Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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. Additional notes: 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. Start a new discussion

More on the reliability of BtVA

The Anime and Manga Wikiproject does not consider Behind the Voice Actors to be a reliable source. Can the perennial sources list stop calling it reliable now? Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where the reliability was discussed? The most recent such discussion here, From March, 2022 concluded that it was reliable. While such discussions don't have to happen here; they need to happen somewhere and if there is a new consensus, we all need to see what discussion came to a new consensus. --Jayron32 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the discussion is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 1 and consists of two users. It's from more then a decade ago and as mentioned has only two participants, including the person who asked if it's a RS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and also per WP:TIMETRAVELISN'TPOSSIBLEASFARASWEKNOW, an older discussion in a less-broadly-attended corner of Wikipedia cannot override an existing consensus which was established later. If Eldomtom2 wants to start a new discussion over the reliability of the website in question, they can feel free to do so, but unless and until someone does that, it appears the March 2022 discussion is the prevailing one.--Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The second one is a red link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a blue link if you're browsing from before 2015. After The Fracture happened and Dr. Nixon broke the timeline with her first trip we deleted it. When there's a timeline collision we sometimes get people from 2008 linking to it when we try to warn them about the snakes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:26, 2 February 2037 (UTC)

Don't tell people about the snakes. It destabilizes the time loop and every time it happens we have to revdel the entire 2040s. jp×g 10:54, 9 April 2051 (UTC)

It won't be if you go back in time and fix it. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made multiple attempts at starting discussions here and they have failed to receive attention.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a well attended RfC for it here less then a year ago. It seems the community here largely doesn't feel like it needs to be reopened at this time. Is there something that's changed about the source in the last year, or do you just disagree with the conclusion? Because the former may catch more discussion but the latter is likely to elicit crickets if editors don't feel anything is substantially different to when we did this before. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion. It was waved through with little investigation.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are we looking at the same RfC? I would like to draw your attention specifically to Compassionate727's fairly exhaustive dive into their structure and editorial methods. That is exactly the the type of examination we expect around here, and it did seem to hold quite a bit of weight with participants. If you were talking about a different RfC that's understandable, but if you meant the March 2022 one and think there was 'little investigation' then I don't think you are quite on the level. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it was an "exhaustive dive" you can think that, but I don't think "they say they have some sort of standards (that they won't clarify) that they apply to user submissions" is good enough to say something is a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that WP Anime does consider Behind the Voice Actors to be reliable in most circumstances. You would see this if you actually read the entry at WP:ANIME/ORS#Situational. Link20XX (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It actually says "Roles and lists that are not check-marked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used", which means that BtVA is unreliable, since the only thing it is considered reliable for is providing screenshots of the primary source that is a show's credits.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Jus Mundi

I, and another editor, would like to cite a decision from an arbitration tribunal available on the Jus Mundi website.

The decision is at: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-global-institute-on-sharing-all-influenza-data-v-swiss-institute-of-bioinformatics-final-award-thursday-28th-june-2012-1 , with further material here and here. A third user has challenged the use of this source. The source is being used to: confirm what decision was made, and identify the formation date and founding location of the organisation. The article in question is GISAID.

The main quote (following a request for additional sources) reads:

After a legal clash with the SIB, in which GISAID was ultimately compelled by an arbitration tribunal to pay out more than $1M,

(This likely has too many sources now, but answers about Jus Mundi would be helpful -- confirmation about the status of the other sources would also be useful as doubt has been cast on all. The formation date and founding location points relate to the info-box.)

Related discussions can be found at Talk:GISAID#Dispute with SIB and Talk:GISAID#Addition of relevant sourced information to Infobox. Opinions on this source would be welcome. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• JusMundi is merely a search engine; it is not a reliable source. Moreover, the links in footnotes 2-5 are all primary sources. I'd drop them and stick with just refs 1 and 6. Banks Irk (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Two follow up questions:

  - Would a PDF of a US district court judgement be better than Jus Mundi?

  - How can one prove when a company was founded if not through court documents? Aren't court documents the best one can get, rather than self-reported founding date? AncientWalrus (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Q1- No, use FSupp instead.

Q2- Not sure why one would ever use a court document for that purpose. As an aside, if a court decision said that Company X was founded on a certain date, that would actually be a secondary, not primary source. What I would actually check and use as a source is a search of the governmental department where those files were made. In most (but not all) cases, it will show a result for the formation date of the company. For example, the California Sec of State shows 1938 as the formation date of The Walt Disney Company. That is actually a secondary source.The primary source would be the formation documents of the company in the jurisdiction in which it was formed (assuming that it is the kind of entity that must file such documents under applicable law. I would normally use these sources if there were a question as to the accuracy of the company's statement regarding its formation date. Banks Irk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful answers!

So would it be enough to simply state that the source is: "District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, File Number 263748"? Should I not provide a link to where this can be verified by an interested user?

There are two ways I could find to verify:

- Make a CorpOnline account at https://corponline.dcra.dc.gov/, then click on this link to see the file: https://corponline.dcra.dc.gov/BizEntity.aspx/ViewEntityData?entityId=2689336

- OpenCorporates has this already scraped and available at: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_dc/EXTUID_2689336 (but I presume OpenCorporates is not a reliable source?)

My feeling is (maybe I'm wrong) that just stating a file number would make it hard to verify and hence it's better to provide links as well, even if they are not necessarily reliable?

Thank you for your time! AncientWalrus (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughts, and for confirming 1 and 6 are good to go. Jus Mundi is not (simply) a search engine: it also hosts judgements/decisions, like these. As you say, those are primary sources but aren't they a reliable source to what the court decided? -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Were this an article about the case itself, MOS:LAW would suggest citing both the primary and secondary sources. It would also suggest that neither a site like JusMundi nor a PFD downloaded from PACER is an appropriate reference; you should use a citation to an official Reporter, in this case, 49 F.Supp.3d 92. But this isn't an article within the scope of WikiprojectLaw, it's just a single sentence, essentially a parenthetical for which half-a-dozen references is serious overkill. So my advice is stick to the secondary sources only. Banks Irk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk, I hope you are also feeling the sense that the two complainants above are not truly prepared to listen to community advice such as yours. They are quite skillful at barreling forward with their original designs (and agenda, unfortunately), and even discourteously take time to inform me on my User Talk page of a petty "copyright violation" notice that is based on opinion, but curiously do not inform me of bringing this source dispute to wider attention. I will add here that Jus Mundi allows uploads from the public, and the contents of the uploads are not verified by the hosting company. It can quite easily be used as a revenge platform, as it is being attempted in this situation. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will ignore the off-topic and unfounded allegations in the preceding comment.

In the end, for the article for which this request was started, the secondary sources recommended by @Banks Irk were perfectly sufficient.

However, for posterity and future readers I would like to ask @AppleBsTime

Could you please provide evidence for your caim that Jus Mundi allows unverified user uploads? I was not able to find such a feature.

In contrast, in my research, Jus Mundi appears to be a trusted provider of international arbitration cases, used by reputable organizations such as International Bar Association and the International Chamber of Commerce.

