Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 484

Archive 480

←

Archive 482

Archive 483

Archive 484

Archive 485

Archive 486

→

Archive 489

Are these sources reliable for Middle East topics?

I've recently come across material that relies solely or mostly on partisan sources, advocacy groups, and similar outlets. In some cases, even fairly major claims are presented without attribution, and we just seem to take the source's word for it. These sources are not listed in the reliable sources table. I have searched for past discussions, and while a few are mentioned, there isn't any clear or consistent guidance on how they're viewed. I'd really like to get a better understanding of how they are regarded. Of course, it's entirely possible I am wrong and some or all of them are considered perfectly acceptable. In that case, I'd appreciate the clarification. To make things easier, I've tried to compile a table showing their details and where they're used. I am sure there are more sources like this going around, but I only checked a couple of articles that I happened to stumble upon, so this is by no means a comprehensive list.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting these sources shouldn't be used at all. But context matters, and taking their claims entirely at face value, without attribution or scrutiny, doesn't seem ideal. Since I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is when encountering material like this, I thought it would be helpful to begin by getting some feedback on the sources themselves. I wasn't sure whether to post this here or at the NPOV noticeboard, but I decided to go with this one. If this isn't the right place to raise the issue, please feel free to point me in the right direction. Thank you.

Sources

Source	Discussions	Notes	Use
				hezbollah.org		Clearly not affiliated with Hezbollah. It's part of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, whose leadership includes a number of former government officials from countries that designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Among them are former members of Mossad, the CIA, Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst, UK Special Forces, the US Homeland Security Council, US Defense Intelligence Agency, and others.	1  1
Stimson Center		Think tank based in Washington. Its board includes former officials from both the US and UK governments, with backgrounds in the US Departments of Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and State, as well as veterans from the US military and individuals with ties to the CIA. There is also someone affiliated with Israel Bonds.	1
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy	2009 2021	Pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, established in 1985 with support from AIPAC. Its board includes several former US government and military officials, as well as individuals with backgrounds in the CIA.	1
Alma Research and Education Center		Israeli think-tank focusing on "IDF's security challenges along Israel's volatile northern border." Its board has former and current IDF personnel and government officials.	1
Rewards for Justice Program		United States Department of State's national security interagency program that offers reward for information leading to the location or an arrest of leaders of what they consider terrorist groups.	1
FDD's Long War Journal Foundation for Defense of Democracies	2011 2021	Project of American think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel, anti-Iran lobby group that "provides accurate reporting and analysis of ongoing efforts to address jihadism" with the aim of "strengthening U.S. national security and reducing or eliminating threats posed by adversaries and enemies of the United States."	1  1
Middle East Institute		American think tank, funded primarily by the UAE, but also by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. Its board includes former government officials from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the US, with backgrounds in the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, and the military. There are also individuals with ties to Lockheed Martin.	1
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace		American think tank based in Washington. Its board includes a number of former government officials from the US, the UK, and Israel, among them individuals with backgrounds in the US Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, as well as the Israeli Ministry of Defense, the US and Israeli militaries, and the CIA.	1
Counter Extremism Project		An organisation founded by former US. government officials "working to combat the growing threat posed by extremist ideologies". The group is modeled on United Against Nuclear Iran. It has been alleged that they also receive money from the UAE and SA.	1
Institute for the Study of War	2024	American neoconservative think tank, often described as quite hawkish in its outlook. Its board includes former US government officials as well as members of the US military.	1
Global Fight Against Terrorism Funding		It's not very clear who is behind them. Their website is quite rudimentary and hardly functions properly. They don't mention any of their methods or sources, and since they offer custom reports for sale, there does seem to be a profit element involved.	1
The Center for Monitoring Security Threats		Per their description: the Center for Monitoring Security Threats (CMST) is a civilian initiative that provides free public access to open-source intelligence on terrorist organizations and the security environment surrounding Israel. When looking into the details of specific individuals, the sources tend to be Wikipedia, unnamed news outlets in different languages, advocacy groups, or sometimes the IDF itself.	1

Paprikaiser (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Almost nothing from any of these organisations should be presented without attribution, and balancing sources should be actively sought where they are used, given their strong bias.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The blue links are largely biased but reliable (with some exceptions), and I would strongly recommend attributing anything particularly contentious. But yes, think tanks can be - and often are - reliable sources, particularly those regularly used by others. FortunateSons (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The only one I've had experience using as a source is Counter Extremism Project, which I thought was fairly good. I think these are too different to judge together. As with anything in this topic area especially controversial allegations should be attributed. But these are very different organizations with very different policies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Seconding all above, they all seem biased but well-researched - in general, usable with attribution. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue@FortunateSons@PARAKANYAA@The Kip Thank you all for your insights. I have a couple of follow-up questions, if that's alright.

If material is based solely on one or more of these organisations, and there's no other reporting to provide balance or additional context, would it still be acceptable to include it with attribution? Or in such cases, would it be better to remove it?

Also, for organisations that don't have their own Wikipedia article, does that affect whether they're considered notable enough to be usable as sources? Or is it still fine to cite them, as long as there's proper attribution? I'm wondering where exactly the line is drawn. Anyone can set up a website, so I suppose my real question is: what is the threshold for a source to be considered significant enough to be used? Especially when dealing with serious claims. If it is referenced by other reliable, or semi-reliable sources?

A more specific question for FortunateSons: could you tell me which of these sources are unreliable? I'm not sure how to tell. I do understand that all sources carry some degree of bias, but of course bias alone doesn't necessarily make something unreliable. Still, if there's general agreement that a source clearly doesn't meet the standard, I imagine it shouldn't be used at all. In that case, am I right in thinking that any material supported only by that source should either be attributed to something more suitable, if available, or otherwise removed or marked with a [citation needed] tag?

Apologies for all the questions. I would have taken this to the Teahouse, but I felt it might be a bit too specific, and I hoped to hear from editors who are more familiar with sensitive topics. I've raised concerns about some of these sources before, and was rather quickly accused of pushing an agenda, so I'm trying to be careful to avoid misunderstandings. Thank you again. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser It, again, depends wholly on what group you are citing and what for. This is an extremely divergent group of sources of varying reliability. With very controversial material on which there are not a lot of other sources it may be undue weight and so not be included, but that goes for any source... it will vary, unless you tell us what you want to cite these for, and for what group. For specific statements it is a case by case basis. This is too broad to discuss together. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to the question of whether to include a claim that can only be sourced to one of those institutions and which cannot be contrasted with diverse opinions. If it is a somewhat uncontroversial fact like, say, "The Israeli cabinet has never formally discussed granting Israeli citizenship to the population of Gaza", then it should be fine. If it is something more controversial like "76% of Gazans have at some point been involved in terrorist linked organisations", then I would not add it. (by the way, I have made both these "facts" up, I have no idea if they are true). But we always need to bear in mind whether a fact only contained in this one source would be WP:DUE. When it comes to an opinion, then it would already almost certainly have to be part of a range of opinions.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue@PARAKANYAA To give a concrete example, what prompted me to start this discussion was this particular article, which I think illustrates my point quite clearly. There are a few other "Unit x" articles circulating with similar sources, but I decided to focus on this one for now. All of its sources, apart from two that are considered reliable, are included in the table. Of the reliable ones, one simply quotes the Israeli military, while the other also relies on the Israeli military along with some unnamed sources, which I suppose is somewhat more acceptable. In any case, neither really addresses the main subject of the article directly.

I haven't edited that page yet, since I wanted to be sure that relying solely on sources like these isn't considered appropriate. I suppose the next step would be to look for some more independent reporting. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Well whether they are or aren't reliable there are better sources [1] [2] that can be used to provide a lot of this information. Probably more. The book there has about five pages on them, and I found that in like 30 seconds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that these sources should be used with caution if at all. Particularly striking from my experience is the ISW often taking a completely different stance on various law of war issues than any other source I'm familiar with. Needless to say that it is heavily biased towards US position to the point it may be FRINGE in terms of international law scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 14:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that ISW leans pro-US/pro-West, but I haven't found any incidents that go beyond the range of normal scholarly differences. FortunateSons (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There are some legal questions on which Israel and the US position differ from literally every other country in the world. (t · c) buidhe 00:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Which? FortunateSons (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

So called anticipatory self defense (t · c) buidhe 15:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

They are definitely in the minority - and, IMO, wrong - but there are mainstream scholars who consider at least some kinds of anticipatory self defense morally and legally legitimate. Obviously, we should attribute that view as a minority position FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with all of these, but those I know I would group these into three broad categories:

1. Thinktanks with scholarly input and a reputation for accuracy despite bias: MEI, Carnegie, ISW, maybe Long War Journal. Can be used as a source for facts only where it's non-contentious or with clear attribution, triangulate if contentious, opinions more likely to be noteworthy.
2. Partisan thinktanks/advocacy organisations that are not actively unreliable but exist solely to lobby so at best present half the truth: United Against Nuclear Iran, Stimson Cntre, FDD, CEP. Treat as opinion that would only be noteworthy if there's secondary coverage. Avoid using as a source for facts unless there's an exceptional reason, such as secondary coverage, and never without attribution and triangulation. Flag for better sources if found without triangulation, and replace if better source is available.
3. Highly partisan advocacy organisations that present as thinktanks but don't really do their own research or robust analysis: Global Fight, CMST. Might not be unreliable enough to remove on sight but definitely always flag for better source and insert attribution.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this is really helpful. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Should WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources from military veterans/personnel count as WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of discussing military topics?

As far as I know, sources of this category are not used and cannot be used, however if this is allowed it will allow for huge improvement of chinese military related articles, as there are quite a lot of Chinese former military personnel posting information on their unit or on military equipment.

I think there are several options for this(additionally, for option 1 and 2, would this also cover military equipment used by that nation/branch?):

Option 1: Self published sources from military veterans only count as WP:ABOUTSELF for military topics of the country they served in regardless of branch

Option 2: Self published sources from military veterans only count as WP:ABOUTSELF in regards to the branch(es) they served in (e.g. a SPS by a navy veteran can't be used on an air force article)

Option 3: Self published sources from military veterans only count as WP:ABOUTSELF for the exact unit(s) they served in(E.g. a green berets veteran's self published source cannot be used for the delta force article)

Option 4: Self published sources from military veterans are not WP:ABOUTSELF Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Option 1, No , after all they will presumably be about situations where they served against a nation, thus wp:primary comes into effect.

Option 2, no Per option 1.

Option 3, no, Per option 1.

Option 4, no, per option 1.

This is about their service; thus whatever they discuss is from their (limited) perspective. So it is about their opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying in terms of stuff like military organization or equipment etc. For stuff like geopolitics definitely not. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

But unless they are high-ranking officers, what would they really know? Again, we are talking about their experiences. Also th4ere are so many other issues wp:npov wp:undue, wp:v, wp:sps and god knows what else that I doubt they would be useable anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That's why I am asking if they would classify under WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:ABOUTSELF sources cannot be used for controversial contexts. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It's only WP:ABOUTSELF if it's ... about themselves. You could use an ABOUTSELF source for e.g. a claim that such and such a person served in such and such a unit (unless it's a particularly elite unit in which case it might fall foul of the requirement that the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim) but a military veteran's claims about the unit they served in are not in general ABOUTSELF claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I am confused, we cannot use self-published sources about third parties. "It does not involve claims about third parties;". Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As to "unduly self-serving" Military impostor, no we need an RS to confirm someone is a veteran, not a self-claim. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the existence of military impostors makes any claim to have served in the military "unduly self-serving" any more than e.g. the existence of people who lie about their age makes any claim of being a particular age unduly self-serving. Certainly some claims of military experience are self-serving (we should look with great suspicion on, e.g., any claim to have served with particular distinction or have participated in specific notable operations) but I wouldn't consider "I was in the army" to be unduly self-serving.

My understanding is that we do generally accept ABOUTSELF claims to have worked in a particular role notwithstanding that this arguably implies some sort of claim about a third party (i.e. "John Smith worked for Widgets Inc." strictly makes a claim about Widgets Inc.) but I'm struggling to find a discussion of this in either the archives for WT:V or WP:BLPN. I certainly wouldn't object to people asking for more stringent sourcing for this kind of ABOUTSELF claim.

Either way, none of this detracts from my overall point that ABOUTSELF does not have a special expanded meaning when it comes to military veterans. Self-published sources by military veterans can only be used for ABOUTSELF claims in the same way that any other self-published source can be used for ABOUTSELF claims: that is, when they are claims about the author themselves. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the context of the claim, "I was in the army" shouldn't be controversial but "I was part of a secret operation" probably would be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be confused on the nature of ABOUTSELF. A veteran talking about the units they were part of is not ABOUTSELF beyond their own deployment, and because of stolen valour secondary sources would proby be appropriate in that case. So options 1-3 wouldn't be ABOUTSELF.
Are you confusing ABOUTSELF with trying to use their self published posts as an WP:EXPERTSPS? In that case there background would make them a subject expert, but they would still need to have been "previously been published by reliable, independent publications". That would depend on the veteran, but if they have had books published about military matters then their self-published work might be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the criteria WP:ABOUTSELF are clear enough.

“ Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ”

Articles about a conflict they participated in, the branch they served in and their unit are not articles about themselves or their activities. Therefore such sources should not be used there.

