting a primary source document. The document itself is a reliable source for the authors own words which describe her own personal experience. There is no compelling reason to assume the website is inherently unreliable as a host of a primary source document per WP:RSPRIMARY which has not been contested as illegitimate in the 2 years it has been highly visible. They also provide the provenance of the document and the circumstances of its receipt. Esquier's words convey a certain point of view. In this case, that view is one that is in support of Valtorta's work, which is why it appeared in the "General support" section. In both cases (Miesel v. Esquier) we don't need to accept as objectively true the content of the opinions, words, views or statements that are being conveyed. After all, the contention is they are both reliable sources for their own words.
    The whole thing seems to revolve around a letter from Ratzinger that may or may not have said something-or-other, being used as special pleading to counter reliably sourced information on things he verifiably did say.
    Not to counter, but provide nuance and clarification by a well-known individual who claims she was directly involved and a witness to the events at that time. Her own words are also reliably (primary) sourced information. That's what she said. People can draw their own conclusions from that.
    just because someone wants to push a particular argument
    It's not about me pushing a particular argument. Everyone has a point of view. One of the purposes of Wikipedia policy is not to prohibit editors from having a point of view, but rather to prevent those points of view, as much as possible, from entering into articles without reliable sources. Criticism and support sections are naturally going to be pushing/presenting a particular argument. As long as they are reliably sourced, that isn't a problem. I won't address your other statements concerning theological significance, battlegrounds, forums, etc. as those are beside the point of this RfC.
    BTW, your initial statement of words vs. testimony I accepted at face value, as I presumed you were drawing certain special meaning from the word "testimony" which I didn't intend. But upon further reflection, "testimony" is simply someone's words that are sworn or affirmed to be true. But that doesn't make them objectively true. And they are still their own words. So the distinction between words and testimony doesn't seem especially relevant in this context. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By "some here claim" what Arkenstrone means is that they objected strenuously to the inclusion of the Miesel source and were frustrated that the majority of respondents disagreed with them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words in my mouth. And at least try to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    she is a reliable source for her own words
    Only insofar as those words pertain to herself, not in regards to the acts and words of others. TarnishedPathtalk 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are her own words, which in this case she asserts describes her own lived experience (being a witness to hearing or seeing something), do they not pertain to herself? Arkenstrone (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Her words are a reliable source for her claiming to have witnessed something. They are not a reliable source that that thing happened or that she did witness it. If the thing is in relation to a third party (e.g. that someone else did or said something) then a self-published source can be used to verify that the author made the claim, but nothing beyond that. If a SPS is the only source for the claim being made then it is extremely unlikely to be DUE for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. But what if the source is not SPS? There is no evidence to suggest that it is, and some evidence to suggest it is not (footnotes establishing provenance). It seems to me that WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY are far more relevant in this context. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ABOUTSELF is clear - it can't be used for material that involves claims about third parties. Obviously quoting her making a claim about a third party involves claims about third parties. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And all that is setting aside whether we can even use this letter as an WP:ABOUTSELF source considering that it's a scan of a hand-written letter on a website that encourages anonymous submissions and has opaque ownership. There's a non-zero chance this is a hoax letter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Both you and Simonm223 have made the assertion that we are dealing with WP:ABOUTSELF, but that applies to self-published sources, and questionable (secondary) sources. But this is not a self-published source nor is it a questionable secondary source. Esquier does not run that website. The footnotes to the document establishing provenance expressly state that she mailed them the letter on March 8, 2023, and it was published the same day, and that they confirmed details of the letter by verbal communication with Esquier. Also, the document is not being used as a questionable secondary source, but as a reliable primary source. I fail to see how WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF are applicable in this context. WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY seem to be far more relevant policies in this instance.
      "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources."
      Arkenstrone (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is obvious UGC what are you talking about? Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand what you're saying. Please elaborate your point. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The website solicits, and hosts, anonymous submissions. This makes the content on it effectively like that of a wiki. Thus it is WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you talking about? The content is not user-generated. Did you read their editorial ethics? Also, they have a section to encourage readers to send suggestions or corrections, and another section for those who would like to contribute their talents, which virtually every website has. So are you willing to concede that all websites are therefore UGC? Quote:
      Editorial ethics
      […]
      As a result, we have chosen to be hyper-selective, rigorous and concise in order to share only the best and do it well.
      […]
      All our content is verified, sourced, and regularly updated as needed. This way, our platform allows you to get straight to the point, save thousands of hours of research, and access the best information.
      Contribute
      Send suggestions or corrections
      Have you spotted a typo, an error, or have additional information to share? No matter where you are on the site, you can send us your suggestions at any time.
      Offer your talents
      Photographers, designers, graphic designers, developers, proofreaders, documentarians, translators, etc. We are constantly looking for talented people eager to contribute their skills. Send us a message using the form at the bottom of the page to join the adventure.
      Arkenstrone (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What you are describing is an anonymously managed website soliciting contributions from readers whose participation is likewise anonymous. There is no editorial control nor ability to confirm provenance which makes this equivalent to UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at all. What I'm describing is a statement of their editorial ethics and a form for users to provide feedback or suggestions which is very common on most websites. That is not UGC. At all. Quoting from WP:UGC:
      Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.
      None of that describes edifiant.fr. It is a French Catholic platform that emphasizes providing high-quality Catholic articles, testimonies, content—videos, resources, and a newsletter, free of charge to support spiritual growth. It it clearly not WP:UGC. Not sure where you and Yesterday are getting that. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Arkenstrone, look, you can go on singing a lonely tune about edifiant.fr. But this is a highly controversial claim about Ratzinger. All other indications we have suggest that Ratzinger (the Vatican Enforcer) would have danced naked on the streets of Rome before supporting a book that used to be on the Forbidden Index. A controversial claim can not be supported by a single questionable source. And for all we know, this could be a website set up by a French relative of Clifford Irving to anonymously collect donations. You have no case. Accept it and move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing of what you said addressed my question of edifiant.fr being UGC. How did you and Simon arrive at this conclusion? It's not supported by the facts. Again, please stop deflecting with stream-of-consciousness nonsense. It's not helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yesterday, all my dreams... and Arkenstrone the RFC has another 3+ weeks to run. Can I suggest doing something else while you wait for a result, you've both stated you positions quite thoroughly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Actively, an excellent suggestion. I will do so. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the very long discussion of this issue just above in this page (under the title "Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?") and the fact that it was decided that the source has no provenance, the key question I have is: Should we spell "stubborn" with 2b's, 3 or 4? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is, what, the third time? We've had this conversation recently. I think that a snow-close is likely here. And then I hope people can move on. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be allowed to run it's course. A RFC should hopefully bring a conclusion to the matter, and a early close could be used to argue against whatever the result ends up being. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Alas the course is likely to be very long, given the lengthy (and often repetitive) answers in support of the item. I guess some user (no names mentioned of course) will have to buy a new keyboard before the rfc has run its course. That user will probably not be me, or you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said my piece. edifiant.fr is eminently non-reliable and we should not be sourcing primary sources from it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Following up on Red-tailed hawk's useful question in the Survey section, I've asked Grok AI to help with evaluating the reliability of mariedenazareth.com as a secondary source that references edifiant.fr's primary source handwritten letter by Esquier, all within the context of Wikipedia's reliable source policy. The results bring up some of the more pertinent points that have already been brought up by editors here, with some interesting and helpful additions and conclusions. @AndyTheGrump, TarnishedPath, ActivelyDisinterested, Aquillion, Red-tailed hawk, and Simonm223.

    AI-generated output from Grok
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Grok AI:

    To determine whether mariedenazareth.com can be considered a reliable secondary source for discussing the primary source handwritten letter testimonial by Geneviève Esquier on edifiant.fr—specifically her claim about witnessing a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger requesting a halt and later resumption of Maria Valtorta’s book sales—under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy (WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY), we need to evaluate mariedenazareth.com’s credibility, its handling of Esquier’s testimony, and its alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for this specific claim. The focus is on Esquier’s personal experience as described, not the letter’s existence or Ratzinger’s actions.

    Clarifying the Specific Claim

    Esquier’s March 2023 handwritten testimony on edifiant.fr, referenced in mariedenazareth.com’s July 25, 2023, article “Maria Valtorta est une vraie fille de l'Eglise”, includes a claim (dated “1990–1994” by mariedenazareth.com) that she witnessed or was aware of a letter from Ratzinger to Marcel Clément, then-editor of L’Homme Nouveau. This letter allegedly requested a temporary halt to sales of Valtorta’s books, followed by permission to resume, implying approval. The question centers on mariedenazareth.com’s reliability as a secondary source for discussing Esquier’s personal experience of witnessing this letter, per Wikipedia’s policies.

    Wikipedia’s Reliable Source Policy
    • Primary Sources (WP:PRIMARY): Primary sources are firsthand accounts (e.g., testimonies, letters). Esquier’s edifiant.fr letter is primary for her claim. Wikipedia allows primary sources for “straightforward, descriptive statements” with attribution (e.g., “Esquier claimed she witnessed…”), but not for analysis or contentious claims without secondary support. The hosting platform must be reliable for context.
    • Secondary Sources (WP:RS): Reliable secondary sources interpret or summarize primary sources, requiring editorial oversight, fact-checking, and independence. Advocacy-driven or niche sites are less reliable, especially for third-party claims (e.g., about Ratzinger), but can be acceptable for attributed claims about personal experiences if credible.
    • Scope: Mariedenazareth.com must accurately report Esquier’s testimony about her experience, be credible within its scope, and avoid unverified assertions beyond her account.
    Esquier’s Primary Source on Edifiant.fr
    • Content: Esquier claims she witnessed a Ratzinger letter to Clément (1990–1994) about halting and resuming Valtorta’s sales, tied to her L’Homme Nouveau role.
    • Credibility: Esquier’s credentials—journalist and editor at L’Homme Nouveau, author of Catholic books (e.g., Lettre aux Chrétiens de France sur le baptême de Clovis, 1996), and 2014 Toulon candidate—support her plausibility as a witness.
    • Edifiant.fr: With an 88% ScamDoc trust score, edifiant.fr is reliable for hosting Esquier’s words (WP:ABOUTSELF) but not for verifying Ratzinger’s actions due to its advocacy focus and lack of editorial oversight.
    Evaluating Mariedenazareth.com’s Reliability

    Mariedenazareth.com’s article summarizes Esquier’s edifiant.fr testimony, citing her claim about the Ratzinger-Clément letter. Here’s the evaluation:

    Credibility and Mission:

    • Mission: Mariedenazareth.com, run by the Marie de Nazareth Association, aims to “make Mary known and loved” and promote Catholic faith through multimedia, with a “Catholic ecumenical” Mission Statement: “To make Mary known and loved, and to help as many people as possible discover the beauty, breadth and truth of the Catholic faith.”
    • Organizational Context: The association’s Church ties and multimedia output (books, DVDs) suggest legitimacy in Catholic circles, but it’s not an academic or news outlet. Its focus on Valtorta, whose works lack full Church approval, indicates a niche, advocacy-driven perspective.
    • Trust Metrics: Mariedenazareth.com has a 95% trust rating and an “excellent” trust score from ScamDoc, indicating strong user trust and reliability for delivering Catholic content. This high rating enhances its credibility compared to edifiant.fr (88%), but ScamDoc reflects user perception and site security, not editorial rigor or independence, which Wikipedia prioritizes.