This makes me think that Jus Mundi is rather trustworthy. Lawyers definitely don't want to rely on unchecked, bogus user submitted cases

See https://www.ibanet.org/article/433474e1-0d3b-41fd-9442-2fb2b6f3e623 and https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/publication-of-icc-arbitral-awards-with-jus-mundi/ AncientWalrus (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Murder of Don Banfield and use of Court Documents

Murder of Don Banfield

[appeal summary] of the case is relied on for basic facts. While many can be re-attributed to reliable secondary sources, a reading has me concerned that there are little finding of fact by the Court to make the document usable. It appears to summarize the Crown and Defense's positions without critical assessment. Can the Crown and Defense statements be used? Or should only material found in secondary sources being used. Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, since these statements are made to petition the court/judge, and so while there's likely any doubt in the factual basis, these can still be circumspect. Masem (t) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• In general, court documents should only be used as supplements to reliable secondary sources that discuss them. For example, if The Guardian had written an article which discussed the court documents in question, then you would cite the Guardian article that is acting as your main source, and you could also cite the court documents as a supplementary source; however everything written in Wikipedia should always be evident only from the information in the Guardian article alone (i.e. the citation to the court documents are not necessary to verify anything written in Wikipedia, they only exist to provide additional context but are not strictly necessary). You should never use text of a court document as the sole source for anything written in Wikipedia. See WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, to wit, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" --Jayron32 15:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Jayron, with the caveat that court documents may be used to verify basic, uncontroversial information about the legal proceeding that is not actually about the BLP subject (e.g. such as the name of the judge that issued the ruling, what court issued the ruling, the date of the ruling). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Nazi symbolism article, cardcow.com, liveauctioneers.com, symbols.com, etc.

Recently I've been cleaning up Nazi symbolism: Removing obvious WP:RS violations and WP:OR wherever it appears. These include obvious WP:OR links to:

• cardcow.com
• liveauctioneers.com
• a now deleted post by "ProudNordicGirl" on wattpad.com

As well as to poorly sourced, non-WP:RS sites like:

• symbols.com (a user-contributed site from non-experts, essentially a wiki)
• flagspot.net (complete with citations to old Wikipedia articles)

Many of these were links to articles that even these sites had deleted—someone had fished them up from Archive.org.

Additionally, I've been restructuring and eliminating redundancy to the page, as well as adding new material from WP:RS. I've also been removing non-referenced material.

Sounds great, right? Unfortunately that hasn't been the case: Every one of these changes has repeatedly been blanket reverted by @Beyond My Ken: (example: [1]), claiming such edits "do not have consensus" and that the above listed "sourcing is sufficient"—I kid you not.

But since this user appears to be especially fixated on maintaining the abysmal status quo there—unreferenced paragraphs and exceptionally poor "sources" and all—can we get some more eyes on this article? And maybe some more contributors to hunt down WP:RS-sources, ideally peer-reviewed and from specialist scholars, to get it to a decent state? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that I have explicitly asked this editor to discuss and justify their edits on the article's talk page, but their response seems to have been to come here instead. There is currently no consensus for the editor's "clean up". Some of the work is probably worthwhile, but, in my opinion, they're using much too blunt a sword and need to focus their changes, hence the need for a consensus discussion on the article talk page, which should precede any discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As you should know (but seem to deliberately ignore) the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. You always obfuscate what your actual objections are and keep deliberately going on about "consensus" (despite the fact that nobody has agreed with you) to distract from your lack of actual reasons to include fragrantly unreliable sources. I agree with these removals. In what circumstances would fucking WattPad ever be reliable source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first time this issue has come up with this editor and this subject material. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Beyond My Ken. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• All of the above sources are self evidently unreliable. I'm shocked and amazed that anyone with the experience of BMK would blindly revert this and demand consensus; furthermore in the case of disputes, WP:ONUS has long established that disputed content stays out of articles until there exists clear consensus to include it. --Jayron32 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• The sources that you list above are clearly unreliable, but looking at the linked edits, some of the material that you removed and BMK restored was well-sourced, for example to ADL, which is a reliable source for this subject, per multiple prior discussions here at RSN archives. Banks Irk (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good catch. I had missed that one. In general (as a matter of advice to the OP), it is much better to remove the sources one at a time, with an explanation for each, rather than a mass removal in a single edit. This is pragmatic; it is less likely to be challenged, and also, you're less likely to have the entire set reverted that way. As noted, the ADL source is scrupulously reliable in this context, so it should not have been removed with the other. --Jayron32 14:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This material was already covered above and redundant. We don't need two sections discussing the Nazi use of Armanen runes. It's worth noting also that the ADL is also not always reliable for this material and their entries should be checked against works from specialist scholars to ensure accuracy. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPADL disagrees with you on that. --Jayron32 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And that's irrelevant when we encounter discussion from specialist scholars that indicates that an ADL entry is incorrect, such as was encountered at Black Sun (symbol). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources disagree, its not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong we provide both opinions proportionate to their coverage in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Some sources are more appropriate than others and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If you're not aware that both the ADL and SPLC have historically made outright false statements about this or that symbol over the years, I've got some news for you. While the ADL has cleaned up a lot of its website symbol entries over the years (and so has the SPLC), to this day the ADL still refers to the Wolfsangel as 'an ancient runic symbol'. This is unquestionably incorrect and not a matter of opinion or debate, as any scholastic runologist can tell you. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If we excluded every source that was wrong one time from ever being used at Wikipedia, we'd have exactly zero sources to ever use. ADL is considered reliable. Full stop. If, in a singular instance it is shown via other scholarship that the ADL was incorrect in something, then we aren't forced to use it in that one instance. That has no bearing on general reliability. If you have an equally reliable source that disagrees with the ADL in this one instance, then cite that source alongside it, and directly attribute each source's information to each. If a preponderance of other reliable sources disagree with the ADL, such that it stands alone compared to the rest of mainstream scholarship, then use a different source. This, however, should be discussed when disputed at the level of the specific contested edit. Not as a general statement of "someone disagreed with the ADL once, and so they shouldn't be considered generally reliable". That's a silly standard to hold any source to. --Jayron32 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? Nobody has made any such claim about general reliability. It's pretty obvious that the ADL is a good source for discussion of modern far-right groups but a terrible source for, say, historic runology. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You might want to check Wolfsangel, it would appear to support the assertion that the Wolfsangel is an ancient runic symbol (and if not ancient very very old). Do we need to rewrite Wolfsangel or have you maybe gone beyond your skis just a little but? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Try reading before linking. The article says: "it is sometimes mistaken as being an ancient rune due to its similarity to the "gibor rune" of the pseudo Armanen runes", which is correct. The Armanen runes were invented in the 19th century. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd read that. Do I understand correctly that your entire issue with the ADL is whether or not the 15th century is ancient history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not, read it again. The symbol resembles a modern rune invented in an early 20th century system and is not a component of any ancient runic script. It is in no way an 'ancient runic symbol', despite the ADL's claim, as any beginner runologist would know. The ADL is outright wrong here, as it has been far too many times on related topics in its symbol databases. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you square "It is in no way an 'ancient runic symbol'" with the 15th century use then? Your quibble does appear to be about calling the 15th century ancient. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what runes are? And that they're first from around 150 CE? And surely you realize that a runic systemy invented in the early 20th century (Armanen runes) isn't "ancient", right? Gaining a basic familiarity with atopic before flinging yourself at it will do you a lot of good. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wolfsangel is not part of the Armanen runes, it only resembles one of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gee, ya don't say. In fact, it isn't a component of any runic alphabet, ancient or modern. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts, the ADL doesn't say that its a component of a runic alphabet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, including my observation that the ADL's claim that the Wolfsangel is an 'an ancient runic symbol' remains outright incorrect. In no way is the Wolfsangel an 'ancient runic symbol'. It is in no concievable way an ancient rune and it only somewhat resembles a modern one. Many of the ADL's database entries that comment on ancient symbol origins are garbled or contain similarly incorrect information. Like it or not, that's the simple reality of the situation, and one that those of us who work in these corners have repeatedly had to respond to. The fact is that the ADL is an extremely poor source for topics like historic runology. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So why are the sources calling it a rune and why do sources seem to routinely do this sort of thing... For instance I don't think that those writing about "Nazi runes" are actually writing about the genuine runic alphabets but about pseudo historical concepts that came much later. Does that mean that any source which uses "rune" to refer to something other than a genuine part of a germanic runic alphabets is automatically unreliable in your opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality sources on the history of the Wolfsangel certainly don't refer to the Wolfsangel as an 'ancient runic symbol'. It's obviously not. Nazi Germany saw use of Armanen runes here and there (most famously in the logo of the SS). Nazi Germany saw use of a lot of other symbols. One of those symbols was the Wolfsangel. It's crucial that we use high-quality, ideally peer-reviewed sources from specialist academiocs for these articles. There are no shortage of such sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So again... If the ADL said "early modern runic symbol" you would not object to the ADL's use? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Enough. There's no 'again' here: If the ADL had gotten it right, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. To get it right, all the ADL had to say is that the Wolfsangel is an old symbol used for this and that in the past, and maybe throw in some references to actual scholarship on the topic getting even more specific about dates and usage. They could even add that it somewhat resembles a rune from the modern Armanen row. All that would be accurate. Calling it an 'ancient runic symbol' is not. Guido von List believed his 'revealed' runes were ancient. We have no reason to believe they were. It is an unfortunate reality that both the ADL and the SPLC have a history of presenting poor research to the public on the history of topics like runes. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. Every source is reliable or not in context. The ADL isn't a good source for ancient history, and that's OK. It doesn't mean we can't use them for other things. MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Bloodofox, you've convinced everyone; but more on my earlier point, how is someone to know all of this nuance when you just mass remove a bunch of material with little explanation. As I said above, all of your removals (and now, due to your clear explanations here, including the ADL one) are perfectly valid and reasonable. The issue is that when you don't plan ahead for what others will reasonably do when they encounter your edits, you end up spending much more work and effort justifying your confusing actions after the fact. I reiterate my advice above: When removing bad sources, take a little extra time up front to remove each source one edit at a time, and explain in each edit summary why it is removed; alternatively, you could leave a notification on the article talk page explaining in detail why each source was removed. Not something like "I removed a bunch of bad sources" but rather, "I removed source XXX for reason YYY, and and I removed source AAA for reason BBB" and so on. Assume everyone who isn't you won't understand why you're doing what you're doing, and cover your tracks. Even if it seems obvious to you, most people won't understand, and when people don't understand what you're doing, they're more likely to revert everything you did. Should they do that? Probably not. That doesn't matter. If you assume they will anyways, and take appropriate action ahead of time to head that off, it will avoid a lot of unpleasantness later. --Jayron32 12:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

