Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Additional notes:

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

    RFC: Beebom

    [edit]

    This source has been discussed here twice: 338, 463. The source is used in several articles, most notably List of Roblox games. Not sure if it is reliable or not...

    There are four options:

    1. Reliable
    2. Situational
    3. Unreliable
    4. Deprecate

    brachy08 (chat here lol) 00:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Beebom)

    [edit]

    Discussion (Beebom)

    [edit]

    Has there been some new disagreement, discussion, or usage that requires a RFC? The prior discussions seem to suggest this is a marginal source, but possibly usable in it's area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    not sure. however, one thing i noticed is that the source highlighting thing that i am using used to mark beebom yellow, butit suddenly changed from red. it has been recognised by forbes, which is unreliable if im not wrong, but ngl i think it has a strong editorial, so its more of a little confusifying and not only will i know if its reliable or not, but other people can refer to the RSP when they see beebom as a source. just saying brachy08 (chat here lol) 06:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RSP is meant to be a log of sources that have been regularly discussed here, so starting a RFC just so a source can be added to the RSP is back to front. The source highlighters aren't control by this noticeboard, you would need to discuss any changes with whichever editor created the one you are using. I don't think either of the popular ones just read the RSP.
    If you believe the quality of the source has changed then the first thing to do would be to just start a new discussion on it presenting your case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ok… well i can say that it has been used extensively in several wikipedia articles (you can search for Beebom and you should get a list) brachy08 (chat here lol) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is their editorial policy. It isn't the NYTs, but they aren't trying to be either. CarroGil (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    uhh what is the NYTs brachy08 (chat here lol) 00:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    nvm (im assuming it’s the new york times) brachy08 (chat here lol) 00:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: RoutesOnline.com

    [edit]

    There was a previous discussion of this source here.

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

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

    RFC: What should RoutesOnline.com [1] be designated as?

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

    Comment.

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

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

    Why is Know Your Meme listed as unreliable

    [edit]

    Know Your Meme being listed as unreliable with the reason that it's user-generated is senseless. There are admins that control and overview everything to make sure there is nothing fake going around, just like on Wikipedia. And KYM is one of the best and most reliable sites to look at when the topic is about memes, which is why it's user-generated. I'd understand a website being unreliable if it's e.g. about politics and user-generated but you cannot compare politics with internet memes and trends. I don't know who decides what's reliable and what isn't, but I'd suggest making KYM a reliable source or atleast the unclear level. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue simply is that just like Wikipedia all user generated sources are unreliable for the purposes of referencing, see WP:USERGENERATED. Know Your Meme is even listed as an example of the kind of websites that the guidance of USERGENERATED covers. So it's not so much that KYM alone is unreliable, but that it's part of a whole category of sites that are not used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't KYM have staff articles though? Has anyone done WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis on those? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They do but those always nearly include reliable sources as references which are far better suited for WP to use. — Masem (t) 23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    literally all of what they document is just WP:SOCIALMEDIA chatter and goofy stuff that will be irrelevant in 10 years — I see no good reason why they need the time of day with WP:ROUTINE coverage. BarntToust 00:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, All Your Base has passed not only the 10-year test, but also the 20-year test, and is now coming up on a quarter century (even its Wikipedia article is from 2002) -- but who's counting? jp×g🗯️ 06:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, yeah. for every "grumpy cat" there's literal millions of 2-seconds-in-the-spotlight random memes that become a shroud in lost memory in no time flat. BarntToust 11:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What they report on is irrelevant. They're not a reliable source because they don't have professional, credentialed writers, editorial oversight/policy, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we established that. I'm talking about how the content of the sources is WP:ROUTINE. It's not like IMDB where something of a goal for factual content exists; this site is just random internet chatter. BarntToust 03:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong again. ROUTINE has to do with notability, not reliability. Routine coverage can still be reliable. Regardless, at lease we already have a pretty strong consensus against KYM for the right reasons, so this isn't really derailing things. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73, the proposal is clearly failing in a way concerning both aspects of why KYM is not fit for Wikipedia: they of course are looking at questioning reliability, and that is one way to knock it out; they believe that the content within should be cleared for use in Wikipedia articles, and their coverage is largely run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out. The poster seems to be proposing the concept that Wikipedia should be adding a bunch of dogbitesman stuff (regardless of the editorial capacities being nyet); I could be wrong, but I'm just doing my best to read into OP's motive and thought process. BarntToust 13:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're perfectly right that WP has consensus against KYM for the right reasons, but I'm observing that the OP is wanting to clear a source known for routine coverage of miscellaneous memes that happen to trend for a day or two; I'm concerned about their understanding of what encyclopedic content is defined as. BarntToust 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely agree that the discussion starter doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards for source reliability. But neither do you if you're citing things like WP:ROUTINE (a subsection of WP:NEVENTS.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In order for a meme to catch the notice of a user-contributor, does it not have to become popular to a point? Assessing that a meme becoming popular enough (say, a hundred thousand views or around a million) to spread, is that not a routine event to note that a meme got really popular, enough so to catch the interest of some rando? I typically note that contributors write about the amount of views a meme got. Whatever, you'll have one way of appraising the significance of memes, I have another. Don't insinuate I have no idea how policies work, Serge. BarntToust 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the other half of the problem - we're not here to "appraise memes". We're here to outline the reliability of a source. In case you've forgotten, we're on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and the question was "Why isn't this source reliable". Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was attempting to bring up the implication of the OP wanting to bring in content cited to a source that publishes coverage of memes, that happen to get popular randomly. I was looking to assert that what KYM publishes is systematically wrong, and beyond them being of questionable editorial practice—WP:USERGENERATED—that Wikipedia doesn't cover much of their offerings. What does the OP's want to use a source that publishes a bunch of content with all the issues I attempted to raise above, say about what the OP believes is content fit for an encyclopedia? Whatever. Clearly my line of thinking hasn't gotten through. Toodle-pip, cheerio. BarntToust 02:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, great, we're on a noticeboard for reliable sources. I'm pretty sure it isn't written in the tablets that God gave Moses, much less anywhere else, that it is the supreme law we mustn't discuss other aspects of sources presented here. BarntToust 02:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On one hand, on basic principle I'd be inclined to agree that otherwise low-quality sites are a usable source for very limited types of information about memes and web culture. However, KnowYourMeme, specifically, is very frequently incorrect, and people who write entries there often make shit up (e.g. the year of a meme's origin being confidently asserted several years late because the website it came from died many years ago and didn't show up on a quick Google search). Most of the time, I would literally rather cite Encyclopedia Dramatica than KYM. jp×g🗯️ 06:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being just like on Wikipedia isn't an argument that helps your case here; Wikipedia itself is considered WP:USERGENERATED under our policies and cannot be used as a source here. That degree of admin-ing is simply not sufficient to qualify them for the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that Wikipedia requires. While RSP isn't absolute, in practice the only real sign that a particular KYM article is an exception and therefore reliable would be secondary coverage, and in that case we could just use the secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. TarnishedPathtalk 09:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    three words. self published source brachy08 (chat here lol) 02:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, KYM articles that are marked as "Confirmed" may be stated as such (as that specifically requires editorial oversight from KYM staff and is valid per WP:V, since it is describing what KYM says), but the content in a non-Confirmed KYM article should not normally be used as a source per WP:UGC, and it especially should not be used in WP:BLP. Content from KYM should certainly should not be used in WP:WIKIVOICE. But something like According to its entry on Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" holds a "Confirmed" status, meaning it has undergone the site's official editorial review process and verification by KYM staff. or According to Know Your Meme, "Grumpy Cat" originally spawned from a 2012 post on /r/pics., referencing verifiable content with attribution, is acceptable for articles on Internet memes and web culture, provided that the KYM article on the subject is marked as Confirmed. 31.214.141.76 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply having "staff" is not enough though. Who are they? What are their credentials? What is their editorial policy/oversight? Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I'm the IP, which was blocked for being an open proxy. The Know Your Meme guidelines state Our expert staff and global research community chronicle the internet’s most significant trends and moments. and Know Your Meme staff review and fact-check content thoroughly. We are careful to cite only reliable sources and strive to provide an impartial and balanced variety of perspectives. We are committed to updating content as new information appears, particularly for evolving stories or trends.. Their editorial staff is verifiable on their website. Further, they assert that We take errors very seriously and are quick to correct them when they occur. Major inaccuracies, not including minor typos or grammatical errors, are corrected promptly upon discovery and noted at the top of the article.
      As for how their articles are marked as Confirmed, their Editorial Rules (under "Entry Submission Guidelines") provides a set of concrete do-and-don't rules before the article is properly researched and eventually confirmed. KYM confirmation is an editorial process that involves rigorous fact-checking and verification, and that isn't inherently less reliable than any other source. That others in this RSN attest to the fact that KYM is one of the best and most reliable sites for Internet culture suggests that an RfC be opened for confirmed (staff) articles on KYM specifically.
      As a final aside, whether or not the RfC passes or not, the statement According to its entry on Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" holds a "Confirmed" status is still valid per WP:V as it is what KYM is saying, as long as it is used with attribution. Whether that statement is ultimately appropriate for the page (e.g. if the subject is not most strictly known for an Internet phenomenon per WP:UNDUE) should be determined on a case-by-case basis though. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't actually disagree that KYM is "one of the best and most reliable sites to look at when the topic is about memes" but thats says much more about the sites that only cover memes than anything else... Important memes will get coverage from mainstream sources. While KYM's quality has been improving I don't think its to the point where it justifies actually changing their status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I made an RFC below for certain articles marked as "Confirmed" for use in a limited manner. I think it's not fair to group "Deadpool" and "Submission" level articles as the same as articles officially verified by KYM's editorial staff, so some consideration should be made there. Abayomi2003 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Should Know Your Meme articles marked as "Confirmed" (i.e. verified by the editorial staff) be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture, when properly attributed?

    [edit]

    Know Your Meme (KYM) is a website dedicated to documenting internet memes and viral phenomena. According to their About page, Know Your Meme's research is handled by an independent professional editorial and research staff and community members. The site features different categories of entries, including those marked as "Confirmed," which according to KYM have been carefully researched and verified by the research staff.

    Currently, KYM is listed among user-generated content sources considered generally unreliable per WP:UGC. This RFC seeks to determine whether "Confirmed" articles on KYM, which have undergone editorial review and fact-checking by staff, should be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture.

    Proposal (KYM)

    [edit]

    Little discussion has been had about KYM articles marked as "Confirmed" in the past. The last time this was discussed was 5 years ago, though this was when there was no information about KYM's editorial process or staff, and the result of the discussion was still unclear. Since then, KYM has developed a more robust editorial process with clear guidelines for verification and fact-checking, as outlined on their Editorial Rules page. The site now has an established team of professional editors with specific roles and responsibilities, and their "Confirmed" status has become a meaningful indicator of editorial review rather than merely user-generated content.

    I propose that KYM articles clearly marked as "Confirmed" or written by staff (e.g. [2]) may be used as reliable sources for limited purposes in Wikipedia, specifically:

    • For articles about internet memes and web culture
    • When properly attributed (e.g., "According to Know Your Meme...")
    • For factual information about the origin, spread, and evolution of memes
    • Not for use in biographies of living persons
    • Not to be used in Wikipedia's voice (WP:WIKIVOICE)

    KYM's editorial process for "Confirmed" articles involves fact-checking and verification by professional staff. Their guidelines state that Know Your Meme staff review and fact-check content thoroughly and that they are careful to cite only reliable sources and strive to provide an impartial and balanced variety of perspectives. Their editorial guidelines clearly state the dos-and-dont's before a submission is properly researched and eventually confirmed.