On the other hand, such sources may be used in the articles about the person himself, if he's notable enough to have an article. If they are an expert then WP:EXPERTSPS is the applicable policy. Alaexis_¿question? 12:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Came here to say this. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• As a veteran myself, I would not put too much stock into what equipment and operations other vets claimed to have used without additional reasons to trust their claims. People brag and boast and exaggerate, and there's often little way to verify their claims. I could post my DD214, social security card and state-issued ID to my userpage, and then talk at length about participating in Land Warrior tests, and even the most diligent and well-connected editor would not be able to ascertain whether or not I was telling the truth. I think this is a prime example of why we should not rely on primary sources except for the most simple, uncontroversial statements of fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Guys:

What I mean is in cases such as military equipment or organization, nothing too controversial(in that case it wouldn't be allowed anyways); Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

TO&E's are official, so no such claim that contradicts that by a non-expert would be about self. Rather, it is covered by "not claims about third parties," I would argue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my comment that wouldn't be ABOUTSELF, but self published content. Per WP:EXPERTSPS they might be reliable if they have "previously been published by reliable, independent publications". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• No I believe we should interpret WP:SPS strictly in these cases. It sounds like the OP is really asking "Does being a veteran automatically make someone an expert on a) the country in which they served or on b) the branch of the militaryin which they served?" My answer to that is a) no and b) probably not. Many veterans will be experts on one or both of these, but not all of them Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I know a few people who have served in the British armed services. They are certainly not experts either in the UK or in the branch in which they served. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the OP should stop trying to shoehorn things that don't fit into WP:ABOUTSELF and spell out more exactly what they are trying to achieve. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we have reached a consensus regarding the fact that this does not fall under WP:ABOUTSELF? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• No per last time. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• No no all. "About self" is about self is about self. --Altenmann >talk 21:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Obviously never. ABOUTSELF is for very narrow and specific things about the individual in question as a person, not for claims about entire organizations that they were a member of; it cannot cover claims about third parties or events not directly related to the source, and of course sweeping claims about entire militaries cover both these things. At most it could perhaps be used to state things like "person X served in location Y" but even that requires a degree of caution, since it could sometimes be unduly self-serving; basically, if there's any question or controversy at all, it wouldn't be enough. Since the idea that ABOUTSELF could apply beyond that narrow usage is plainly absurd, is likely that what OP is looking for is WP:EXPERTSPS instead and got confused. In some cases they might be an EXPERTSPS, but the requirements for that are quite steep and most people won't meet it; simply having served in the military is obviously woefully insufficient. And even if they pass the bar of being experts who have been previously published (not simply quoted by) high-quality sources, they still cannot be used for claims about third parties. --Aquillion (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously never as Aquillion said. And I would add that in cases of what happened in a specific combat, specially small and focused fights, only those who were present know what happened. And in many cases exaggeration is the soup of the day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Its also true that if you interview five soldiers after a battle you will get five different stories... And if you interview them all again fifty years later five more stories. Theres a reason history as a discipline doesn't just take first hand accounts as gospel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

And of course none of the five would be lying, even when they later contradicted their earlier statements. Memory is notoriously unreliable, so even their truthful recollections may vary wildly from what actually happened. You get the same issue with witness statements to a crime, even shortly after the event people have different memories of what happened. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Actively, once upon a time, decades ago, when I was visiting a place where BBC operates I looked at a few programs. There was a comedian called Dave Allen, and you might just remember him. He told a joke about fishing that I still remember. He said: Fishing satisfies a man's three basic needs. The need to relax, the need to hunt and the need to tell bigger lies than anyone else. I wonder if the last two thirds of that applies to recollections of combat bravery. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A bit of yes and a bit of no. Classically the angler recounting the size of their catch is engaging in a bit of bravado. The issue with memory is that we would like to remember ourselves in certain ways, overtime this can reshape our memories to the point that we believe the altered memory to be the truth. Someone might oversell their bravery in an initial interview, but 20-30yrs later that version is true to them without any thought of a lie. Memory is not static the act of remembering an event changes how it is remembered. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, once again we are headed towards a heated agreement. I could not agree more with the comments on the fallibility of memory and could post 10 WP:RS sources to support them. But let us move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• No to all options. All options are against what WP:ABOUTSELF actually states. Per WP:ABOUTSELF:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

In regards to options 1,2 or 3, a WP:SPS which references military topics about their country, their branch or their unit does not meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF as it references third parties. Option 4 is also incorrect as WP:ABOUTSELF does not change just because the subject is a military veteran. TarnishedPath^talk 03:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

'pinion on The Tab?

Here is the full list from the ‘bizzare’ Italian brainrot trend that’s everywhere

This is for the Italian brainrot page TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

They have an editorial policy, claim to be run by experienced journalists and to be committed to fact checking. I'd say they are reliable until proven otherwise. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

They are a student paper[3] using student journalists. Probably reliable, but I would avoid using them for anything controversial or BLP related. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Moot issue. I removed the discussed ref because is was not supporting the statement it was footnoting. It is also useless, because it is a childish text that adds nothing new to our wp article. --Altenmann >talk 21:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it lately but from what I know, the Tab is as tabloidy as any paper in Britain, with the added benefit of being staffed by students. I do not think the project should source any contentious fact to it, nor consider inclusion there as evidence of notability. I wouldn't deprecate if there isn't any evidence of significant use, but it would have to be a fairly extraordinary situation before I would source encyclopedic material from it. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It's quite funny to think of the articles that might pass GNG if we start citing stories like "Guys, there’s a dolphin on a killing spree across the UK and you’ll never guess his genius name" (from the top of today's News section, before you ask). Or, idiosyncratically tucked into the Entertainment section, section: "If WW3 actually happens, these four countries would be the safest in a nuclear war". Samuelshraga (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't include information from article titles, they are often clickbait-y. If you actually read the dolphin article it says: Named Anakin, this bottlenose dolphin is leaving a trail of bodies around the Welsh coast as experts speculate that his species could be the reason common dolphins are not-so-common in the UK. In a matter of months, he’s killed a baby common dolphin and a four-foot smooth-hound shark, throwing the latter into the air in full view of a dolphin tour boat. His murderous rampage has earned him the moniker, Jack the Flipper. The nuclear war article talks about what experts have determined: Most experts agree that the two safest countries in a nuclear war would be Australia and New Zealand. Speaking on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO podcast last year, journalist Annie Jacobsen, who has written a lot of books about nuclear war, explained that these countries would avoid something called “nuclear winter”.

Clickbait titles are not a reason to label a source as unreliable. If we did that, then no news organisations would be considered RS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Rate Your Music

Several pages related to Sri Lankan actors use information documented on RateYourMusic. Would it be reasonable to cite RYM in this cases as the information is not found anywhere else or is the information just to be used without citation or removed? This relates to names of characters in Sri Lankan films. UpendraSachith (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times before and is considered unreliable, see WP:RATEYOURMUSIC. The general opinion is that it's user generated and so should never be used, see WP:USERGENERATED. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

My question is if information is used from it should it then be removed? UpendraSachith (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

References to RYM can be removed and replaced with {{citation needed}}. You should only remove content if you can't find any other source for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The Mid-Day

While this source has been discussed here and here, both discussions link to sources that are opinion articles, like this archived source having a "The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper." disclaimer at the bottom, and the other one being in the "Opinion News" section and having the same disclaimer, respectively.

"Dsena to enter 'Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi'" cited in Vivian Dsena is used to support the following: In 2016, he again participated in the Colors TV's popular stunt-based reality TV show Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi 7, which was filmed in Argentina and ended as a finalist.

"Varun Dhawan & Janhvi Kapoor's rom-com 'Sunny Sankari Ki...' to release on THIS date" in Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania is used to support the following: A third installment in the franchise, titled Sunny Sanskari Ki Tulsi Kumari, was announced in 2024. Directed by Khaitan, the film is scheduled for release on 12 September 2025. Dhawan returns in the lead role, while Jhanvi Kapoor replaces Bhatt as the female lead.

While both passages, apart from including The Mid-Day, include other sources like Hindustan Times or WP:TIMESOFINDIA, they all, to an extent, support different claims.

NOTE: Like many other indian sources, it does have the paid advertorial consideration, and no appropiate disclosure, only the publisher name in cases like this to tell them apart, so that is something to keep in mind. VirtualizerExtreme (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

CzechJournal in articles about AI (or in general)

I just saw the CzechJournal article "Understanding ChatGPT Psychosis: Emotional Manipulation's Impact on AI Systems" cited in ChatGPT#Mental health to support the passage Delusions and psychosis induced by AI usage has been coined "ChatGPT Psychosis". along with "How Emotional Manipulation Causes ChatGPT Psychosis" by Psychology Today.

I suspect CzechJournal is likely unreliable in AI-related topics or in general; passages like In the ever-evolving realm of artificial intelligence... and the wording used in the article in general very much resemble AI-generated content, the article does not cite specific studies, experts, or interviews, etc. The site itself also highly resembles a content farm, very frequently using obviously AI-generated imagery (e.g. the above article, the about page, here, here, here), blatantly getting facts wrong, such as claiming Mike Pence cast the tiebreaking vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in this article, etc. It says it has an editorial board in the bottom, but I'm not so sure how true it is considering everything. (There's also the fact that it seemingly doesn't have a Czech language option, but I digress.)

I'd like to know others' thoughts on this. I'm planning to make an edit request asking for the CzechJournal article to be replaced with Futurism's "People Are Being Involuntarily Committed, Jailed After Spiraling Into "ChatGPT Psychosis." SquaredHexahedron (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this, I'm half tempted to call 'bullshit!'. I'd bet at least 50/50 that their 'journalist' are made up AI nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Kristina Vankova" published 26 stories on July 1 alone, quite a workload. The profile pictures look AI generated too, especially these teeth. Jamedeus (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There's many little oddities with all the 'journalists' images. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The 'about us' says they are the premier source for Czech news, but their article makes me suspect this is a content farm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I poked around on wayback machine and think this is one of those cases where a once-legitimate site is repurposed into an AI content farm. From 2014-2020 they seemed to cover local Czech news (eg 2018 homepage) and posted stories somewhat regularly (though not consistently). In March 2020 they stopped posting and a few months later the site went down and had no captures for over a year. When it came back there was a massive uptick in captures (50-100 every single day - some kind of SEO strategy?) despite the newest article being over 2 years old. In 2023 it's all architecture articles with obvious AI thumbnails, and now its just current events in general. Definitely not something we should be using as a source. Jamedeus (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment of what has likely occurred. From what I can tell this is their first article after a nearly two year gap from [4], and is followed immediately after by "Avira Software Blog", "Greatest VPN Designed for Torrenting", "Avast Vs MalwareBytes – Which Antivirus Application is Right For You?", "VIPRE Torrents Assessment", and my favorite "1".

I chose a recent article randomly and landed on this one. Its clearly model-generated, they even left the prompt for the generated picture in the text (check out the "subtly [incorporated] EU flag in the background"), theres even a generated irrelevant link to another article inside it. Absolutely unreliable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. Anything after 2020 should probably be purged and the rest marked as |url-status=usurped (WP:JUDI can help with that (addendum - but not needed in this case pery comment below)). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There were only three current uses I could find. I've add archives and 'usurped' to two articles dating back to 2018, and removed the other one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Total slop farm, absolutely not reliable for anything at all. The "article" on Marine Le Pen struck me as LLM-like, and then at the bottom I see an editor's "note" that is clearly a prompt. Thank you to the users who are cleaning out all post-2020 citations of this source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Fictional works by subject-matter experts

I'm curious whether works of fiction can be cited for statements of fact, if the fiction is written by a subject-matter expert.

There are two articles where I've noticed this: First is Abacá#Manila rope (previously a standalone article) where Melville's Moby-Dick is cited as a source for the statement "it was used in the 19th century as whaling line." Melville was a highly experienced sailor and probably knew more about 19th century whaling methods than anyone living today, but still, it's fiction.

The other is in Abies balsamea where Henry David Thoreau's travelogue The Maine Woods is cited for a claim that balsam fir boughs were widely used as bedding by campers before air mattresses existed. Again, Thoreau knew a lot about living in the woods, but I somehow doubt he could be cited for such a general claim. Particularly since camping without air mattresses went on for a good century after his death.

Essentially this question boils down to whether these sources would be considered primary or not. I don't doubt either author's knowledge but they were describing particular scenes with some artistic license. I also worry allowing these would set a bad precedent, e.g. using Naked Lunch as a source on the effects of heroin. Should these references stand? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Fiction is not a reliable source for statements of real world facts. —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Fictional narratives are WP:PRIMARY and so if an interpretation is to be made, it should be with a secondary source such as commentary by a subject matter expert. Citing a fictional work for real world claims is quite problematic because editors are not in the position to interpret fiction for real world events. How much of 1984 is real in terms of communism in the real world? Ramos1990 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Fiction is clearly not a reliable source for real-world facts: authors are not necessarily attempting to be accurate, even when they are genuinely knowledgeable about something. See also Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1043#Fiction as references. In the case of the Thoreau specifically, I cannot find anything in the project gutenberg edition of The Maine Woods which even supports the claim: the text mentions using cedar and feathered spruce ("as we had no cedar") to make beds, and mentions seeing balsam, but I can't find a mention of balsam being used as a matress, let alone of it being the preferred tree to use for this purpose. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources - Gaza War - Add caveats, and new reliable sources

There is a current discussion on NPOV [Should we try to correct for reliable sources being systematically biased against Palestinians]. I have skimmed through most of the 100 references for the Rafah aid distribution incidents. Some of the pro Palestinian articles seem. Suggest we add comments that we use caution if no author. or source is not disclosed or Gaza officials or IDF, and mentioned if author has worked for IDF or Gaza authority. The litmus test for me was the use of tabloid type language, and how they handled the [story].

• Generally reliable except on Israel-Arab - very pro Israeli - Israeli News Network, Arutz_Sheva
• Generally reliable - pro Israeli bias - Times of Israel (Suggest we tone down only on facts)
• Generally reliable - Reuters, AP.. NYT, WP,n;WJ, BBC, ABC, Australian ABC, LA times, Al Jazeera- It depends on the writer, but there seems to have been editorials both ways. They are trying to make up for the lack of reporters in Gaza by using sattelite photos, or stating caveats in the report
• Generally reliable- pro Gaza - Al Jazeera (A reporter have worked for the Gaza), France 24
• New Generally reliable - UN News, France 24, Medicine sans frontiers .
• Use with caution- Middle East Eye, Qatar news, New Arab , Anadolu (Mostly articles quoting Gaza officials. Funding models are sometimes unclear

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The only thing WP:RS has to say about this is WP:RSBIAS, simply bias is not a reliability issue but one of NPOV. What the bias of a source is would appear to be something best backed up by secondary sources, rather than being based on editors opinions (unless the source is so overt to be without question). Some sources include an author, some don't, it's not a reliable indicator of reliability.
Editors should always be cautious with the sources they use, especially in contentious topic areas, and use their own good judgement about them. But I don't think en masse article evaluations by topic area are a good precedent, grouping sources on how they 'allowed' to be used in a topic seems to go against basic principles. If there are specific issue with specific sources they should be evaluated individually. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

This topic was added because added because of the NPOV noticeboard discussion of positively biasing pro Palestinian sources, because there seems to be many editors that are wasting time on source discussions on many pages of the conflict, and these two Wikipedia articles Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian_conflict.