How reliable are Iranian government news websites for articles about history?

Articles like Operation Revenge, Operation Commander-in-Chief, or Operation Karbala-2 are supported only by Iranian news press websites. Considering the IR's track record (and Censorship in Iran), wouldn't it be preferable to boycott such sources from articles related to history (or politics)? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Those three articles have terrible sourcing. I don’t know enough to say if the sites should (all) be deprecated but certainly a np article on a conflict should never be sourced entirely from press releases from one party to the conflict. Might be helpful to list each website and discuss reliability. Some (eg Tasnim News) have been discussed here before, others not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, yes, that's what I'm also finding.

This is a list of all the "sources" used in the article Operation Revenge:

• nasrnews.ir
• aparat.com
• aja.ir
• isna.ir
• mashreghnews.ir
• aparat.com
• jonoubnews.ir
• jabeh.com
• tasnimnews.com
• defapress.ir

Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek Article

Looking at the WP:RSP list, Newsweek is listed in this grey area where each article should be determined as notable or not on a case by case basis. Would this article about presidential candidate Steve Laffey count as a notable source? Scu ba (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think it is, in general, best to avoid post-2013 Newsweek for BLP-related content, given that we expect only the highest-level sourcing for WP:BLPs. I would find better sources for that. --Jayron32 14:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason material in that article is likely to be contested or controversial Scu_ba? It feels like a relatively safe thing to use in Laffley's article, as it is an interview with Laffley himself. I'd avoid using it for a biography of one of his rivals, and it might not be reliable enough to be due in an article about the 2024 GOP candidates, but in Laffley's own article it seems safe enough. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just checking because of WP:NEWSWEEK. This article was made after 2013. "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." Scu ba (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Youtube as source

I have a query regarding this particular edit (which I reverted), the editor used youtube channel of All India Radio as source. Can it be considered reliable in this particular case? Mixmon (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, but channels on YouTube can be. In this case this is the official YouTube channel of All India Radio (that took awhile to confirm, obviously don't take the channels word for it), which is the national broadcaster of India. All India Radio is reliable so it's YouTube channel is as well, although given tensions in India it should be used with caution in contentious topic areas. But, yes, for the specific edit it would be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Per AD, YouTube is not a source. It hosts sources. The reliability of any video is attached only to the person or organization that posted it. --Jayron32 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Irish Central

We use this website in a number of articles.[2]. Its own article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IrishCentral. My latest encounter with this was at [3] where it uses a reliable source to push the idea of Egyptians in Ireland by using it alongside a fringe video. I think at best this should be classified generally unreliable. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh. People shouldn't be using a light news source for such material in any event. Do you have evidence that the website willfully or negligently has a habit of publishing known falsehoods, or is this one story (which shouldn't be used in any event, even if it covered things that weren't WP:FRINGE, because this is not that kind of source) the only thing that makes you want to eradicate the source from Wikipedia? --Jayron32 11:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32There's this:John F. Kennedy's uncanny coincidences with Abraham Lincoln]. See Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend. [4] claims ancient Irish culture was polygamous and implies gender equality, but see Ancient Celtic women (maybe some but not much polygamy). No time for more, sorry. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a light reading source. The "Kennedy-Lincoln" coincidences are a cultural meme that predates the internet by some years, I remember it from the 1980s for goodness sake, so much so that we have the Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend article. As I said, the source shouldn't be used in places where obviously better sources do, but that's not special to this source that makes it different from other fluffy listical-y websites. There's thousands of such websites, and I'm not sure this board's resources are well spent discussing each and every one. Go ahead and remove the bad uses, WP:SOFIXIT means you don't need permission to do so. It is not the sort of thing that we need to have a formal vote on or anything like that. Self-evidently bullshit articles can be removed from Wikipedia without any prior permission or discussion about the publisher of those articles. --Jayron32 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