    This RFC does not propose any changes to the status of KYM articles marked as "Submission" or "Deadpool", which would remain unreliable per WP:UGC. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Summoned by bot) No. Just because their content is "fact checked" by "staff" does not make them a reliable source. It's still user-generated content, at the end of the day. Besides that, I don't really know what exactly we need Know Your Meme for that we can't get from anywhere else. All they really "cite" are social media posts; if something is notable enough to have an article, we can do much better than Know Your Meme. And if they're our only source for something, I wouldn't think it belongs on here. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 22:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because their content is "fact checked" by "staff" does not make them a reliable source. Yet, being user-generated content doesn't necessarily not make them a reliable source, e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS. And if they're our only source for something, I wouldn't think it belongs on here. Yes, agreed; it should not count toward notability. But there are plenty of KYM articles that would be sufficient to supplement Wikipedia pages, e.g. [3], [4], which never reached "mainstream" notability but are still being used for List of emoticons. Perhaps I should clarify in the RfC that such usage of KYM should not count towards notability. Abayomi2003 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS also states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Are they subject-matter experts? What qualifications do they have? And have they been published by other reliable and independent sources?
      there are plenty of KYM articles that would be sufficient to supplement Wikipedia pages. Sure, but why include them specifically? If it's notable, surely it's been covered in actually reliable and not self-published outlets. Also within EXPERTSPS is if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If the argument is "we already have sources, but we can also use Know Your Meme", why do we need to supplement already referenced information with an unreliable source? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per SmittenGalaxy. And we should generally follow this rule, no amount of "confirmation" can guarantee accuracy when the original author is an amateur. I would apply exactly the same principle, for example, to the recent spate of online Encyclopedia Britannica articles, which are written by random bloggers and "checked" by subject's editorial team. Unsurprisingly the quality is usually several notches below the standard set by the old print Britannica. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      no amount of "confirmation" can guarantee accuracy when the original author is an amateur. without commenting on KYM specifically (I don't have enough knowledge of the site to have a reliable opinion), I very strongly dispute the statement I quote. Just because the original author is an amateur does not mean something is incorrect. If someone who is a subject matter expert with no relevant conflict of interest confirms an amateur's work as accurate then we should treat the reviewed work as accurate - they are the experts not us. Consider also that we would unhesitatingly endorse the expert's findings if they came to the opposite conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per SmittenGalaxy. Know Your Meme is pretty much no different from websites like IMDB and Famous Birthdays -- it's user-generated content constructed by anonymous contributors, so we have little (if any) chance of establishing whether or not most content on the site passes WP:EXPERTSPS. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your comment does not answer the question asked. This RFC is explicitly not about most content on the site, but about the subset of that content that is explicitly marked as having been confirmed as accurate by editorial staff. I don't know whether the editorial staff are considered experts, nor what the quality of the review is like, but content written by person A and reviewed and endorsed by independent editorial staff is almost by definition not self-published. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per my comments in the above section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, that concern is that only a few of their editorial staff have any sort of credentials for writing for other RS's. I don't believe there's enough to provide full editorial control and quality with that, particularly considering how much they'd need to be reviewing of non-credentialed staff submitting content. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you clarify what you mean by particularly considering how much they'd need to be reviewing of non-credentialed staff submitting content. As far as I can tell they don't attempt to review the vast majority of submitted content, and unreviewed content is explicitly irrelevant to this request. What matters is only whether the content they do review is reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, I got off topic into a more general assessment of the website. The first sentence is the one relevant to this proposal in particular. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Just because the staff or 'confirmed' post aren't purely user generated doesn't mean they are reliable sources. Even without the user generation issue is a rubbish source. Looking at a couple of the past discussions there's this article[5], which reads like an advertorial, or this one[6] containing allegations that a living person is a pedophile. Outside of what may, or may not be user generated KYM is still a highly questionable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear as it seems to have been missed the first article is an undisclosed advertorials by a staff member about a meme character, and the second that contains unfounded allegations against a living person is a 'confirmed' entry. Neither confirmed or staff entries should be used, KYM does not have 'a reputation for fact checking or accuracy'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per much of the above. This is basically just like Urban Dictionary. It may (sometimes, not always) be informative to a general reader, as what "randos on the Internet" think something means and what its origin in (and even linguists and modern-folklorist might make some use of it for research purpose to get at usage and ideas of folk etymology that are circulating), is is clearly UGC even if some reviewing is sometimes happening, and is not a reliable source under WP's definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No That even with the editorial control over staff articles, many of their sources are still primary or not appropriate. Its fine to work from usable referencs cited in thse articles to develop content on WP, but not the KYM articles themselves. Masem (t) 04:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, although I think most of the people voting "no" so far have not read the RfC statement -- this is not about entries written by random people! -- it is about entries that have subsequently been edited and approved by staff members of the site. The relevant question, then, is whether there is a reason for us to believe that these staff members are qualified to judge whether memes are real, or whether they function as a coherent unit of editorial will. My answer to this question would be a resounding "no": the website is mostly an attempt to provide viral entertainment and in the last decade I cannot recall ever seeing any evidence of more scholarship than a cursory Google search. jp×g🗯️ 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I would be in favor of treating them as a primary source in some limited edge-case circumstances (e.g. if we need to cite an actual meme image itself and there is not a fair use rationale). That is to say, presume that the image at Longcat is DMCAed, or something stupid like that: we ought to be able to give the reader some ability to look at the image. Whether that's KYM, or an archived Dramatica article, I guess is immaterial. jp×g🗯️ 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Just as featured articles on Wikipedia are not reliable. It's user-generated content. I've had a college prof state that featured articles go through as rigorous a process as peer-reviewed academic journal articles. But, they still are unreliable for Wikipedia purposes because they're user-generated. KYM is reliable for research, but it's not reliable for Wikipedia because it's user-generated. Even the confirmed articles are still user-generated.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per all above, and recommend WP:SNOW close. The Kip (contribs) 18:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. If a meme is deserving of coverage here, good sources that describe important aspects of the subject should be in adequate supply, without concern for a site like KYM. BarntToust 02:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This proposal is about reliability, not notability. Your comment has nothing to do with reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      hey Serge, I don't particularly want MEMECRUFT eveywhere on Wikipedia, and I'll use whatever rationale for refuting it I see fit. I think literally most of the discussion has established that there is NO reliability for KYM, and I would feel like an idiot for just repeating that in my vote. Now, it's been a nice couple of days/week-ish replying to you, but I'm busy with building content and would appreciate it if you would take after Paul McCartney and Let it Be. BarntToust 11:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      n.b. I think you mean Let It Be (song) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want "memecruft" either, but it doesn't change the fact that that "want" is irrelevant to reliability of this website. Luckily, as you say, the consensus has clearly developed regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO, deciding whether content is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia needs to come before deciding that poor sources indexing said content should not be used. Whatever. I'm not interested in propagating this conversation for much longer; I have something going on at GARC and ought to focus on that rather than running circles around my point and your counterpoint. BarntToust 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Everyone's free to their personal opinions. Feel free to think that. But that doesn't make it a valid argument in the scope of how Wikipedia defines and identifies source reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      yes, reliability has been described perfectly well in this discussion. I don't believe that KYM, something that has implications for introducing memecruft here, warrants being discussed as if it is something that ought to be included—as if we need to consider and possibly accept sources from a site full of WP:INDISCRIMINATE content. Whether the site is reliable for its subject matter falls ahead of discerning whether the subject matter (the most, vast majority of it anyhow) even belongs here. BarntToust 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      INDISCRIMINATE is not a source reliability criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      hey, I'm just thinking different, applying different concepts and principles to other sscenarios. With all our bickering, we're beginning to sound worse than most old married couples, so maybe we oughta just forget we met one another and just move on with our respective WikiBusiness, that sound good? BarntToust 17:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      sheesh, all I want to say is that the vast majority content that KYM presents is not encyclopedic information, so we shouldn't even be going so far as to determine if they fulfill WP:RSPCRITERIA. BarntToust 17:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply stop giving opinions that aren't rooted in policy in public forum and I'll stop correcting you. Simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll continue to offer unconventional, perspective-subverting insights just as I see fit. Simple as that. BarntToust 18:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And discussion closers will continue to disregard it if its not rooted in a valid policy. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I hope they don't care about our tangent-arguments here, this is awkward. KYM is unusable for several reasons, from the nature/substance of what they cover to the fact it is all user-generated, and citing "staff picks" equivocates to trying to consider a FA on Wikipedia as a reliable source. I will always think that first, rejecting a source because of what it covers being material unfit for encyclopedic coverage comes before discussing whether it satisfies WP:RSPCRITERIA. I really have enjoyed this extended back-and forth with ya, Serge. See ya around. BarntToust 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If something is indiscriminate in it's inclusion criteria then it will include content about subjects that are notable as well as subjects that are not notable. That means it's not useful for determining whether any entry is or is not notable. However, if we have determined, without reference to KYM (or other indiscriminate site) that a topic is notable then the site's inclusion criteria are completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the content they have about the topic is reliable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      turns out that the 98% or more of random memes whose coverage goes without encyclopedic merit or value are in the same reliability boat as the 2% or less "verified entries" and whatnot. Nobody seems to be voting further and I really wish a passerby could invoke WP:SNOW any day now.
      Literally, we're asking about the equivalent of a Fandom.com subsite here. I could say the same thing, 98% of entries on Fandom are stuff we reject for many reasons; other stuff fails for many more reasons. BarntToust 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. While I don't disagree that KYM isn't a good source to use (and if an article insists on heavily relying on KYM, it could suggest that it does not meet WP:GNG), most of the answers above are not actually answering the RfC. The RfC proposes that the source be used for limited purposes, specifically for information about the origin, spread, and evolution of memes when properly attributed and not for notability purposes. Many above responses seem to focus on KYM's general reliability rather than addressing whether it could be useful in this limited context. The question is not whether KYM should be considered generally reliable, but whether its Confirmed articles could serve a specific, limited purpose in articles where notability has already been established through other reliable sources. To this, I am leaning towards Yes. Madeleine (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that usage is not reliable because it is user-generated content.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirmed articles are not user-generated in the way we use that term - they have been explicitly checked by editors independent of the author. If the people doing the checking are subject-matter experts and the checking is sufficiently thorough then they are at least as reliable as an expert self-published source or something published in a traditional reliable source by an author with no track record (we generally regard such as reliable). If the people checking are not subject-matter experts or are not thorough, then the content isn't reliable but it is no more user-generated than something published in a publication like the Daily Express. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As @Thryduulf already mentioned, Confirmed articles are not WP:UGC because they have gone through a staff review and fact-checking process per KYM's own guidelines. Looking through the staff list, I see evidence that some editors at KYM have had experience at other reputable organizations like IGN and The Washington Post. Madeleine (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

    [edit]

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


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


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

    Survey (Euro-Med)