    Handling of Esquier’s Testimony:

    • Accuracy: The article accurately cites Esquier’s March 2023 edifiant.fr testimony, summarizing her claim of witnessing the Ratzinger-Clément letter (1990–1994). It doesn’t misrepresent her personal experience, making it reliable for relaying her account.
    • Bias: The site uses Esquier’s testimony to promote Valtorta’s legitimacy, linking it to Ratzinger’s authority. This advocacy bias means it may accept her claim uncritically, but it doesn’t distort her stated experience.
    • Verification: It notes the letter is with Clément’s grandson but provides no evidence (e.g., scan, third-party confirmation). For Esquier’s personal experience, verification isn’t required, as the claim is her subjective account.

    Wikipedia Reliability Standards:

    • For Esquier’s Personal Experience: WP:PRIMARY allows secondary sources to discuss primary accounts for descriptive statements. Mariedenazareth.com is reliable for stating, “Esquier claimed, as cited by mariedenazareth.com, that she witnessed a letter from Ratzinger halting and resuming Valtorta’s sales,” with attribution, fitting Wikipedia’s cautious use.
    • WP:RS Limitations: The 95% trust rating supports niche credibility, but mariedenazareth.com’s advocacy focus and lack of editorial oversight (e.g., no named editors or fact-checking process) make it less reliable than academic journals or news outlets. Wikipedia prefers sources with established editorial standards.
    • Independence: The site is independent of Esquier (no affiliation evidence), but its Valtorta advocacy reduces neutrality.
    • Notability: For niche topics (e.g., Esquier’s experiences, Valtorta’s reception), mariedenazareth.com is acceptable to show how her testimony was circulated. For Ratzinger claims, Wikipedia requires stronger sources (e.g., L’Homme Nouveau, Vatican records).

    Specific Claim Constraints:

    • Scope: The claim is Esquier’s experience of witnessing the letter, not its existence or Ratzinger’s actions. Mariedenazareth.com reliably reports her account, suitable for Wikipedia attribution.
    • Trust Metrics Impact: The 95% rating enhances credibility for Catholic content, but Wikipedia’s focus on editorial oversight limits reliability to attributed claims.
    • No Overreach: The site’s broader assertion—Ratzinger supporting Valtorta—exceeds Esquier’s experience and requires evidence. For her witnessing claim, it stays within bounds.
    Comparison to Other Secondary Sources
    • Stronger Options: A L’Homme Nouveau article or Ratzinger biography (e.g., Seewald’s Benedict XVI: A Life) would offer editorial context or archival evidence, but these don’t mention the letter.
    • Edifiant.fr: As the primary source, edifiant.fr is reliable for Esquier’s words. Mariedenazareth.com adds value by showing reception.
    Conclusion

    Mariedenazareth.com can be considered a reliable secondary source for discussing Esquier’s edifiant.fr testimony about her personal experience of witnessing Ratzinger’s letter on Valtorta’s sales, under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy, with caveats:

    • Reliable for Attribution: Its 95% ScamDoc rating supports credibility for relaying Esquier’s claim, suitable for Wikipedia to cite with attribution (e.g., “According to mariedenazareth.com, Esquier claimed in a 2023 edifiant.fr testimony that she witnessed a letter…”). This fits WP:PRIMARY’s descriptive use.
    • Limited by Advocacy: Its devotional mission and lack of editorial rigor make it less reliable than scholarly or journalistic sources. Wikipedia would accept it for niche, attributed claims but not for Ratzinger’s actions without evidence.
    • Scope: It’s reliable only for Esquier’s subjective experience, not broader claims about Ratzinger or Valtorta.

    For citing Esquier’s experience, mariedenazareth.com is adequate with attribution. To strengthen reliability, locating the Ratzinger-Clément letter or a L’Homme Nouveau reference would help.

    Arkenstrone (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Grok has absolutely no comprehension of Wikipedia's policies, the preceding output is wrong on just about every level and is a waste of editors time. If you want to make an argument or understand the relevant policies I suggest reading them yourself, Grok's answers are basically very verbose nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's wrong? How so? I read the policies, and compared Grok's analysis with my own comprehension of them, and it appears perfectly in compliance with them, even including verbatim excerpts of Wikipedia policy in several instances. I fail to see how Grok got it "wrong on just about every level". Please share where Grok got it wrong, specifically. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but that would require reading "AI" glurge. Hatted as irrelevant is the best place to put automated textwalls. I think someone should write an essay about how, if you find yourself using automated text generators in a noticeboard argument, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK because you've lost all credibility. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If you want to put forward an argument based on your reading of Wikipedia's policies I'll happily discuss it with you, but I'm not going to spend my time talking with Grok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is essentially the same as Grok's, as I've carefully examined what Grok produced and it is perfectly coherent and understandable with clear points being made throughout. If you or others can't see that, I submit that it's likely because you don't want to and perhaps some bias is entering into the mix. I've simply used Grok to analyze and provide additional context and information. In summary, and in my own words, citing Wikipedia policy:
    1. Primary sources WP:PRIMARY are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved (e.g., testimonies, letters). Esquier’s edifiant.fr letter is a primary source for her claim. Therefore, even by Wikipedia's own standards, the primary source document is allowed provided it communicates only her own words and lived experience. However, to further strengthen it's reliability, I've located a reliable secondary source that refers to this primary source document.
    2. Reliable secondary sources WP:RS analyze, evaluate, interpret or synthesize primary sources. Certain editors have mentioned that a reliable secondary source that refers to and discusses the primary source document would increase it's reliability in context, since it shows the primary source document is circulated and discussed, further strengthening it's legitimacy. That's what mariedenazareth.com does, as it is a very popular and respected French Catholic website.
    3. There are different levels of "reliability". I am not saying mariedenazareth.com is a reliable secondary source at the same level as academic journals or news outlets. But only adequately reliable for confirmation of Esquier's own words about her own lived experience. Note, there are other websites that discuss this as well, but it seems to me mariedenazareth.com is the most reliable one as it produces a lot of additional French Catholic content completely independent of this issue.
    4. The ScamDoc ratings for both websites (88% for edifiant.fr and 95% for mariedenazareth.com), while not a definitive indication of reliability, shows they are secure, established, well-regarded in the community, and clearly not "scam" websites. So this dispels all arguments concerning these websites' legitimacy. "Anonymous website ownership" is not an argument, since privacy is a legitimate concern for many website operators.
    5. None of the other claims certain editors have brought up to justify their no vote, involving WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, and WP:UGC hold any water. The primary document are Esquier's own words of her own lived experience. Speaking of her own experience satisfies WP:ABOUTSELF. The primary document is obviously not self-published, so WP:SPS does not apply. And information generated on both edifiant.fr as well as mariedenazareth.com are not user-generated content, so WP:UGC doesn't apply. Also, WP:DUE is met, as I'm proposing only one brief paragraph, which the article does not rely on in any way, but provides useful context and information by someone who is both credible and involved in these matters. The policies that are most applicable in this situation are WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS and both are adequately satisfied as discussed above. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We've read your argument before. At length. If you've still failed to convince anyone then it is probably, again, time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just all the points you have raised before, and have failed to convince others editors. I suggest reading the advice at WP:1AM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This is a summary of the clarified points all in one place (instead of separated into a dozen different incoherent threads) with additional information included because a secondary source was not previously located. None of these points have been refuted. Consensus or convincing others, is not a substitute for arguments based in Wikipedia policy. I've shown Wikipedia policy to be on my side, and I'm waiting for you or others to refute each point above with sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. Also, citing essays as a substitute for Wikipedia policy is not very helpful. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave it to whoever closes the RFC to decide on policy interpretation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to put forward an argument based on your reading of Wikipedia's policies I'll happily discuss it with you...
    I just did, citing several Wikipedia policies, but now you are refusing to discuss. This forum is a form of court, subject to Wikipedia policy. Also, I repeat, consensus is not a substitute for sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. That's like two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unhatted that section. If you want to hat that section, then you're going to have to explain why those points are a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. Or, at the very least, rebut my summary of the most pertinent points above. I've reviewed those arguments and they appear sound arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. If you don't agree, then explain why. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Grok's output is ludicrous. To determine credibility, Grok cites "trust rating" scores from ScamDoc, a site that says it "uses artificial intelligence to classify websites and emails" with a goal of "helping users make an informed decision before conducting a transaction or sharing personal information". ScamDoc's scoring criteria include whether the domain uses HTTPS and domain privacy, and whether user reviews report that the business behind the website is responsible for "undelivered products, significant delivery delays, unsolicited subscriptions, use of drop shipping". All of this is completely unrelated to whether a website is a reliable source of information for citation in Wikipedia articles.
    The Grok output is so irrelevant to Wikipedia that I agree with ActivelyDisinterested (who previously collapsed Grok's output) and Simonm223 in that the AI output should remain collapsed. At this point, the current consensus in this discussion is to keep the AI output in a collapsed state, so I have collapsed it again. Using AI-generated arguments in talk page discussions is disruptive as it is disrespectful of other editors' time, considering the lack of effort it takes to generate the output compared to the amount of effort it takes to review it, so please do not do this again. ​— Newslinger talk 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Screen Rant

    [edit]

    There was a previous discussion of this source here in 2021. At WP:VG (Here and here)

    Use of source: This source is used on over 7,000 articles (per WmCloud). This ranges from media and pop culture (comic books, video games, film, music, television, etc.) and is cited clearly popular and important seen articles like Quentin Tarantino, Malcolm X and Kylie Minogue.

    Why is it relevant? There was a discussion at WP:FILM (within the past year, and for clarification, started by myself) which took take a deeper look at the content of it and other sites owned by it and ValNet. The conclusion of the discussion led to the creation of WP:RSP/VALNET suggesting we limit the content used by these sites to reviews clearly labeled as reviews and direct interviews, as the sites were shown to have poorly researched historical articles on film, attributing material to social media sites (reddit, letterboxd, etc.), and when used by others, it was in terms of interviews conducted by the site itself and direct reviews of films. While editors have brought up that the reading should have only been used for screen rant material after the ValNet purchase, this was only done after the discussion was agreed upon by other editors and no editor or material has been shown to suggest it was ever following its own policy. I bring this up, as the last big application by WP:FILM does not coincide that the site is reliable for for entertainment subjects as it stated at WP:RSP.

    RFC: What should Screenrant.com be designated as?

    Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 2. This is one I've gone back and forth on, but I think the status quo at WP:RSP and WP:VALNET is reasonable for Screen Rant under Valnet (2015–present). It's acceptable for basic pop culture facts but is not "high quality" as defined by WP:FACR. It should not be used for claims outside of pop culture, and it should be immediately removed from BLP claims per WP:BLPSOURCE. It also should not be used as evidence of notability or to indicate that something is WP:DUE in an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, at least for modern pop-culture stuff. Of course, some of its articles are of little use (articles focused purely on plot, random "best of" lists, etc), but it's up to the Wikipedia writer to separate the wheat from the chaff. But those problematic articles are only a problem because of their format, not their actual content. Making things up, repeating conspiracy theories, attacking people, and the usual stuff that would lead to consider a site unreliable as a whole, do not apply to Screenrant. I have not worked with historical film articles, but the main focus of the page seems to be on modern pop culture anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Just to clarify, they definitely write about material related to historical content such as 12 articles related to John Wayne in the past month. Not to mention the articles I mentioned, they are obviously used in articles about real people. I'd be happy to point out basic errors, but I think this requires more clarification on what you mean by being acceptable for "basic pop culture stuff" perhaps with some examples. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Could be reliable for direct quotations from interviews, but should not be used in BLPs or counted towards notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 (Summoned by bot) I agree mostly with Thebiguglyalien above. Per WP:VALNET their properties are considered borderline - and that should continue for this specific property unless there is specific evidence that it is not subject to the same control as the other properties they own. It is obviously not a high quality source for FAC purposes, but it should not be problematic to source uncontroversial information to it - in fact, it may be the best source for some of the uncontroversial information it includes. I do think it should be limited to sourcing entertainment (film/video gaming) related content, and should not be used to source anything remotely controversial about BLPs. And as always, with less-than-ideal sources, if there is better sourcing available, it should be preferred.
      But I disagree with the OP here about how we determine the reliability of a source. Specifically, User:Andrzejbanas seems to claim that if Screen Rant uses, say, Reddit to get leads on information, it is inherently unreliable. That's not how reliable sources work. A reliable source can certainly get its information from unreliable sources. The question we must ask here is what the "reliable source" (that got its information from an unreliable source) did to verify the information it got. If we prohibited all information that has any origin on social media from being here, we'd have no reliable sources whatsoever. Even the most reliable sources like the New York Times get some of their leads from social media, for example. And no evidence has been presented that I can see that Screen Rant doesn't attempt to verify (or at least qualify as from social media) the information it gets.
      Lastly, the discussion on WP:FILM isn't actually linked. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it in the archives (searching on WT:FILM for "Screen Rant" and "screenrant" to try to find it) and I couldn't find it. I would appreciate if that discussion itself could be directly linked since it's being used to justify this discussion here - and if it can be linked here I'd appreciate a ping so I can review it fully and revisit this comment if necessary. But as of right now, I see no reason to move it from "borderline" or "more considerations needed". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, @Berchanhimez: the use of social media is tricky. Using to consider "reception" would be weak. The discussion and my points made are still on the main talk page of WP:FILM. You can see them here. I've provided several sources from ValNet sites discussing how they misrepresent their sources, contradict themselves in their own articles, and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That explains why I couldn't find it in the history - when you said "within the past year" I assumed that meant within the past year (and also not currently on the page). My fault. Perusing that discussion, I would be okay with adding a qualification based on this comment you made. Specifically that they are of "questionable reliability" and that they may operate as "content farms". I do, however, still take issue with your attempt to "dig deep". We don't question our sources on their sources. If they verify the reliability of the information they include from, say, Reddit (or other social media), then that's their right. Our concern is their editorial processes as a whole - not where they get information (or leads). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies, I just couldn't remember if the conversation stated earlier this year, or later last year. (is it nearly May already?) While I understand that other sources could be questioned, I have yet to see the same situations on the ValNet pages and while it could be addressed, things like Variety seem to pass the WP:USEDBYOTHERS regularly in academic journals and published books and other news agencies. When trying to find it for sites like screen rant, I only found them used by others in a serious manner I'd they may have some exclusive interviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 - I actually think what's currently on the Reliable sources list is a good spot for it to be. There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. 🥑GUACPOCALYPSE🥑 22:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify? The current listing would be option 2, as it has additional considerations about the source and directly mentions that it's a marginal. Option 1 would be that it is reliable for controversial statements about living people etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pima County Library

    [edit]

    One editor on NewsBreak claims that a library blog is not sufficient to define a company as a purveyor of Pink-slime journalism. Another editor says that it is a fine source and that the claim is correct based on the definition of pink-slime journalism.

    The post is "written by members of the Library's Information Integrity Team, is part of a series that covers disinformation and other related subjects. The goal is to help create a well-informed citizenry of active participants who shape our world." i know you're a dog (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also requested a 3O https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements i know you're a dog (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an appropriate source because the authors, librarians who specialize in information integrity, can be considered experts with a sufficiently relevant expertise related to the claim. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an SPS, no it is not reliable for such an accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not a SPS just because it’s a blog. i know you're a dog (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs are SPS as they are written and edited by the same person, or persons. In this case the library staff. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you even talking about? This is not a "blog" in the sense of "I go to wordpress.com and start a site and post whatever I want on it", and it is certainly not a self-published source in any sense (it is published by the public library on its website). WP:SPS sheds no light whatsoever on whether an informational article written by members of the Pima County Public Library's Information Integrity Team and published on the PCPL website is a reliable source. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, so (hold on?) its not an SPS because it is written by the staff of the library, and published by them on... their website? Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed "the library" is not the same entity as "its employees". Can you personally publish your opinions on your employer's website? Does your employer have named groups like "Information Integrity Team" whose work is not overseen by anyone? This website is a "blog" in precisely the same way WP:NEWSBLOGs are "blogs", which is to say, not in any way relevant to self-published status or reliability. (Whether it is a reliable source or not for this purpose is a question that requires an analysis carried out in a competent way, not whatever it is you're doing here.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I addressed this in depth on the talk page, but will paste it here for posterity:
    WP:BLOG is about self published sources, not blogs in general. In addition, it reads Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
    Furthermore, (and I can't believe I have to defend libraries and librarians, but here we are) librarians who work on an information integrity team certainly meet the bar for experts. There is no inherent reason to expect that they are biased, and librarians are often tasked with research in order to present information fairly and accurately. Librarians are a critical asset for academics and they work hand in hand when conducting research. The Pima County Library appears to require a masters in library science for even their entry level positions (as is common in the vast majority of libraries today.)
    Moreover:
    • And other posts from the library's blog are linked to by:
    As well as used as a source for:
    Needless to say, WP:BLOG doesn't apply here. i know you're a dog (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as disagree as it is a self-published blog (it says its a blog). But in order to avoid wp:bludgeon, this is my last comment with a firm "No". Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good I thought you might want to engage with the clear demonstration of your error, just plain last-wordism is better. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more sources have been identified since I posted this:
    Nieman Lab
    The pivot fund for the Georgia news collaborative i know you're a dog (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These three sources are all fine; the two new ones probably better than the original. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If agree with 128.164.. these seem much stronger sources than the original one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Purewa Cemetery website

    [edit]

    The Purewa Cemetery website is cited 105 times in Wikipedia: [62] but they quite clearly source their information from Wikipedia and that includes this: [63] which is a probable hoax image and likely untrue details such as the Vanderbilt house (only source online for that is Wikipedia and this website)

    I don't believe this website can be considered reliable given their copying of information from Wikipedia without any due dilligence given to verify if the information is factual.

    They are presumably reliable for the claim of a grave of someone being located within the cemetery, although they wouldn't be a source that establishes any weight to that information. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that simple. I think it may be reliable for claims about where someone is buried, but some of its individual pages borrow from wikipedia. Other pages such as this one seem to be reasonable as a decent self-published secondary source, though I wouldn't give them much weight in notability discussions. However, there are a massive number of deadlinks to this page which need purging.
    It's all a bit of a mess I'm afraid. Thanks a million to whoever has been adding this reference so sloppily! Boynamedsue (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That last point is a real problem, the "/view/?id=" links[64] all revolve to whichever funeral service is currently happening. Possibly dumping readers into real live events of unrelated individuals. None of them will have any valid archives, as they all appear to have been streams. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The pdf you link also cites Wikipedia, just not as often as their main website. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I also noticed it was used in Yen May Woen but the person in question is 'Joelle May Woen' and she has no entry when I look her up on the site. But the archive has this [65] Nothing on Google uses this name and no source beyond this connects May Woen with New Zealand. The details match perfectly but there is no independent verification here and nothing that connects May Woen to New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference about Guru Paramartha in swarayamag

    [edit]

    swarajyamag is blacklisted. I to whitelist one article, swarajyamag.com/culture/how-catholic-repackaging-of-an-indian-fable-destroyed-its-purpose , was advised to post here to evalluate its individual reliability, but happily forgot about it. Requesting now. For me, it looks like a solid scholarly article, an analysis of one Tamili joke cycle. Whatever content is overlapping with other sources, there are no contradiction, but it also contains some additional observations. Unfortunately I cannot read hindi or tamili or whatever, so I cannot find other sources to replace this one. The author is descibed here (Yes, I am aware it is Wiki, but again, I cannot read அரவிந்தன் நீலகண்டன் , so I cannot write an en-wiki article about him, but frankly, I dont care) and appears to have publisehd quite a few books. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you could give what you want to support with the source? This looks like a case where WP:RSCONTEXT is rather relevant. The author is well published but appears to be quite controversial. So the more controversial the content it's meant to support the more likely a better source will be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The only part that may be considered controversial is:
    Neelakandan notices that while the Hindu treatise used this story to elaborate on wisdom, commenters wrote that Beschi's goal was to satirize Hindu monks. The reason is that Buddhist monasteries were seen as an obstacle for Christian proselytizing. In particular, the "counting" story portrays monks as fools and an ordinary Hindu as a con man. Combined with the teachings that Catholic missionaries are enlightening the Tamils, Beschi's book essentially imposed the feeling of civilizational inferiority onto the colonized people.
    But it is stated as an opinion, rather than a matter of fact, so I do not see a problem here. As you wrote yourself, the author is well published, not only books but in magazines as well, so he may be controversial; being Hindu-nationalistic, but definitely not a crackpot. Ha was even interviewed by BBC. And this opinion is rather in line with opinions about all Cristian proselytizers of the past. For example I've seen similar statements about treatment of Old Prussians by invading "crucifers". --Altenmann >talk 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I don't have enough knowledge to give a good answer to this, hopefully another editor will chime in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tuko.co.ke

    [edit]

    Is this source good enough for BLP-stuff, specifically the content at Draft:CaseOh#Early_and_personal_life? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They are likely reliable for news and opinion related to Kenya, where they appear to be a established news organisation. But their interest in publishing a puff piece about a random streamer half way across the globe is likely down to the fact they offer 'Native Advertising'[66]. The article should be treated as if it was a press release. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference the original link, rather than the MSN repost, can be found here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say having stuff like "girlfriend-weight-house-net-worth-earnings" as part of the URL is pretty much always a guaranteed sign that the page in question is unreliable slop, scraped from who-knows-where and turned into a generic article via algorithm/AI. Just like all the other countless celebrity networth/weight/height/girlfriend/bio/family/etc websites on the net. Neither written by an expert or journalist, nor checked by actual editors. Any such references/links should be deleted on sight. --2A02:810B:581:C300:61B7:FE88:F656:B5A (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully aligned to 2A02 - there are thousands of these scraper sites that randomly harvest biographical detail with zero oversight, much of which is unknowable (you simply cannot get to someone's 'net worth' without massive public holdings that dwarf the liability details). The fact that this series of 'biographies' is hosted on a semi-reliable site does not help. Seriously - eye color = black? Sam Kuru (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seen them on Wes Watson, with what read to me like LLM slop [67]. Perhaps they're respectable for local articles, but they're also publishing cobbled together trash like this and I sure wouldn't trust that - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been quite a few instances of this. A somewhat reliable news sources in its own market, that also has a rather promo article on minor figure that's completely unrelated to their normal reporting. I think they can all be considered advertorials. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that the source in Wes Watson was also originally through MSN rather than directly to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think google prefers msn, and it's not glaringly obvious that msn is an aggregator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right there's nothing linking the two articles, just a result of external search results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MSN is pretty indiscriminate in it what it pulls in at this point. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always a good idea to check the actual publisher and switch the reference to the original source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the "height/weight/worth" crap noted above, I would say that there is little evidence that this site meets the criteria laid out at WP:RS, and in particular, completely unsuitable for BLP articles as a result. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Add iNaturalist to RSNP?