192.com

I feel very uncomfortable using 192.com or any online directory as a source per WP:BLPPRIVACY. It is currently being used as a reference in about 40 articles - can these be removed? Launchballer 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Checking the first three uses I would agree these should all be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. Having links in BLPs that connect subjects names, DOBs, and rough real world location just seems like a bad idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm working through them at the moment, removing the ones on biographies, though I've got to go to work in half an hour. Some are actually OK, where they're not on BLPs and they're sourcing the address of a building (i.e. Our Lady Queen of Peace Church, Braintree) although there are probably better ones. Black Kite (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think these are done now. I have left the ones where it was only used to source the address of a building. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

WPG Police Cause Harm

The website "WPG Police Cause Harm" is used at Winnipeg Police Service. My concern is that it appears to be a personal website and blog, with a gmail address. The only information I could find is that it is a "social advocacy group".

The count of the 19 people who Winnipeg Police killed does not include those who died in police custody, any incidents not disclosed to police oversight bodies, nor those who the police shot but who did not die.

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/when-winnipeg-police-caused-harm-in-2020/

In the year 2019 alone, the Winnipeg Police killed seven people.

Sources: http://twitter.com/WpgPoliceHarm/status/1239233143791591426 and https://twitter.com/WpgPoliceHarm/status/1239233571962998791

and filed 857 use-of-force reports, including 154 Taser deployments.

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/when-winnipeg-police-caused-harm-in-2020/

and “the highest proportion of spending by police of any major city in Canada.”

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/history-of-wpch/

“About,” online: Wpg Police Cause Harm

Source: http://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/about/

Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not Reliable. An anonymous individual or group blog by a self-proclaimed advocacy group just a WP:SPS and should not be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on a little bit of using the Google machine, it appear that the principal spokesperson, and likely author of of the website/blog for the group is James Wilt, an independent journalist. I don't see anything in his Wikipedia BLP or in other sources about him that he would qualify under the previously-published subject-matter expert exception to SPS. Banks Irk (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Likely, but not defiantly is. so, it can in fact be written by anyone, so it's a blog and fails SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, my apology for appearing to forum shop, but I started a discussion yesterday at WT:LE#Winnipeg Police Service for assistance cleaning up a large WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL addition by a new editor. I have left a message there, inviting input here. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. When I looked at the discussion on that talkpage and the underlying article, it was obvious that the question about sourcing would end up at RSN sooner or later. Banks Irk (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk did you also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement? This editor is forum shopping - hopping from place to place to find someone who agrees with him when he doesn't like an answer he gets elsewhere. His refusal to wait for consensus and subsequent edit warring resulted in the article being fully-protected for a few days. I don't think coming here (right now) is helping the discussion. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Which part of my last post don't you understand? This is not helpful; RSN is to discuss reliable sources, not the conduct of editors. The source WPCH is not reliable, period, full stop. It should not be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOP. Sage advice. Keep the discussion in one place. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Truth be told, I realized more experienced eyes needed to be on this train wreck of an edit sourced by Twitter feeds, personal blogs, and blacklisted sites...after you commented: "the section uses a number of local and national sources that seem reliable - and I did search WP:RSN and WP:RSP". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

*Taking just a cursory look, there are major issues with sourcing in that article beyond just WPCH.org, and beyond just the "Criticism" Section. Rather than a whole series of new posts on the subject here at RSN, or diving into the talkpage morass, I'll observe the following: Footnote 6 is to a blog (heritagewinnipeg.blogspot.ca}; Footnote 8 is to a primary source, a poll released by the pollster (angusreid.org), not reported on by an independent, secondary reliable source; Footnotes 10, 11, 12, 23 (which is to a tweet) and 24 all cite WPCH.org, not a reliable source; Footnotes 13 and 24 cite change.org, and online petition site, not a reliable source; Footnotes 19 and 20 cite the same editorial in CanadianDimension.com by Mr Wilt, the WPCH spokesman - an editorial is not a reliable source for reporting facts, just the opinion of the writer (assuming they and their opinion are notable); Footnote 25, similar to Footnote 8, is a primary source, a survey result powerpoint presentation released by the organization that conducted the survey (spcw.mb.ca), again not reported on by an independent, secondary reliable source. And, while I have some serious doubts about some of the tabloid news stories used as sources, that's a bigger can of worms that I'll let go. Banks Irk (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus that "Winnipeg Police Cause Harm" is not a reliable source? Can it now be removed from the article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No-one has advanced any argument here that this advocacy-group anonymous blog is a reliable source. Experienced editors are unanimous that it is a WP:SPS that is not reliable, and should be removed as a reference in the article. 10mmsocket has been warned by an admin at WP:RPP[5] about restoring unsourced material. Banks Irk (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for historical facts?

MEENAS were rulers prior to the Kacchwaha Rajputs of Jaipur -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• No. It is merely a travel site, not reliable for history. Banks Irk (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This site appears to be, at least in part, user generated content. See their page on submitting articles. And so wouldn't be a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Potentially contentious draft (on massacre in Kosovo) – are these sources reliable?

I'm reviewing this draft Draft:Llovcë massacre at AfC, and although it does cite three sources with sigcov, I'm not sure how reliable those sources are. My gut feeling (and it is only that) is that this probably is okay, this possibly isn't, and I really can't tell about this (looks like a portal, rather than a source?). Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on any of those three sources (my gut feeling would be the same as yours) but it feels to me that an article on an event during a war should not be sourced wholly from sources on one side of the conflict, unless they were absolutely sold sources. (And, this is a notability concern rather than a reliability one, the apparent absence of other reliable sources, in English or any other language, suggests the event might not be worth an article.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Bobfrombrockley. That was my concern, precisely. I didn't want to create a diplomatic incident (!) by declaring something a massacre, just because some sources say so. Nor do I want, of course, to do the opposite, hence why I'm trying to understand the merits or otherwise of the sourcing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The first two identify as "portals", the third as a regional news agency (according to google translate). If there are no other sources this seems a bit thin for an article on such a delicate subject. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reply All/Wiretap podcast for BLP info on Mason Reese

Is this podcast episode reliable for this information added to Mason Reese? Nightscream (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well as a post bast it is a wp:sps so for use in a wp:blp I doubt is very much. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. A podcast is a SPS that can't be used in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree, pretty clear SPS, which is a no go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I wasn't sure if that was a well-known (and possible RS) podcast, or just one more published by a non-RS. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is actually not a self-published source. Gimlet Media produced Reply All (podcast), which was a major independent producer of podcasts before they were acquired by Spotify. The people involved were formerly journalists at WNYC and for This American Life. It's no more a self-published source than a BBC or NPR radio documentary. Podcasting primarily a distribution method, but just like a web page or a book it can be self-published or not, reliable or not. Jahaza (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Banks Irk, and ScottishFinnishRadish: Do you agree with what Jahaza stated? Nightscream (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No. It is still a SPS. Banks Irk (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Being produced by a podcast production company is not the same as having oversight from the editorial board of a news organization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, having been employed as a journalist grants no inherent reliability (and there are many examples to the contrary). Journalists are only reliable when their words are published by established organizations with strong editorial oversight. And since journalists don't count as published subject-matter experts, WP:EXPERTSPS goes out the window too. Not usable. DFlhb (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you badly misunderstand how much editorial oversight there is in book, magazine, or newspaper publishing.