    [edit]
    • Option 2 per my previous votes on most other advocacy groups (though I did vote to deprecate the Heritage Foundation, iirc). Like others, most of their content is gonna be op-eds or similar, and those that have hard data are going to frame that data in a way that suits their cause(s). Usable with attribution, considering they seem to be fairly high-profile, but shouldn't be put in Wikivoice unless more "neutral" GRELs back up what they're saying (in which case it'd generally be better to just cite the GREL). The training program mentioned below is questionable, but I'd need to see harder evidence of potential or confirmed disruption to drop my vote any lower. The Kip (contribs) 18:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 (invited by the bot) This is the answer for every source...context-specific. For wp:ver uses, expertise and objectivity with regards to the item which cited it. For wp:weight uses, generally unreliable because it's an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Every single time I have seen them say something unique, which was not also available in RS, the claim was extremely unlikely. Euro-Med is a blog maintained entirely from Europe with limited-at-best access to real Middle East data or witnesses. When they make a radical claim they never provide a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it. They never retract or correct. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for general content, Option 4 for ARBPIA if technically feasible The EMHRM is mostly cited by news sources who themselves have a strong bias or issues with reliability, such as PressTV, WSWS, the Palestine Chronicle, etc. Among the (significantly rarer) high-quality citations such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung often use them with some sort of attribution, such as clarifying an unclear image origin. As such, the case for WP:USEBYOTHERS is mixed at best.
    The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[7] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.
    On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: claims regarding organ harvesting, considered by the ADL to be reminiscent of blood libel (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still claim that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[8]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[9] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[10]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).
    For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes. Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[11], Wafa[12], New Arab[13], Palestine Chronicle[14], Middle East Eye[15] who have covered allegations of missing organs.
    Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent the ADL described it as Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?
    For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.
    Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded here. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by Al-Jazeera and Forensic Architecture. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including historical alleged use), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were factually incorrect). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the surgery section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per The_Kip above (and my own comments in this section).VR (Please ping on reply) 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 It is a biased blog Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per finding raised by multiple editors
      • False statements or WP:EXTRAORDINARY statements without strong support from high-quality, independent sources
        • Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians [16]
        • Organ harvesting topic (debunked by BobFromBrockley see below)
      • Link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization (see the photo in [17]) Michael Boutboul (talk)
      bias isn't enough to deem a source as unreliable — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If argument given by FortunateSons are correct, IMO it is sufficient for Option 3 Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition to @FortunateSons arguments, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees. Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. The more I am looking for this site, I found significant evidence that the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor acts as a pro-Palestinian advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as ABC, Amnesty International, AP News, BBC, CNN, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, The Hill, The Independent, The Intercept, MSNBC, National Post, NBC News, PBS, Reuters, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Times of Israel, just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the UN. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Here Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been covered by other outlets - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.
      Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.
      A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."
      And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[18] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.
      This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
      Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like the UN and European parliament, is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[19], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([20], [21], [22], [23]).
    I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "fact sheet" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about Richard Falk who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being appointed in 2008 by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.
    This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [24][25][26][27] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of spreading misinformation and having a politically motivated agenda. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" section, and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. (link). The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].
    The organ harvesting article cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.
    Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by B’Tselem (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or Middle East Eye (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [47] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See here [48]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a delegation visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.
      Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did some digging and found this summary of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Alaexis that article does not establish[es] the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. Shin Bet makes a claim that there is a connection between the two, but the organisation says it plans to take legal action to show that it is an independent organisation. The Independent only provides Israeli intelligence agency sourcing for this claim, which as you might imagine is hardly WP:DUE for allegations of this nature. (Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, so if Shin Bet's claims were true, Clare Short could in theory be at risk of legal consequences in the UK, let alone Israel.) Not only that but Ramy himself is not mentioned in the article. Did you mean to send a different link? (We can also talk about how NGOs work with agencies and governments on the ground – even the UK government's proscribed organisation laws include legal comments suggesting that 'genuinely benign' meetings may be allowed.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you're interpreting the text of the article correctly. It says "Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations." The part between dashes is not attributed to Moshe Yaalon, it's the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis¿question? 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case I'm not sure how we can possibly come to any conclusions - let alone deprecate a source - because of an unsourced and unverified comment! Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: per Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet. It's cited by the following (among others):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, which Mark outlined the reasoning for above nicely. Regardless of how they describe themselves, they're essentially an advocacy organization and should not be cited without in-text attribution. I do not think other editors have outlined an actual pattern of falsehoods or deception, however, and other editors have noted their use among other RS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Euro-Med)

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

    RfC: Article by Miesel and Poem of the Man-God

    [edit]

    Is the article by Miesel [50] a reliable source for the Poem of the Man-God criticism section?

    For previous discussion leading up to this RfC, please see the linked talk page.[51]. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Miesel)

    [edit]
    • No. The article contains multiple factual historical errors concerning the actions of the Catholic Church in relation to Valtorta's work. See discussion below for details. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Sandra Miesel (literary critic specializing in religious literature) is a reliable source for the critical opinion of Sandra Miesel. I would in general attribute any claims made as we do with most book reviews (reviews are largely the authors own opinion after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. But the RfC concerns a specific article, not the author per se. The article contains important and easily verifiable factual errors. By citing this article, are we not validating and encouraging disinformation? Arkenstrone (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, her article is not being cited for her specialty in literary criticism, but rather for her Catholic doctrinal assertions, which she is wholly unqualified to do. She is not a theologian. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Sandra Miesel is clearly an expert in this domain. As such the source is reliable for an expert opinion on this material. Agree with HEB above that we should attribute statements made by her. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The RfC concerns a specific article, not the author per se. The article contains important and easily verifiable factual errors. By citing this article, are we not validating and encouraging disinformation? Arkenstrone (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If we have a source that makes claims and another source that makes claims that suggest the first source is wrong and if both sources are reliable we should describe the dispute. As I said below, your argument would better serve including both Miesel and Pillari as sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There isn't parity of sources here. The first source (Pillari) is a theologian and expert on Catholic religious history and canon law. The second source (Miesel) is a literary critic, and by her own admission is not a theologian but a layperson. She may be a reliable source for her own opinion, generally speaking, but not in an article in which she makes glaring religious historical errors contradicting a true expert in the field. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The Poem of the Man-God is a work of literature and, as a literary critic (I literally do this professionally), I can assure you that literary criticism usually requires more reading on theology and philosophy than is normal among the laity even if she is humble in her discussion of her theological background. Anyway the opinion of a famous literary critic about a work of literature is very likely due and she is reliable for her own opinion. As I said before, if she has made claims that various clergy have objected to then we should report that dispute rather than removing her work. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyway the opinion of a famous literary critic about a work of literature is very likely due and she is reliable for her own opinion.
      I don't disagree. The question is, for this article, because she includes glaring factual historical errors that contradict established experts in the field of religious history (which she is clearly not), is this article still a reliable source? By citing this article, are we not validating and encouraging obvious disinformation that is mixed in with her literary critique and opinion? Arkenstrone (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I read her review quite carefully and I'm not seeing glaring factual historical errors in it. She mentions Ratzinger three times but those mentions are all in separate paragraphs altogether from on April 17, 1993, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed the Italian Bishops’ Conference to order this disclaimer placed in future re-issues of the Poem: “…the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.” So I don't see any evidence she was trying to pass Ratzinger's opinions off as the decree of an official body. She was giving significant priority to Ratzinger's opinions but, considering he was eventually Pope and considering he was still alive when she, a very devout Catholic, wrote this article, I'm not entirely surprised she gave heavy priority to what he said. I'm sorry but you haven't established any reason why we should treat this source as unreliable beyond what will feel, to any non-Catholics reading this discussion, minutiae that, in turn, seem to depend on reading between the lines of this review. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      May I suggest that you are not seeing glaring factual errors because, like Miesel, you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about Church history and the organization of the Church? Plain and simple, she gets the facts wrong. There is no sugar-coating it. Furthermore, her article is not being cited for her specialty in literary criticism, but rather for her Catholic doctrinal assertions, which she is wholly unqualified to do, as she is not a theologian. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And you are such a theologian? You have no problem sharing your own interpretation of the Poem of the Man-God and in fact insisting on it over available sourcing. You've been incredibly prolific on the topic, I see 438 at The Poem of the Man-God, 98 at Maria Valtorta, 94 at Talk:Maria Valtorta, 65 at Talk:The Poem of the Man-God, and that all out of 1,630 total edit. You have repeatedly made Catholic doctrinal assertions, what qualifies you to do so if Miesel is unqualified? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      None of what you just wrote is relevant to this RfC. The question for this RfC is very simple: is Miesel's article a reliable source as per WP:RS given all the historical errors that have been documented, as well as theological/doctrinal assertions? NB: she is not being cited for her expertise in literary criticism but for her non-expertise and doctrinal/theological assertions. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats why its relevant... We don't have any historical errors or issues documented by reliable sources. We only have two amateur wikipedia editors making that assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Goodness gracious. What you said couldn't be more untrue for anyone that is able to read the sources cited which are indeed reliable. Plus Yesterday's comment concerning the errors in the article are easily verifiable. I'm going to leave this comment for Yesterday, all my dreams... to rebut if he feels at all inclined. I've got better things to do. Suffice it to say, your comment couldn't be more untrue and inappropriate. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If its untrue then you can present the reliable sources which document these historical errors or issues by Miesel. If its inappropriate then explain how, but lay off the personal attacks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Already done in the discussion below. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If its already been done then it should be childsplay to link to these reliable sources about Meisel... Unless none of them actually mention Meisel... In which case we're back to the opinion of two amateur wikipedians who are borderline SPAs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simon, as you can see below I think we must include a link to Meisel's article. So I am not attempting to suppress a link to it. But, with due apologies, I think we must do more research before calling someone an expert. I asked myself: "How would I shut up the Valtorta freaks about the views of Pius XII about her book?" I would tell them that the book's publisher directly stated that Pius XII had only read about half the book. The papal postman (Msg Norese) stated that he left the pages on the desk of Pius XII and after Pius XII had turned over about half teh pages, he suggested a meeting with the three priests. So the book's publisher, and the papal postmen admit that Pius XII never read the book. That was the very best arrow in the quiver of Ms Meisel, but she never used it. Instead she wrote that it was "impossible" to determine how much of the book Pius XII had read. I think you know what that means in terms of being an expert. We can not just quote what she wrote. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "impossible" to determine how much of the book Pius XII had read" appears to be right given the circumstances, you can't assume that he had read half of the book based on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye, that may seem right to you, but not to me. Have you really researched the subject yourself? Have you read half the book? My whole point is that Meisel had a number of very effective ways to attack the various unsubstantiated claims of Valtorta supporters, but she did not use those arrows at all. What she could have said to the Valtorta crowd was: "Look, even the publisher has directly stated that after the pope had read about half the book Norese suggested a meeting, and the pope took the meeting a few days later. So you Valtorta people should stop harping about the pope because the chance that he had read the whole book is beyond remote." That is what an expert would have said against the Valtorta crowd. And there were a number of other effective arrows that she did not use. I think she probably did not know who Norese was because she said that the confessor (Bea) was involved in the delivery of the book. That was not so. Anyway, I should stop now. As I have said, there is no way, just no way that any one who has researched the subject can detect "expertise" in that article.
    Look, we all know that the chance that this rfc will go Arkenstrone's way is almost none. So if we all calm down, someone with common sense will invoke WP:SNOW sooner or later and end the silly discussions. To that effect this will be my lst comment here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my points below in the discussion section in response to Horse Eye. Remember, the question for this RfC is very simple: is Miesel's article a reliable source as per WP:RS given all the historical errors that have been documented, as well as theological/doctrinal assertions? NB: she is not being cited for her expertise in literary criticism but for her non-expertise and doctrinal/theological assertions. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:SNOW is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include a link to her article, but do not accept everything she wrote
    Needless to say, Valtorta's work is highly controversial, and there are people (including clergymen) who support and oppose her book.
    Sandra Meisel represents the "angry crowd" who oppose the book, and her article is popular among them. Not having a link to it would be strange.
    And I think she did NOT deliberately set out to misrepresent anything. The main issue is that much of the information about the book is in Italian and it is obvious that she does not speak Italian, as indicated below. So she used English sources, and often not very carefully.
    So I think it would be a mistake to declare her work "totally reliable" and quote from it at will, due to the many errors it has, some of which I will outline below, and a number of them were pointed out in the comment section of her article. Four examples of obvious errors that anyone who reads Italian can easily check are:
    • She wrote that the book was published by Emilio Pisani. The book was published in 1956, when Emilio was at school. Her father published the book. We can not use that statement from her.
    • She wrote that Valtorta made a mistake and used the words Yahweh and Geova confusingly. It was impossible for Valtorta to have written Yahweh, because the Italian language does not include the letters Y and W. The Italians write Geova for Yahweh. The book had 2 translators and they used different words.
    • She wrote that a bound copy of the book was sent to the pope via the confessor. In 1948 when the book was sent to the pope, it had no publisher and no bound copy. They sent a set of pages, but not via the confessor. It was delivered by the pope's postman. The confessor did not see the book until after publication.
    • She "questioned" if Pius XII had issued an imprimatur, and said she did not think so. It is certain that Pius XII did not issue an imprimatur himself, because he asked his assistant to go and get one from someone else. But that never happened. So even her criticism is based on lack of research, mostly due to language issues.
    I mentioned a fifth error and a "key indicator" (how much did the pope read) in my responses to Simon and Arkenstrone, which shows Meisel could have attacked Valtorta much better with more research. if you are not attacking your opponent at the most vulnerable point, you have not studied the issues.
    So I think we need to include a link in the article to her work, but should not declare it totally reliable and just quote from it. We will end up with a lot of errors that way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as to the limited question of reliability for this specific purpose. (Summoned by bot.) As stated by Horse Eye's Back above, Miesel is a reliable source as to her own opinions. As to those opinions, the Miesel article is a primary source, and WP:PRIMARY puts it, a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents. That said, just speaking as an outsider to the subject matter, the Criticism section in its current state seems vulnerable to both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH concerns. If there are any scholarly reviews of criticism of this work, we should allow those to shape our coverage rather than just presenting a list of things different notable figures have said. -- Visviva (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      She is not being cited for her opinions as a literary critic, but for her doctrinal/theological assertions, which she is unqualified to do. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not reliable, but relevant: Sandra Miesel is a marginably notable figure in a certain corner of Catholic literary criticism, one generally considered broaching the fringes of the mainstream. Catholic World Report is not a generally reliable source, Miesel is not a credentialed academic or critic, and there appear to be some accuracy issues with the particular piece in question. However, I think we could reasonably include her perspective in the criticism section as an attributed statement noting the place of publication, allowing readers to evaluate the commentary's merits for themselves. Nothing more than a sentence or two, though. I was notified of this discussion through a non-neutral notice on the WikiProject Christianity noticeboard, so please evaluate my statement here with that in mind. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Miesel)