I can't remember if I got involved with reliable sources before, but the WP:RS policy does however mention WP:BIASED , and in practise the word bias is mentioned in the table on perennial sources 76 times. [[WP:BIASED] has the same suggestions that I am making, and I should have quoted it. "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

My suggestion is to make sure that we cover all the sources the same way, and make the need for Citing_sources#In-text_attribution and the bias clear as occurs on Wikipedia:RSPANI "the consensus that it is biased and that it should be attributed in-text for contentious claims. "

The reason for the en masse approach is some individual discussions are ending in no consensus (and aren't recorded on the perennial sources), or aren't giving enough enough clarity in their decisions. On precedent, there are not many conflicts that are as long and ongoing as the Israel-Palestinian. Maybe eventually split this into sub topics? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Your almost talking about something closer to an essay rather than a reliability discussion. The discussion at WP:RSPANI is talking about a specific issue with a specific source, and something that was backed up by secondary sources not just editors judgement. Each of the RSP entries should be the same, but the RSP isn't perfect so take that with a pinch of salt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Article on Ghirath Community – Violation of NPOV and Biased Editorial Decisions

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I’m raising a formal concern regarding the Ghirath community section in the [article name or link]. The current version heavily relies on a colonial British source that describes the community as “domestic servants,” which is offensive and outdated. I submitted a well-documented edit request based on the modern Indian scholarly source: - Choudhary, D.K. (2014). *The Demographic Uniqueness of Kangra*. The source clearly explains the Ghrits as a dominant agrarian community, and that the term “Ghirath” is a corrupted colonial misrecording. However, my request was denied by the article’s maintainer in an arrogant and dismissive manner, **without acknowledging Wikipedia’s own policy on balancing historical views** with modern academic sources. This violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy, as it gives undue weight to a prejudiced British ethnographer and ignores indigenous scholarly documentation. I request a review by a neutral admin and re-opening of the edit request.

Thank you. 223.184.208.23 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you are referring to since the article Ghirath hasn't been edited in years. Can you give us a link to exactly what page/discussion you are talking about? -- LWG ^talk 16:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to note that NPOV concerns can be taken to the NPOV noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

"I request a review by a neutral admin and re-opening of the edit request." Reading the articles talk page and archive the only edit request that seems relevant is from five years ago. Also this isn't an administrator noticeboard, the most you can find here is advice about the reliability of sources. Primefac you've removed a few of edit requests from the talk over the last couple of years, any ideas on this? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the usual history-washing seen across these sorts of pages; everyone is trying to pretend that there never was a time when untouchables existed so they have been trying to get such language removed from caste-related articles. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

How is this an RS question? Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Is nabataea.net an RS for related articles?

I found this mentioned at User talk:Dangibson9. He's the owner of the site. Dan Gibson (author) is his Wikipedia article. The site also mentions canbooks, which is clearly self-published and used in 6 articles.[5]. All the books mentioned in his article are also self-published by him. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the claim since the site says: Nabataea.net is not an academic site, although some of the articles we publish are academic in nature.[6]

Regarding the author: his biography seems to be mostly about his so-called "Petra thesis". There is almost nothing about him, and as far as I can tell, he's not notable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Gibson's publishing house publishing books by Gibson should definitely be considered selfpublished, the same would apply to the website. So it would all depend on whether he's a subject matter expert who has "previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:SPS. The nabataean.net about us page[7] has some history of Gibson. I can't find any work by them that isn't selfpublished, and he doesn't seem to have an academic background in the subject.

It would be reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way for attributed statements about his ideas, but they would need to be shown to be due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked the site, but I assumed that by we publish, they mean that some of the articles are written by other authors. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Almost all are their own books, in particular Gibson's. A few are translations, eg of the Noble Quran (Hilali–Khan) or by people Gibson has worked with. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless someone can prove that he's a scholar, his website should be considered as a blog. M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I nominated the author's article for deletion. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

greek-genocide.net a non-reliable source?

My question is: is the website greek-genocide.net a non-reliable source? Especially in the context I used: I used a link to that website to prove that the name "Macri" is/was used as the Greek name for Fethiye. Is it correct that an anonymous editor reverted my edit? (I asked this question also on Wikipedia:Help desk and on the Talk page of the article). Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

First, you should probably update those two notices to reference this discussion, unless you really want three different discussions with three different sets of participants.

On the merits, I'm doubtful. The contact page states that they're a non-profit but doesn't give any indication who curates the resource. Some searching suggests it may be Aris Tsilfidis, who is the translator of their two publications. One is self-published, the other is by Cosmos Publishing, which I'm unfamiliar with and isn't an academic press. I wasn't able to find any information about Aris Tsilfidis outside of the specific issue of the Greek genocide, about which there's no shortage of scholarly publishing. Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a couple of things here. The site is hosting primary documents, for instance this memorandum from the British Foreign Office. In the article what is being referenced is the memorandum, not the website. The website link is just acting as a courtesy link for anyone wanting to verify the memorandum. WP:PRIMARY documents, especially history documents should be handled with care, but they're not less reliable because a copy is held on a particular website.
The over issue is (as Mackensen has already said) whether the site should be necessary at all, this is an event well covered by known academic sources. The WMF is even willing to buy books for you to help with such subjects, see WP:Resource support pilot. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Let me try to repeat again what my problem is: I need sources to prove that the name "Macri" (in that exact spelling) is/was used as the Greek name for Fethiye (as I am working on English wikisource on a text that uses that name in that spelling (see ref-link to Elwes 1930)). I couldn't find many sources. So - in my innocence - I used the greek.genocide.net source. Is this a source I can use in this context? If you read the (late) reactions of the anonymous editor on the Talk page of the article I am now perhaps a fan of Putin, and an reactionary with ties to a regime I have never heard of, etc. etc. This feels like a little bit out of order, to say it very gently. I would be happy to receive a clear and unbiased answer to my specific question. So if anyone can help me with that, I would be glad. By the way: I found a different ref. --Dick Bos (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You can try Google books or Wikipedia library. Bogazicili (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light

This uses Bitter Winter and a CESNUR related website the “ World Religions and Spirituality Project” and in particular Massimo Introvigne a lot. Plus at least one YouTube site I’m not sure about. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Forgot, here is where i ran across this group and looked to see if it had an article.Dad, imam, God’: children living with self-declared pope in former UK orphanage Doug Weller talk 19:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#RFC: Bitter Winter, Bitter Winter is not a reliable source and is listed under WP:CESNUR. The rest of the sourcing isn't great; NYP, wrldrels.org articles written by Massimo Introvigne. The primary sourced YouTube videos are better as long as they are being used as primary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Well, there isn't really any other sourcing, prior to the one Guardian piece the only thing I've seen is the New York Post criticizing them and human rights organizations like Amnesty International defending them, which are even less neutral. And also, WRSP has its own problems but it is a largely unrelated project to my understanding? Not that I would use it anyway, and many of its older entries are taken from other sources... just a note. But, in this case, there really is not better sourcing, and a recent deletion discussion closed as keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  What is the issue with Amnesty International? I thought they were generally reliable by Wikipedia standards, at least more so than WRSP and CESNUR? ReligionProfWannabe (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  They are marked generally reliable on WP:RSP, but I felt this thread carried the tacit implication that the issue was we were being too apologetic to them or something, which if that is an issue will not be resolved by removal of CESNUR/WSRP - Amnesty is just as sympathetic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I would hesitate to remove any source simply because it is sympathetic. The persecution of the group in MENA is well established in the literature. Though I agree that we don't want an apologetic/promotional tone to the article. ReligionProfWannabe (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It does rely too strongly on CESNUR, but at a glance Massimo's The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light: An Introduction does not look especially problematic to me. It is part of his field research on the group, I would only use it as a source for basic sociological observations on the faith, e.g. historical origins, practices, beliefs. ReligionProfWannabe (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say to remove that source because it is sympathetic, but because CESNUR and Massimo Introvigne have been found to be unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I am also noticing similar issues with Ahmed al-Hasan and Abdullah Hashem, with the same perennial editors and low quality sources being involved in all 3 articles. ReligionProfWannabe (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

yhteishyva.fi

Is yhteishyva.fi a reliable source? Floating Orb (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You may find fi:Yhteishyvä useful. I think it would depend a lot on the context. I don't think I'd hesitate to much to use it for basic facts about Finnish culture, but beyond that? Jahaza (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I will see. Floating Orb (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking, for example of the recent Israeli cheeses hoax. It would probably be a useful source on Finnish cheese recipes. (Haha) Jahaza (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Floating Orb (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Village Voice

Came here as a result of Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress). Right now, the entry for the Village Voice at WP:RSP says "There is consensus among editors that The Village Voice is generally reliable. It is an alternative newsweekly that has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes." This needs updating as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#Sophie Rain identified it as producing AI slop about OnlyFans creators.--Launchballer 07:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you looking for a new consensus or to update the RSP? If it's the latter the RSP is just a page like any other and can be edited in the normal way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This probably warrants more evaluation, this is a widespread, long-running source in the music world. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It was my understanding that RSP summarised consensuses. I don't feel comfortable making bold edits to that page.--Launchballer 20:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. Bold edits are often challenged on pages like that, so I'm a bit surprised to see it suggested. You made the right choice coming in starting a discussion here, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

My question was "Are you looking for a new consensus or to update the RSP?" Only if the answer was to update the RSP was the second sentence relevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the difference. They want input on a source. Your response made them question whether or not they did the right thing in asking. Doesn't feel like a good response to me. Try just answering them instead? Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

My question seems plain but maybe it was confusing worded. If their only concern was updating the RSP, and not discussing the source, then it has no place on RSN. As an example if you think an entry on the RSP is poorly worded the place to discuss that is WT:RSP. If your concern is that the current consensus needs to be discussed then the correct place is here. I was only asking which one they were looking to do, a totally valid question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It was neither understood that way, nor an answer to the question posed. Please, let's focus on that moving forward. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a direct response to the OPs original comment. They say the RSP currently says it's reliable, but that it needs to be updated due to a prior discussion on RSN. That you wish to discuss the source further is fine, but that doesn't change the original comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a situation where an explicit date cutoff can be applied, similar to WP:CNET or WP:NEWSWEEK. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, if this is widespread, we can figure out a cutoff point. It was curtainly a reliable source for a long time, but this report is concerning. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I was the one that originally pointed this out here on RSN. Given that these articles tend to be hidden when you view the website and only really pop up in Google search, I wonder if it's no different than the press releases that many otherwise reputable news outlets allow advertisers to post to their sites. I wouldn't consider these articles to be a reliable source, but I also don't think their existence should be grounds for deprecation either. wizzito | say hello! 02:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, as this Wired article outlines, this sort of thing has been happening a lot lately, particularly in the areas of music and video games. How we've been handling it on a Wikiproject level has often varied on the situation. If it's pretty drastic change in all their content, we set a cutoff point (like a "generally reliable until January 2021, when they were bought out by (company)". If it's more of a smaller thing, where it's just affecting a little of their output, and/or it's pretty clearly labeled, we tend to have more of a note that says "Reliable, but be wary of churnalism/promotional/AI slop/whatever content that started to arise after the 2024 change in ownership" or something to that capacity depending on the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Following up on this - I'd probably propose amending it with the latter approach. They're still generally a reliable source, but stay away from the AI slop/promotional content that started appearing in 2025 (that's when its started, as far as I have seen?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's a lot of concern here, so probably either a little note, or just using common sense, is probably the way to go. Feels like there's no opposition to writing a note about this if anyone wants to though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Türk Söylence Sözlüğü - Deniz Karakurt

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Türk Söylence Sözlüğü - Deniz Karakurt

 – Schazjmd (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear English Wikipedia community,

Türk Söylence Sözlüğü - Deniz Karakurt source needs to be removed from enwiki. This book used in articles because of promotional concerns. The author of the book is not an authority in mythology, he is a financier in unprestigious university in Türkiye. The book's content are completely hoax. The book is full of unreliable and fake information. Turkish Wikipedia community decided to remove this from articles and delete the articles which are copy pasted from this book. Please remove these sources from the articles and delete single-sourced ones.

For more information: please read this discussion

Sincerely, Kadı Message 09:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Kadı. That book is cited in 49 articles at en.wp. Karakurt's online bio supports the information the editors at tr.wp pointed out. At best, this self-published book appears to be a hobbyist's efforts. Schazjmd (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, yes. You are right. The book is full of hoaxes, own imaginary creations of the author. He added Wikipedia logos to the inside of the book. The author is an academician but he do not have Phd or master's degree. Removing this source from the articles seems to be appropriate. Kadı Message 16:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the articles, @Kadı. Interestingly, in Kayra, someone had added this text: For this reason, the authority on Turkic Mythology Deniz Karakurt, considers Kara-Han and Kayra-Han to be two different deities. So after I remove the references to that book, I'll do another search to see if Deniz Karakurt is mentioned in text as well. Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, this is completely fake information. Deniz Karakurt is not an authority even his area too. See his metrics here. Kadı Message 16:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks again for bringing this up, @Kadı. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, @Schazjmd. Kadı Message 17:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Independent Laboratory and Wang Publishers

I encountered these two publishers in an AfD discussion and spent a great deal of time trying to confirm not only their reliability but their mere existence. Yet was assured that these are well-known in the tech world. Independent Laboratory is a Japanese author/publisher of tech books. There is one instance on Amazon@jp, but nothing listed when you click on the author/publisher. The Wang book, by my analysis, is self-published. Although the copyright page of the ebook says that Wang is located in Framingham, MA I can't find it in any list of publishers, nor even a web site. The books all seem to be by the same author. My assessment is: UNRELIABLE. Have I missed something obvious?! Lamona (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to "Wang press", and at least some of the listings say it was 'Independently published'. Either Wang press is so small as to not being reputably established (it's an unknown factor), in which case judging the work on its author may be appropriate. The author, Nova Trex, has apparently published many books about different IT[8], amazingly mostly within a 7 day period! I'm honestly unsure what to make of that, it could be an artifact of how Amazon has listed the works. I can't find any details of "Nova Trex" anywhere else.