    [edit]

    Should inaturalist.org be added to the RSN list of sources? It is used on more than 6,000 articles (though some of the uses may be external links, not references), but is essentially a specialized wiki. Having some easily accessible guidance on it may be useful. Fram (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The criteria for adding a source to the RSP can be found here WP:RSPCRITERIA. iNaturalist appears to be WP:UGC, user generated sites aren't usually listed as they are questionable sources by default. It could be possible that certain posts could be reliable under WP:EXPERTSPS if the poster could be shown to have prior publishing in the field. Although that doesn't appear to be the case with the first one I check in while doing a search[68].
    There was some talk using a filter for UGC (and similar) sources in WT:RSP#New World Encyclopedia, but I'm hesitant as it would probably be controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested 65.181.9.21 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment With heavy caveats maybe but mostly no (the more I look at use of iNat in WP, the worse it's getting!). The problem with stating "inaturalist.org" in general is that it's almost entirely User-Generated Content that includes journal entries (basically blog posts) which are not S unless it's from a WP:EXPERTPS. There are also their taxa pages, which are lifted direct from WP, although clearly marked as such so hopefully no one would try and cite them! (eeeh) So the question is really what bit of iNat the OP is referring to?
    In relation to claims that an organism exists in an area, then we could probably consider Research Grade observations as Reliable (which seems to be what people are mostly using as references in the couple of articles I've looked through), but obviously casual observations can't be used. And having said above that I hope nobody would reference a taxa page I've just found that the first "reference" in Socca pustulosa is... a taxa page which opens with the header "Source: Wikipedia" /facepalm. Same with Xylotrechus colonus. iNat is fantastic platform to which I personally contribute, but substantial chunks of it are unsuitable as encyclopaedic reference material.
    The only place it might be useful for is helping describe ranges/introductions - e.g. "in <year>, observations were made in <new territory>", perhaps describing introduced or invasive species - and then only for uncontested "Research Grade" observations. Hemmers (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not clear exactly what actual facts we would be sourcing to iNaturalist. I assume people are probably using iNat as a source for "X is a species" and "is commonly known as Y" because it's very convenient; these will probably mostly be accurate, but we should really be tagging those instances with "better source needed". As far as citing observations for "X is found in Y", I would treat even an uncontested RG observation with great caution. It's like citing herbarium vouchers for plant distribution: I won't say I would absolutely never do it, but rarely and with circumspection and hedging (i.e., "a specimen identified as X [by the determiner] was collected there", rather than "X was collected there"). Choess (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That's probably a bug that needs to be fixed on their end. iNat pulls Wikipedia articles as the default description for a taxon, and if there's no existing article, it offers a stub template with one citation to iNaturalist so that users can start an article. My general impression, at least for plants, from browsing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New article listing is that I'm not seeing a big influx of stubs sourced solely to iNat, but maybe some of that's being deflected by NPP and I'm not seeing that there? (I am a curator and fairly active there; more thoughts later.) Choess (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen quite a few new pages during NPP where inaturalist was the only or one of the main sources, that's how they came on my radar. But it's e.g. also used in the GA Jellyfish where this is a "source" for the claim "Desmonema glaciale, which lives in the Antarctic region, can reach a very large size (several meters)." In Taraxacum, the claim "Botanists specialising in the genus Taraxacum are sometimes called taraxacologists" is even sourced to the Inaturalist forum(!)[69]. The Featured Article (!!) Sea otter uses Inaturalist observations[70] for the claim "Sightings have been documented in the waters of Cape Nosappu, Erimo, Hamanaka and Nemuro, among other locations in the region."
    Inclusion in RSNP doesn't mean a stamp of approval, in this case it should be a deterrent, marking it as generally unreliable or some such. As for the RSNP criteria, requiring previous discussions here:[71][72][73]. Fram (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked for prior discussions before making my comment and didn't find any, but now the discussions are in the search, either it was a blip or I messed up my search somehow. I would say the prior discussions show it meets RSPCRITERIA, anyone could add it based on summarising those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing on iNaturalist taxon pages that makes it worth citing as a source in a Wikipedia article. It is a valuable place to find suitably licensed photos of organisms that can be uploaded to Commons. And it has even more photos that aren't suitably licensed. For those photos, it may merit including iNat as an external link if no other photos are available (but that's an external link, not a cited source). The observation data behind the maps is already being fed from iNat to GBIF. GBIF also includes museum specimens and observations from non-iNat sources, resulting in maps with more observations. If dot maps are worth citing for the distribution of organisms, the GBIF maps are better than iNat. Aside from the photos and maps, everything on iNat is supposed to be sourced from somewhere else (including the About tab which is sourced from Wikipedia itself). Wikipedia could cite any of iNat's sources directly rather than via iNaturalist. Wikipedia is already generally following and citing the same taxonomic databases that the iNaturalist taxonomy uses.
    For Wikipedia articles that are created via the template on iNat, I guess citing iNat is better than citing nothing at all, but the iNat citation could always be replaced with something better (it took me a couple years of trying to get iNat to simply remove a taxobox parameter in their template that they were misusing, so I'm not holding my breath that their template will ever include any better citations).
    I have a couple observations on iNat data quality. It is intended to host observations of organisms. It is not intended to be a comprehensive taxonomic database. As such, its lists of lower taxa in a higher taxon (species in a genus, genera in a family) are not reliable. iNat curators are not encouraged to bother adding pages for organisms that are unlikely to be observed. It has only 145 virus species and 670 bacteria species (pretty much all of them things that infect another organism and cause a visible change in the appearance of the host). It doesn't list very many taxa known only from fossils. And if there isn't a globally comprehensive taxonomic database that covers a particular genus, a list of species in the genus may just be those in a regional source, with additional species added haphazardly as new observations/identification create a need to include them. iNat is supposed to only include vernacular (common) names that can be sourced somewhere else. But there have been names that have been made-up out of thin air on iNat. I'm pretty sure I came across one of them yesterday. We had an article on a New Zealand plant created at the title Karamingi. If you're using iNat's NZ site, karamingi is prominently displayed as the common name (if you use a non-NZ localization of iNat, you can find it listed as a Maori name if you scroll down the taxonomy section). I can't find karamingi attested anywhere on the internet aside from iNat (and some iNat observations rehosted on another site). But it is a hybrid of plants with the Maori names "karamū" and "mingimingi". Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no real opinion on whether iNaturalist warrants inclusion on WP:RSPS currently, although if so maybe it should combined with other similar citizen science sites like eBird, but as I've said in previous discussions on RSN, iNaturalist should almost never be used as a reliable source. Individual observations, even "Research Grade" ones, are primary sources, and extremely easy to misuse, especially for new or controversial claims (new species and new range extensions are sometimes initially noted by iNaturalist users, but it often takes researchers following up to obtain specimens or otherwise verify records "on the ground" and publish them in reliable sources). Inferring the range or distributions of a species using iNaturalist postings is akin to going into a museum, examining various collection labels on individual specimens, and publishing a range map, e.g. original research; the fact that many museum collections are now searchable online doesn't mean those historic records are any less primary. The taxonomy the iNaturalist uses for any particular taxon may not necessarily be the one that Wikipedia uses (for good reason: taxonomy Wikipedia should be somewhat conservative, not flipping every time a new classification is published), and the common names that iNaturalist users suggest may have little usage in real life: especially for obscure invertebrates and fungi, most of which have no colloquially used "common name". I've seen people invent and add "common names" based on trivia like descriptive terms used on a single amateur blog post ("big green and black beetle") or an online breeder trying to market their exotic critters with sexy names. In short, nearly every bit of data on iNaturalist is already covered by better sources, and any data that hasn't been vetted or covered elsewhere is WP:UNDUE at best, WP:OR at worst. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I've tried to add it ([74]) based on what looks like consensus here and from the previous discussions. Please correct or revert if I was technically or factually wrong! Fram (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington Free Beacon

    [edit]
    Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Washington Free Beacon
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it somewhat perplexing that the Washington Free Beacon is listed as "generally unreliable". It looks like it was last discussed in 2020. Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner and Washington Times are listed as "no consensus." In the conservative mediasphere, I would argue that in the present day, we have that pretty much backwards. See Politico and The Washington Post. The Post described the Free Beacon as "The rare media outlet on the right devoted to original reporting was ahead of the pack on the story about plagiarism allegations against university president Claudine Gay..." They are doing original reporting that is being picked up by mainstream outlets (WP:USEBYOTHERS). They seem to meet WP:NEWSORG while being WP:BIASED. Can someone help me understand why this outlet seems to have been effectively blacklisted? And is this the appropriate venue for re-upping past discussion, or should we do that at WP:RSN? Marquardtika (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, this has been on my mind because of Tara McGowan. She was married and is now divorced and dating U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. However, the only sources mentioning her divorce are the Washington Free Beacon and the New York Post. So without being able to use these sources, her article makes it appear that she's still married while dating another man. Which seems like a WP:BLP issue, no? Is using the Free Beacon worse than erroneously stating that someone is still married yet dating someone else? Because AFAICT, that seems to be the party line on Wikipedia, which leaves me scratching my head...Marquardtika (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The divorce is also noted by Washington Digest. I'm not familiar with that site but their About Us says the right stuff and their home page doesn't look tabloid-ish or click-baity. (I know the thread is about WFB, just hoped to help with the McGowan issue.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for weighing in. Washington Digest looks sketchy to me. It lists its address as being in Austin, Texas, which seems strange since it's a site about Washington, D.C., so I did some digging. It is published by American Digest Media which is funded by a fellow named Shaun Connell. The article reads kind of like it was created by AI. Marquardtika (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also clearly made with WordPress. (I doubt it ever proclaims to be about local DC news, though.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A single source should not be used in that context anyways... Your desired use case leaves me scratching my head... Even if its reliable you can't use it for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see the reasons in the discussions linked. RSN is the right venue. I can move this there if you want me to. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you would move it that would be great, thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the original "RFC" is here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Using_The_Washington_Free_Beacon_in_politically_related_BLPs_-_is_it_an_RS?
    • i see 5 votes to deprecate, 1 vote to say unreliable but don't deprecate, and 1 vote saying reliable. that's hardly an RFC
    • some of those claims in the RFC are interesting, might be worth asking if WFB is worth it in BLP claims, especially for highly salacious details
    • they seem to have trappings of an editorial control [75], and their editor in chief has somewhat impressive credentials suggesting some control and review [76]
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't an RfC, and it looks like there was no RfC requirement for deprecation back then. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Generally" unreliable doesn't mean unreliable in all cases, so for a claim that's pretty much the opposite of WP:EXCEPTIONAL (for example, that someone who is dating has divorced their ex) I expect editors ought to be able to use there judgement as to what source is best. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
    — WP:GUnRel