You also completely misunderstand the role of an "editorial board" in a news organization, which doesn't have an oversight of its news operation. The exact opposite in fact, the editorial board of a newspaper is on the opinion side and is specifically sequestered from oversight of news coverage. Jahaza (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, as whilst it may be hosted by Gimlit there is no evidence its still not (in effect) a video blog. The BBC operates an editorial policy, when it does not (as with any newspaper) it is marked as opinion. Gimlit does not appear to do that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a blog and it's not video. These basic errors suggests you're not at all familiar with the source. (And it's "Gimlet" not "Gimlit.")

The BBC does not mark its audio documentaries as news or opinion (frequently they contain both reporting and opinion), listeners are expected to recognize this by context and content (that's how scholarly books and journal articles work too, by the way). Jahaza (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Something I should've looked into before but didn't think to: Is the Jonathan Goldstein who hosts that podcast the same as this Jonathan Goldstein? Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are these WP:ABOUTSELF claims made by the subject during the podcast? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The material in question consists of:

* His birthday, which is given by his mother, who is also interviewed

* Reese's statement that he knew how to pronounce the word smorgasboard, but was asked to mispronounce it by an ad executive working on the TV commercial he did as a child

* The fact that he has a brother and a sister, which was added by the editor who first added this material and cited this source, though I could not find anywhere in the podcast where he or the host/interviewer gave it. Nightscream (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Milano Finanza

Is Milano Finanza (https://www.milanofinanza.it/) a confidential source? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I assume you mean reliable, rather than confidential. WP:NEWSORG applies to Milano Finanza; it is a well-regarded news publication for business and financial matters. It does host some content that is re-published and shared from other reliable news organizations. However, it may have some content that is more reliable, and other less reliable. Context is required before making a blanket judgment. What is the reference that you want to cite, and to support what statement in what article? Banks Irk (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just wanted to know if this report: (https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/l-italia-potrebbe-vendere-jet-typhoon-di-seconda-mano-alla-polonia-quali-vantaggi-per-leonardo-202303301120565298?s=09) is trustworthy? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  The author is an experienced reporter with news organizations, including 24 years with Milano Finanz. My one caution - I can't read the whole article, because I'm not a subscriber - the bit that I can read says that she is reporting in part based on something from "a Polish website". Without reading more, I would be careful to say that , "MF reported that a Polish website said...." not for the truth of what the Polish website said. Banks Irk (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Kirkus reviews

On KirkusReviews, our Perennial Sources page says: "Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published."

Kirkus' own site is more explicit about the indie reviews, and I wanted to repeat it here in case anyone forgot...

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/indie-reviews/

"As an unpublished or self-published author, it can be a relentless struggle to attract a significant amount of attention to your book or manuscript. By purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition and get noticed by agents, publishers and other industry influencers. ... While we do not guarantee positive reviews, unfavorable reviews can be taken as valuable feedback for improvements and ultimately do not have to be published on our site. With our most popular review option priced at $450, ..."

It ends with this:

"KEEP YOUR REVIEW PRIVATE OR PUBLISH IT FOR FREE ON KIRKUS.COM

You may choose to publish your review on KirkusReviews.com where it can be discovered by industry influencers, agents, publishers and consumers. If it is a negative review, you can request that it never see the light of day by simply not publishing it on our site." [Emphasis added]

How does an editor know if a review is from Indie Reviews or from the "regular" Kirkus Reviews? Do all editors know the difference? This "indie" practice by Kirkus seems kind of shady, and the difference with the Indie reviews seems easy to overlook.

Thoughts? David10244 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

From looking at the site, once an Indie review is chosen to be "published" by the book author, it appears to join the non-paid-for reviews and become indistinguishable. But I can't tell for sure. David10244 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. The process that Kirkus describes is for a way for an author from an obscure or self-published imprint to get someone to review their book. They can pay Kirkus to do a review, which then Kirkus will have its staff perform independently. There is no reason to suppose that a paid review is going to be any less dispassionate than one Kirkus decides to do on their own (actually I can think of reasons why I'd be much more enthusiastic about reviewing a book I wanted the read than one I'm reviewing because somebody had to pay me to review it.) The author can then decide whether they want Kirkus to print the review or not. Obviously, if Kirkus does a favorable review, the author should want to publish it. If the review is unfavorable, the author probably won't want it published. A "paid" review is no more or less reliable than an "unpaid" review. But, because authors can pay to have a review done, having a review on Kirkus doesn't establish notability. Banks Irk (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a very obvious incentive for reviewers to be more generous when they are paid to review something – if they give a good review, the person paying them is more likely to pay them to review more things in future, and more likely to recommend the service to others. That's exactly why ethical reviewers disclose when a review is compensated in any way. If we can't tell which reviews are paid-for, we should absolutely consider Kirkus' reviews as a whole to be less reliable.

That said, it looks like at the moment reviews published through the "Kirkus Indie" program are marked as such – e.g. this review has "Review Program: Kirkus Indie" at the bottom of the page, with a link to their explanation of what the Kirkus Indie program entails. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And for WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Are you asking if these reviews contribute to notability? I would lean to the "no" side, but I'm still thinking. If a truly impartial reviewer gives a book a good review, that might count for something. My brain is dithering... David10244 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk If the "bad" reviews are not published, and the "good" ones are, does that devalue the good reviews? I'm honestly not sure. David10244 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO, it makes them not independent, and not-WP:N relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk Excellent points. David10244 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@David10244, this [6] is marked "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE", this [7] is not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I see that now. Not very prominent. People won't realize that it's from the "good half" of the paid-for reviews. Better than nothing, I suppose. David10244 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Is ucanews.com a reliable source?