I can't say anything about Independent Laboratory, they've definitely published other works but I can't find much about them. That could well be an issue withy lack of Japanese rather than the publisher though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

A work by Nova Trex (who may or may not be a single human unit) says this on the copyright page: "This book has been authored with the assistance of LLM tools ...". I've run into this before ... turning out a book or two every week that are LLM churn. Given that many github sites have extensive documentation, feeding it into an LLM isn't a stretch. That the Amazon listings saying "independently published" (even though there is a publisher name on the book) indicates that it's an Amazon-published book, or at least it has received a free ISBN from Amazon, which requires you to not list the publisher name. The other "self-published" clue (maybe not so for Japan) is the lack of an ISBN/use of Amazon's ASIN. I would LOVE to learn who this Nova Trex is but I don't find information anywhere. Lamona (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

A book or two every week? During the week of December 20 to December 26 of 2024, Nova Trex released 18 books, including the V book in question. Even if "Nova Trex" were some sort of corporate writing name, that would still be an ridiculous rate out of output to be putting through any actual editorial process. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we determine that the Nova Trex books are "unreliable unless proven otherwise"? The only Nova Trex I find online is an electrical supply store in Artogne, Italy - a small mountain town. And there appears to be no Wang Press in Farmington, MA - at least none that has ever been mentioned online. I think "Independent Laboratory" will need to wait until we find someone who can navigate the Japanese angle. Lamona (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:REPUTABLE), a selfpublished work by an unknown author doesn't have that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this YouTube interview with Kenneth Feder a reliable source?

In this case for Baghdad Battery . See Talk:Baghdad Battery#Moving discussion re: unreliable sources here where User:Netherzone argues it can't be used. Feder is very clearly a reliable source, hard to get a better one, and I don't think the venue makes a big difference. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

A link to the YouTube video in question would help (if it is linked on the talk page, it isn't clear where). As would an indication of what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agh, I thought I had. In any case the editor has restored it. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is The London Economic blacklisted?

Hello everyone, i just noticed that every time i try to use The London Economic source, a red message would appear telling me that it is considered unreliable by the community and is blacklisted from use. This source is absent from depreciated sources list, i searched it in in the archives and was not able to find any RFCs about its blacklisting. There also seems to be practically no discussions about it.

I checked their website and it seemed to be fine, there was no misinformation or fabricated news. According to their "contact us" section, they have an editorial team and publishing guidelines. It feels pretty weird to me that this seemingly normal source got blacklisted without any discussion. Does anyone know why this happened? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It's blocked by the Meta spam blacklist. The discussion is at the bottom of this page. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Blacklisting isn't a matter of reliability, but of the site being spammed into articles (usually for SEO purposes). If you can make a convincing case of why a particular URL should be used you can ask for that particular URL to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. It does appear that previous requests have been turned down though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, i just submitted a whitelist request here. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

www.verifiedmarketreports.com

Is this source reliable? Floating Orb (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you give the context - What text you want to support and with what part of the link you gave? Do you want to reference the web page, the report, the sample of the report? It would help to have a bit more to go on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I want cite the webpage. It says information in the "Orange Marmalade Market Key Takeaways" section. I added it to the marmalade page. Floating Orb (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You should be ok, including details of which section you are citing in your reference will help avoid confusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Floating Orb (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Using the Metro as a source on soap opera articles

Currently the Metro is designated as generally unreliable on WP:RSP. However previous discussion at WikiProject Soap Operas has indicated that several editors believe it is significantly more reliable on information relating to soap operas. A spot check of 16 sources was done at this discussion, which identified that 14 out of 16 of the Metro's exclusive information was later supported by other sources. The other two are yet to be confirmed nor denied.

I have passed a GA soap opera article which uses the Metro, since I believed it was sufficiently reliable in the context. I am seeking consensus on whether it can be classed as generally reliable for soap opera articles for when I inevitably encounter it in future GA reviews. IAWW (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Raintheone, @Meena, @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, @JuneGloom07, @Aquillion and @Alyo who participated in the previous discussion IAWW (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Just some background info. The same issue was discussed in 2022 and 2021, neither received much of a response. A similar discussion for a carve out for sports was had 2022 and got more replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there is some support. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The case for the Metro being marked as unreliable is also quite week, if you read the discussions linked from the RSP entry is not a strong consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I started the discussion at WP:SOAPS and I still believe it is reliable for television series including soap operas. I mentioned numerous reasons there as to why it is reliable. The show's press departments lend their performers to interviews with Metro reporters and in turn they attend press events ran by the networks. We provided examples of their journalism being sound and reliable. Editors spot checked random sources and fact checked them.Rain the 1 13:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, in the 2022 discussion In Metro for coverage of soap operas, Theleekycauldron said that Soaper1234 "claims that Metro is well-regarded for its coverage of soap operas", and Masem seemed to me to be saying opinions can be due and fine. I agree that the case for the Metro being marked as unreliable is weak, in fact my deprecation of WP:RSP would be stronger than that but isn't necessary here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I kind of agree? I'll grant that Digital Spy and Metro basically do the exact same kind of soap coverage, so it's not fair that one is greenlit and the other is redlit, but even if Metro's soap coverage is reliable, it would be like Digital Spy's coverage in that it carries near-zero due weight. The vast majority of pieces from the two publications are just plot recaps of episode after episode – no secondary sources, no commentary – and the result is that many soap articles are groaning under the weight of so much more in-universe coverage than we allow in any other fictional medium, with barely any secondary real-world analysis to be found. So- yes, Metro's soaps coverage is probably trustworthy. But I don't want that to be taken as encouraging soap article writers to continue this trend. I'd say both should get marked yellow- reliable with considerations attached. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I participated in the original discussion and I really believe that Metro should be used for Soap operas, as the department have a dedicated soaps team that get exclusive content from the British soap operas themselves. I disagree with the above that most of Metro's sources are just plot recaps - whilst some are plot recaps and spoilers, many include brief analysis from the authors and also how viewers received the scenes/storylines. Furthermore, there are many pieces of analysis made by Metro articles (e.g. see here [9] [10] [11] etc) in addition to interviews and behind the scenes content (e.g. [12] [13]). I also disagree that soap articles have too much in-universe information - whilst they do have a lot of storyline info, this is because there is a lot of real world perspective information and the former is needed as context for the latter. Regarding Metro, I have found that in addition to Inside Soap and Digital Spy, it has provided the most out of universe content out of all websites I have seen for soap opera articles. Hence, I would strongly support the use of sources for soap opera related articles due to its reliability and broad coverage of the subject manner. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Although this is slightly off topic, I'm curious, can you give a couple of example articles that have passed quality processes, or had quality article contributors work on them significantly, that suffer from this problem in your opinion? IAWW (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I started an RSN to little response in 2021, as well as participating in the 2025 discussion - I firmly advocate for the usage of Metro within soap opera articles, for aforementioned reasons including their interviews with cast members of said soaps and their reporters often being invited to press events and award ceremonies where they interview cast and crew alike. I also find their reporting to be journalistic and well-researched. – Meena • 09:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested You seem to be familiar with this noticeboard. Would it be appropriate for me to boldly update WP:RSP reflecting consensus supporting the use of the Metro in soaps? IAWW (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a believe that the RSP is somehow sacrosanct. It's just a log of discussions that have happened on RSN and can be edited in the same way as any other page. If you think there's a consensus for the Metro being reliable then you can update the RSP, anyone disagreeing can revert you if they wish.
Personally I don't think the consensus for the Metro being unreliable is very strong, certainly more editors have argued for it being reliable for soap operas than have every said it's unreliable. So updating the RSP to say it's reliable for soap operas seems appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am updating RSP now. IAWW (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Updated IAWW (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed you did, partly negating the original ban by Feminist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought I would make a mistake with this, but I still can't see what it is! What exactly did I do wrong? IAWW (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say you did something wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'm not really sure what you meant then IAWW (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

BoxLife Magazine

Is BoxLife reliable? It's used in 25 articles right now, it seems, mainly in health/fitness/gym-related articles. Could it be considered reliable for that space? They do have an about page, where they list their editorial policies, so that's a good sign at least. Soulbust (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In its area it's probably reliable, but I wouldn't use it outside of that. I would avoid it for contentious details about living people, but should be fine for basic details. Given that it's fitness related WP:MEDRS could apply to certain details, claims for pills and supplements for instance. It would be very unlucky that they would be reliable for such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"Unlucky"="unlikely", I presume? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You our correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Soviet Afghan war civilian casualties

This is a copy and paste I posted under the talk page but after investigating the sources listed below do not seem to be reliable for the article for the reasons listed.

Source 1 from Goodson and Johnson lists 1 million dead with no evidence or sources on this claim cited Parallels with the Past €" How the Soviets Lost in Afghanistan, How - DocsLib

Source 2 lists 1.5-2 million dead referencing the US and the UN; if this is the case then the source/evidence should be cited since that would be the primary source material not a book that gives no actual citation for the documents making these claims or supplying evidence.

"Nevertheless, on the basis of a variety of sources, by the mid-1980s the U.S., and other governments had accepted a figure of 1.5 million deaths. As of 1992, the United Nations estimates had reportedly raised that figure to 2 million."

No source or citation is given for any claims made here in the book, I could not validify how it arrives at what the US accepted or the sources for that claim. For the UN I was also not able to find any documents making this claim although I could find Human Rights reports for Afghanistan, I was not able to find a death count, nevertheless the actual primary sources for this should be cited if the books do not. The Widening Circle of Genocide - Google Books

Source 3 makes the claim of 2 million dead citing other works. I am unsure why non primary source material is continually cited for claims on Wiki. Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of ... - Larry P. Goodson - Google Books

This book also was writing about events during the time it was written (up until 2001) and the Wiki article Is about the soviet Afghan war between 1979-89 not the years after.

Source 4 claims that diplomats and international aid workers estimate 3 million deaths with no source or evidence given for this claim, again I am unsure how this was allowed to be cited as no evidence is shown or referenced beyond "diplomats and aid workers"

Any data on death counts is impossible to prove and is all based on speculation with no given methodology or evidence so It should not be cited as it is not credible. I find it especially odd given the quality of sourcing the official Daur government death toll of around 244,000 or internal CIA estimates of 300,000-400,000 is not given as a source for deaths. Victorious Insurgencies: Four Rebellions that Shaped Our World - Anthony James Joes - Google Books Gingercom1 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

(It is certainly something when a brand new user pops in from the void, begins their career by removing all the numbers above a certain threshold from a highly fraught article, decrees unilaterally that the cited sources for those numbers are worth zilch, and then cites policy in a way that's trivially flawed but shows some prior study beyond their edit count.)

For the third or fourth time, it defeats the entire point for you to decide yourself an otherwise-reliable source is not, given it's entirely based on your own judgments as an internet stranger, right? I am continuing to engage with you in good faith here because I trust you're willing to learn about how this actually works, but I continue to make clear I reject the core conceit here out of hand.

I find it especially odd given the quality of sourcing the official Daur government death toll of around 244,000 or internal CIA estimates of 300,000-400,000 is not given as a source for deaths.

Could you explain why this is odd, and why we should be citing these official figures, and what that would do to inform our readers?

Maybe you're just someone who has this particular point all backwards, due to the fairly common conception that we would prefer directly citing official figures in these instances on our encyclopedia. That is a deeply flawed conception, given we are not scholars or experts with the ability to weigh the value of primary sources—rather we are a tertiary source that generally relies on presenting the most balanced view among our body of secondary sources. It is better that you really try to accept that now, because it is one of our policy points I am less willing to plead with new talent about.

Under no circumstances would this would be an acceptable decision for another editor to make about a source you've put up. You know there's no meaningful difference, though you're seemingly intent on ignoring the fact we almost exclusively offload these judgment calls to our sources. Remsense 🌈 论 18:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Can a third person please take a look at this situation? I feel like I'm losing my mind: a user has decided entire genres of reliable scholarly sources will not be accepted by them, and have been quiet about what exactly a source has to do for them to find its reliability credible. I would really prefer the figures in the article not be hollowed out tendentiously for further days or weeks. Remsense 🌈 论 21:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

(I have crossposted a link to thie discussion at WP:NPOVN, because RS/N is a comparatively sleepy board, and the issue at hand potentially contains elements of comparing between RS in addition to judging whether RS.) Remsense 🌈 论 22:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Came because of NPOV/N notice. I do want to reinforce that secondary sources should be preferred over primary sources when deciding due weight. Simonm223 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I really don't want to come off as canvassing, but I don't think it's clear how extreme this situation has been. The other editor is essentially dismissing the vast majority of sources we would otherwise use to cite these figures, so what on early am I supposed to do, or what are they supposed to do when they decide to lay down the law in their second article in their editing career? The Soviet–Afghan War has had galling holes where estimates of civilian fatalities were for a few days now, and I'm at a loss how to remedy the situation. Remsense 🌈 论 23:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't require that sources state their sources, although not is helpful, and everything doesn't have to be traced back to a primary source. In fact articles should be based on secondary sources, as primary source interpretation is best left up to experts. Primary sources should definitely not be used to overrule reliable secondary sources.
If there is disagreement between reliable secondary sources about casualty figures them that should be discussed in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything specifically wrong about those sources. Also, "I am unsure why non primary source material is continually cited for claims on Wiki." suggests that the original poster needs to familiarise themselves with wikipedia sourcing practices.--Staberinde (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

iNaturalist as a Source for Photos of Insects

I'm noticing a lot of (in many cases AI-generated) articles about obscure insect species that have photos attached to them that came from iNaturalist. What is the level of faith we can put in iNaturalist species identifications? For example, can we safely assume this image actually depicts a specimen of Aedes alboannulatus, as it is currently used on the article Aedes alboannulatus? -- LWG ^talk 00:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I would not put much trust on iNat species identifications as they are user-generated. Even the "research grade" identification only require three users to agree on an identification. However I don't see a difference in people uploading photos of bugs to Commons and claiming it a certain species and people uploading them to iNat. This kind of situations are where expert editors are valuable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The RSP entry for WP:INATURALIST says it's unreliable but "may be a good source for photographs", that seems to come down to this discussion from 2022 where editors make the same point as Ca has - that the images are no different than the ones uploaded to commons by random editors or might better due to the nature of the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Ca that these are no different than images uploaded to Commons. If you have a valid objection to a particular ID, then by all means bring it up, but images are treated a little differently in terms of verification than the rest of the site and it's very common to source them from sits like iNat, even if the author isn't using AI. In particular, MOS:IMAGEREL says that Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, regardless of whether they are authentic. Many organisms (especially small fish, bacteria, insects, what have you) within any genus are going to look, from an image, just like any other animal from that genus. With certain species, it may be impossible for even experts to differentiate between two without being able to examine parts that are not visible in a still image. I mean, would we all love it if journals took pictures of these animals and plants, made a rock-solid ID, and released them under a compatible license? Yes. But until that happens, this is our best option. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌 🦋 10:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

iNaturalist is generally unreliable for supporting claims within Wikipedia's article text, as the site is a collection of user-generated content. However, images embedded in articles are not subject to the verifiability policy, and we do not require images to originate from a reliable source. If there is doubt over whether any image in an article (whether it is sourced from iNaturalist or somewhere else) depicts the species that its description claims it depicts, then the image can be excluded from the article if there is consensus to do so on a case-by-case basis. — Newslinger talk 15:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It would be strange if it were acceptable -- as it is -- for me to upload add a photo of an insect that I took and I identified, but not to accept a photo from iNaturalist, where the identification standard ("research grade") requires certain metadata and the consensus among three different people about the id. Most of us who take photos of insects use resources like inaturalist (or facebook groups, or message boards, or anywhere else that entomologists and expert-level hobbyists hang out) when we're unsure of an id. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

False unsourced information on MLB umpire Phil Cuzzi page

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.