    This is not any of the latter and a very tabloid affair, and I wouldn't have IAR'd without making sure of the Examiner's reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Off topic, but why should we note who she is currently dating? Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, you could have a point there. It was added here by an IP address with a link to Semafor. I didn't add it, but guessing it was of interest since she's a major player in the media and he's an elected official. But could definitely be worth a separate discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It got the GU based on two discussions which are at at least that level. If you want to elevate its status, I'd set up another RFC. This risks lowering its status too, of course - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, we should definitely have an RFC about this. I don't think it would be "another" RFC though, since I am not seeing a past RFC...just a couple of discussions from years ago with a handful of editors. Marquardtika (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the observations made by the OP. Which were him agreeing with my observations earlier :-) But yeah, we have it pretty much backwards. Free Beacon is a little better than some of the others in my experience and I think RS will bear that out. Andre🚐 18:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    An RFC is a good idea. There should be a clear distinction between the pre- and post-2018/2019 eras of WFB. In the first, it presented a journalistic veneer over what was essentially a political advocacy project, leading to many of the concerns raised in the 2020 discussion. Since then, however, it has functioned as a serious WP:NEWSORG when reporting facts. Much of the previous discussion occurred before the transition in newsroom leadership from Matthew Continetti, a political commentator, to Eliana Johnson, a professional journalist. Longhornsg (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed that there is a relevant divide at play here from Continetti to Johnson and a new RfC would be useful. - Amigao (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey all, it sounds like there is consensus for an RFC. I started a draft at User:Marquardtika/sandbox. I have never done this before and welcome any feedback (also feel free to edit my sandbox directly, I don't mind). Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hub News reliability

    [edit]

    I'm thinking about using a Hub News article in a Wiki article I am drafting. I'm not sure about its reliability, but it looks fine at a glance. The main page is https://hubnetwork.in. They seem to focus on Northeast India. Here is a list of articles that use it as a source. Is it reliable? KnowDeath (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this relate to Draft:Byrnihat and this Hub News article? If so I would say it's reliable for the Central Pollution Control Board's assessment of the pollution in Byrnihat, and the Deputy Chief Minister comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it generally reliable for news though? KnowDeath (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For news from their local area? Probably. For things less related? Maybe. The issue is that the more general the question, the more general the answer is going to be. I'm having trouble finding information about them, so being more specific is difficult. Their 'about us' page[77] describes themselves as "an independent digital media network that aims to provide platform for content creators and storytellers", but they appear to be a news network. For news from Meghalaya or the north east of India they should be ok, especially if they are just reporting government announcements, but I would be hesitant if it was something contentious outside that area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Reliability of Mothership, The Online Citizen, Jom Media and Cape Singapore

    [edit]
    CLOSED
    This is nowhere close to being an appropriate RfC - four separate sources crammed together into one RfC, no evidence that three of the four sources have been previously discussed, no evidence that these sources have been frequently used, no discussion of what the sources are proposed to be used to support, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    As the campaign trail in Singapore heats up more with an upcoming election, I decided to put up a general discussion of other local news sources here.

    Mothership: There doesn't seem to be consensus on the reliability of Mothership in a previous discussion, although plenty commented on how it could still be used, but better news sources are still preferred. That said, I just want to ascertain whether it should be WP:MREL or WP:GUNREL.

    The Online Citizen: I have some concerns about this news source which claimed to be "an independent media platform committed to critical journalism" with "fact-based reporting", but at times it has also published sensational news such as this incident which did not even happen at all (based on hearsay even as the article said), and there seems to be a bias towards the opposition. That said, maybe it could still be considered reliable given it still has an editorial team, but additional considerations might apply.

    Jom Media: "A weekly magazine about Singapore" with an editorial team. I'm unsure of its reliability or whether its articles and commentary could be considered WP:SPS.

    Cape Singapore is an advocacy organisation which claims to be non-partisan, and has published various political analysis. That said, it's run mainly by youths and students and might not be reliable.

    Please choose from the following options for each of the sources:

    • Option 1: Generally reliable
    • Option 2: Reliable, but may require further considerations
    • Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
    • Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
    • Option 5: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

    ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]

    Hard to think of a less good idea than discussing four unrelated sources in one RfC started by someone who didn’t bother to leave a signature. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What if, say, three of the four sources haven't been discussed at all on Wikipedia? I think that would be a worse idea... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Touche! :) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    gayinthe80s.com

    [edit]

    I have found this website, [78], being used as a citation on a few LGBTQ-related articles. My problem with this site is that it has stated itself to be a blog -- one of the citations I removed on the Jimmy Somerville article had a disclaimer at the bottom reading, "All original material on this blog is copyright" (italics mine, link to article [79]).

    To me, this makes it no-brainer unacceptable for use on BLP articles, but I do see it being used on other articles, including a couple of BLPs [80]. Which leads me to ask -- is this website a reliable source, or am I correct in my instincts that it should be avoided? JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The author of the blog also has a book called "Gay in the 80s" that probably would constitute a WP:RS so I'd start by making sure the citations were to the blog rather than the book. I would suggest, on the basis of the blog author's career that WP:EXPERTSPS may apply to the blog too (with the usual restrictions). Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the insight. The only citations I removed were to the blog on the Somerville article, a BLP. FWIW, I have not removed them from anywhere else. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not use self-published expert sources for BLP so that's an appropriate removal imo. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The author is a blogger and activist and has one self-published book. Of course he's had a life outside of blogging, but that doesn't necessarily make his blog (nor his book) an "expert source" for the purposes of WP:EXPERTSPS. Like most blogs, generally avoid citing outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, otherwise attribute if it must be cited, but for any Wikipedia topic there may well be dozens if not hundreds of equal quality blog posts, and if this blog or author is the sole source commenting on a topic, than it may well be undue. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We Need to Revisit WP:LISTED Rules for Indian Listed Companies

    [edit]

    Lately, I have seen a lot of AfD discussions on Indian listed companies where analyst reports are used as credible/reliable sources. I think it’s time we take another look at the WP:LISTED guidelines, especially when it comes to these types of reports. From my experience during the Senco Gold AfD, I realized that many of these analyst reports aren’t truly independent. They are often made for internal use by portfolio management firms that already own shares in the company. Sometimes, they even push a specific story like hyping up a company before an IPO. If we closely look at the fine print of these reports, especially the disclaimers, the firms publishing them clearly mention potential or material conflicts of interest. They also state that they or their associates may have received compensation from the companies covered in the report within the last twelve months. We should be a bit more skeptical about these reports and think carefully before using them to decide if an article is notable.

    I have seen this come up in two AfDs where I shared my thoughts - Apar Industries and IdeaForge.

    Charlie (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ORGIND seems to already speak to this issue. - Amigao (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If these analyst reports are seen as trade publications under ORGIND, and given that their authors have close ties to the subject companies, either directly or indirectly then many Indian AfDs ought to be deemed entirely invalid. It is now clear that the rules related to LISTED have been wrongly assumed. Charlie (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Such "analyst" reports are clearly not WP:IS. - Amigao (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Shank Mods Youtube on PVM-4300

    [edit]

    Can the Youtuber Shank Mods be considered a reliable source for this claim on the Sony PVM-4300? An IP editor recently added a (relatively) short claim to the article Sony PVM-4300, which is the largest CRT:
    [A] version called KV-45ED1T was available on the Japanese market that bundled an external TV tuner, model VT-X5R, mounted in a drawer integrated to the bottom of the monitor chassis, and the included remote provided buttons to control it.
    The citation provided was a video by Shank Mods, the only known owner of the monitor, which provides a rather in-depth overview of the monitor. An article on CRT Database, partly authored by Shank Mods, was previously cited to verify the measurements of the monitor since simple measurements do not require special expertise. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would normally point to [[WP:EXPERTSPS], but this case is why "generally" is in "generally unreliable". The latter part of the claim mounted in a drawer integrated to the bottom of the monitor chassis, and the included remote provided buttons to control it. is simply a matter of visual observation, so the video showcase would be reliable for the purpose. The first part of the claim, however, regards history and is not immediately verifiable. However, since Shank is the only-known owner of this monitor, I would just attribute the statement to Shank Mod for now unless better sources can be found. Ca talk to me! 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added direct attribution to the claim. ―Howard • 🌽33 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is DailyMailTV included in the Daily Mail prohibition?

    [edit]

    This issue came up in the Natalia Grace article. After Nikkimaria removed the DailyMailTV source and I reverted explaining that it is not the same as the Daily Mail, I was suggested to raise it at RSN.

    As noted on the Daily Mail article, the "international news program" based in New York City is produced by Stage 29 Productions with Phil McGraw (Dr. Phil) as executive producer and "was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Entertainment News Program in 2018".

    The specific DailyMailTV article I used is an interview that was referenced on other news sites (BBC, Elle, Yahoo, etc.). J3133 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why DailyMailTV would not be covered by WP:DAILYMAIL? The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Entertainment News Program is for programmes which "focus on human interest, popular culture and celebrity gossip and interviews" – that doesn't look to me like a great reason to believe that winners are inherently reliable. (TMZ is another two-time nominee and we don't consider that necessarily reliable). If the content is also supported by the BBC, we could use that – but the new content you added in this edit doesn't seem to be included in that or indeed the other sources you cite.
    More broadly than the question of reliability, I have no idea why the time of Grace's birth would be important to include in the article anyway! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, why would we assume that a Daily Mail publication is not covered by the prohibition? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it would be included in WP:DAILYMAIL, it covers the organisation not a specific means of publishing. If an organisation decided to start publishing in different media, it would be a waste of time discussing it over and over. Deprecation is not a ban, but you would need to show that there is an exceptional reason why the source should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the specific edit that Caeciliusinhorto-public mentioned I can't see why it should be included at all -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that it's in unless there is consensus that is formed as consequence of a RFC that it's out. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon

    [edit]

    Regarding the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon. Previous discussions from 2017 and 2020. Discussion that led to creation of this RFC is here. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question #1 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Matthew Continetti (2012–2018)?