    [edit]

    Miesel admits in her article that she is a laywoman and not a theologian. She then states:

    "Furthermore, on April 17, 1993, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed the Italian Bishops’ Conference to order this disclaimer placed in future re-issues of the Poem: “…the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin."

    That is incorrect. Catholic scholar and theologian Fr. Anthony Pillari clearly states that this was Ratzinger's personal opinion and not that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which had not held formal discussions on the issue, and hence had no juridic value.[52]

    In addition, the text to which Miesel is confusedly referring to was a letter from Cardinal Tettamanzi who wrote to Emilio Pisani, the publisher of the Poem, requesting that a disclaimer be placed on the work. Once again, Fr. Anthony Pillari states that was the personal opinion of Tettamanzi, not of the Catholic Conference of Bishops, since no formal meeting was recorded as having taken place on the subject, which therefore caused Tettamanzi's position to have no juridic value.[53]

    With such basic errors in reporting multiple important historical facts, I do not believe Miesel's article adheres to WP:RS. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This would indicate that both Pillari and Miesel are due more than anything else. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered that the difference between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the personal opinion of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and one who went on to be Pope at that) acting in official capacity is in context more or less a quibbling difference? I know that seems massive to you, and in terms of canon law may matter a great deal, but in general terms thats a very slight distinction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not. One person doesn't make all the decisions. What's the point of having a Congregation if one person decides everything? Thus the personal opinion of one member (or head) of the Congregation is very very different than a formal decree by the Congregation. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arkenstrone, I agree with Horse Eye that the point you picked to critiicize Meisel is not a big deal. It is a somewhat minor issue. But that tells us something about your research on the subject. Please see my response to Simon and you will see that you did not use the best arrow in your quiver to criticize her. So you will be signing a longly tune here, I think. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an important factual error because it wrongly leads people to believe that the Church made a formal decree regarding the work, when in fact it did not. It was only the personal opinion of Ratzinger with no juridic value. As you know, the Church never had formal discussions about this at that time. This is important because there are many Christians who will choose whether or not to read a work, based on whether the Church issues a formal decree regarding the work. Somewhat akin to the Index of Forbidden Books.
    To address your second point about not using the best arrow, I will say that Miesel's article is not being cited for her specialty in literary criticism (where her opinion as a literary critic may be pertinent), but instead for her Catholic doctrinal assertions involving the Poem’s fundamental flaw claiming to compensate for the inadequacies of the Gospels, which she is wholly unqualified to do as she is not a theologian. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Poem of the Man-God is not a work of theology and its author was not a theologian. Likewise wikipedia is a secular organization, Church juridic value has no value here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Poem of the Man-God is not a work of theology and its author was not a theologian.
    That's not relevant. The Wikipedia article is presenting the work of Valtorta and the Church's historical relationship to the work, as well as the opinions of experts in the field regarding the work, who are theologians.
    Likewise wikipedia is a secular organization, Church juridic value has no value here.
    Categorically false. The Wikipedia article attempts to present Valtorta's work and the Church's historical relationship to the work factually. It is the purpose of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, to present knowledge and information on any topic as truthfully and accurately as possible. Juridic value is extremely important in this article when discussing pronouncements of the Church relating to the work. That is an important piece of historical information. To ignore that and intentionally allow factual errors is to contravene Wikipedia's entire raison d'etre. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the work of Valtorta and the Church's historical relationship to the work" is literary and historical, not theological. Juridic value is extremely important to you, it carries no weight on wikipedia. We care about what is verifiable, not what is true (and especially not when it comes to mystical or supernatural truths, which are to us WP:FRINGE, as are handled by Holy Law). You are suggesting that it may be factually true that the author was a mystic who actually witnessed the life of the historical Jesus, but that does not fall within the bounds of accepted science and medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the work of Valtorta and the Church's historical relationship to the work" is literary and historical, not theological.
    This is simply not correct. The relationship is a complex one that involves literature vs. revelation, historical (facts) and theological (doctrine). The work itself presented as a literary work is what a literary critic may opine about. However, the non-literary historical components (facts) involving the Church's historical relationship to the work must be reproduced accurately. Miesel did not do this, and instead twisted, contorted, and confused these historical facts. And not just one of them, but several, as pointed out by Yesterday above. The theological component requires domain experts, namely theologians, to provide their expert views on the doctrinal content of the work, which may involve juridic pronouncements of the Church. Miesel opining on the theological/doctrinal aspects of the work is wholly out of her domain as she is, admittedly, not an expert.
    So you have a situation where a literary critic is criticizing the work as a piece of literature (the only thing she is qualified to do), presenting many historical events erroneously, and making theological/doctrinal assertions for which she is wholly unqualified to do. To top it all off, she is being cited in the Wikipedia article for her theological/doctrinal assertions! A chaotic mess of a citation!
    If you are so adamant that this article by Miesel be accepted as a reliable source, then you should contact her, get her to clean up her mess of an article, fix or remove the many historical errors, as well as her doctrinal/theological assertions, and you may now cite her article as the opinion of a literary critic criticizing a piece of religious literature.
    We care about what is verifiable, not what is true (and especially not when it comes to mystical or supernatural truths, which are to us WP:FRINGE, as are handled by Holy Law)
    What you are saying is not relevant here. This RfC has nothing to do with verifiability vs. mystical or supernatural truth concerning the work itself. We are talking about the reliability of Miesel's article as a source of information relating to the clearly documented history of the Church's relationship and decrees involving the work, as well as any expert theological/doctrinal assertions concerning the work. What is verifiable is Miesel's article is full of historical errors.
    You are suggesting that it may be factually true that the author was a mystic who actually witnessed the life of the historical Jesus, but that does not fall within the bounds of accepted science and medicine.
    I have suggested no such thing. This RfC is concerned with one thing only: is the article by Miesel a reliable source as per WP:RS? I contend that it could have been a reliable source had she limited her efforts to the field of her expertise involving literary criticism. However she didn't do that. She went out on a limb to falsely summarize the historical relationship of the Church and its pronouncement concerning the work (with several other notable blunders presented by Yesterday above), and then went out further on a limb to make theological/doctrinal assertions for which she is wholly unqualified to do. These are the reasons that Miesel's article is an unreliable source as per WP:RS.
    Any Wikipedian that considers Miesel's article a reliable source as per WP:RS is rushing to judgement without properly comprehending the situation, and are therefore not exercising due diligence. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomorrow said that "And I think she did NOT deliberately set out to misrepresent anything." which seems to be very different from you assertion that she "twisted, contorted" things and your overall really aggressively negative approach to her which doesn't seem to be supported by any reliable sources... I think you need to take a step back and remember that Miesel is a living person and this discussion is covered by WP:BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you wish to accept Yesterday's explanation for the reasons why all those errors exist, or mine, is irrelevant. Ultimately, this RfC is concerned with the reliability of that article and its claims. It should be clear to anyone that takes the time to look carefully and compare with the sources cited, that the article is a terrible mess of factual errors and inconsistencies. They have already been outlined. The reliability of the article per WP:RS is not in question in my view. But it seems some think that even though it is unreliable in several respects, it should still be given brief mention. More than anything, that shows me that people here consider WP:RS context-dependent. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I might remind Arkenstrone that replying to every single comment that disagrees with the framer of an RfC generally doesn't serve that framer well in the final assessment. I'm also a bit concerned about what @Pbritti said. I do hope that nobody is canvassing this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RS is always context dependent. Its relevent because Miesel is a living person which means that if you're going to accuse her of something beyond making mistakes you need to have a reliable source which explicitly states that... That is how BLP works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody here is doing a biography of Miesel. I'm simply arguing that her article is not reliable due to the notable errors which have been listed in this RfC, and which are reliably sourced in the Wikipedia article itself. I've included direct sources and links in the discussion section for a couple of important historical errors concerning the Church's relationship to the work, and sources for other factual errors mentioned by Yesterday can be found in the Wikipedia article itself. Specifically, Emilio Pisani did not publish the work. There appear to be others brought up by Yesterday, but I'll leave him to discuss them if he chooses. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats all fine, you can say that in your opinion or in another editor's opinion there is an error but its when you go into a person who "twisted, contorted" etc that you get in trouble. Talk about the source, don't just denigrate the living author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet Broadway Database (IBDB)

    [edit]

    This website is unreliable for anything other than stage credits. The IBDB often gets cited here on Wiki as a source for birthdates, when all they've done is copy the information from IMDb. And unlike IMDb, IBDB refuses to correct existing errors even when presented with ample evidence. Yours6700 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    if it's an IMDb mirror, then it's unreliable as it's user-generated content.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thirded. BarntToust 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know they're copying information from imdb? I see that ibdb provides a form to request error correction (although they caveat that with "may require documentation"), so how do we know they refuse to correct errors? Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More context is needed. Any source saying IBDB is mirroring IMDB? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This book published by Globe Pequot calls IBDB a "sister site" of IMDB. Left guide (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, the answer to your question "How do we know they're copying information from imdb?" is, we have eyes in our heads. This became undeniably obvious with Ross Bowman's page. Bowman was born 12/5/26, as his obituary and IMDb page both state (not to mention the umpteen public records sites that consistently give 12/5/26). Yet IBDB says he was born 4/1/27, a date they copied from an erroneous previous version of Bowman's IMDb page and steadfastly refuse to correct. IBDB's form to request error correction is useless. Yours6700 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a tertiary source it's not a best source to use but I don't think it routinely directly copies content from IMDB en masse, nor acts as a mirror, although both may sometimes draw from the same works and databases of varying reliability (Silent Film Necrology, various Who's Who in..., etc.). I've seen many instances where the two sites differ in vital biographic info (someone could probably run a query on Wikidata to check). It's a source that should be used with caution. Of course, any discussion of "true" birth dates of actors, singers, and other show business people must be taken with a large grain of salt, with the observation that showbiz folks past and present often lie about their age, birthplace, real name, etc. such that throughout their career their reported ages may differ (people may also use false ages on wedding licenses, censuses, passports, and other primary sources that secondary/tertiary sources draw from). And yes, even reliable, scholarly sources can contain errors, conflations, and contradictory information. Beyond the anecdote regarding Ross Bowman, we'd need a more systematic analysis of purported errors and refusal to issue corrections. Also, there was limited previous discussion here, here, and here. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that clarification.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 18:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is AskMen reliable?