Is the Union of Catholic Asian News (www.ucanews.com) a reliable source? It's used on over 400 pages, according to a quick search. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Depends on how it's being used. Might be OK for some purposes; for others, not so much. Not going through 400+ pages. Got some examples where you think it should or shouldn't be cited? Banks Irk (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's reliable in what seem to be its areas of expertise: Catholicism and Asia. I would say it is being used appropriately at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lahore and Ahmad Yani-class frigate. However, I wouldn't really consider it a reliable source for peripheral facts- for example, a brief mention in one of its articles regarding an unrelated topic might not be reliable. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Start deleting the references on matters outside that scope. See if anybody objects; if so, take it up on the article talk page. If you can't resolve it there, come back here. Banks Irk (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Franco Serafini, Linoli and the miracle of Lanciano

There has been a discussion (that I started) on the talk page of the miracle of Lanciano about a book written by Franco Serafini: A Cardiologist Examines Jesus: The Stunning Science Behind Eucharistic Miracles published by Sophia Institute Press

It is used to cite: "In November 1970, at the request of the Archbishop of Lanciano, Pacifico Maria Luigi Perantoni, and the Provincial Superior of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual of the Abruzzo region, Bruno Luciani, the Franciscan friars of Lanciano, who guarded the relics, decided, with the authorization of the Vatican, to have them subjected to medical-scientific analysis. The task was entrusted to Odoardo Linoli, head of the laboratory of clinical analysis and pathological anatomy of the hospital of Arezzo - full professor of anatomy, histology, chemistry, and clinical microscopy - and to Ruggero Bertelli, professor of anatomy at the University of Siena. The examination revealed that the relics were human heart muscle tissue"

Is this a reliable source and should it be used in the article?

The analysis of Linoli in Italian. The journal Quaderni Sclavo di diagnostica clinica e di laboratorio seems to have been in operation from 1971 to 1988. The article has maybe been cited once.

Is this article a reliable source? Should it be used in the article? 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:658E:332A:F320:38F9 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's reliable for saying that 1) The analysis happened, 2) that the analysis was done by the named individuals and 3) summarizing the conclusions of the named individuals. I don't see a problem using it for that purpose. The question of "should it be used in the article" is a matter of WP:UNDUE, and that's outside the remit of this board. I suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page. --Jayron32 12:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this article on www.learnreligions.com a reliable source?

I want to cite information contained in this article authored by Sukhmandir Khalsa, who is a "Sikh author, educator, and the president of Dharam Khand Sikh Academy" for some Sikh Wikipedia articles related to historical personalities. Can this be article from this site be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia? ThethPunjabi (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a high quality source to me. It belongs to Dotdash Meredith for whose reliability status there is currently no consensus (see here). On the positive side learnreligions does have editorial review. I would treat it carefully and only use it if no better sources are available. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 Thank you for providing your evaluation. I found the information in other more reliable sources so I decided to forgo using the one above. Cheers, ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi@Random person no 362478479 I may be grumpy here, but "dedicated to helping readers deepen their faith" is a bit of a red flag to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't particularly like that either. But since they deal with all kinds of religion and not pushing one particular faith I wouldn't categorise it as obviously unreliable. Clearly they are very pro-religion, and many of the authors seem to be clergy of one kind or another. But that may be an overly broad reason for excluding it. What about Newspapers published by religious institutions (e.g. vaticannews), or books by theologians? That being said, I strongly suspect that for anything relevant on learnreligions there will be much better and significantly more reliable sources available elsewhere. So I would treat it carefully and avoid if possible, but not necessarily classify it as generally unreliable. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Standard

I'm thinking of making a section to Georgetown Preparatory School talking about their $8,000,000 new stadium donated by and dedicated to Michael Bidwill and Bill Bidwill. One of the main sources for this prospective section is this article by the Catholic Standard. I don't see any consensus on if they are a reliable source or not. Would it be appropriate to include this source? Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the papers general reliability may be, Georgetown Preparatory School is a catholic school in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington whose newspaper the Catholic Standard is. So I would assume that for this information it is an acceptable source. (If you go beyond straight and simple facts things may be different since there may be an independence issue.) Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly on the independence issue. they don't really give any opinions in the article, just talking about how the school has a new stadium, and a new dorm. Regardless I'll omit any opinion in the section on the Georgetown article. Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2023 (U

Hello, Scu ba. Your section on the new stadium tells readers very little about the building other than its seating capacity and the size of the financial donation that backed the construction. In my view, you are devoting excessive attention to the various people peripherally involved with this facility and its dedication, and far too little to the actual building itself. Cullen328 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Running Magazine (runningmagazine.ca)

Hi there, I was interested in knowing if the Canadian Running Magazine would be considered reliable enough for the topic I'm interested in working on. It's a niche web news site which covers running/track/marathon topics.

I was interested in improving the Draft:Ryan Trahan draft as it is currently not doing so well. This article, if considered reliable enough, would substantially help my goal to improve the draft's quality.

Is this a reliable source for the article? B3251 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. But it may not be the kind of source that contributes too much towards notability. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more sources out there for other topics relating to him, but I just wanted to double check since I really wanted to improve some portions of it incase anybody else in the future would like to pick up on it. Thanks! B3251 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Useful source for Bhairavlal Kala Badal

[8][9][10][11][12][13] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you posting them here? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Are all these sources reliable? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked at your 3 first.

• [14] seems to have some content on the subject, but I have no idea what "Universal Book Depot" is, and I can't read it beyond snippets.
• [15] What text do you intend to add to the article based on it?
• [16] What text do you intend to add to the article based on it?

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

OurtimeBD

Saw this publication used in several Wikipedia pages. I cannot find anything on the website that lists editorial standards and the homepage URL says "beta" which leads me to believe this is just a blog. Hoping to get another set of eyes in case I am missing something as I do not see it as a reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I found the name Nayeemul Islam Khan on the website as its editor. There is a page for Nayeemul Islam Khan who is a journalist and likely the same person who is named on the website. That page is now at AfD as I don't believe he is notable based on the available sourcing. Would still like anyone's feedback about OurtimeBD. Unless someone is able to tell me it is realiable, there is nothing indicating that it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

OurtimeBD seems to be the online edition of an English language newspaper from Bangladesh. I think it is the same as the Daily Our Time listed here with a circulation of 39,998. I found no further information about the quality or reliability of the paper. I assume that the "beta" in the URL refers to the version of the homepage. They may be testing a new design. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding independence of an editorializing reporter

A discussion is underway regarding the use of reports by a specific freelance reporter, Steven Monacelli, whose primary claim to fame is that he runs a Twitter parody account of Greg Abbott, https://twitter.com/stevanzetti (his identity is noted on the linktree posted therefrom, with about a half dozen links soliciting donations.

Monacelli was sued over his coverage of Monty Bennett, a conservative commercial real estate figure who bought the "Dallas Express" website from another conservative figure, Brian Timpone. Outrage at Timpone's use of the name Dallas Express (previously the name of a black-owned newspaper that ceased publication in 1970) was expressed in an editorial by D Magazine (which found it "maddening to see what has now landed at the URL"). Bennett acquired the website, and Monacelli directed similar editorializing his way. Bennett sued D Magazine and Monacelli for defamation and prevailed in the trial court, but was overturned on appeal, specifically because the various statements objected to were defended as Monacelli's opinions, not factual reporting.