    Question #2 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Eliana Johnson (2019–present)?

    Survey (Washington Free Beacon)

    [edit]

    Question #1

    [edit]
    • Generally unreliable - the previous editor was a salacious political firebrand, and the paper regularly did BLP vios and false statements, as per RFCBEFORE. It appears to have reformed, but any article during previous EIC should be taken with a grain of salt, and other sourcing is generally preferrable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliability depends on context - in this era it qualifies as an advocacy outlet, usable with in-text attribution. But not reliable for verifying unattributed statements of fact written in “wikivoice”. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable I do think that the WFB was more ideological during Continetti's tenure, that being said, it still engaged in original reporting and several of the things it reported on were picked up by more mainstream outlets. Like other ideologically driven outlets such as Mother Jones, its reliability depends on the type of content being cited. For original reporting and routine coverage, it meets the standard of verifiability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marginally reliable - There was certainly clear bias, especially in this era, but not of a nature that it ought to lead to differing treatment than myriad other sources with clear ideological slants. Obviously, how the content should be treated depends on the context, but that's always the case with anything we do here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question #2

    [edit]
    • Per BuzzFeed News, the Free Beacon is best described as somewhere between a traditional news organization and a high-concept prank... Alternately parodic and wire-service serious, it has broken major political news, mostly negative, about Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and occasionally members of rival Republican factions, like Rand Paul. [83]
    • The Washington Post described the Free Beacon as the rare conservative media outlet that does significant reporting of its own and said that it has an unusual commitment to original reporting... The puckish Free Beacon has managed to dig up damaging stories on politicians — Republican as well as Democrat [84].
    • Politico called the Free Beacon an online publication that is explicitly conservative and dedicated to “combat journalism,” but which is somewhat grudgingly respected in liberal circles [85], specifically praising Sibarium's work.
    • The Atlantic wrote that the Free Beacon has produced some memorable political reporting over the years and suggested that it is a rare example of a right-wing outlet doing credible journalism [86].
    Under Johnson's tenure, the Free Beacon has broken multiple stories of significance that were later mentioned in WP:GREL sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), such as:
    • Plagiarism allegations against the Harvard University president [87] [88], after which she resigned.
    • Leaked text messages between Columbia University administrators [89] [90], after which they were placed on leave.
    • A hospital network using patients' race as a factor in rationing COVID-19 treatments [91] [92], after which this practice stopped.
    • A free speech uproar at Yale Law School [93] [94], after which the school's associate dean retired.
    • A controversial deposition from the Columbia University interim president [95] [96], after which she announced her departure.
    However, the Free Beacon's track record does not extend to tabloid silliness like this recent story about a CNN reporter not wearing shoes on a train. Articles like this, and the Eugene Daniels "FACT CHECK" mentioned above, are written by Andrew Stiles and compiled under the website's "Stiles Section", along with obvious satires like "Exclusive: We Got Joe Biden’s List of Absurd Demands for Speaking Gigs". This section is a grab bag of undue BLP material, opinion pieces, joke articles, etc. Not encyclopedic, but they are self-contained and easy to separate from the rest of the paper (just look for the byline). Astaire (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable Under Johnson, the WFB improved in journalistic rigor and made many original reports that were widely used by various outlets (i.e. NYT, WP, etc.). Reporters such as Aaron Sibarium are professional reporters and his work has been validated through secondary coverage. The official editorial stance is conservative but the official stance of Mother Jones is liberal/progressive. The actual thing in question is the site's factual reliability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable - The WFB has done plenty of legitimate reporting during this era, and I'm frankly a lot more confident about this as a reasonable source than Continetti. Of course, the fact that they house satire on the same site as news reporting means extra care should be taken on exactly what is being used from the site. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Question - is there a corrections policy/examples of the outlet issuing corrections or updates when needed? Currently I don't see anything that militates towards the current GUNREL designation, but given that there seems to be consensus that they do in fact print quality original journalism, I think looking at editorial behaviour should probably be the difference between an MREL or GREL outcome. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marginally reliable. On one hand there is a lot of stories they broke, on the other hand u:Newslinger's examples are concerning. I think that the distinction suggested by u:BBQBoffin makes sense (investigative/original reporting vs satire, pop culture and opinion-style pieces). Its use should be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote a given piece. If it's authored by someone who had produced high-quality content previously, that should be a positive signal. Alaexis¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Chicagoganghistory.com

    [edit]

    One article I've been editing in relies heavily on this site. A quick look at the About page shows it is a single person running it. [97]. He is pretty clear when he says "My work has also involved researching Puerto Rican, Mexican, white and African American migration along with researching the neighborhoods they lived or still live in, in order to determine the origins of these streets gangs in correlation with interviews and other research. I have been doing this research for over 20 years; however, I do not have any background as an “official” researcher, I simply have been doing it out of my own home." I just want to get a second opinion on the reliability. I feel like it doesn't meet RS standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, sometimes amateurs are reputable in niche fields, and a quick google searh for this Zach Jones (A.K.A Zook) did indicate that he has some respect. His an interesting read, though. and some do quote him [98]. and his readership has been growing. This book by David Farber published by Cambridge University Press praises him: "grateful for the amazing work of Chicago gang historian Zach Jones, whose site, Chicagoganghistory.com is the best source for a detailed, sure-handed..." I guess Farber's favorable voice counts. --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dengrating history as a field isn't going to get you anywhere and he doesn't even have non-academic credentials... No that doesn't basically amount to peer review, that is a completely absurd claim. I would also note that Farber is not himself a criminal historian, he's an American history generalist so not really a peer if thats what you're going for... Even if he was widely used by others I'd still say no, that is the lowest standard after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So possibly accurate, possibly expert, possibly knowledgeable, but technically unreliable not reliable? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    June First sources at Greenfield tornado

    [edit]

    This was brought up in Greenfield tornado's FAC, but Ethan Moriarty's source on the June First YouTube channel is used once in the article already. He also uploaded a new video very recently discussing more in depth about storm chasers and the tornado (alongside the Macksburg EF3). Since there was quite a bit of pushback, I want to get a bit more consensus before adding or removing anything.

    • Moriarty has a master's in engineering. He doesn't have any inherent quality on severe weather, to my knowledge.
    • His YouTube channel, June First, contains generally well-produced videos.
      • These videos, however, do not cite their sources outside of the video.
    • June First's website is junefirstweather.com.
      • On various subpages of this website, June First (Ethan and several others) present themselves professionally, connecting themselves to Quinnipiac University and several other PhD researchers in a professional setting - see the Engineering Projects subheader.
      • Copywrite is spelt wrong on all subpages. That stood out to me, but other than that, no obvious flaws.
    • The two June First sources I'm interested are both YouTube videos.

    Is June First as a collective reliable for this article? The reliability of them as a source is questionable, but with attribution, would be great for adding comprehensiveness to the article. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable - YouTube as a whole is unreliable, and sources aren’t cited, the biggest red flag to me — EF5 (questions?) 14:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out, the video in question is layed out more like a physical mathmatics proof, resembling that of a academic-paper-style of proof, and all the "steps"/"work" is shown on the video. Doing calculations and showing those calculations would probably fall maybe under WP:CALC / WP:BLUE. Does he need to cite why 2+2=4, for instance? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The type of surveying work he's doing is a lot more in-depth than "2+2=4". They're, yes, what you'd expect in an academic paper, but the question is whether or not Moriarty has the qualifications to have his word taken at face value. Departure– (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but YouTube is unreliable. So, no, Moriarty isn’t reliable. — EF5 (questions?) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    YouTube is a self-published source and can't be put as wholly unreliable at a website basis - see WP:RSPYOUTUBE. Reliability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in my view, which is why I'm bringing this here. Departure– (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. In that case, “He doesn't have any inherent quality on severe weather” is enough for me to say unreliable. We have no idea his expertise on severe weather, which is the overarching point of his channel. — EF5 (questions?) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But his analysis is from an engineering perspective. In the video, he shows the physical mathematical proof (basically working through it like a long physic-math problem). Does a meteorologist need to work through the same mathematical proof to be considered reliable on a parking stop being moved by the winds of a tornado? I'm not saying you are wrong, but in terms of this exact question, based on the statements cited, this is not meteorological, but engineering topics. For example, "He calculated that winds of at least 247 miles per hour (398 km/h) were needed to rip the concrete stop blocks out of the ground if they were cracked prior to being pulled up, or 283 miles per hour (455 km/h) if they were uncracked prior to being ripped out of the ground." Who would be qualified to say that sentence? That is the general question. Does he qualify as being reliable specifically from an engineering perspective; i.e. is he reliable to do mathematical & physics-based calculations on damage from a tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But his analysis is from an engineering perspective is true only for his engineering videos. He doesn’t just do engineering, which is the issue. For example, his “why there haven’t been EF5s” video doesn’t factor in his engineering expertise — EF5 (questions?) 15:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to radar data, an analysis by mechanical engineer Ethan Moriarty noted that across the street from the Adair County Memorial Hospital, the tornado ripped new concrete parking lot stop blocks from the ground, which were installed sometime after August 2023. He calculated that winds of at least 247 miles per hour (398 km/h) were needed to rip the concrete stop blocks out of the ground if they were cracked prior to being pulled up, or 283 miles per hour (455 km/h) if they were uncracked prior to being ripped out of the ground. The tornado, once nearly a mile wide at one point, had shrunk in size significantly before impacting Greenfield, with the conservation of angular momentum, a concept where rotational acceleration increases as a rotating body contracts, being a potential explanation for the tornado's intensity near the end of its life. In the conclusion of his analysis, Moriarty stated that he believed the tornado was "without question a tornado capable of EF5 damage", while stating that, had the tornado been rated on a scale other than the Enhanced Fujita scale, it may have received a higher rating.