    [edit]

    It's been 5 years and we really should come to a consensus on whether or not it is a reliable source! 97.91.34.184 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I feel like it is unreliable. Angrythewikipedian (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some current disagreement about the source, or some use you were thinking of, that could give your question some context? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What claim is this source being used on? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's listed at RSP as "no consensus". For convenience, I've just created WP:ASKMEN, a new redirect shortcut to its entry. Left guide (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Left guide's reply answers the IP's request... Ramos1990 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last time this was discussed, five years ago, my conclusion was that it doesn't distinguish between advertising and other content. That said, it does have a corrections policy: AskMen makes every effort to correct errors. Grammar, spelling, and style errors will be corrected in the text. If the error is factual, the correction will include an editor’s acknowledgment at the bottom of the story. I think that the current yellow categorization is probably correct - it is a low-quality source, but not so glaringly terrible as to be automatically unreliable. In terms of academic discussion, there's not much; [54], but it doesn't really talk about reliability. There are a few other papers out there that have cited polls it has run or have cited its recommendations as examples of cultural masculinity, which (in the absence of anything outright critiquing it) suggests that it's not totally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is https://edifiant.fr reliable?

    [edit]

    Can anyone here determine who manages and runs edifiant.fr [55] ? I can not see it on their page. If we can not determine who manages the site can it be reliable, if we can not determine the quality control measures they use?

    They say they are a "Catholic investigation site" but my take is that they are a Catholic promotion site, given that they have a button on the top about "how to become a Catholic" and the content is pretty promotional. They seem to be a blog newsletter, and may be managed by just one unknown person for all I can see. And who knows if that person is "sane".

    The page in question is this one [56] about a "missing letter" from Joseph Ratzinger that someone remembers hearing read to a group 30 years ago. Yes, 30 years ago.

    So can anyone figure out who runs that site and if that person is sane. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC questions are meant to be both brief and neutral, see WP:RFCBRIEF. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a rfc, but a general discussion. A rfc would have been an overkill before a discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't the discussion already had here? Anyway, that's fine, if you want to get more clarity on this point before doing an RfC. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arkenstrone, but in that discussion I directly asked you if you know who runs that website, given that you have used it in the article. So answer it here: "Do you know who manages edifiant.fr ?" Just say yes or no, and if yes, tell us who that person is. So, do you know? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't. But that's not saying much. An anonymous entry in the WHOIS database doesn't mean that a website is automatically unreliable or untrustworthy. Privacy is an important concern for many. Plus, that website appears to be a platform that provides a variety of Catholic content, including videos, testimonies, articles and other resources, as well as newsletter subscriptions. Would I use it for secondary sources? No.
    As you've probably seen in previous RfC discussions, reliability is context-dependent per
    WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If you're using the website as a secondary source for statements of fact, then it's certainly unreliable per WP:RS. But if you're referencing the hand-written testimony of a well-known French Catholic journalist and author who states she was a witness to certain events, and that website hosts a digital copy of her hand-written testimony, then for that very limited use, it should be fine per WP:RSPRIMARY.
    Remember, all that's being said is that a digital copy of her hand-written testimony is a reliable primary source for her own words and testimony. Nothing more. Arkenstrone (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Arkenstrone brings a good point. If the claim is about a testimony, it probably can be cited for that. If there are no other sources are available. What is the claim the source is being used for? Ramos1990 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Geneviève Esquier, a French Catholic journalist and author, published a hand-written testimony of correspondence received between 1990 and 1994 from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and addressed to Marcel Clément [fr], the director of the French Catholic publication L'Homme Nouveau [fr]. She states that Ratzinger's letter requested a suspension of articles and sales of Valtorta’s works due to theological concerns, especially relating to Valtorta's writings on marriage. She further states that about one year later Ratzinger sent another letter permitting the resumption of articles and sales of Valtorta's works, expressing that after reviewing the work, nothing in Valtorta's writings contradicted faith or morals.[57] Arkenstrone (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I see the handwritten letter. I don't see an issue with it, in that case. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything to show the provenance of the letter? Anyone could reproduce a letter on a website and claim it was original. Also what is this going to be used for? Anything beyond the basic point that Esquier claimed that the correspondence existed wouldn't be supported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any other source that testifies to the legitimacy of the letter claim to be from Esquier? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ActivelyDisinterested : Aaaaah, at last someone with a sense of logic! You just injected some sanity into the discussion. You are right to ask about the provenance of the letter. But why should you even have to? We all know that it would take me just two hours to produce a website with an image of a letter from Winston Churchil (letterhead and all) that recommends Ramos and Arkenstrone as thenext two prime ministers of England. Is there any reliable website that discusses that letter. No. Of course there is not. Else they would have used that! Would Britannica use that image? No. No way. Would any book by a major publisher? No. Would the London Times, the Guardian or the NY times? No. They use that unknown, obscure, Catholic promotional website because they have nothing else. As of this moment Wkipedia is the only major websource that refers to it, except for some lunatic fringe places in France. The only word I have for that discussion is ludicrous, of course. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And breathe. I would agree, without some sort of evidence of the legitimacy of the image showing the letter it's not a reliable source. I can't find any WP:USEBYOTHERS for the website. It has an about us page[58] but there's no indication of who the author, editors or operators are, or if there are any and this isn't a self-published source.
    An image existing on a website of unknown quality doesn't prove the image is legitimate, or written by the person the website claims wrote it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course. One item I should mention is that we do not even know if the whole thing is a hoax or practical joke. Remember Jar'Edo Wens ? How do we know Jared is not involved in that website? We do not. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramos, it may seem cool to you, but laughable to me. Why do I object to this item? Because it makes Wikipedia look ludicrous. Just ludicrous . You may site 12 different policy/guideline items why it can be included, but to anyone with a sense of logic a "30 year old memory" based on an image on a website of unknown origin is just laughble and not encyclopedic. And it is all about a letter no one can find. So please feel free to site 11 other guidelines, but it will not make the item less ludicrous to me, or anyone else with a sense of logic. What is next? Adding "testimonies" about D B Cooper having a copy of the letter with him when he jumped off the plane? Do you have guidelines to support that as well? Give us a break, please. Ludicrous is ludicrous regardless of anything else. But then Wikipedia can at times be ludicrous if logic goes out of the window. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with ActivelyDisinterested. I read over the about section and the privacy page too for good mention and the website seems quite deliberate anonymous. This is a WP:SPS posting a letter of unknowns provenance. Simonm223 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Danielle Sellers

    [edit]

    The claim that Danielle Sellers had modelled for WP:THESUN's Page 3 in time for her 2017 Love Island appearance is cited to National World and Closer. Could using this Sun article for the fact that they first featured her in July 2016 count as ABOUTSELF (likely as part of a citebundle)?--Launchballer 00:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Citebundle is just bundling ciations. If your question is about ABOUTSELF and the Sun article, I don't think it is a primary source about themselves like twitter or social media. The Sun article looks like secondary source because the author is Tilly Pearce using perhaps social media info, but is not witten by Danniel Sellers herself. Unless you think Dannielle Sellers is coordinating with Tilly Pearce for promotion purposes.. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what a citebundle is, and was considering knocking the National World/Closer/Sun citations into one ref.--Launchballer 05:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are other sources for the content, why use the Sun? Use the best source, multiple sources aren't required unless the content is very contentious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as Ramos1990 said the article isn't ABOUTSELF, as it's not by the subject of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asking as I couldn't find another source for July 2016, and I was thinking something like (Multiple refs: National World, Closer, for July 2016 see The Sun). There used to be something similar at Bonnie Blue (actress).--Launchballer 14:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Them.us

    [edit]

    This is an LGBT-focused spinoff of Vogue magazine that is cited in many articles. Recently, it has published several false claims without correction such as the following:

    • Claiming that Lisa Littman's paper about rapid-onset gender dysphoria was retracted. In fact it was not, it just had a clarification appended to it saying that ROGD is not a formal diagnosis. That clarification did not contradict any of the claims made in the paper.
    • Claiming that Project 2025 calls for abolishing no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. Both of those claims are completely false.