---

Phil Cuzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems an unregistered or anonymous user keeps adding the following false unverifiable information (him being under investigation by MLB) in sentence form:

"He is currently under investigation by MLB for fixing a game between the San Francisco Giants and Philadelphia Phillies on July 7th, 2025.

Note: Anonymous user is not using a footnote reference to support this claim.

There is ZERO information from any sports news or other reputable sources confirming that MLB umpire Phil Cuzzi is currently under MLB investigation.

Thus far in just the last 4 hours I've had to edit the article page to remove this erroneous information. GTO3DEUCES (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This really belongs on WP:BLPN rather than here: unsourced content like that is a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. If this continues, I'll ask for the page to be protected. Meanwhile, carry on reverting - WP:3RR doesn't apply to blatant WP:BLP violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Protected 2 days. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

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: Pinkvilla

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.

---

What is the reliability of Pinkvilla?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

(2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC))

Survey (Pinkvilla)

Option 3/4: This source Pinkvilla, which mostly posts box office numbers and entertainment gossip, is considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. I'm posting this RfC here because if I post it at WP:ICTF, the result is only going to be in favour of this source. The editors there defend this source with passion. Here is a brief history of the source:

First thing first, here is the disclaimer they give out at the end of each article, as pointed out by the editor Black Kite in a previous discussion here:

The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data

That should say enough but here's more:

Pinkvilla was previously considered unreliable at ICTF and was moved to the list of reliable sources in February 2022 without proper discussion, as seen here.

The Entertainment Editor at Pinkvilla, Himesh Mankad, welcomed the current admin of their box office section and his associate to Pinkvilla in December 2021, as seen here.

In this tweet, the admin of Pinkvilla Box Office confirm that they started the blog Cinetrak and moved to Pinkvilla from Cinetrak. Now Cinetrak is considered unreliable. Although the admin say they have not been involved with it since moving to Pinkvilla, they continue to endorse Cinetrak and call it the "best box office tracking site in South India", even in this recent tweet. The box office figures given by Cinetrak and Pinkvilla are also exactly the same for every film.

Now, it's not as if there aren't other sources reporting on the box office of Indian films. Many sources including newspapers like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc. publish box office figures. And they do this without citing any of these other dubious sources. If a movie has indeed earned a specific amount of money, then other sources will publish about it, as Indian films are often widely covered in the media. 2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC) — 2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CNC (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again: people should stop putting box office figure on movie infoboxes in most circumstances. This isn't just a pinkvilla / cinetrack problem Hollywood Accounting is also a thing. We know budgets and box offices are both manipulated by film studios. This simply isn't valuable information - it's too prone to deliberate error. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Guy (help! - typo?) 17:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3/4 Wholly unreliable. Yes, Simonm223 is of my mind re. numbers, but this source is, more broadly, just a low-quality tabloid. — Fortuna, imperatrix 12:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4, per nominating IP, Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Simonm223. TurboSuperA+ _(connect) 11:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: In line with general principle on tabloid sources, Pinkvilla should not be used at all for any claims on BLPs, or for citing anything from its gossip columns. However, when it comes to box office figures, editors familiar with the Indian film industry have increasingly noted that in an environment where studios often pressure outlets to publish inflated numbers, Pinkvilla has, more often than not, demonstrated editorial independence by reporting figures that align more closely with reality. They are already a fairly established name in Indian entertainment reporting. While I sympathize with the broader sentiment here that box office or budget figures probably shouldn't be in infoboxes, enforcing that would require a sweeping policy change which I suspect will not muster consensus. As things stand right now, deprecating a source that is actively challenging studio inflation and publishing comparatively accurate figures would only obscure the issue further. As a consequence of Pinkvilla reporting more grounded figures, we've often seen their data contradict "official" numbers, which has sparked repeated fan-driven disputes on the talk pages of many Indian film articles. I'm posting this RfC here because if I post it at WP:ICTF, the result is only going to be in favour of this source. The editors there defend this source with passion. The various discussions at WP:ICTF that IP has pointed out often stem from this friction: not from genuine RS concerns, but from attempts to discredit Pinkvilla in order to push promotional or inflated POV figures. Indian film regulars can attest to this pattern. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: While there is some truth in this, the neutrality of Pinkvilla has also been questioned during several discussions at WP:ICTF, with many users pointing out their favoritism towards films involving certain people. When you check some discussions on Reddit and Twitter, you see that they have also been accused of acting like a PR firm for people like Karan Johar and Deepika Padukone. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  re: 'many users', I will leave Krimuk2.0's observation from February here (with a link to the archive for that discussion, for editors who might want to see the true nature of the opposition to Pinkvilla): We must note that threads against Pinkvilla are being bludgeoned by socks of blocked user Vax'ildan Vessar unhappy about Pinkvilla reporting that their favourite films aren't doing well at the box-office, after this discussion. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are discussions dating back to 2022, that question the source's neutrality, as you can see here. You can find other numerous discussions here and here. Clearly, all of this is not one single user.

  In any case, Pinkvilla is only really useful for the box office of Tamil and Malayalam films, as they are not the first preference for Hindi and Pan Indian films (which are covered by Box Office India and Bollywood Hungama). Even for Telugu films, the first preference could be News18 Telugu, Deccan Herald etc. The Tamil and Malayalam industries, which form a very small percentage of the movie business in India, also still get reported by other sources. For instance, Malayalam newspapers like Mathrubhumi, Malayala Manorama etc. have been pretty good at reporting box office numbers of late. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 this discussion is all about box-office figures which are nearly always questioned in Indian sources so there is no need to single out this publication which has a lot more types of content which has been considered reliable up to know. What is needed is an unbiased discussion about how to use and reference Indian box-office figures from all reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry. This discussion is about the reliability of the source in question. Could you elaborate on the other types of content it has, other than film-related content ? 2405:6E00:2821:8C28:3CFA:ADFF:FEA6:BE66 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC) — 2405:6E00:2821:8C28:3CFA:ADFF:FEA6:BE66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. CNC (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  As per Pinkvilla it is India's NO.1 source for entertainment stories so it should not be deemed unreliable just because it's box office figures are contested in the same way that they are contested in most Indian sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2. Per numerous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Can you please elucidate what those discussions were? Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4 I figure I should formalize this. I don't think PinkVilla is a reliable source for box office figures. I also think pretty much no source is particularly reliable for box office figures per my knowledge of Hollywood Accounting and associated issues in most local cinema production venues. My opinion is that we should remove box office figures from infoboxes altogether. Barring that, excluding Pinkvilla as a source should at least reduce the frequency of box office figures being added to infoboxes, which would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, I can respect the take that these figures should not be in infoboxes. But excluding one source is not going to reduce how often they are added, it will just lead to them being sourced to other alternatives. We cannot control this as long as Template:Infobox film continues to have parameters for budget and box office. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Then remove those parameters. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per others and discussions at ICTF. Pinkvilla.com, IMO, is only reliable for BO figures as per my assessments in the past few years. It's not an RS for any other stuff due to gossip. — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 Some of the articles that are currently in use as references are tabloid gossip. The authors' byline underlines how unserious they are.(122.150.118.203 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC))

  Did you not !vote already? Or are you somehow another IP from Melbourne? DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you look at the previous comments, you will see that I did not choose any particular option before. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah no I wasn't talking about those comments, I was referring to this. Unless you are saying that IP also from Melbourne is someone else. DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  That IP range is partially blocked, and did somehow post this discussion in the first place.

  122.150.118.203 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 this RfC is about if this source is generally reliable or not and most of the folks voting Option 2 state their box office figures are reliable but not the rest of what they publish Looking at the homepage, most of the content is not about box office figures and is one of nine sections, which means most of what they publish is not reliable so a questionable source in most cases. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I believe we agree on principle. Its only that 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 of WP:GUNREL just holds untrue here, since Pinkvilla arguably offers some of the most accurate and consistent reportage on the Indian box office right now. But under WP:MREL, we could include a clarifying statement that while Pinkvilla is generally unreliable for most information due to its tabloid nature, it is considered reliable for Indian box office figures. I think I'm justified in my concern about bad-faith actors/sockpuppets blindly pointing to any 'generally unreliable' label to disrupt Indian film articles, given that this very discussion has seen double !voting. DeluxeVegan (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  There hasn't been any "double voting". Calm down. This source being considered reliable or unreliable doesn't make any major difference to the world. Geez. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 as concerns said by multiple editors. Unreliable source for box office figures too. Epicion (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

Guardian article on gender critical feminism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issue at Gender-critical feminism#Academic freedom

OK guys, I know I did comment in this discussion and I'm not an admin, but let's mosey over to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issue at Gender-critical feminism#Academic freedom since as far as I can tell nobody wants to mainly discuss reliability and we don't need two threads on the same thing. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Can we request views on this, as used on the Gender Critical Feminism page?

"Conflicts have erupted at university campuses, with UK universities having been accused of failing to protect gender critical academics from "bullying and career threatening restrictions on their research". Source is this Guardian article.

One view is that the Guardian article is reliable in describing that UK universities have been accused as described, and we are not attempting to say whether the accusations are valid or not, only that they exist.

Another view is that the Guardian article cites an academic report which itself cites at least one source that is contested, and we therefore need to evaluate whether the academic report is reliable. lef

Akechi The Agent Of Chaos and I are at an impasse with it. StupidLookingKid (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Guardian is nominally reliable. If the academic report is through a peer-reviewed work, it's hard to question its sources (even if one is contested, that likely still means the rest of its sources are good). If it's just an academic report published without peer-review, you can always use inline attribution, eg "'"bullying and career threatening restrictions on their research' according to a report by X". Masem (t) 12:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. The Guardian is reliable for WP stating that the accusations of bullying have been made. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

agree with masem and blueboar here Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

So, I will say as added context for those unfamiliar, The Guardian has a very thoroughly established history of anti-trans reporting. To the point where the US version of The Guardian actually published an editorial decrying the UK version for it [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Snokalok (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Other media sources have reported the same academic report, including Research Professional News, The Times, The Telegraph, Eastern Daily Press, and Times Higher Education. StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not a reassuring list of publications, I hope you realize. Snokalok (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand. Not reassuring, in what way? StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, ignoring the publications and authors and just looking at the articles themselves, I'm finding the Telegraph article more informative than the Guardian one. I think people interested in the article should workshop the claim a little though, after which it would be more a matter of DUE rather than reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I've notified wikiproject LGBT, for their opinions on the matter since there's probably a lot more expert knowledge there Snokalok (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the Guardian is not originating the assertions but reporting on the report. Regardless of their bias against trans, this type of coverage (report g on a report) does not fall under that. Their bias may cone into play if the Guardian itself were collecting and presenting the info and conclusions in the report from the guardian's own research. Masem (t) 14:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

i agree. but we cant solve for biased reliable sources. at best we can attribute biased claims to a source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian US contributors do not criticise the Guardian's reporting; they criticise an editorial. The Semafor piece does not support any conclusion of unreliability in reporting: it shows that most staff objected to the transphobic stance of a group of columnists, of whom three are named of whom two left the Guardian. The 200+ feminists are also objecting to a 2020 column by one of those who then left, not to the reporting. The editorial, presumably here as a primary source for the Guardian being transphobic, is from 2018; some might read it as transphobic, but it doesn't evidence any inaccuracies in reporting.

The piece in Vice takes issue with several editorials, but does also link to two news pieces from this sentence: It has amplified conspiracy theories about trans healthcare and trans and gender non-conforming children and has contributed to attempts to smear those working to support trans people.[21] [22] These are both pieces in The Observer by the reporter Jamie Doward, who has barely written for either paper for several years and not at all since 2023.

The Pink News article covers all of the above, again focusing on opinion pieces as well as linking to a tweet of one of the Doward Observer pieces. The CNN piece just includes a passing mention of the same content, and doesn't give any evidence for unreliability.

In short, if these are the arguments for Guardian unreliability, they don't stand up. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's a popular press article reporting on an academic study, I suggest using the popular press article as a "lay summary".