An editor in the discussion noted in defense of this content that a footnote at WP:V was removed in 2020, said footnote relating to the proposition that "material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications) involved in or struck down by litigation in any country, or released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation" constituted a "conflicted source". That discussion was not a determination, however, that such litigation can never be considered as an issue. This case goes beyond content being litigated; WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that editorials "are rarely reliable for statements of fact", and editorializing dressed as journalism should be treated as editorializing, including where an editorializing reporter publishes his opinions in multiple outlets (in this case, Monacelli later wrote a similar criticism of the website in The Texas Observer also cited as a source in the article).

I note that other entirely unproblematic sources exist that can be used to source contentions about the website bought by Bennett. My concern is solely directed at the use in a BLP of editorial writing by a subject of litigation, whose defense to that litigation was that their assertions about the BLP subject were not factual. BD2412 T 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like an off-Wiki argument between the two parties which doesn't need to be litigated on Wikipedia. The parody account shows bias although I am not sure it would disqualify him as a source per se. However, the fact that he was personally involved in the lawsuit and is now using his journalism as a way to editorialize it would indeed fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL imho. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, Brian Timpone page looks like a heavy WP:COAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My concern about the parody account (and the "donate to me" links) is not so much about bias as it is about the individual appearing to be a rather self-promoting opportunist, rather than a serious journalist; which, in turn, raises questions about the quality of the the rather low-level local venues that publish his work. BD2412 T 15:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Is he used here? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, with pieces in two local papers (as is a straight-up editorial by another writer from one of the same papers). Monacelli's parody Twitter account is actually cited as a source in List of 2021 Women's March locations (for the number of people attending the Dallas rally), which I have called out on that talk page. They are cited as a source in about a half dozen other articles. BD2412 T 16:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Surley fails wp:sps? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would think so, yes. BD2412 T 16:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Usage of reliable sources and verification in a BLP

I'm interested in finding out if I am wrong in my understanding regarding reliable sourcing, verification and BLP. There's a discussion at Talk:Cases of Stübing v. Germany regarding a paragraph sourced to a BBC article. The statement made within that BBC article attributes the claim mentioned in our article to an unnamed Der Spiegel article. The BBC source itself is here [17]. The Der Spiegel source the BBC mentions cannot be found by me.

The sentence from the BBC article reads "According to Spiegel online, while Patrick was in prison Susan had a fifth child with another man."

By my understanding of reliable sourcing, BLP, and verification, the BBC source in this case isn't acceptable and the statement needs to be attributable, cited, and validated to Der Spiegel. In this case, as the BBC article doesn't link to the Der Spiegel article and nobody has yet been able to find it, the statement fails validation. Is my understanding of this incorrect?

I should add the discussion is actually resolved now as nobody found the paragraph (now deleted) from the article particularly important, but I want to know if I'm completely wrong about my view on this. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The original article seems to be this one: "Während Patrick seine Strafe absitzt, lernt seine Schwester einen anderen Mann kennen, den 49 Jahre alten Jürgen B. Mit ihm bekommt sie ihr fünftes Kind - Sophira." Sam Kuru (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would call that confirmed. BD2412 T 01:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I'm really just curious if my position regarding verification was correct. Assume the Spiegel article was no longer available. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If BBC reports that Der Spiegel reported something, that is a solid source for the proposition that Der Spiegel actually reported that something. Absent the final point of verification, we could say something along the lines of, "The BBC noted that Der Spiegel reported that..." BD2412 T 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thank you. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with BD2412's suggestion - similar to WP:SAYWHERE. JennyOz (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of WNXX as a reliable source in rail articles

I've been wondering about the use of [18]https://www.wnxx.com as a source of UK rail information for a while. It is being used across UK rail articles as a source for ownership, location or livery of vehicles.

The site is completely paywalled, with no transparency whatsoever as to the source of their information. I discussed this briefly with @TimMassey on their talk page, as they had been using the site as a source in a few places (for example here and here). Tim's reply to my message reads "Some info obviously comes from peoples first hand observations. Some is clearly 'inside' info the website host has obtained from industry sources". Personally, I wouldn't think that a site that either doesn't list its sources, or where the information is being obtained from original research, should be allowable on Wikipedia.

My apologies must go to TimMassey here - this is not in any way intended to be an attack on or me hounding you - you are simply the most recent person I noticed using this source that I could use for diffs and who potentially had some information about the origin of the information on the site. Danners430 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that information is paywalled is not in itself problematic. How reliable that information is can be the only issue here. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I should have been clear - that is the concern I have, the paywall has simply hampered my ability to work out whether the site is reliable or not - that's why I messaged TimMassey in the first instance. Danners430 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like a hobbyist page to me. They ask people to submit reports and pictures and the physical address seems to be the private home address of the person in charge. Doesn't seem like a reliable source. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. Might fall under self-published too. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I like the use of the selective quote here, may i publish it in full. "I cannot vouch for the sources that are used, but what I do know is that the information posted to the site is accurate. Some info obviously comes from peoples first hand observations. Some is clearly 'inside' info the website host has obtained from industry sources; this is almost without exception accurate." I have been a paying subscriber to this site for some time, and as I noted, the inof on it is accurate. If a mistake is made, it is corrected, and usually pubilicy so. Form the tone of some of the articles, multiple sources are consulted and confirmation sought before something is published. I trust it absolutely, which is why i cite it. Livery of vehicles is usually confirmed by a photograph. I have used it in refernce to Class 57 ownersbhip recently, and actually some of the reference confomra what is already in the relevant article on Wikipedia. Some ofof the info obtained by the site is from inductry sources who prefer not be be named, but this does make the info less accurate. Losing the site as a reference would, in my view, lessen the quality of the relevent articles. User:TimMassey.

e-pao.net

This website has some WP-presence [19], but per [20] it appears to be WP:USERG, is that a reasonable reading? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a reliable source to me at all. They ask people to contribute -- even anonymously -- and there is no indication that there is any editorial review other than that they claim "the sole authority to decide whether or not to webcast the contributed item". Apart from user contributions they republish content from news sources, e.g. a lot of content seems to come from The Sangai Express, so some of the references may not be entirely beyond saving if they can be replaced with references to original publications. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Mathematics Genealogy Project

Some biographies use the Mathematics Genealogy Project (MGP) as a source (for example: William Littell Everitt, Eric Zaslow, Louis Boutet de Monvel, Alexander Bogomolny, Leonard Blumenthal). However, the MGP article itself notes that the content is "self-reported."

I can't find any recent discussion about the reliabilty of MGP as a source, which appears to violate WP:UGC.

References

76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Where do you get your data?