    Given this publication's pattern of publishing uncorrected, unretracted false claims, I propose that it should be considered WP:GUNREL. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Them does not claim that Project 2025 calls for abolishing no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. Rather, They claim that Camilla Taylor, Deputy Legal Director for Litigation at Lambda Legal, claims it. ("We know that Project 2025 calls for ending the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, just as it calls for ending no-fault divorce,” says Taylor.) Unless you can show that Taylor did not in fact say that, Them's claim cannot be considered a false claim. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly not a good source for biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. Alaexis¿question? 06:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to commit to participating, but I must ask as I read the one about Littman: that's all you got from that article? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Partofthemachine according to WP:GUNREL The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Do you believe any of these apply, and why? (FWIW I think publishing false claims by an interviewee without clarification probably fits into "fail to correct errors"). FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being familiar with this source, I looked at some of their recent reporting and noticed a few errors and misrepresentations.
    • Trump executive order
      • This article says: On Inauguration Day, Trump signed another order declaring, falsely, that there are only two genders as determined by birth-assigned sex.
      • Another article says: In his inaugural address, Trump claimed that it will “henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.” His first order on trans equality spells out that promise, which begins with a wholesale redefinition of gender in matters of federal government policy.
    These statements are not correct (although Trump's statement is also a misrepresentation, which doesn't help). The text of the order defines two sexes, not two genders: It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female... “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”
    • "Obscene matter"
      • This article's first sentence says: a Republican lawmaker in West Virginia has already introduced three new anti-trans bills, including one that would categorize trans people as “obscene matter”.
    This is a misrepresentation. The actual text of the bill says: A person is guilty of indecent exposure when such person intentionally engages in obscene matter or sexually explicit conduct. A person "engaging in obscene matter" and a person being categorized as "obscene matter" are not the same thing.
    These statements are, at best, highly disputed, and a preponderance of historical evidence is against them. What's more, the first article misrepresents the contents of the "When Remembering Stonewall" article that it links to. "When Remembering Stonewall" says that although trans women of color such as Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera are often mythologized as leaders of the Stonewall riots, these are false histories that fail to accurately recognize their legacies and those of countless others who jeopardized their lives to resist the police. "When Remembering Stonewall" doesn't mention other trans people besides Johnson and Rivera, so it's not clear how this supports the original article's contention that trans and gender-nonconforming people played central roles in the riots.
    The New York Times made a similar statement in an article about Stonewall, and later issued a correction. The NYT article originally read [59]: Transgender women of color led the uprising at the Stonewall Inn 51 years ago on Sunday. This was later updated to read [60]: An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to the role of transgender women of color in the Stonewall Inn uprising, suggesting they were the sole leaders. Trans women of color were leaders in L.G.B.T.Q. activism before, during and after the uprising, but they were among many activists who led at Stonewall.
    • Violence statistics
      • This article discusses a graphic about violence among trans people, writing: But as Mother Jones reported Thursday, those findings were distorted at best: not only were the prison system’s records unclear regarding incarcerated people’s gender identity, but the census data significantly undercounted the number of trans people throughout the U.K., leading to a massively overinflated false “statistic.”
    First, this misrepresents what the Mother Jones article actually says. The MJ article does not say that "the UK census undercounted trans people". Rather, it says that the graphic likely does not include all of the trans people who were counted in the census: Plus, the U.K. government’s own data shows that there are likely more than 48,000 trans women in the U.K.
    Second, the underlying claim made about the UK census "undercounting trans people" is also false. It was reported that the census actually may have overcounted trans people, not undercounted them [61]: The number of transgender people living in the UK may have been overestimated by the 2021 census, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has confirmed... a review found that people who do not speak fluent English may have misunderstood the wording of the relevant question and mistakenly answered that they consider themselves to be trans.
    • Gender-affirming surgeries
      • This article reports on a recent study of the prevalence of gender-affirming surgeries for minors, writing: gender-affirming surgeries for minors are exceptionally rare, and are almost always performed for cisgender — not transgender — youth, according to a new study of U.S. medical data.
    There are two problems with making this assertion. First, the article itself notes that the study only included patients who used insurance to pay for their procedures and did not represent those who paid out of pocket. Second, if you actually read the study, the article's claim that "the vast majority of minors getting gender-affirming surgeries are cis kids" is based only on a comparison for a single procedure: partial breast reductions (which are performed on boys with gynecomastia, as well as transgender minors who want to reduce their breast size without removing them entirely). Notably, this comparison does not include other surgeries such as double mastectomy (top surgery), which is a much more common procedure for transgender minors than a partial breast reduction. So what this study shows is, of the minors who received a partial breast reduction under insurance, 97 percent of them were cisgender. It does not show that "the vast majority of minors getting gender-affirming surgeries are cis kids", as the article claims.
    Regardless of the source's reliability, it also has a strong bias and should be attributed for contentious statements. Astaire (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Executive Order
    • These refer to his inaugural address, not the text of the order itself. And Trump's order seeks to redefine all use of gender as two sexes. To argue Trump didn't say 2 genders, he said 2 sexes, ignores that he did this to supplant legal definitions of gender
    "Obscene matter"
    • The bill you just quoted gives a definition of "obscene matter" saying For the purposes of any prohibition, protection, or requirement under any and all articles and sections of this code protecting children from exposure to indecent displays of an obscene or sexually explicit nature, such prohibited displays shall include, but not be limited to, any transvestite and/or transgender exposure, performances, or display to any minor.[62] From Them Senate Bill 195 would amend West Virginia’s indecent exposure law to criminalize engaging in “obscene matter,” which it defines as something that a “reasonable person” would find “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The bill explicitly includes “transgender exposure, performances, or display to any minor” as an example of “displays of an obscene or sexually explicit nature.” In other words, should Senate Bill 195 become law, a trans person could face obscenity charges simply for existing in a public space where minors might be present.[63]
    Stonewall
    • That first article says "a central role" which doesn't mean "led". Gender-nonconforming could also probably describe figures like Stormé DeLarverie, a butch lesbian the article notes played a central role. The second article says Led by Black and Brown trans and queer folks, the rebellion that followed lasted six days. There were protests, looting, and violent exchanges with the police the likes of which had never been seen during that era. Though the historical record of Stonewall is often debated, many credit Marsha P. Johnson, a Black transgender woman, with throwing the first brick at Stonewall, and Stormé with throwing the first punch. What’s clear is that Black and brown LGBTQ+ folks played an integral role in the uprising.
    • So neither of these articles are saying that black trans women were the sole leaders of the Stonewall uprising, in the first case saying trans and gender-nonconforming, linking to the Them article going into the weeds about the debates, and in the second case explicitly noting the debate.
    Violence statistics
    • Census data in this case seems to mean the 48000 figure in the graphic, not the census itself. And Mother Jones indeed said the number of trans women in the UK is likely far greater than the number listed - the gist of their point being that about 120k checked the transgender option without specifying their gender, while 48k specified it as trans women.
    • Second, the underlying claim made about the UK census "undercounting trans people" is also false. - That article says it may have, not that it did, so it is not false to suggest trans people were undercounted.[64] This article notes For the first time the 2021 census for England and Wales set a voluntary question about gender identity that asked: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” Of those who answered yes, about 2% did not speak English well. But of those who answered no, around 13% did not speak English well. ... The overall proportion of trans people in England and Wales gleaned from the census (0.55%) is in the same ballpark as the 0.44% for Scotland. Statisticians north of the border posed a clearer question in their 2022 census: “Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history?”[65]
    • I will grant there is a lack of specificity here - the argument that the census undercounted trans women (not people in general) seems very likely true as 48k said they were trans women, while 120k said they're trans without specifying how (of which only 2% did not speak English well), so that's still about 115k trans people who spoke English well who didn't specify their gender not being counted. The statement the census data significantly undercounted the number of trans [women] throughout the U.K would have been better and more accurate
    Gender-affirming surgeries
    • This is why we rely on WP:MEDRS as normal WP:RS don't always cover them properly.
    • In this cross-sectional study of a national insured population in 2019, there were no gender-affirming procedures conducted on TGD minors aged 12 years and younger, and procedures on TGD minors older than 12 were rare and almost entirely chest-related procedures.
    • Them quotes the author: Our findings highlight a bitter irony: that by banning gender-affirming care for only TGD people, these bills are targeting a group that in reality accounts for the minority of gender-affirming care use
    • Regarding partial breast reconstruction v mastectomy's, I had to look it up as this confused me myself, and ask some transmasc friends - that is indeed the code for top surgery as this insurer notes The CPT codes for mastectomy (CPT codes 19303 and 19304) are for breast cancer, and are not approrpiate to bill for reduction mammaplasty for female to male gender reassignment [66]
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anothed day, another thread trying to act like ROGD wasn't WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trump executive order.
      • These refer to his inaugural address, not the text of the order itself. Please read the first quote again: Trump signed another order declaring, falsely, that there are only two genders as determined by birth-assigned sex. [67] This is indeed referring to the order, not the address.
      • And Trump's order seeks to redefine all use of gender as two sexes. I don't read it that way. The order does not define gender, nor does it redefine gender as sex. It clearly differentiates the two concepts: “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.” [68] A more accurate way to say this would be that the order eliminates all uses of gender in favor of sex.
    • "Obscene matter"
      • While the text of the bill is terribly written and confusing, please read the summary at the top of the bill. It says the bill's purpose is protecting minors from exposure to indecent displays of a sexually explicit nature, including but not limited to, transvestite and/or transgender exposure in performances or displays to minors. [69] This is almost certainly a reference to drag shows, and other sources have covered the bill in this context: [70] Saying that the bill categorizes trans people as “obscene matter” is indeed a misrepresentation.
    • Stonewall
      • That first article says "a central role" which doesn't mean "led". Gender-nonconforming could also probably describe figures like Stormé DeLarverie The article says that "trans and gender-nonconforming people played a central role" in Stonewall, and Stormé DeLarverie was not trans. That statement also links to the "When Remembering Stonewall" article, which does more to debunk this statement than it does to support it. So is Them misrepresenting the contents of its own articles?
      • neither of these articles are saying that black trans women were the sole leaders of the Stonewall uprising The second article says Led by Black and Brown trans and queer folks, which is a very similar statement and at this point is close to historical revisionism.
    • Violence statistics
      • After your analysis I agree that the problem here is likely imprecise use of language. Thanks for clarifying this.
    • Gender-affirming surgeries
      • The CPT codes for mastectomy (CPT codes 19303 and 19304) are for breast cancer, and are not approrpiate to bill for reduction mammaplasty for female to male gender reassignment There are three issues with this. First, this statement is from a single insurance provider (Aetna). Second, while the AMA also recommends using CPT code 19318 instead of 19303, this guidance appears to have come into place only in 2021 [71], whereas the study examines data from 2019 [72]. Third, the study only found 5 partial breast reductions performed on trans minors in 2019 (using CPT code 19318), but a separate Reuters analysis found that in 2019, 238 minors made insurance claims for a mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis [73]. So assuming that these procedures were coded as 19303/19304, limiting the study to partial breast reductions is indeed a significant understatement of the scope.
    Astaire (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's clearly a biased source, but I would say it looks generally reliable. The "mistakes" above seem largely to be selectively presented facts used to make a pro-trans case. For example, the framing of the gender non-conforming participants in the Stonewall riots as transwomen is somewhat anachronistic, but it is a commonly held opinion, as is the exaggeration of their significance. Only the breast reduction statistic seems to be a clear fact-checking error, the response by YFNS does not deal with the point that this is a misuse of data. Given the bias, I would advise frequent attribution even where used for factual claims on trans-topics, and be very careful if a claim can't be sourced to anywhere else. (edit: special care with claims only present in this source is, imv, no longer needed as the breast-reduction claim is an accurate report of the research it cites)Boynamedsue (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting that their pieces marked "news" still read like op-eds: for example. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly a biased source, but I think that most of the time BLP, WP:DUE and common sense will result in attribution or non-inclusion where that is the right course. I'm more worried about the breast-reduction story, which does seem factually inaccurate.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the only issue with the "breast-reduction story" is that the title over-generalises the study's conclusion, since it was limited to insured patients, although the significance of that is debatable. If Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and the study itself are to be believed then Astaire was simply incorrect about what surgeries are included under "breast reduction" (the definition they described and the word "partial" do not appear in the article or study). This outlet does appear to engage in frequent editorialization, probably too much for a WP:GREL designation, but considering a WP:GUNREL designation appears to be unjustified and purely politically motivated. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the response from YFNS deals with the point that the story refers to partial rather than full mastectomies.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having re-read your post and also the study, I would just clarify that I now see this is correct. I have struck through my objection to this claim as well.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate

    [edit]

    I'd like to have a second opinion on the sources cited regarding Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate. Most of these sources were published in 2025 within a short span, and I feel that this is a case where the WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA advice holds true (mixing of paid media with regular coverage in Nigerian sources). It has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between earned media and paid media in Nigerian publications these days. Gheus (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a recreation of Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed, although only an admin could confirm if that's true. WP:G4 could be appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great find (it is almost similar, see everybodywiki entry copied from Wikipedia by its bot after WP:AFD started). I was very suspicious of this article right from the start when it was submitted on WP:AFC. This is really helpful. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was sure I had read the lead before, it came up here the last time it was created. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's another example (I'm sure there are plenty of them): Temitope Okeseeyin - it is full of paid media, but passed WP:NPP review with ease. I think we need further discussion on this issue and to expand guidance on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. I know we cannot mass-deprecate these sources, but at least we can make them ineligible when used on business topics. Maybe this reduces mass-spamming of Wikipedia? Gheus (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For example, this author on BusinessDay is publishing a lot of paid media and one of their article is cited on Naomi Nwokolo. Kemi Ajumobi is actually a journalist, not a guest post writer which is concerning ([74]). Gheus (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Incidentally, the original creator of that article is CU blocked. I feel like even before looking at that or any of the sources it's blatantly obvious it's the product of UPE though, not sure how it got through NPP twice without any tagging. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Al-Ahed newspaper

    [edit]

    Al-Ahed is a Hezbollah-owned newspaper. It is currently being used to source WP:PIA-relevant factual claims in various articles. Would that be problematic?

    - Amigao (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If it’s Hezbollah-owned I assume it should be classified the same as Al-Manar (see RSP just below WP:ALMAYADEEN), which is additional considerations/no consensus for non-controversial material (ex. sports, culture, etc) and GUNREL for contentious/controversial material (ex. the ARBPIA area). If someone’s attempting to use it to back claims in Wikivoice, those claims should be removed/properly attributed and the editor should probably be warned. The Kip (contribs) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there are contexts in which the source could be used but I would still be darn careful about it and provide clear attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any particular articles/claims you would point to where the source is being used detrimentally? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable sources publishing a claim initiated by an unreliable source?