    YouTube enthusiasts are Not Reliable for tornado ratings or physics. I also have concerns that a current shibboleth in online tornado fandom, a belief that National Weather Service experts are systematically under-rating intense tornados, might be a POV that's creeping into Wikipedia through use of low-quality, excessively "online" sourcing, as may be the case with this text. Geogene (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it’s a belief with reliable sources to back it up (see EF5 drought!) — EF5 (questions?) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But yes, there usually is an influx of “EF scale bad” users during tornado season. The Wx community tends to be on the younger side (also backed up in a reliable source) so it’s no surprise people hold strong opinions that lead to NOTFORUM situations. — EF5 (questions?) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Look at all the low quality sourcing in EF5 drought. Blogs, YouTube, a primary journal or two, and the rest of it journalism. Is there a wider source quality problem in Wikipedia's tornado articles? Geogene (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m going to have to strongly disagree with the notion that every source in that article is unreliable, but this is about Moriarty and not every tornado article. If you want to reach a wider community base, bring it up at WT:WEATHER. — EF5 (questions?) 17:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say every source in that article is unreliable. I noted it's an entire article, ostensibly about climatology, cobbled together from newspapers and Weather Channel-like infotainment. This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where sourcing is discussed, and which takes precedence over whatever local consensus might exist at Project Weather. Geogene (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    cobbled together from newspapers and Weather Channel-like infotainment is how weather articles are written, how else would you want to see them sourced? A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter how "low-quality" you think it is. We don't have hyperscientific, NWS-based studies for everything; this isn't WP:ASTRONOMY. — EF5 (questions?) 18:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EF5 and Geogene: Speaking from experience you will find that as weather articles develop, expand and grow, sources such as the Weather Channel get dropped and replaced with more reliable and better quality sources such as damage reports from the NCDC, local NDMO or even the WMO which help tell the story better. You will find that using high quality reliable sources sourcing, is a part of the FAC criteria and that the Weather Project has had to justify the use of certain sources.Jason Rees (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jason Rees, you're very much right in that, but we shouldn't be expecting FA-level sourcing for every weather article. Geogene and I will just have to agree-to-disagree, then. — EF5 (questions?) 22:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EF5: While I agree with you that we cant expect every single weather article to have high quality reliable sources all of the time, what we can do is ensure that the scope of the article is appropriate. For example I personally wonder if the EF5 Drought article wouldn't be better off being summarized in the List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes with the list being cleaned up to look something like this. As for your disagreement with @Geogene:, I would state that their beliefs are interesting and worthy of some thought on how to better present the information.Jason Rees (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Berliner Morgenpost

    [edit]

    I noticed that Berliner Morgenpost (morgenpost.de) is cited quite a lot in articles that are related to politics, news, sports etc. Which also includes currently relevant people, events and organizations, such as Friedrich Merz or Alternative for Germany. I wondered if such a small newspaper can be considered a reliable source and can be safely used in articles with such high relevance? Kacza195 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you explain a bit more in which contexts you're unsure about the reliablity of the Morgenpost? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a German source. Not even sure if we can evaluate it adequately. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that, for example, Berliner Morgenpost is used in an article about demographics of Berlin, including number of countries its residents originate from, percentage of migrants, which foreign languages dominate etc. But also murders of M. Nils, I. Abdulkadir and Matiullah Jabarkhil by German law enforcement, their reporting of arrests and altercations with Hells Angels and Bandidos in Germany, National Democratic Party/The Homeland's stance on Rudolf Hess, Friedrich Merz personal life, Berlin Pride attendance in 2019 and so on. I wondered if Berliner Morgenpost can be considered reliable enough to be used as a source in such cases. Kacza195 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for going into detail. I'd say it can be considered reliable per WP:Newsorg as a well established newspaper. Also looks like Berliner Morgenpost didn't get into any trouble with the German Press Council, which would've been the case if there were grave issues with its reliability (only searched back ~10 years). With the topics you described, there should be coverage from multiple sources available. I'd opt for a non-newspaper reliable source where availabe. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The German article might be of interest here, as well as WP:NONENG. FortunateSons (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First, let me admit that I have never been to Berlin, and the couple of German classes I had to take as an undergrad were decades ago. But I looked at this and it seems to be reliable for "local items" such as the water shortage there, etc. Also they cover politics given that they are in Berlin. But they would not be reliable for comments on the economy of China etc. given their local nature, and lack of worldwide reporters, etc. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you consider it reliable for topics and events outside of Berlin but within Germany? Kacza195 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume yes, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Generally speaking, larger regional German newspapers are reliable within the entire country or even all of Central Europe. FortunateSons (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the Megyn Kelly Show self-published?

    [edit]

    In Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an editor introduced BLP content sourced to The Megyn Kelly Show, a podcast that can be heard on several platforms (e.g., SiriusXM, Apple, Spotify) and that also plays on Megyn Kelly's YouTube channel. Although she is a former TV show host, my sense is that this show is self-published. In this tweet, she said that the show is 100% owned by her. If it's self-published, it cannot be used as a source for BLP content about others, per WP:BLPSPS. I tried discussing the publication status with the other editor on the article's talk page, but the two of us didn't resolve it, and we've also had conflicting views on some other things, so I figured I'd ask here in the hopes of getting an outside opinion. Pinging @Mkstokes in case you want to participate in this discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I no longer care, @FactOrOpinion. You have challenged every single edit that I've made or suggested. Think about that. Every single one, literally. And never on grounds that the information that I'm providing is wrong. Rather, you just either want it deleted or stated in a way that either softens the impact or completely diminishes it. I'm fine with the article being misleading just like every other political article on Wikipedia, espectially if it has anything to do with Donald Trump. You win. Mkstokes (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mkstokes: It doesn't matter whether the information is right or not. It matters whether it is able to be verified. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is non-negotiable. If the only sources you can find for things are not reliable, secondary sources, then that information is not able to be included in Wikipedia. Ask yourself this - if something really is true, why can you only find low-quality sources for it? Just because you believe something does not mean it is true. Just because you can find some sources to agree with you doesn't mean it's true. I can find "sources" that say vaccines cause autism - even though that has been thoroughly debunked and is blatantly false. That is why we require high quality sources that have been reviewed by others who are trustworthy and have a reputation for fact-checking for their accuracy.
    @FactOrOpinion: The Megyn Kelly Show is an interview show/podcast. It's been picked up by SiriusXM, but it is ultimately an interview/talk show. So I think it'd be important to look at who is being interviewed - in this case, Will Chamberlain purportedly (I haven't reviewed the actual podcast to confirm). It may be appropriate in some cases to use an interview from the Megyn Kelly Show as the citation of the person who is the guest. But that is still a primary source, and it's definitely not appropriate to use for controversial information about living people. On the other hand, if she hosts Neil deGrasse Tyson and he talks about astrophysics, it may be appropriate to include him in line with WP:SPS, even though he didn't "publish" it - just like it may be appropriate if he wrote a guest opinion essay in the NYT it may be appropriate to source it for his views. Unless there's evidence that the Megyn Kelly Show is maliciously editing what guests say... that would change things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, thanks, I'm only asking whether it's self-published, since it's not the case that all interview shows/podcasts are self-published. I understand the rest. There is no noticeboard that specifically focuses on questions of self-publication, and I brought it here because I know that SPS questions are sometimes discussed here, and this is the noticeboard that Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard redirects to. The edit is a statement by Will Chamberlain about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyer, not a statement by Chamberlain about himself. If others agree with me that the show is self-published, then I will delete the quote as a BLPSPS violation.
    Mkstokes, you've previously called WP a "game," so perhaps that's why you think in terms of someone "winning." I am not trying to "win." I am trying to abide by relevant policies, and am seeking outside opinions since you wouldn't resolve this particular issue with me, and in the hopes that if it turned out that other editors agreed with me, you wouldn't dismiss their opinions the way you dismiss mine. Your claim "You have challenged every single edit that I've made or suggested" is false. I've challenged several of your edits because I believe they are inconsistent with policy; I didn't challenge others. Here are examples of some that I didn't challenge: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (and there were a number of smaller ones too). I wish you would stop making false claims about me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as it is now, it pushes up against BLPSPS - but the information that's being presented (that MS-13 has cliques in the DC area and that the government has at least once before claimed that the Western clique operates in the DC area in a court filing) by this quote isn't really BLP information. I wonder if everything but the first sentence he is quoted saying were removed, would that satisfy your concerns over it being BLP information? Because then it would only be making a claim about the DOJ's historical filings and/or the gang itself - neither of which are BLP information. Part of the "introductory paragraph" (the paragraph proceeding the quote) would need removed as well. But the information about the DOJ filings is already present in the article (under the section "2019 detention and bond hearings") cited to the Washington Examiner - and in that Examiner article they themselves cite Chamberlain's Twitter thread.
    In other words, is it maybe not as urgent to remove the entire statement by Chamberlain, but perhaps just change it so it is not information related to the living person and then tie it in with the Examiner article that's cited at the other point of the article? I don't have a strong opinion either way - I'm just trying to help find a middle ground because I can see how it's confusing to someone that we cite an Examiner article to include information which the source gets from Chamberlain, but we can't cite Chamberlain himself explaining that same information in an interview. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the statement about Abrego Garcia's lawyer that I was the most concerned about. I'm guessing that Chamberlain would meet the EXPERTSPS qualification, though I haven't investigated. Is he an RS for that sentence ("the Western clique does actually operate in Maryland and DOJ has routinely claimed that in any number of filings, plea agreements, indictments"), and does it add anything to what we already have? I don't know. The example he gave on Twitter was from a RICO case filed in 2010 with over 700 entries in the case docket, ~20 defendants, several superseding indictments, ..., so for all I know, he's just talking about filings, plea agreements, and indictments from that one case. If I only heard his statement and didn't know anything more, I'd have assumed that he meant multiple cases, and that the info is current. Does he have evidence beyond that one case? I don't know. In another tweet, he suggests that a 2015 article "echoes" what he found in the one indictment he cited. But it turns out that that article is based on a different part of the very same indictment. (Did he know this and pretend that it was different? Did he not know this because he didn't check? I don't know.) In other tweets he says things like "likely lying" and "likely" a gang member, as if he had some way to judge the likelihood.
    I don't mind citing the Washington Examiner piece because the DOJ statement is clear (and I see the DOJ indictment as the underlying source, not Chamberlain; he's just noting that he found it and not doing any particular secondary analysis). It's probably OK with me to limit it to the first sentence and add it to the "2019 detention and bond hearings" section, but I'm still a little iffy about whether he's an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez GroundNews uses external independent organizations to determine if news organization left, right, center, etc. So does AllSides. What does Wikipedia use? It's own editors. So it's definition of "reliable sources" is ny nature biased. So let's stop the preaching, okay. Furthermore, reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period. So let's stop with the bullshit. No Ph.D defends their dissertation by exclusively citing secondary resources. So Wikipedia has it completely backwards. For instance, the vast majority of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the national media by Wikipedia defined reliable sources. Only "low quality" sources noted the COVID-19 protocols were unscientific and the source of the virus itself was a lab leak. So what the he'll are you talking about? So-called "high quality" sources got it wrong! So spare me the bullshit, okay? All you've said is that the media machine has a monopoly on the truth. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, then. 🫡🇺🇸 Mkstokes (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe strongly in representing all sides: not just sources with a reputation for expertise, accuracy, and fact-checking, but also sources known for their ignorance, for patterns of dishonesty, for their indifference to the truth, or for their lack of professional standards. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All sources are biased and that specifically includes any source that claims it's not, such as groundnews or allsides. Their opinions on reliability and political stance have zero relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it's those policies and guidelines that determine reliability not editors opinions.
    Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and by restating what high quality sources report rather than what editors personally believe is right or wrong, this is by design. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AllSides does not evaluate source accuracy or credibility, so it is irrelevant for determining whether a source is reliable. The WP:BLPSPS policy applies to all claims from all sources regardless of political orientation. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mkstokes: your *belief* that COVID was from a lab leak or that the protocols were ineffective is your right. Both of those are blatantly and demonstrably proven wrong though. You are claiming that because you can find sources that agree with your narrative, they must be high quality. That’s simply not true. If you want to trust sources that have a proven track record of outright lying, misleading, not making corrections when they’re proven wrong.. that’s your right. But it doesn’t mean that others will do the same, nor that other people will ever listen to you. It has nothing related to 1984 at all. In fact, you trying to say that because you believe something it must be included - that’s closer to 1984 than people prohibiting conspiracy theories from being parroted on Wikipedia.
    To summarize, you have every right to believe demonstrably false things, and even conspiracy theories. But you don’t have the right to force others to listen to you parrot those falsehoods or conspiracy theories. Also, stop using those emoji at the end of your statements. It’s patronizing and rude. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 15:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for commenting again, but Mkstokes, you are the only person here that's pushing the idea that only certain media sources are appropriate. In fact, Wikipedia uses a wide range of sources - if you go to any article, unless it is about a current event (for which "media" is the only sources that are going to be available), I think you'll find that well under half of the sources are "media". And you talk about "reputable researchers" valuing secondary sources - Wikipedia does too! If you value secondary sources so much, why are you pushing so hard to use primary sources (interviews with this one person, or his tweets) to include something in this article? Lastly, you claim that the "vast majority" of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the media - this is demonstrably untrue itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether Mkstokes knows what confirmation bias is. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, based on everything that Mkstokes has said on Talk:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I'm guessing that when he wrote "reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period," he actually meant "reputable researchers value primary sources over secondary sources, period." For example, on that talk page, he's said things like:

    Wikipedia is the only place on the planet that refuses to use primary source materials for articles about a living person. Rather, it will only use secondary source material about a living person. So, even if the Supreme Court says X, if a "reliable" secondary source doesn't write about it, X is deemed to not exist on Wikipedia for living persons. Meanwhile, in this same article, we are looking askew at "hearsay" evidence. Secondary sourcing almost by definition is hearsay, which is why every academic institution on the planet prioritizes primary source information over secondary source information.

    This is why he says "Wikipedia has it completely backwards" and why he's "pushing so hard." He especially wants to be able to cite court documents in the article, and has repeatedly argued against the BLPPRIMARY proscription against using court documents as sources for WP content about living persons. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, ultimately, I understand why BLPPRIMARY specifically calls out "trial transcripts", but I do slightly disagree with it. For example, if I have a Wikipedia article (which I don't), and I'm found guilty of a crime by a court, then I don't see why - other than an abundance of caution - it would be problematic to cite the court's final ruling of guilt for that crime. While I disagree with Mkstokes that "the vast majority of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the national media by Wikipedia defined reliable sources" - but I would agree that the vast majority of state/local court cases aren't covered in secondary sources, often even if the person is otherwise notable. There is obviously a question over whether it is due to include such convictions in the first place - but technically it would violate BLPPRIMARY to include the court's final ruling as the source for the simple statement of "X was found guilty of (crime) by (court)".
    I've gotten off topic I think now, so I'll leave it with this - even if my view that the above would be okay (using a court record of a conviction as a primary source for that simple statement of fact that anyone who looks at the court record would be able to clearly see stated in it) is accepted (which it isn't); that still would not allow Mkstokes to cite the claims made by one party during the court case as a primary source for information about a living person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Megyn Kelly owns her own show "100%", then yes, I would consider that self-published. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Per WP:RS, it doesn't matter if the content is accurate or not. It matters that MK is the person responsible for approving what she reports. That makes it effectively self published. It would be a bit like the editorial board of a news paper publishing their views on a topic. In such a case we would treat the information like an editorial, not normal factual reporting. Springee (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee That's a very good point. If the editorial board of the New York Times provides an opinion about a political issue, it can be cited because it's a reliable source, even though be definition it is also self-published. Yet there is a blanket ban against self-published citations for WP:BLP. The editorial board of the New York Times is untimately responsible for approving EVERYTHING they publish. As for all comments from @Berchanhimez and @George Ho, they aren't worth responding. I'm for getting the story 100% correct, period. Wikipedia's policies ensure the opposite and would NEVER be used by a reliable source. Imagine the New York Times saying it's journalist can't use primary source info?!? That's seems strange to me. In this case, Abrego Garcia is the source of the claim that he illegally arrived in the U.S. around March 25, 2011. This article is supposed to be following the policy of WP:BLP. Yet we can't even add to the mainspace a claim made by the living person whom this page is about! That seems strange to me as well. Mkstokes (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The limitation on the use of self-published sources in articles about living people isn't just a matter of reliability. The WP:Biographies of living persons policy imposes limitations beyond just reliability, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY are based on concerns other than just verifying content to reliable sources. They're not something that can be ignored or argued away, other than attempting to change those policies. If the subject has made a statement about themselves, specifically only about themselves, than it can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF that is a limited exception though. It can't be a person making statements about a third party in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to talk shows, in no universe were any of them ever considered reliable for statements of fact. I suppose some of them might be used under WP:RSOPINION, assuming consideration of due weight, though that would indeed not be an option for self-published shows such as this one.
    To be honest though, I don't think the unreliability of the source is the main issue here, I expect the treating of Wikipedia as a battleground is the primary inhibitor towards productive collaboration. Ultimately, if one wishes to right great wrongs, I can only say that Wikipedia, not being the root cause of those wrongs, is not a place that can resolve those wrongs. We are not responsible for the reliability or lack thereof of sources that chose to take certain points of view, and if an editor wouldn't accept that, I don't think there is much we can do other than move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: The Debrief

    [edit]

    What is the reliability of the The Debrief [99]?

    Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (The Debrief)

    [edit]
    • Option 3 (generally unreliable). The Debrief is the new(ish) blog of paranormal podcaster Micah Hanks (host of "The Graelian Report" - an apparent portmanteau of "grey alien" ... one of the alien species flying saucer believers think are battling the Galactic Federation of Light led by the "good" Pleiadians). With The Debrief, he appears to be trying to edge into the mainstream by branding it as "science and tech" and mixing summaries of mainstream science news with the usual cruft (there's an entire section on flying saucers [100]).
      Hanks has written and spoken in a variety of media about ghosts, ESP, "lost" civilization, flying saucers, Bigfoot, etc. (see: [101], [102], etc.) These reports appear largely uncritical and seem to originate at a starting point which presumes veracity of the paranormal. He also frequents the paranormal lecture circuit (here he is at "East Coast Paracon" on a "remote viewing" panel [103]). He is also a guest talking about flying saucers on News Nation [104] which we previously determined was unreliable per WP:UFONATION. Insofar as WP:USEBYOTHERS it was widely cited around one event, the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, based apparently on the exclusivity of its access to Grusch or those who know him. I can find no other instances of USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (The Debrief)

    [edit]

    Ghanahighschools.com

    [edit]

    Hi, what are people's views on the reliability of www.Ghanahighschools.com? This is being added to Ghana school articles by an editor to verify schools' categories, day or boarding, gender of pupils etc. Examples here and here. The site says GhanaHighSchools.com was established and programmed by the Dodoo Coding Club (DCC), a non-profit organisation based in Pokuase, Northwest of Accra, Ghana. We teach local children and teenagers computer coding. Our goal is to develop a substantial academy of capable computer programmers in Pokuase who can assist companies with IT/coding services. I don't see anything on the site that says where it's getting the information from, or whether there's any checking. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a slightly odd one, I'd bet good money that they are pulling the data from some sort of official database but there's nothing on the site to explain if that's the case. The site itself appears to be a student project by the Dodoo Coding Club, I think it's the result of scrapping the internet. Some of the details could be referenced to this pdf[105] for the Ghana Education Service. The other details, courses studies and facilities, are likely from the schools themselves. It's likely these references should be replaced with better sources.
    Your first example for instance is a mix of the pdf I mentioned, and the schools about us page[106]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Romeo + Juliet source that agrees with another

    [edit]

    Hi there.

    In the retrospective reviews section of "Romeo + Juliet" I wanted to highlight how some retrospectives have come to a very smiilar conclusion about this film, years later. One of the sources to do this is https://www.maketheswitch.com . au/article/feature-romeo-and-juliet-20-years-on - and I was hoping I could cite just this page and the quote "There's so much in this film that enhances not only an understanding of classical works, but of modern language". I understand this site may be reliable in other ways, but this review mirrors others, so I personally would consider this one page a reliable source and am not sure if an exception could be made.

    (This is my first time engaging with this process, so I hope that's enough context. I was actually only trying to add this source to my "Changes" comment to start with, hoping discussion might be sparked there) I'll paste my original comment below:

    /* Retrospective reviews */ Added retrospective reviews. There's one that backs up another quote. I thought this would highlight agreement. However the second source is deemed unreliable. If it mirrors a reliable source can it _then_ be included as a second source? https://web.archive.org/web/20240616160138/https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/feature-romeo-and-juliet-20-years-on "There's so much in this film that enhances not only an understanding of classical works, but of modern language"

    UPDATE: Err, this page bans banned linked but seems to be the page for asking about banned links. How does one get around this catch-22? I've added some spaces, hoping that will work! Retnee (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The site was blacklisted because they were spamming links into articles, sources aren't blacklisted on reliability. You can ask for specific links to be whitelisted on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
    There doesn't appear to have been any discussion on the sites reliability. From looking at their 'about us' page[https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about] their contributors range from people with decades of experience in media to someone who worked at a cinema. I would say the reliability of their reviews would depend on who wrote it. Unfortunately the review for 'Romeo + Juliet' was written by someone who doesn't appear have any background in media other than a amateur passion for film. It's not easy to find any details about them, but they appear in this archived 'about us' page[https://web.archive.org/web/20170326105429/https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about]. If you can I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson reliable today?

    [edit]
    CLOSED
    OP has been topic banned and can't reply to this discussion. Any editor in good standing can open a new section if required, but leaving this one open invites a topic ban violation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    On the "Vinland" and "Norse Colonization of North America" articles there has been a debate ongoing about "reliable sources." I have been mantaining that these two authors and their 1965 book "The Vinland Sagas" fall squarely in the "reliable source" category. But there is major resistance.

    Magnus Magnusson - Wikipedia

    Hermann Pálsson - Wikipedia

    "The Vinland Sagas" by Magnusson and Palsson is still highly regarded today. When it first appeared in 1965 it was reviewed by Prof. Erik Walgren who said, "A very significant contribution to scholarly thinking about the Vinland sagas is the translation, together with brilliant commentary, by Magnusson and Pálsson... That such a book as this is in paperback and costs less than a dollar is almost too good to be true. We hope that it will circulate by the thousands as a major contribution to public understanding of Icelandic literature and American history." [Scandinavian Studies", Nov. 1965] The book is still being cited today and has been assigned as a college level textbook. Is this book a "reliable source" for Wikipedia? Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's black and white. Can you give a couple of examples of content supported by this source that are contested? Is it contradicted by more recent scholarly sources? Alaexis¿question? 19:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaexis, as Rockawaypoint has just received a topic-ban from Vikings, broadly construed, I would not expect a follow-up response. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1288802400"