We depend on information from our visitors for most of our data. In cases of partial information, we search Dissertation Abstracts International in an effort to find complete information. We have also entered a considerable amount of data found on lists of graduates maintained by individual departments. If you have data to provide, our submission form is the best way to submit it. For large quantities of data, you may contact us about other means of submitting." ([21]https://www.mathgenealogy.org/faq.php#sources) I tend to agree that while a lot of the information may be properly checked, it does not qualify as a reliable source. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Self-reported" is a bit vague: much of it is reported by institutions (which should know to whom they've awarded degrees, etc.). It has editorial oversight, but it is rather limited (at one point in the past I believe the situation was that one PhD student at ND State would keep an eye on it each semester in lieu of TAing a class) and certainly not up to the quality that one would want if one were trying to do real historical work (like [22] or whatnot). I would urge caution in using it. --JBL (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Stacker

Is Stacker considered reliable? I suspect it is a different organization than Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu) which are unreliable according to WP:RSP. I'd like to link this specific article from Minneapolis#Demographics, but this question is a little broader. I've searched the noticeboard archives, and the WP:RSP archives and came up empty. Maybe Stacker could be differentiated from Stack Exchange at WP:RSP if it is different. Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a journalistic entity. They call themselves a "newswire" and "storytelling platform".

"We’re a team of entrepreneurial thinkers, media-minded nerds, and advocates of tech-forward journalism.

Our full-time newsroom includes over two dozen data journalists, editors, and writers who have worked with and been published in leading national publications." [23]

Today, Stacker is read by millions each month on Stacker.com as well as across our vast network of publishing partners. Our newswire of local and national features provides a sustainable source of engaging content for thousands of newsrooms across the country, including MSN, Newsweek, and Hearst Newspapers. [24]

"Every Stacker story is created using reliable information from vetted, credible sources and objective, data-driven reporting that has been fact checked by our newsroom. Studio clients and Stacker readers can rest assured that these principles serve as the common thread through all Stacker content.

Stacker’s editorial team maintains the final say on every story we publish. Even when research is underwritten by a third party, Stacker content will never advertise or promote products, services, or brands.

We promise full transparency. Every piece produced through Stacker Studio clearly communicates the underwriter and cites the original source data and research methodology in the article. We do not integrate promotional content into our pieces." [25]

Looks fine to me. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is one where WP: NEWSORG can be applied. Established independent organization with significant staffing that provides original reporting to multiple news publishers all regarded as clearly reliable per WP:RSP, experienced and respected senior editorial staff. Banks Irk (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Can this be added to WP:RSP because the name can so easily be confused with Stack Exchange? We have three other possible cases of confusion given there now, and as Banks says the staff of Stacker is respected. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Do the actions of a Jezebel writer reflect on the source?

Recently a writer for Jezebel was suspended from Twitter for impersonating Justice Samuel Alito's Twitter account (cached copy [26], new account stating the suspension [27], writer's page on Jezebel [28]). Does this reflect on Jezebel that this is the sort of person they employ as a "senior reporter covering abortion access, reproductive health and politics". Would this disqualify the writer's specific work as unreliable based on clear and overwhelming bias/bad judgment? I'm really asking more than telling. I do think it reflects very badly on the source to employ someone who was willing to mislead readers in public. However, I'm not sure it fits one of our specific criteria we typically use to judge reliability. Springee (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If Jezebel has not commented and distanced itself from the writer, or some statement of apology, I would definitely question their reliability. That type of post-incident event is associated with editorial oversight we expect to see. Masem (t) 02:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So, no actual article on Alito by the person involved here? A lot of people, including journalists, did the fake impersonation thing back when Musk bought Twitter as well. And this account didn't even change their bio or any other information. I don't see why Jezebel would have to care? This sounds like you're trying to get a certain political viewpoint downgraded for something irrelevant to reliability. Silverseren^C 02:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how messing with the ever-changing Twitter blue tick system much affects the reliability of either Jezebel or the individual writer. CMD (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this reflects on Jezebel's reliability at all. A twitter impersonation suspenspension on April Fools Day is hardly the type of fabricating content we depreciate sources for. Plus they posted clarifying it was a joke in your second link. A journalist being silly for a bit doesn't depreciate their published work. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

A writer doing something funny and/or stupid on Twitter does not cause a source to be downgraded. If it did, we'd run out of sources. Not that it even matters in this case; WP:JEZEBEL is already considered a questionable source that shouldn't be used for anything contentious or controversial. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Very little that happens on twitter could have an impact on the reliability of a person who lives in the real world. This is certainly isn't one of those cases, there is no reason to consider the writer to be unreliable due to this incident. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

What exactly is the consensus regarding quotes from The Daily Mirror. I'd like to include the following quote box on piri (the information from which had previously appeared in reworded form in an earlier version of the article but I think really needs to stay in quotes):

I’m from a middle class family so my maintenance loan was the lowest possible. My parents are good earners but they didn’t have spare cash to lend. I was £2,000 short on rent in my third year so I had to come up with money. Over the three years it just got worse and worse. I worked all summer at Asda but still ended up negative. It was really bad. By the third year I’d maxed out my overdraft, I owed two people £200 and I could barely buy food.

—piri on her OnlyFans

Launchballer 09:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMIRROR says The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun. The most recent discussion linked from RSP is this one. Personally I wouldn't bother with the quote – the Times article we already cite covers the same material without any concerns about relying on a questionable tabloid, and I don't see how that particular quote is that important. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Requesting inputs (encyclopedic legal coverage)

• Requesting inputs. A discussion is initiated @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines
• Since already a guide line was mentioned there @ WT:MOS/legal besides for discussion on legal aspects it's usually beneficial if one is already informed or exposed to legal terminologies at least in early stage discussions. But few users have suggested me WP:RSN or WT:LAW to be better forums for policy discussions. Whether , at what point and which forum? is better to shift the discussion, if at all, without attracting forum shopping objections. Please guide on this point too.

Bookku (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Is The Ditch a reliable source for political news?

Recent edits by Seanodeorain have added controversy sections to biographies of Irish politicians (Cathal Crowe and Niall Collins) based on reporting from The Ditch. I question whether this site constitutes a reliable source, given that it is run by two rather unknown journalists, and backed financially by Paddy Cosgrave, known for controversial opinions (based on his wiki article content). Given that the site is being used to verify some rather controversial content, I think an assessment of its reliability is in order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Ditch undertakes investigative journalism. Anyone following Irish politics in the last number of months cannot fail to have noticed that it has been responsible for breaking numerous stories that have been picked up by other news outlets and have ultimately led to the resignation of some politicians. The Ditch broke the story that led to Damien English resigning from his ministerial position. It also uncovered information about Robert Troy that led to his ministerial resignation. The fact the ministers resigned in both cases underlines the credibility of The Ditch's reporting. The Ditch is already cited in the Wikipedia page on Damien English. In the case of The Ditch's allegations regarding Niall Collins, it is clear that what has been uncovered about Collins' dishonesty when filling out a planning application form is true. Collins has repeatedly chosen to avoid answering key questions related to the matter. The Ditch's reporting in the public interest in recent months has uncovered a lot of important information about politicians, etc. breaking the law. All these politicians could sue The Ditch for defamation if they so wished. The Irish Times reported only last week on the severity of the Irish state's defamation laws and their chilling effect on journalists. Seanodeorain (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)