The Guardian is a reliable source for facts. It is left-leaning and tends to be more permissive on trans rights. Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman have both accused the paper of being too pro-trans after resigning from it. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

1. The Guardian's own stated view as an organization is that trans rights conflict with women's rights [23]

2. Saying that two people famous for very intense GC views consider it too pro-trans is not a strong endorsement. Snokalok (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSBIAS even if the Guardian does have a bias that doesn't make it unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You should read the editorial you posted. Maybe it will put you more at ease with The Guardian. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The US edition of The Guardian (which, for disclosure, I subscribe to) is known to be "more permissive on trans rights". The UK edition, not so much. Funcrunch (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The question is not 'What is the Guardians stance on trans rights?' or 'Do editors approve of the Guardian's stance?', the question is 'Is the Guardian reliable for facts?'. And the answer is 'Yes'. Therefore is can be used as a source for the contents of Sullivan's report. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course it is a reliable source, as are the other sources listed here, all of which lend weight to the idea that this report is DUE. It is a significant report that got extensive coverage in a broad range of sources, this wording was fine, and on talk afterwards there was no objection to amending it to inclusion with attribution which would have been the obvious compromise. Void if removed (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"Have being accused" being in passive voice obscures the fact that the attribution is a little weaselly. I'm under the the impression that our stylistic guidance typically counterindicate attributions that are neither here nor there. Either we should state it as fact, or, if it is in need of attribution, which it seems to be, we should state in precise terms who has done the accusing. The current attribution is uninformative. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"accused in a report written by Professor Alice Sullivan"? StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Dunno. Pretend that I, the hypothetical reader of the article, does not know who Alice Sullivan is. Is that an informative attribution? The most informative attribution? I see on the article talk page the intended point is some gender critical feminists have said their universities have not protected them from bullying, though I don't think any of the sources have attributed it that specific way. Alternate possible attributions include the commissioning body, which is mentioned on the talk page and in some of the sources as the previous UK government I notice also the Guardian article mentions a prior report. Would editors consider that helpful context? I'm coming at this cold, so I don't know what people might argue is more or less useful. I would say in general terms that I favour the active voice though, so unless there's a specific reason to prefer otherwise (for example, concision), I would typically expect the sentence to be structured that way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it - that's super clear, thank you. Will have a ponder and propose some ideas on the article talk page if and when we get a consensus that the Guardian article is ok as a source (and it feels like that is the emerging consensus here). StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the passive voice is problematic, weaselly. We need to attribute, say who has accused. (That's an NPOV issue not an RS issue. The G is a reliable and noteworthy source for the accusation.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes the Guardian is reliable that those accusations have been made, there are many other reliable sources reporting the same. It couldn't be used to state the validity of those claims, but it's fine for the fact that those claims have been made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Could it be used to say that "Gender Critical academics have accused UK universities of failing to protect them from "bullying and career threatening restrictions on their research"? Sullivan is unquestionably a gender critical academic, and her report is not a peer reviewed document. OsFish (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans US-American who acknowledges that the UK edition of The Guardian is much less "permissive on trans rights" than the US edition (as I mentioned upthread), I think it's still fine to cite that newspaper as a source for simply stating the fact that accusations have been made. Funcrunch (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You failed to summarize the issue at hand appropriately. The issue isn't about reliability of the Guardian, it is about an WP:NPOV violation of due weight of the statements inclusion without properly describing the core of the controversy of the issue as I pointed out. You didn't even link to the Talk:Gender-critical feminism#Guardian source and text added 7 July 2025 to give people here the context of the discussion.

So this notice board here is the wrong notice board, both myself and @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos reverted the statement added on NPOV grounds, so this discussion should be closed and a new one started at WP:NPOVN. Raladic (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The complaint by @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos was that "Now we need to come to an agreement over this sources reliability" and "I personally think that if if we are citing the Guardian article we need to look at the reliabilities of the sources it cites, which is why we should discuss and try and reach consensus on the reliability of the Sullivan Review." @Doug Weller stepped in when we hit stalemate and suggested we bring it here.

I appreciate that you had a different complaint, which seemed to be that the section on academic freedom needed to be renamed and reworked in line with your view in the talk page that "the real point of the section is actually the pitting of transgender people rights to live against that of GCFs promoting hate speech in the guise of free speech absolutism". I don't think that would be the right approach, but as I said, I am happy to work with you on including more about the right of trans students to learn as part of the section, once this Guardian issue is resolved. StupidLookingKid (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll note that @StupidLookingKid has themself answered the reliability problem in their own comment here:"The Guardian article is a reliable source, citing a prominent gender critical feminist who was commissioned by the Government to write a report on precisely that topic." - We don't report in WP:WIKIVOICE what some WP:ADVOCATE is saying about a group they oppose as unattributed fact, that basically becomes their personal view/an opinion. As well as the fact that a government hiring someone with a known very specific position to create a report about the very subject they openly oppose is more often than not a form of policy-based evidence making and is usually unreliable in that regard. So that means that first of all, we have to clarify if such an opinion is notable for this article for inclusion, then if that was a yes, we would only include it as an attributed opinion along the lines of "Outspoken gender-critical activist and advisor to anti-trans groups, Alice Sullivan accused X universities of not supporting anti-trans efforts by GCFs." - this goes into WP:MANDY/WP:DUH territory, since we wouldn't expect a report by someone with a specific agenda to say anything otherwise. The fact that the Guardian source failed to point out her conflicts of interest affiliations in such a matter is rather pertinent to questionable reliability as any academic would know that you disclose your COI's. I'll note that there was a RSN discussion on another paper by Sullivan last year showed a general consensus that it was unreliable fringe, so we should definitely take further reports by them with a large grain of salt. Raladic (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My stance is that, in this specific case, there is no problem with citing the media reporting about Sullivan's work. People from group X researching the experiences of group X is a well-recognised practice within academic research - in many cases, it is left to people from group X to point out that they are feeling harassed as no-one else will do it. Creating a bar to using media reporting about such evidence would leave significant gaps in our attempts to explain an issue. Sullivan is not saying something "about a group they oppose". She is reporting the experience of people from her group based on documentary analysis and 140 responses to a call for evidence.

I have already said that I would be happy to include the attribution. I never said otherwise. The wording you suggested feels pointed, but I am sure we can find a compromise back at the talk page. StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree on the topic of WP:MANDY/WP:DUH. Alice Sullivan is not a neutral reporter and this is not her first fringe publication. (I would suggest the Sullivan report into "data, statistics and research on sex and gender" being described as an "independent report" might be one of the funniest things Kemi Badenoch commissioned in her time as "Equalities" Minister.)

I don't have a problem with an article describing that a prominent GC wrote some GC stuff, but we shouldn't be pretending in wikivoice that Sullivan claiming GCFs are bullied out of academia is a neutral, reliable statement of fact. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I get it that this is one of the most popular noticeboards but it's not a WP:RS issue.

The Guardian is definitely one of the best sources we have in terms of reliability and I don't think anyone would doubt that the following statement is true "Prof Alice Sullivan's report accused UK universities of having failed to protect gender-critical academics from bullying and of career-threatening restrictions on their research."

Whether this is due is a matter of WP:NPOV. Probably it is, judging by the links shared by @StupidLookingKid. If all sources attribute the findings to Prof Sullivan we should do the same. If some of them report them as facts we'll need to find out what the majority of RS do. Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, the OP was advised to bring it here PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV issue at Gender-critical feminism has been opened - I suggest an uninvolved editor closes this RSN discussion here as this is inherently an NPOV issue, not a RSN one. Raladic (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In this later comment you've specifically questioned the source's reliability:

The fact that the Guardian source failed to point out her conflicts of interest affiliations in such a matter is rather pertinent to questionable reliability Void if removed (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Florida's Voice

There's a discussion going on at talk:Lilly Contino about the use of a source called Florida's Voice to add information about a controversy to a WP:BLP (that is otherwise only seemingly getting coverage in tabloid sources) (https://flvoicenews.com/controversy-erupts-over-transgender-influencers-disney-world-womens-bathroom-video/). I've previously seen this source used without comment in the article Gays Against Groomers, but obviously using it in a BLP would be a another level, and from my peruse of the site and its about page doesn't personally fill me with confidence. I can't find any previous discussions so I would be interested in some thoughts on the site's reliability. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I do see it being cited by others like People and NY Daily News, as well as many right-wing sources. I am not a fan of obvious quackery being advertised on the main page though. The editorial team is small and unnotable. I would say it is useful for basic facts, but nothing controversial, and certainly not GENSEX BLP. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say this Hindustan Times article is more reliable, though I won't comment on whether it is wp:due. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I had a look into this last night, and would say that Florida's Voice is reliable. But WP:BLP calls for more than that, I worry that the articles reporter has no formal training and above them are a senior reporter, the assistant to the owner, and the owner. There doesn't appear to be any editorial staff and because of that I wouldn't use them for contentious BLP details. Looking at the context the Hindustan Times article would be reliable in this situation, discussion over whether something is due are best had on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm left with more questions than answers after reviewing this source... There is a very limited amount of information out there about Florida's Voice and their articles appear to primarily be churnalism, but some of their local political reporting is pretty solid because it looks like Republican officials in Florida are very willing to talk to this publication. Their claimed raison d'etre is "to create a media outlet to cover Florida news honestly and factually without the corporate strings attached." but then they run corporate ads which leaves me a little confused, ads are the string attached from the corporation to the publication. The other models are generally a subscription model or a non-profit model which is funded by reader/viewer/listener donations but this appears to be a for-profit entity and I'm not seeing anyway to send them my money. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

In terms of red flags the largest is that it might not be an actual news organization but more Brendon Leslie's personal outlet/ego trip, much of what they publish is opinion pieces by Leslie including some truly questionable ones like this[24] which IMO are bad enough to cast doubt on the entire organization. I find it very hard to make the argument that whatever would publish that is a reliable source. Based on that I'm going to say generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

WhiteHouse.gov (from Jan. 20, 2025 onward)

I think it's unreliable due to Trump putting incredibly biased and false statements in some of the articles. Thoughts? 71.184.116.250 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. It probably shouldn't be used. Floating Orb (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Governments are always reliable for their attributed statements, positions and opinions. Governments aren't the arbitors of fact, which should be left to better sources. This has been previously discussed a few times if you search the archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Per this, as long as they are attributed statements its fine. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Government sources like this in general should probably not be trusted regardless of administration other than for situations where it needs a direct attribution, as ActivelyDisinterested said. Metallurgist (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this has been discussed before. Attributed statements yes, but for facts, not the best to cite. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It was never a great source to begin with. When using government sources those from specialized agencies are generally best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. It has a "news" feed, but it is generally subjective, even slightly. Floating Orb Let's talk! 17:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we use the deprecated gobaltimes.cn for Foundations of Geopolitics as an exception?

See these edits.[25] Doug Weller talk 09:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say in theory yes, but not for what was added because it came across as way overlong and unduly self-serving. What if it was cut it down to something like In a 2024 interview with China state media Global Times, Dugin stated he no longer believed this.? That said, on reflection, this is probably not DUE - the article is about FoG, it is not our job to caveat the views expressed in the book. Void if removed (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That was my thought, even if this was a valid use it's undue in the article. If it was to be included in should be in the article about the author, and then a different source could easily verify the cut down sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, other issues asside it just doesn't seem due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The Air Current

The Air Current for use in Air India Flight 171 - Wikipedia The source is being used to build up an argument that the fuel was shut off deliberately without any official statement claiming so, thus fueling a roorback against the pilots. King Lobclaw (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Please link the article being cited, and provide the text it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Having skimmed the article history the specific source they are talking about is this one, and the specific content in question is covered by this revert. That revert only removed refnames and not the full cite, which was removed separately for a different reason in this edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Much the same detail regarding the fuel control switches apparently being moved can be found elsewhere, and as I see it, we don't need to state what 'cannot be ruled out' anyway. There is no urgency, and we should concentrate on known facts, rather than trying to second-guess what may be determined later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to address two points:

First, The Air Current is not being used to "build up an argument that the fuel was shut off deliberately". The article states that investigators "cannot rule in or out improper, inadvertent or intentional actions that preceded or followed the apparent loss of thrust before the aircraft crashed". The article does not assert intent, nor does it frame the incident as "suicide by pilot." Considering there is an ongoing edit war on the Suicide by pilot page, this feels like critical context.

Second, The Air Current meets the criteria for a reliable source. It is a subscription-based news outlet. The article in question is written by Editor-in-Chief Jon Ostrower, whose prior work includes positions at The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and Flightglobal — all accepted reliable sources on Wikipedia. Ostrower is a well-sourced industry journalist, cited by PBS, Marketplace, and recently profiled by the National Press Club, which described The Air Current as "an award-winning, subscription-based media outlet."

Calling The Air Current "a blog" as has been done elsewhere in regards to this source is inaccurate and inconsistent with how Wikipedia treats other niche, expert-led outlets in specialized fields. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

TechTarget aka Informa TechTarget

I propose that this source should be handled similar to WP:PRNEWSWIRE aka GUNREL. It is used on ChatGPT here and Boomi, LP here. Especially in the case of Boomi it seems that this source is interested in pushing a corporate narrative that they are paid to publish rather than original reporting.

Additional examples:

• HubSpot, [26]
• IBM Think conference, [27]
• Citrix Virtual Apps, [28]
• Mendix, [29]

Related material:

• Game Developer (website)
• MicroScope

Czarking0 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite a news wire, but I also don't think it's reporting isn't always completely independent. I would say more WP:MREL than WP:GUNREL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Per their Editorial Ethics Policy, they seem to require PR-initiated articles to be published as "guest contributors" with attribution to the company they're affiliated with. The policy also says "When an article idea originates from a press release or PR contact, editors and reporters are expected to seek more details from other sources of their choice," which does not strike me as strong enough language to prevent regurgitation. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight. For me personally that statement indicates "poor reputation for fact-checking" (WP:GUNREL) but I could see why others would disagree. Certainly not as bad as newswire. Czarking0 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

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.

---

This is about [30]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a source reliability issue? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Well, I don't know where else to post it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The disagreement appears to be about whether the content is due for inclusion, which is an NPOV issue. I would suggest posting to WP:NPOVN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Further research is needed -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Effects of pornography. It can be closed here. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

A simple YouTube video intro as a BLP source

In this video (0:27-0:33), Brandi Rhodes introduces Scorpio Sky as her cousin. An anonymous user has added it to Rhodes' article.[31] Is it acceptable as a BLP source? --Mann Mann (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the easy part is that RSPYT says that a verified official channel copies the reliability level of the uploader. But, in this case the video gets the reliability of All Elite Wrestling, and that goes down the path of PRIMARY and BLPPRIMARY... ABOUTSELF might work, but that is for only a single person about themselves.

I did try to see if there was an alternative, but the most I found was [an article by The Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/wwe/top-stories/who-is-cody-rhodes-wife-exploring-the-personal-life-of-the-american-nightmare/articleshow/112168539.cms) that uses the All Elite Wrestling YouTube channel as a source while having baffling sentences as: Cody Rhodes married a beautiful Ex- WWE ring announcer Brandi Reed in 2013, Brandi Rhodes is not the wife of Cody Rhodes, and Brandi Rhodes is an American professional wrestler like his husband Cody Rhodes. (💻 Looks like an AI to me.) That aside, this might not be acceptable. Hopefully, I am wrong though and have overlooked something. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think it is 99% legit but the main problem is that there is no explanation/clarification by both of them especially by Sky himself; e.g how they are related to each other. Rhodes just says "my cousin" and that's all. I will tag it with {{Better source needed}}. If someone thinks the video does not pass as a BLP source, then feel free to remove it. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say it is legit, but the problem is verifiability, I think. It is a claim that might be disputed/disputable. And since Rhodes's employer is All Elite Wrestling, that is likely too close to PRIMARY. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The Warrior Wire for Carl Azuz

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Carl Azuz

References to this source have been used to support the following sentences about Carl Azuz:

• Azuz graduated from the University of Georgia in May 1999, majoring in telecommunications arts production and minoring in drama.
• Azuz visited schools to teach students about broadcast journalism, like his visits to NAHS.