    [edit]

    Just curious on what the status of a claim is when historically significant reliable sources publish it based on an article from an unreliable source? Deadline Hollywood, The Independent, and Radio Times all published reports that a new series of a programme has been commissioned. These are all extremely high-quality sources (like FA-quality). However, they all state this claim was originally published by The Sun, an unreliable tabloid (see WP:THESUN). Should these claims be included with references from the reliable sources? Or perhaps even something like "According to The Sun a seventh series [...]" (again with the reliable sources)? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I generally think that if normally reliable sources publish with attribution information from a unreliable source (information that otherwise would not fail key content policies like BLP), that should mean they have done some type of verification on that information and we should be able to include that information but with the attribution of the unreliable source, using the reliable sources as the reference. Masem (t) 03:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there’s a difference between “according to the Sun” with no evidence of independent verification and “as first reported by the Sun”. The Tadio Times piece is clearlye the former, I would not use it personally. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When we as a community deem a source generally reliable, it means that we have enough evidence (or lack of evidence to the contrary) to trust that they are doing their due diligence in fact-checking. Mainstream book publishers and academic journals sometimes cite blogs, content farms, social media, and other "low-quality" sources. They also often perform original research, and that is fine. Another thing to remember is that it's not as if 100% of statements made by unreliable sources are false; those anywhere close to that typically end up being deprecated and/or blacklisted. The caveat though is that we should only make claims in wikivoice if the reliable source is stating it in their own voice. If the reliable source is attributing the claim to another source, then we should likewise attribute the claim to that original source. Left guide (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Arts&Culture

    [edit]

    I've seen it used occasionally, but the only time it was mentioned in a question at RSN resulted in a single person effectively replying "I don't know" few years back. Maybe we can do better? The site looks like AI generated stuff before the AI era, pretty but with very weak sourcing. For example, I looked at The Korean War: A Sudden Tragedy and the Beginning of UN Forces-South Korea Relations — Google Arts & Culture"" and it states that "Credits: All media. The story featured may in some cases have been created by an independent third party and may not always represent the views of the institutions, listed below, who have supplied the content." , then it lists the source as the United Nations Peace Memorial. Here, I'd think that a UN affiliated site would be reliable, but that disclaimer spooks me off. Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 15:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the United Nations Peace Memorial Hall in Korea. Unfortunately I do not speak Korean, and the site isn't set up well for browser translation, so I'm not in a position to check the information on that site.
    GA&C's About page says "Google Arts & Culture is a non-commercial initiative. We work with cultural institutions and artists around the world. Together, our mission is to preserve and bring the world’s art and culture online so it’s accessible to anyone, anywhere. ... Our team helps partners digitize, manage and publish their collections online." The partners include a lot of very reputable cultural institutions, so that's a good sign. On the other hand, it's unclear whether GA&C is just taking existing content from an institution's site and making it available, or if there's something else involved (e.g., an LLM creating text).
    I don't want to take the time to really delve in right now, but what I'd do is look at some GA&C content from an institution with material in a language I speak, see what's on that institution's website about that topic, and compare the texts. For example, this image + bit of info is associated with the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History (which itself is definitely reliable for its content), but it's still not clear to me who wrote the GA&C text, as that verbatim text doesn't appear on the SMNH's website (per a site-specific Google search). Then again, for a language I speak, I'd rather go directly to the institution's website instead of relying on GA&C. Not sure if that helps. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that parts of that site also host partial copies of Wikipedia content (example). This seems to be limited to a small encyclopedia of art and artists. You have to click on "show more" to even see the link back to Wikipedia, and there is not a clear license or list of authors given. This is fairly shaky compliance with our redistribution license. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd certainly be careful. I searched for Henry Moore as an example of an artist I know something about; the GA&C page has biographical information from Wikipedia, misidentifies furniture designed by a different Henry Moore as being by the British sculptor (even though their source correctly identifies the furniture designer as a different person!), and provides a bunch of automated search results which conflate the more famous sculptor with the minor Victorian painter.
    Some of the GA&C pages are credited as being "in collaboration with" reputable museums (e.g. this page on Barbara Hepworth which is "in collaboration with The Hepworth Wakefield). One would expect that these are more reliable, but there are errors in these too: e.g. 10 Facts About Barbara Hepworth says that in 1939 she moved from Yorkshire to St. Ives; in fact it was from London. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Predatory(?) journals

    [edit]

    User @Flyingphoenixchips: stated that the following journals are predatory:

    Can someone confirm that? If so they should possibly be blacklisted and removed from Wikipedia articles. Polygnotus (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable sources aren't generally blacklisted, that's for sites that are being spammed into articles. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. If the sources use is problematic and is regularly used then they can be WP:DEPRECATED, which adds a warning when they are used. But it's usually only used if there is a pressing need for it. Sources that are regularly discussed here get listed at WP:RSP, otherwise discussions can be found in the talk page archives. Have you checked to see if they have been discussed before?
    Headbomb do you know these journals? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think this is the first time I ran into this situation. I'll search the archives. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IJSR has been mentioned https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#c-Rosguill-20240404164600-47.29.168.193-20240404093600 the others have not. Polygnotus (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any WP article referencing ""ijnrd.org." The search above shows results for IJNRD, the International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, published by a Taylor and Francis affiliate. I doubt that T&F publishes predatory journals, but I don't know. ijnrd.org says it's the International Journal of Novel Research and Development, and its website doesn't give me confidence. I'm not going to investigate further right now, mostly wanted to say to be sure to distinguish between different journals with the same acronym. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, that is a different journal. The International Journal of Novel Research and Development promises to publish your stuff for ~17 euro if you are from India. Publishing takes 2 to 3 days which is rather exceptional for serious peer review. Polygnotus (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The .org version is this journal here, not the T&F one. It's indexed nowhere selective and adverstises a bunch of trivial services like having an ISSN and being under 'major indexing' through Academia.edu, SSRN, or Arxiv. Beall lists it as predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't look to me like any WP articles cite the .org journal, though perhaps I overlooked something. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the others, none look great either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ijnrd.org was spammed a lot in Wikipedia articles relating to india. I had removed all of those citations using the tools another user had directed me too. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.dovepress.com/international-journal-of-nephrology-and-renovascular-disease-journal is definitely legit! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support blacklisting them, because these sites are more often than not also hubs of pseudoscience. Even if they try disseminating valid science, we should not use them as references as they are not peer reviewed. Plus as an academic myself, who is currently pursuing a PhD I really really do not want wikipedia to endorse these platforms by citing them. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    NDTV.com at Lingaa

    [edit]

    User:Tamilcontent1 is using the following source

    • "Baahubali to Thuppakki: Tamil Cinema's 100 Cr Films". www.ndtv.com. Retrieved 2025-04-07.

    to support the claim -

    As reported by NDTV, even though the movie grossed more than Rs 150 crores worldwide, many distributors in Tamil-Nadu claimed huge losses, demanding compensation as the film's worldwide distribution rights were reportedly amounted to an amount exceeding Rs 140 crores.

    at Lingaa. I don’t have any opinion on ndtv.com as a whole, but this particular source lacks a byline and redirects to a now defunct site, iFlickz.com. Any inputs on this would be useful. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There's WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#WP:NDTV. From checking elsewhere in the archives, this source also seems to have been discussed other times in passing or without being mentioned in the section header. Left guide (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you telling me this borders on WP:FRUIT? Because NDTV is reliable and iFlicks appears not to be. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:FRUIT, yes. iFlickz.com is an unknown site and clearly not an independent journalist, so it should be considered unreliable. Also, I couldn't find NDTV listed anywhere on WP:RSPS, so I'm not sure if it's considered generally reliable or not. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick notes:

    • NDTV is a mainstream news organization and would be considered generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, although look for the complicating factors under WP:NEWSORGINDIA applicable to many news organizations in India, and the additional concerns regarding NDTV in particular after its takeover in 2022 by Gautam Adani.
    • That said, as has been noted by other above, in this particular case the reliability of NDTV is moot since the content of the listicle is clearly attributable to iFlickz.com. The latter appears to be a defunct website focussed on distributing news, gossip, and PR material related to Indian (esp. Tamil) film industry. I didn't see it listed on Indian cinema task force's list of generally used sources; didn't find any information about its apparent publisher "Gusto Systems"; or any other indication that iFlickz would qualify as a source with a reputation for factchecking etc. The form of the article, a listicle as opposed to a reported piece with identified sources and author, also does not engender trust.

    (TL;DR)  If the information it is being cited for is the least bit disputable, don't use this source. If the information is true, better sources would surely be available; a Rajinikanth film is hardly likely to suffer from lack of media coverage. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    HAL open science

    [edit]

    HAL open science aka HAL (open archive) is a place where anyone can upload anything for any reason.

    An uploaded document does not need to have been published or even to be intended for publication.

    insource:https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr

    It is not impossible that a bunch of these are COPYVIO because all WP:UGC sites have a copyvio problem.

    It has been used 854 times. If I am bored I might have Claude.ai write a couple of papers on theoretical physics so I can publish them under a friends name. Polygnotus (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s a repository, so many of the items hosted there we cite are from respected journals and some aren’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ACADREP. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    OpenHistory

    [edit]

    Several Japanese articles have this text created with a tag: This article incorporates text from OpenHistory.

    It refers to openhistory.org, a mostly one man project that predates wikipedia and hasn't been updated since 2006. The encyclopedia has a warning that it is "alpha quality". This seems like something that was added in the early days of wikipedia and has been overlooked in unimportant articles that don't receive much attention. DrGlef (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For ease of reference: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from OpenHistory. As an initial opinion, anyone should feel free to replace or tag {{better source needed}} anything that actually has OpenHistory cited as a reference, but in a quick spot check I don't really see anything like that. This isn't really too different from translating from Wikipedia articles in other languages, or otherwise incorporating compatibly-licensed UGC into our content. We're not doing it because the other UGC is reliable, and we don't need it to be as long as the text we put in can be verified in the sources we do consider reliable eventually. The tag is for attribution, not indicating that we'd want to use it as a reference. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. How do I replace the source if I don't know what information is being cited? Also, I don't think tags are helpful. It is basically giving the work to someone else. The Oda clan page has a tag from 2016 that no longer reflects the current state of the article. I also think that finding sources for some of these articles will be difficult for anyone who doesn't know Japanese as many of these figures have questionable notability, although some are important and well cited. In those cases, the OpenHistory tag may be misleading because it may not be used anymore. DrGlef (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I would expect the articles in Category:Wikipedia articles by source of incorporated text subcategories (and Category:Free-content attribution) to retain the attribution information even if the article was mostly rewritten. We refer to other texts not only to help verifiability, but also for copyright licensing reasons and simply because we believe attributing ideas and inspirations is the right thing to do. The "source of incorporated text" tags are mostly for the latter two reasons, not the first.
    An added block of text from a compatibly-licensed user generated source is not inherently more suspicious than the same text an editor thought up on their own, so there's no particular reason to scrutinise it any more than any other block of uncited text.
    If you find the inline citations to be less than you'd like to be, add {{citation needed}} to claims you find possibly questionable, {{dubious}} if you believe those claims are incorrect, or either remove/correct the claim or tag as {{disputed inline}} if you are fully convinced it is erroneous. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the first four edits at Oda clan, it appears that there was little OpenHistory text to begin with. The content was so basic and vague that it is pretty generic. The bulk of it is a list of members of the clan. Was is the guidelines for removing the attribution? Or is it not permanent?
    Uncited text should be deleted. Fully convinced is a pretty high standard, at least for me. DrGlef (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles should balance the need to remove inaccuracies with the risk of omitting correct and relevant information. Inline citations are a means towards that end, I don't believe they should be treated as an end in themselves. While it's technically permitted by policy to challenge any uncited text, editing policy indicates a preference for tagging instead of outright removal for potentially fixable issues (WP:PRESERVE), and using the lack of current references as the only rule for deciding to content, instead of evaluating the content on it's merits, is certainly against the spirit of things and more likely to be detrimental when applied across the board without exception. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations aren't an end, they are a means to verifiability. But we are getting on a tangent. Under what conditions should a OpenHistory tag be removed? Let's use Oda clan as a concrete example. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Oda_clan&diff=prev&oldid=7746483 This links to the last pure "OpenHistory" version. The descent from the Taira is questioned by scholars, which the article now reflects. DrGlef (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the OpenHistory tag about attribution or verification? If the tag is for attribution the question is beyond the scope of this board, but if the license that OpenHistory uses requires it then it will have to stay. For verification purposes OpenHistory doesn't look like a reliable source, as it appears self-published[75]. Also using an end of article attribution code for this purpose is rather unusual, I would suggest one of the more normal methods. Obviously copy pasting text from another source doesn't verify it's content, the same way that translating an article doesn't mean editors shouldn't verify the content before publishing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy ping to @TakuyaMurata:. From a random sample of article histories in that category, it looks like he was the one who created these articles using OpenHistory in 2003, and appears to still be regularly active on the project. Left guide (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Balkan Battlegrounds for details of NATO airstrikes in Bosnia in 1995