How reliable would The Warrior Wire be in this case? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the school newspaper for North Atlanta High School, for details about the school it would be marginally reliable. I wouldn't source anything controversial to it. Outside reporting specifically about the school I would suggest you find something else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Beiingtimes.com

Background - the Beijing Times, to the best of my knowledge, was a Chinese newspaper that launched in 2001 and closed in 2016 due to the declining popularity of of print media. While active, it had a reputation for being a reasonable quality newspaper for Chinese-related reporting, and it used the URLs beijingtimes.com.cn (note the .cn) and jinghua.cn. Neither is online anymore, so webarchive links have been provided.

Beingtimes.com - cited across several Wikipedia articles and in mainstream publications as the Beijing Times - not the Beijing Times?

According to the Beijingtimes.com's "About us" page[32], it is...well, it's currently blank so? Similarly, you can contact them by[33]...? The page for submitting news tips is also blank [34], and the page about press releashes is gibberish[35]. The front page has a link to an article[36] clarifying that it is independent of the Chinese government and that it has a commitment to maintaining transparency, objectivity, and the trust of our readers. Most of the articles are written by two people called Lynn Hatem and Aarav Shen, neither of whom have any presence on the internet that I can find. The privacy policy page, which actually exists, finally gives you something real: an email to contact one "Cedrus Media", a firm in Delaware [37]. There's a few LLM-feeling puff pieces floating around the internet describing how revolutionary it is, but not much else. Our article on the Beiing Times proper mentions some of information about Beijingtimes.com, sourced[38] to the neo conservative think-tank Jamestown Foundation (non-neutral advocacy org), but I can't find any other reporting. Interestingly enough. Jamestown accuses the photos of Lynn Hatem and Aarav Shen of being AI-generated.

Because of how similar the name is to the old, defunct, Beijing Times, it gets cited fairly often in articles by normally reliable (or reliable with conditions sources): the Associated Press[39],Nature([40], the Pacific Island Report (published by the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa)[41], Global Studies Quarterly (published by the International Studies Association and hosted on the Oxford University Press website) [42]. Similarly, it's been cited fifteen times on Wikipedia[43] by a variety of editors, often linking to the article on the Beijing Times. The existence of site even managed to convince an experienced editor to announce that the Bejing Times proper was back [44] in mainspace, meaning Wikipedia has been telling people that the newspaper they've googled is still around for over six months. ​ Given how effective it's been at portraying itself as a much more reputable newspaper, I felt it best to make a post here and ask for a second opinion before I nuke all mainspace references to this site. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

? Um, this is confusing, but I still think I am going to be supportive based on the rest. Here is what the About Us page says:

Collapsed by default as this is longer than even what the quote templates prefer.

Who we are

Beijing Times is an independent online news platform dedicated to providing unbiased reporting of China and the world. Our team is comprised of experienced journalists and reporters based in China, France, England, the USA, Belgium, UAE, Turkey, and beyond. With a diverse range of backgrounds and expertise, we are dedicated to providing accurate and reliable news and information about China and the world.

Our Mission

Enlightening the World on China

At Beijing Times, we are dedicated to creating a platform that offers a balanced, in-depth perspective of China and the global landscape it influences. We recognize the pivotal role China plays in shaping modern civilization's future, with its ascent redefining the global order. Our mission is to deliver an accurate, comprehensive understanding of China's multifaceted narrative – its history, current dynamics, and future trajectory.

Why We Care

Understanding China's Global Impact

In today's interconnected world, no significant global challenge or opportunity can be fully understood without considering China's impact. Despite this, a thorough and nuanced understanding of China – its past, present, and potential future – remains elusive for many. This gap in understanding is exacerbated by the shrinking pool of independent thought and reporting on China. Tightened media controls within China and budget cuts in foreign reporting globally have led to a dearth of in-depth, unbiased information about this crucial player on the world stage. Beijing Times is here to bridge this information gap.

Our Unique Approach

Balanced Perspectives on China

We are an independent, for-profit news platform. Our team, spanning various global locations, including China, France, England, the USA, Belgium, UAE, Turkey, and beyond, brings a blend of local understanding and international perspectives. This unique combination enables us to present news and analysis that is both deeply informed and globally relevant.Our neutrality is our strength. We are not pro- or anti-China, nor do we carry biases for or against any nation. Our goal is to paint a comprehensive and nuanced picture of China, allowing our readers to form their own informed opinions on everything from censorship and human rights to technological advancements and environmental policies.

It goes on a bit more saying that they do "News Covering" among other things and claims its team as Xavier Rodriguez for CTO, Benjamin Williams for Marketing Manager, Khaled Ayoub for Editor & Journalist, and Georgio Daher for CEO. However, all of the Blogger, Facebook, Twitter/X, Dribbble, Instagram, and LinkedIn links fail and instead point back to the About Page. (Speaking of the About Page, it is very glitchy besides the typos, bad links, and whatever AI thought that "News Covering" was correct. The text occasionally disappears for some reason.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I willing to believe you that this is what the "About Us" page contains, and I am incredibly thankful that my computer displays a blank screen instead becaus wow that's either the world's most vacuous marketing drivel or AI. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I am betting AI based on everything so far, with maybe under 3% of it being typed up by someone. I will say that I was able to get archive.is to capture the page and it seems to load 100% of the time on the devices and browsers I tested, though you need to scroll down. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

(Not to get to off topic, but 12 hours later and it's working fine? I'm pretty sure I did scroll down last time because I remember looking and being really confused, but you know what? I give up.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 15:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this took awhile. I am convinced that at least one of the people mentioned as part of the team is fake. (I am a bit concerned if what I found would technically violate OUTING. While I think I should be safe, I am going to get a second opinion before posting that.) However, given what GreenLipstickLesbian has already posted and my own findings, I agree with nuking. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Really, well in that case I've just gone ahead and removed the one piece of mainspace content where it's used to back up a discussion on international relations [45] as sort of a pre-nuke. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, fudge me. I think I misread OUTING last night and got myself all confused. Long story short, one of the people appears to be real, but it isn't clear if it is them or an imposter. Regardless, we don't care about them as they are not the critical problem. The problem is the profile for Benjamin William. As can potentially be guessed from one look, the image used is highly likely to be or have been a stock photo. The person in the image appears on the home page of various websites, such as universalbackground.com as "Director", at the top of this medium.com "article", and in this battlefields.org ad. (Aside: I don't trust "Universal Background" enough to link to them. Even if you don't take my word for it, the other two might still be proof enough.) Credit to TinEye for finding these where Google struggled.

In short, faked profile on their About Us page. Recommend removal. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be some kind of weird push behind Cedrus Media, but everything is AI slop or obviously low quality promo. I would avoid using it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of The Economic Times in terms of Internet doings?

https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/the-creepy-serbian-dancing-lady-a-mysterious-myth-that-haunts-tiktok-users/articleshow/101270448.cms

For use in Draft:Serbian Dancing Lady 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

They tend to publish slop articles[46] [47] [48] written by third parties, but those articles are disclosed at the bottom of the page. And for a financial newspaper, I am dissapointed to see it promoting memecoins in this article.

Even as one of the biggest newspaper in India, it is clear that they do engage in some content farming behavior. I'd say use with care. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The disclaimer appears at the bottom of the article, but only when viewed on the mobile version of the website (m.economictimes.com):

Disclaimer Statement: This content is authored by a 3rd party. The views expressed here are that of the respective authors/ entities and do not represent the views of Economic Times (ET). ET does not guarantee, vouch for or endorse any of its contents nor is responsible for them in any manner whatsoever. Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that any information and content provided is correct, updated, and verified. ET hereby disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, relating to the report and any content therein.

However, the disclaimer is absent from the article on the desktop version of the site (economictimes.indiatimes.com). The website will automatically redirect you to the appropriate version for your device unless you have something (like an ad blocker) that interferes with it.

I am not sure why the disclaimer is being displayed inconsistently for this article, but unless this is some kind of technical issue, I am inclined to consider this article unreliable because The Economic Times has claimed that they did not author it and it is unclear who did. The byline is "ET Online", which is something The Economic Times uses without a named author for content of wildly varying quality. — Newslinger talk 00:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm on desktop and the disclaimer is present. So I am guessing it is a technical error. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's present on both (for this particular article), then it's definitely unreliable. I can't get it to show up on desktop with adblock turned off, but the site's infinite scrolling makes it difficult to use. I can see it on desktop, however, when I'm viewing the mobile site with adblock turned on which prevents me from being redirected to the desktop site. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were talking about the Roblox slop articles I identified, but I realize you were actually linking to the Dancing Serbian article. I also do not see a disclaimer in the Dancing Serbian article.

It seems that publication also sometimes omits bylines for even non-slop articles. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I should have clarified, sorry. The article about the Air India crash does not have a disclaimer on the desktop or the mobile site, and it provides the partial attribution "With inputs from PTI" (Press Trust of India) at the bottom.

From this, I think we can conclude that if an article from The Economic Times carries a byline with no named author (such as "ET Online" or "The Feed"), the article should be checked for the disclaimer (on both desktop and mobile, if possible). If the disclaimer is present for the article on either type of device, the article is unreliable. Additionally, all articles with the "ET Spotlight" byline are sponsored content per ET Spotlight's service description and are generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good summary to me! Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to say that it used to be better, but maybe thats just rose colored glasses. They seem to be making more of an effort to capture the global mass market English language audience with timely churnalism rather than their old bread and butter of in-depth reporting on Indian business topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I consider the Economic Times to be generall unreliable. They are biased towards the right and use ai generated images. When an article of theirs has no author, a lot of the times they don't say which source they got the article from EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the Polish website hist.org a reliable source?

It's used for Great Lechia . [49] says "We want Histmag.org to be a place for discussion and a forum for diverse opinions. The beliefs expressed in individual articles, both strictly historical and contemporary, are the personal opinions of the authors (including members of the editorial staff), and do not reflect the worldview of the entire editorial team. Scientific and journalistic integrity are paramount to us." Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Adding [50] to this, see [51]: "how to join and publish? Fill out the application form After positive verification, we establish the terms of cooperation and ign a contract.You create your account in a dedicated panel and add content Publish your content and start earning money!" Doug Weller talk 13:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The two with credited authors (Sebastian Adamkiewicz and Paweł Rzewuski) appear to have prior publications. I would probably treat it as RSOPINION from a less-established NEWSORG in general. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

As an author of the Great Lechia article, I won't argue for nor against. I'd just like to point out that Histmag (Polish version looks better) is used quite commonly across both English and Polish Wikipedias. Also, as far as I know, Wirtualna Polska (wp.pl) is considered reliable, and also commonly used. Brifyjek (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've no no stake in this and found you an excellent academic source. Commonly used is not enough, I found a good looking website that turned out to be fringe and self-published. It was used in almost 100 articles. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I apologize if my response seemed harsh, I did not mean it like that. I'm thankful for the academic source you linked and I'll try to replace the sources. Brifyjek (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem. It wasn't harsh. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Classic Rock Review and Sydney Unleashed

These two websites ([52], [53]) are being used as sources on an article I patrol, Purple (Stone Temple Pilots album), and a search of Wikipedia shows that both are used across multiple articles (including over 100 for the former website). There has been no consensus established for the reliability of either source on Wikipedia, and their reliability has been challenged by a user on this specific article, only to be added back in by someone else. To avoid edit warring, I am bringing this matter here, to establish whether or not these two websites are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Spinmeisters: and @CleoCat16:, both involved in the aforementioned content dispute. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@CleoCat16 showed me that Classic Rock Review seems to be a reliable source, having been approved in several FA reviews. But I have questioned the reliability of Sydney Unleashed, as it allows users to pay for article publication. Spinmeisters (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think that would render it an unreliable source (cf. Forbes contributor articles, detailed at WP:FORBESCON), and as such, I think removing claims sourced to it would be a good idea. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've gone and removed most uses of the source. If they are challenged on non-BLP articles, I will discuss before reinstating per WP:BRD, but elsewhere I believe that WP:BLPRESTORE applies. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Mmm - Classic Rock Review appears to be one guy reviewing some records. Which is fine for attributed review content ("Classic Rock Review Guy, writing in Classic Rock Review said..."), but I'm unsure that I'd pay much attention to someone who reviewed Nevermind as "mostly forgettable". YMMV. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind is "mostly forgettable"? Maybe I'm not as confident about this site's reliability after all... 😉 JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

impetusfootball.org

This source covers women's football. In one AfD discussion editors questioned the reliability of the source. However, nobody has provided evidence that this source is unreliable. I found one instance where an academic wrote an article for them: [54] [55]. Women's football is of encylcopaedic value and I think this source can be useful in establishing notability of subjects. Maybe it is not reliable for extraordinary claims, although I haven't seen them publish any.

What do editors think about the use of this source as part of the requirements to establish notability in the topic area of women's football?

@Chipmunkdavis: because they told me to ask the question here. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought it's reliable for uncontroversial details. It's staff are volunteers of varying backgrounds, but they appear to have editorial controls. It would help if they had more 'use by others' but I could only find a minimal amount. I won't comment on whether it should count for notability, as that's more than a question of reliability. For instance looking at the AfD I note the question asked was about SIGCOV, which isn't a reliability issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Is there an independent source noticeboard or notability noticeboard? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I've always thought there should be, as what constitutes SIGCOV and what doesn't is a constant source of disagreement, but I there isn't one. I did a bit of searching, turn out there uses to be one (WP:N/N). It was closed after a discussion at the village pump in 2013 (WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 105#Close the Notability Noticeboard). A mistake in my opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of news organisations for Grooming gangs scandal

Are news outlets unreliable sources for the topic of the UK grooming gangs scandal, to claim a cover-up by governments of grooming gangs scandals? Examples:

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/01/the-grooming-scandal-abuse-today/
• https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained
• https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098
• https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/06/18/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-is-a-stain-on-the-british-state
• https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2025/4/5/the-uks-grooming-gang-scandal-is-about-race-class-and-misogyny
• https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gangs-scandal-timeline-what-happened-what-inquiries-there-were-and-how-starmer-was-involved-after-elon-musks-accusations-13285021
• https://madrascourier.com/opinion/how-political-correctness-shielded-pakistani-grooming-gangs-in-britain/

There is unresolved talk page disagreement based on the opinion that WP:NEWSORG overall not reliable for this topic and that a list of humanities/critical studies WP:SCHOLARSHIP should be made instead. Pinging: @Riposte97:, @Sirfurboy:, @Lewisguile: Historyexpert2 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Historyexpert2, as I understand it, when you click the "edit" button on this page, you should see at the top something that says Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Would you be so kind as to do the last part of that please? Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have updated the first sentence to add the main claim supported. Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:BESTSOURCES would in general favour academic sources over reporting by news organisations. But it does depend on context, obviously news reports are going to be of most use for reporting on current events while academic sources would be preferred when they become available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is here and not on the talk page there. We had a source discussion and there is a source list on the talk page. Newspapers are generally reliable but not WP:BESTSOURCES. We have better sources and they are listed. The article should be developed from the best sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers are generally reliable but not WP:BESTSOURCES.