    [edit]

    G'day all, in a pre-GAN discussion at Talk:May 1995 Pale air strikes#Independent sources?, the reliability (specifically the question of being "independent of the subject") of the two-volume CIA history of the Balkan wars of the first half of the 1990s titled Balkan Battlegrounds [76] has been questioned. Here are a couple of reviews of the work [77][78]. The subject of the article is two airstrikes by aircraft of various NATO countries (including the US) on ammunition bunkers near Pale in Bosnia and Herzegovina on consecutive days in May 1995. The source is used for the background of the airstrikes, the details of the airstrikes, and the aftermath. It isn't used for opinion or analysis, other sources have been used for those aspects of the article. Clearly I understand that the CIA might have provided information to NATO about the target at the time, but I am struggling to see why the source Balkan Battlegrounds is not independent of the subject of the article, the airstrikes. Interested in the community view on this, and if its independence and/or reliability in general is questionable, how best to address this when using that source, or whether it should not be used at all. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject of the article is airstrikes by NATO, and the CIA is not independent of NATO or it's actions. That doesn't mean it's unreliable, but it's not fully independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. I would definitely question its independence. In general I think an encyclopedia should remain relatively skeptical about potentially self-serving claims from state espionage agencies regardless of which state they serve. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Financial self-reports by non-profit advocacy organization

    [edit]

    Can financial self-reports by non-profit advocacy organizations be used as a source for information about their funding? In this case: Jewish Voice for Peace with a discussion about this in Talk:Jewish_Voice_for_Peace#3._Membership_numbers. I was referred to WP:ABOUTSELF and there I see the following:

    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.

    Personally, I think all of these five criteria are met - again, when writing about their funding, not about other things. But I may be mistaken! What do you think? Lova Falk (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In context its clearly unduly self serving, its being requested by a paid editor "Disclosure: I am requesting the following edits to Wikipedia on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace, a client of Camino Research, as part of a paid engagement. I have been compensated by Camino Research to make fact-based, independently verifiable contributions to improve Wikipedia articles related to Jewish Voice for Peace." Basically any time a COI editor wants to add a primary source its going to be unduly self serving, they don't really do anything which isn't by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the inclusion of some information is warranted without being requested, then making a request does not make that information unsuitable for inclusion. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the inclusion was warranted there would be no need for a request to be made. I would also note that the connected contributor claimed that their purpose was to make "fact-based, independently verifiable contributions" but unless I'm missing something this number is not independently verifiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone confirm what content is being confirmed to which sources, and is this only about the second request about funding or the other requests? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An organisation is usually reliable for the number of members it has, but if there has been any controversy over it's funding then relying solely on it's own reporting might be unduly self-serving. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ActivelyDisinterested My original question was, and is, if financial self-reports by non-profit advocacy organizations be used as a source for information about their funding. For me, self-disclosure of COI is much appreciated, but also irrelevant when I make the decision about performing the edit or not. Now, for non-profit advocacy organizations, I think that information about their funding is appropriate for our article, but, I wondered if I could use this as a source or not. And I still don't know the answer to that question - except, as you say, in case there has been controversy over its funding. Lova Falk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, using their self-published data to say "their budget was X for 2025" or "they spent X in 2025 according to their form 990" is fine. But what we're discussing here is different than that. "93% of JVP's budget comes from individual donations with an average individual gift of approximately $60" and "the organization had over 31,000 individual donors in FY 2024, with more than 7,800 recurring monthly commitments..." This is quite obviously self-serving and way in the weeds. And it has been covered in no independent sourcing and we're totally relying on them for it. Not notable and promotional. Marquardtika (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The update from JVP seems to be a direct response to statements from other sources about it's funding. The details from JVP might be correct, but it appears to be trying to counter other sources. So I don't think it's uncontroversial. Secondary sources are always preferable, articles should mostly be based on what independent sources say about the subject not what the subject says about themselves. Here JVP are trying to counter a narrative of big donor supporters with a counter narrative of their own, again I'm not saying they are wrong but it's appears in their interest to say so. Having secondary sourcing to back up what they are saying would appear suggestible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with ActivelyDisinterested. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly feel like I'm living in bizarro-world. I'm being told on the article talk page that an advocacy group's own self-published website is more reliable than an article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy--"Another non-profit's views are not more relevant content for an encyclopaedia than than an organisation's disclosure of its funding." Just...what? No, that's not how any of this works. In fact we rely on and preference independent secondary sourcing. This is all so bizarre, honestly, and was spearheaded by a disclosed WP:COI editor (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jewish Voice for Peace). So, to reiterate, a paid editor suggests some self-published self-promoting sources, several Wikipedians eagerly implement, I revert, and am now bombarded with Wikipedians telling me no, I'm the crazy on, we should be using a group's self-published website FAQ section over an article in a reliable publication. Ahhhhhh *screams into the abyss* Marquardtika (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    screams into the abyss. A little melodramatic. we rely on and preference independent secondary sourcing - yes. "Chronicle of Philanthropy" is not an independent secondary source. It's a competing 501c non-profit with a its own political agenda. It's not a news organisation or scholarly source. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the crux of this is whether the funding statements are uncontroversial enough for primary sourcing. I believe we can refer to article coverage to determine controversy in this case due to how widespread and detailed the coverage has been. Do we have any sources for controversy around funding? I can only recall oppositional articles emphasizing grants from foundations, with the indirect implication that this is the main source of funding, but without even making an editorial supposition that it is the case. Marquardtika, do the Chronicle of Philanthropy articles contain something relevant to this that you could quote here? Unfortunately it is a paid subscription outlet that I do not have access to. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, returning to my original question. I somehow assumed that financial self-reports by large non-profit advocacy organizations were subject to independent audits, but once I became aware of my assumption and researched this, I did find independent audits for JVP for 2016-2019, but none after that date. So I now agree that unless we are presented with independent audits that confirm statements about the source of funding, information about this on their website is not a reliable source. Lova Falk (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that "Chronicle of Philanthropy is not an independent secondary source. It's a competing 501c non-profit with its own political agenda" is unfounded. Lots of reliable sources are 501c3 non-profits. For example, ProPublica, Poynter Institute, Institute for Nonprofit News, etc. Being a 501c3 organization is an IRS tax designation meaning a group is a nonprofit. It doesn't imply any kind of political agenda. And the idea that the Chronicle of Philanthropy is somehow in opposition to Jewish Voice for Peace is strange, I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. The Chronicle of Philanthropy article is not "oppositional", it is neutral and well-reported. And it's unequivocally a much better source than the Jewish Voice for Peace's own website. Marquardtika (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:UPSD Update

    [edit]

    Following Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_201#URLs_with_utm_source=chatgpt.com_codes, I have added detection for possible AI-generated slop to my script.

    Possible AI-slop sources will be flagged in orange, thought I'm open to changing that color in the future if it causes issues. If you have the script, you can see it in action on those articles.

    For now the list of AI sources is limited to ChatGPT (utm_source=chatgpt.com), but if you know of other chatGPT-like domains, let me know!

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's going to be very useful for highlighting content that could use a double check. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For The Win (USA Today)

    [edit]

    At the college basketball WikiProject talk page, there is a concern raised positing that the reliability of For The Win may be less than that of USA Today proper. The claim in question refers to whether Olivier Rioux can be called a "national champion" using the quote Still, he's a national champion like the rest of his team… from this source. How does the reliability of For The Win compare to that of the main RSP listing for USA Today? Left guide (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that this case is more about the specific statement made regarding Rioux being considered a champion. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:

    The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

    It's straightforward if FTW is not considered generally reliable. Otherwise, in this team sport, it's not objectively clear if a player that never played is considered a champion. So the statement could be an error, or it could be an opinion, in which case WP:INTEXT attribution might be needed for inclusion, assuming WP:ONUS is met. —Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over using reddit in citations

    [edit]

    This concerns LGBTQ themes in Western animation where I removed contents from the article, and the other editor restored it. I thought this is an insignificant information from reddit r/Arcane, while the other claimed it's not because it's a comment by the show's creator.

    The discussion took place here on my usertalk page. It did not go well, so I'm bringing the case here to ask others' opinions. I still think reddit can't be used as a reliable source. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reddit is a crap source in general. For AMAs sometimes people take the time to verify the author. For contributors, not really. Even if we knew this was the correct person, it's still primary, and if a primary source is the only source, then that raises issues with WP:DUE. It would be different if PCGamer or whatever picked up on it and wrote about it. Otherwise we're not in the business of compiling social media posts, or this project would just end up being a glorified twitter feed. GMGtalk 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the account can be 100% confirmed as the author, an accounting claiming to be a specific person is very insufficient, then it would be reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF way or WP:EXPERTSPS as it's a writer talking about the show they write for. Whether something someone said should be included in an article is a matter of NPOV rather than reliability, just because something being reliable sourced doesn't mean it should be included. The discussion on whether it's due inclusion is something best discussed in the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reddit is 200% not an acceptable source for anything. Even if this is a confirmed account, it's undue because it comes from a primary source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with GMG. if it was WP:DUE, another reliable secondary source would have reported this.
    as is, we can't even confirm the redditor is the actual show creator. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Quillette Reassessment

    [edit]

    Quillette is currently listed as "generally unreliable" [79], however Ad Fontes Media ranks them as factually reliable as The Atlantic or Wired [80]. Additionally its reception section on the Wiki article doesnt seem overly negative. I think a reassessment of this source is in order. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ad Fontes Media is not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have another widely agreed upon metric? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't use one external source to ascertain reliability of a source. Rather we adjudicate things such as their tendency to issue corrections when they publish inaccuracies, independence of the editorial team, reputation for fact checking and the extent to which opinion and news are clearly delineated. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and are generally derived from many data points. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the consensus was about. Some editors feel the information wasn't reliable but the consensus was it's assessments aren't due for inclusion in articles. There were editors who would use the assessments of MBFC, Ad Fontes and others to state a source was left, right, etc within articles. There was not a consensus that the sources were not useful when evaluating other sources at RSN etc. As for Quillette, it's going to have the same problem as last time. It's lately a collection of opinion articles. Sometimes the opinions are very well reasoned, other times not so much. Net result is the source rating probably is good where it's at. What could really move the needle is if the source had clear editorial control and fact checking. Evidence of that, ie evidence that we shouldn't treat the source as basically a collection of opinion articles, would help move the needle. Springee (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad fontes Media remains basically just Vanessa Otero's blog. I don't personally think that a random patent attorney from the United States has any qualifications to decide whether media counts as left, right or center. Regardless using it for determining reliability would be even more suspect as reliability isn't about political orientation. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time a discussion like this came up I did some searching on Google scholar and found several reviewed papers that used and even evaluated these rating sites. They found good correlation between the sites, and thus the various methods. They certainly are used by others for research purposes. For this reason I do see it as reasonable to present as one piece of information when evaluating a source. However, it alone is not sufficient and I 100% agree that their assessments shouldn't be used in a wiki article without an independent RS reporting on it. Basically the same treatment we might expect with views published by a think tank etc. Springee (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its whole stick is to post deliberately contrarian opinion stuff. It's simply not usable for factual purposes, and for opinion it's almost always undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Fontes, and other such sites, don't evaluate sources based on Wikipedie's policies and guidelines, have their own biases and tend to be very US centric, so they have little use in discussion about reliability. They can be useful as a starting point for investigating a source, in the same way that Wikipedia can, to find issues to look into and evaluate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1284790709"