Do you have a backing for that statement? I do not see the statement that newspapers are not the best sources, let alone that they cannot be used in an article, as you wrote on the talk page. Historyexpert2 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the best sources part, it is as ActivelyDisinterested already said. Academic sources are better than newspaper sources. Even WP:NEWSORG says that [s]cholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

You note: for academic topics. This is not an academic topic though? Right? Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an academic topic, it's essentially a political one. Talk page discussions seem to be leaning towards the creation of a separate 'Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation in the UK' page, which can have a more academic slant. This page will then specifically cover the 'Grooming Gangs' and associated scandal. Riposte97 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If there are academic sources about a topic (which there presumably are based on the discussion) then it would be by definition an academic topic by dint of being the subject of academic study. Forking an article so that academic sources can be used on one and excluded on the other is... an interesting suggestion, but not one I would support based on our policies and guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

A WP:POVFORK here is absolutely not acceptable. It will get reversed if anybody tries it.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly an academic topic. Put "grooming gang scandal" into google scholar and you get dozens of results. These are the best sources and the ones the article should be largely based on.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

There are academic works about this topic, so this is an academic topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd encourage the editors replying to me to review the talk page discussion, as I perhaps didn't summarise it very well. To correct that, the best academic sources treat the topic more broadly. The sub-phenomenon of grooming gangs is as much about the social, political, and media context as about GBCSE itself. That's where the split comes from, not a fork.

Regarding the assertion that anything that has attracted academic study is an 'academic topic' to the preference of other categorisations - well, that claim is patently ridiculous, for reasons I'm sure I don't have to explain. Riposte97 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about to the preference of, but please do explain, because other editors would not know your reasoning otherwise, even if they believe the same thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course anti-intellectual claims must remain vague and hand-waved. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is based on policy based arguments, making no argument at all is not going to go very far. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course politics, criminology, sociology, and media studies are academic topics, please reconsider this approach. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add that we want to avoid WP:RECENTISM, so sources published far after an event are more preferred than newspaper reports during the event, and that's regardless of whether its an academic or political topic. Masem (t) 15:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Two of the above sources are paywalled, so I can't read them. However, The Week, The Conversation, Sky and Al Jazeera do not make the claim there has been a coverup of the grooming gangs scandal. The Madras Courier article is reliable for the opinion of the person who wrote it, which is not going to be due. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  That a goverment coverup has happened would require exceptional sources, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. An attributed statement, "[Person X] has alleged that a coverup has happened" (or similar language), would be easier not source but whether it was due would be a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have misrepresented the topic of the article in my post here. The article is just a timeline of UK government reports and backtracking regarding the prevalence of grooming gangs. Not much opinion related aside from the "responses" subsection. Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  There's more to the topic than a simple timeline, and those other details need to be present in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. The point of this post was to ask if news outlets can be used to provide such timelines and events, particularly recent (2025-) ones. The Talk page participants seemed to imply that news outlets cannot be used in this article, which contradicts my understanding of policy, even after WP:BESTSOURCES is brought up. Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  See my earlier comment[56]. News sources are best used for immediate reporting. You can use them but that doesn't mean they can be used without any limit. The further back in time the details the more you should be using acadey sources. WP:INTEXT attribution is useful if any of the details of contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  That works. Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad this has come here, as the various discussions on this topic were starting to feel like an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation. It has been explained multiple times, in several different discussions, that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and therefore has an WP:ACADEMICBIAS. That's not the same as saying news media is unreliable; it's just a matter of deferring to the WP:BESTSOURCES.

News media is very valuable, but it's not scholarly writing. News articles can help establish notability of a subject, and can help establish the views of non-scholars (with attribution), or can help us understand factual matters such as the sequence of events as they happened. But where there is scholarly writing on a subject, news media does not override it. The framing used by news media does not take precedence over the framing used by scholars. Lewisguile (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

As I believe I have noted in the talk page (or perhaps in the RfC), I don't agree that WP:ACADEMICBIAS is necessarily applicable to this article. It is also not policy. I have to confess it is a little grating to have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT cited as though there isn't well-founded good-faith disagreement with your position. Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:BESTSOURCES always applies as it's part of WP:NPOV one of the core policies, it says to base "content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources". WP:ACADEMICBIAS gives an explanation of what that means in practice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

News organizations, which is policy, applies: editorials and analysis in news media are "are rarely reliable for statements of fact." None of these sources are reliable.

New sources are only reliable for news, that is, what happened today. For analysis, expert opinion is required.

These sources are analysis and opinion of already published news stories, often put together to support a specific political viewpoint. Wikipedia editors can get all the information by using the original news articles and putting them together without supporting a specific political viewpoint.

The Islamophic alarmism expressed by many political commentators is of course part of the story. But it should be sourced to expert sources that explain this, rather than have the article include these opinions without explaining their inherent bias. TFD (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards.

In Grooming gangs scandal and Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, much content sourced to journals have inline attribution and are in the format:

Scholar criticises media outlets/government

It seems that all editors responsible for them were hesitant to write about it in Wiki voice, which makes me hesitant if such essays are "the best source", and if they are even used as a secondary source at all. I do not see anything similar with the news articles, since they are used to source basic uncontestable facts like timeline of events, current available statistics, changes in government reporting and decisions. Historyexpert2 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Historyexpert2 Btw you can use {{tq}} for quotes, the indenting is confusing (WP:INDENT) Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

We can use media sources to fill in the gaps, but they pale in reliability to peer-reviewed scholarly sources by subject matter experts. Generally it is not a violation of NPOV to exclude POVs not found in scholarly sources. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe directly citing essays presenting a novel point of view on an issue is using those sources as a primary source, regardless of whether they went peer review. I believe this is why we are seeing much more of these academic sources coming with inline attribution currently as opposed to timelines, crime rate figures.

Also, could you explain what POVs you are talking about "excluding"? Historyexpert2 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't really have anything to do with whether something requires or doesn't require attribution, but as per WP:SECONDARY, analysis and interpretation is the part that is secondary and facts (and opinions) are primary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

In WP:SECONDARY, I do see:

a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research

Based on that, I am confused by the saying that the research is in fact the secondary source? Eg. a hypothesis behind the media treatment of the scandal.

What are the thoughts when the analysis is itself the "research"? In the case of critical studies publications, which peer review less tests of hypotheses, but rather narratives around a particular issue. Historyexpert2 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources are analysing the media reports, this is typical of secondary sources. In this case the media reports are the primary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

A news article that a group of people were arrested, yes, but a news article about Starmer ordering a new investigation would not be a primary source on what grooming gangs are, since like articles have substantial subject-matter expert treatment of the phenomenon.

Likewise, a hypothesis behind the cause of grooming gangs in a media studies paper would be a primary source, but a paragraph at the beginning summarizing the previous research would be secondary.

Based on that it's opaque as to what you mean by media reports in general. Could you explain further? Historyexpert2 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

A large part of the of the academic literature on the subject has to do with media sensationalism, the media reporting in that case would be the primary source being analysed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Saying all mainstream media is unreliable on this topic definitely falls in the realm of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I definitely think it's a fringe viewpoint. Edit: I misunderstood this last post. I do agree that sensationalism deserves its own section, but do not believe that a narrative-style paper's original findings can be quoted are good sources, as from my understanding they are primary sources (research) and as opinion-based. Which explains why they always seem to come with inline attribution. Historyexpert2 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Saying something is primary is not saying it is unreliable. Those are different things. Sources should be secondary and reliable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Using attribution in articles is just a common practice, see WP:INTEXT, it doesn't sound that a source is more or less reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

TFD, New sources are only reliable for news, that is, what happened today. For analysis, expert opinion is required. - But these are not mutually exclusive. News sources frequently have experts doing the analysis. The Conversation's whole conceit is that it only publishes journalism/news by academic experts, grounded in their own research. (This is not an opinion one way or the other regarding the question at the top of this thread -- just a broad comment about what's being said about news sources in general.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a misread of NEWSORG anyway, which does not say that news sources can only be used for news. It says that academic sources are usually better for academic topics. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact - not just today. Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics (emphasis mine) Goes on to say: Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format... Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Andre🚐 17:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The point is that once academics write about something, their work takes primacy over news reports. And once academics have written about something, it becomes an academic subject. The window of opportunity where news sources are the best sources is usually the first couple of years after it has happened.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut as that. Yes, if there are academic sources that contradict the news reports or that are more detailed or otherwise better, yes, but the policy clearly allows wiggle room for editors' consensus to use news sources (not talking about op-ed which is WP:RSOPINION) for facts if needed. So we should not categorically exclude NEWSORG on that basis as it actually says the opposite, that NEWSORGs are presumed reliable. Not commenting on the specifics in this case. Andre🚐 18:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I am having trouble following the points the OP is making in the thread, but I thought I'd comment on the specific sources:

• The Telegraph: Having long argued that the we should continue to consider the Telegraph as a fully reliable source, I am increasingly coming to the view that we shouldn't use it as a source for facts where the topic is a culture war issue, as they have gone beyond bias to misrepresentation now. Their "reporting" of "grooming gangs" exemplifies this.
• The Week is a low quality reliable source that basically regurgitates other news and comments sources. I would tend to see what sources it's relying on and use them instead if they are high quality.
• The Conversation is a high quality site that provides academic analysis of newsworthy issues. This is not as good as a peer reviewed article, but better than commentary in a newspaper. However, articles inevitably contain interpretation as well as information, so analysis might be best presented with attribution.
• The Economist is a high quality reliable news source, but this piece appears to be an editorial not a news piece so should be attributed as opinion.
• Sky is a high quality reliable news source, can be used for facts.
• Madras Courier is not a site I am familiar with, but it appears to be a very low quality news website, and this article is an opinion piece which would neither be reliable for facts or due for attributed opinion.
• Al-Jazeera is a reliable news organisation but this is an op ed, reliable only for the opinion of the (controversial) author, Julie Bindel. Bindel's opinion may be due, but is no more than her opinion.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Concur especially with regard to The Telegraph and The Conversation. I also strongly concur that we should absolutely avoid anything resembling a news editorial on "culture war" issues. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Telegraph has engaged in ‘misrepresentation’? Riposte97 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

No. None of those sources support "cover-up", which sounds like an exceptional conspiracy theory fever dream and would need much more exceptional sources that directly support the claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have used the wrong language while making this discussion, as I was asked to change it and did so hastily early on. If I were to make it again, I would ask if news outlets are reliable sources to make a timeline of the government response towards grooming gangs, and the public response to it. Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC: The Weekly Standard

The Weekly standard has ended publication in 2018, and RSP states it is still reliable, I don't necessarily disagree, or agree, but think it needs a new RfC. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Source(s): Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This should be closed per the header and edit notice, RFCs shouldn't be opened without prior discussions and a good reason for doing so.
As to the stated question, there is nothing I know of in policy or guidance that a publication closing down changes it reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Pulled per above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Thelist.com for Celina Midelfart involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump

Article is here. Significance seems obvious. Relationship apparently came up in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say no, the reports is just WP:GOSSIP. Midelfart dated Epstein and Trump, the report says nothing more than that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the coverage from The Independent from Maxwell's trial. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the source it's still just gossip. That one person dated another person, who dated a third person, just isn't encyclopedic material. There's an obvious inference to be made, but neither source says anything more than that she dated Epstein and Trump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with ActivelyDisinterested. The material does not look encyclopedic. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

List of national animals

Is all the information and the links I provided regarding Vietnam's national symbolic mascot incorrect? [57], [58]. Both of the links I sent you above are English sources. Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

theculturetrip.com is a commercial travel site, and would not meet WP:RS guidelines in that context. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first citation looks highly unreliable for this topic, a seemingly random blog on a site dedicated to selling vacation plans.

The second also looks less than stellar: no byline, no statement of editorial policies. There appears to be some WP:USEBYOTHERS in Vietnamese language sources which is a point in its favor. But the article also doesn't actually say that the buffalo is a national animal of Vietnam, rather it just highlights its historical importance and notes it as a traditional symbol. It could maybe be used to support a claim that the buffalo is an unofficial symbol of Vietnam, but it does not support the claim that it is an official national animal as stated in your edit. That the article was clearly published in the context of the arrival of the lunar Year of the Buffalo further undermines attempting to use the source as an authoritative claim of the buffalo's status as a national animal of Vietnam, since its pretty common for publications to roll out soft news stories highlighting the importance of the coming year’s animal.

I would recommend searching Google Scholar rather than random news sites and blogs, as you will generally find better coverage of topics like cultural patrimony there. Also, for what it's worth, sources in Vietnamese (or other languages) are totally fine provided that they meet the hallmarks of reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you help me find reliable sources of information regarding the national symbolic animal of Vietnam? Nguonnhanluc853 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I was able to find an academic source that echoes the traditional symbol framing [59], which could potentially be used to support a claim of it being an unofficial cultural symbol (although this source also has a weakness, which is that it is primarily a biology paper, rather than a sociology or history paper, and thus it could be argued that it's not a particularly reliable source for claims of cultural significance).

I tried poking around a bit in Vietnamese, which is a language in which I have only limited expertise. While vi.wiki does have vi:Danh sách động vật biểu tượng quốc gia, said page doesn't list Vietnam. There's also vi:Biểu_tượng_không_chính_thức_của_Việt_Nam, which does mention the buffalo, chim lac, and dragon, but it's not immediately clear to me that the references support them as "national animals"--the buffalo reference is inaccessible, whereas the language used to describe the chim lac and dragon don't really assert that they're "national animals". Searching for "động vật biểu tượng quốc gia" "Việt Nam" on Google Scholar did not return any relevant results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)