Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 419

The Thaiger
A quick search indicates this site is already used as a source on various articles so this may be worth taking a look at.The site accepts guest posts. It's not quite clear if/how these are indicated, I haven't been able to find one. They could be rare or I was unable to identify them as such.I couldn't find an editorial policy, but I did find which appears to have been posted as an article. Not ideal but it does make some statements about striving to be accurate and fact-checking. was written by Jimmy Donovan who is not listed on but his page says "Jimmy, currently with The Thaiger, translates his global journalism experience to bring insights about Thailand to life." While "currently with" sounds like he's employed, maybe this is a guest blogger. On the other hand, was written by Lilly Larkin who is listed on .My gut feeling: don't use for any BLP. Otherwise possibly acceptable for uncontroversial facts if the author is listed on  but preferably use more established sources, especially for international (unrelated to Thailand) news. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing about this website inspires any confidence in its reliability. Few of the senior staff and none of upper management have any journalism background. The writers are mostly identified by handles or pseudonyms as if they were anonymous bloggers or Wikipedia editors. If you look up the Donovan's Linkedin, for the particular article cited you'll see that he is a second-year student in college. There is no trace of Larkin anywhere other than at Thaiger, and the lack of prior bylines at other publications and the improbable breadth of the subjects on which she is credited as writing at Thaiger makes me question whether she is a real person. According to the Thaiger website, during a 4-hour period today, she wrote 22 different articles, on a staggering range of subjects and events around the world. That is not plausible, and I also discovered that her name is a character in Final Fantasy.  This is definitely not a reliable source, and especially not for a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Banks Irk, the character in Final Fantasy may or may not be user-generated as it's part of an MMO. This is unclear to me, and is currently down for maintenance. But the character doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere else (no Fandom page or whatever), so I'd say it's probably unrelated.But her name (and photo, I checked) not showing up anywhere else is a bit concerning. And I agree that writing >15 articles/day on a regular basis while doing proper research on all of them seems improbable. It's possible if they're just parroting other sources, but in that case we'd be better off quoting the original source. Or maybe if she's a workaholic and most articles would be within a more narrow subject range which is her expertise. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If Larkin is a real person, and I continue to have my doubts about that, her 16 articles today (I guess she's slowed down after posting 22 yesterday), give a hint at what's really going on. Once again, the range of subject matters and geographic areas in the stories are highly improbable - obituaries of mostly non-notable people from around the world, fluff profiles of athletes around the world, gaming, manga, Bollywood, TV, a handful of what might pass as actual news from around the world, - none of them having any logical connection to one another. What nearly all of the stories have in common is that they start with "the internet is buzzing", "the internet is currently abuzz", "the latest buzz", "the internet has been inundated"...and minor variations of the same theme. So, they are basically just aggregating social content off the internet and reprinting it, perhaps with some minor variation (hard to say without finding the original sources) as their own under this byline.  This site should never be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Tom Dannenbaum in Just Security for an attributed view at 2023 Israel–Hamas war
A user has challenged the usage of Tom Dannenbaum writing in Just Security for the quote "This order commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). It may also satisfy the legal threshold for the crime against humanity of inhumane acts (7(1)(K)) and, depending on what happens from here, other crimes against humanity, such as those relating to killing (murder and extermination) (7(1)(a-b))." Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of security, democracy, foreign policy, and rights and is hosted by the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law, and you can see its advisory board here. Dannenbaum has written extensively on the topics of international humanitarian law and war crimes, see scholar results or his list of publications at Tufts. He is also quoted by Deutsche Welle on this specific topic and says much the same thing to them (they have He said that the siege of Gaza qualifies as "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a war crime itself.") Is this a reliable source by a scholar with relevant publications in the field or is it an unreliable self-published work?  nableezy  - 03:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't a SPS. The author is indeed a subject matter expert who has been widely published. It is an opinion piece, but it's reliable for use with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have written at length on my concerns with this source, here.
 * One of my primary concern was Nableezy's substantial quotation of this opinion piece, to support a single viewpoint. This extended coverage conferred on an opinion piece, published on an online forum, in my respectful view, is WP:UNDUE, given the controversial and serious nature of this article, which is already excessively lengthy and convoluted.
 * Nableezy appears to have trimmed down his coverage of this source, following the concerns raised by me and a few other editors, prior to posting on this Noticeboard, which certainly addresses the concerns.
 * One issue remains is that this same author has given a more balanced opinion, condemning both Israel and Hamas, in this interview published by Deutsche Welle, cited by Nableezy himself/herself, than the opinion he gave in the online forum.
 * In my view, if this author must be cited, then this Deutsche Welle source should be used, rather than the source from the online forum. Deutsche Welle is a more reputable and credible source of information, as compared to that online forum. It also presents a more balanced opinion from the same author, and should therefore be preferred. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an online forum in the conceptual sense, not in the practical sense, so please don't imply otherwise. It's essentially an analytical platform that publishes expert opinions and analysis on security topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can’t comment on if it’s DUE in the specific article (might be helpful to give that context) but it’s not an SPS and he’s clearly a subject matter expert anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument was that it is not a reliable source as a SPS, so I was seeking comment on that. If the argument is no DUE, then usage by DW would go towards showing it is DUE, but thats for another noticeboard.  nableezy  - 04:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't SPS and the individual is clearly a subject-matter expert anyway, and can reasonably be cited with attribution. That they are also cited by DW making similar statements reinforces the reasonableness of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely qualified and valuable for the article, but the quote and statements from Oxfam, HRW, Amensty could be better contextualized for the reader. This 2020 IRRC article (which cites and explains Dannenbaum's position in the section "Interpreting the prohibition against starvation: A permissive approach to sieges") is probably a helpful starting point. Unfortunately i don't think WP is really capable of an adequate explanation of the issues for the reader in it's news reporting, so it's just "quote and attribute" without context. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of the above, Tom Dannenbaum appears to be a widely published subject matter expert in the closely related fields of International Relations and International Law. Should be attributed of course but this does seem to be more of a due weight question than a reliability one per say. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yen.com.gh
I'll refrain from saying what I think this time as it's rather easy to be wrong..Yen.com.gh is a a news publication from Ghana. It's already widely used as a source for various claims, including on BLPs. Some examples from the first page of search results: Jerry Rawlings (the source was added while he was alive), Nana Akufo-Addo and Asamoah Gyan. Yen.com.gh has an editorial policy and an overview of their editors.Our article on them says "It covers local and international news, politics, business, entertainment, technology, sport news and users’ generated news content." They indeed report on user-generated content, e.g. which describes an event that's.. let's say, less important than the presidential election.For transparency: I found this article while looking for Sssniperwolf sources, but I have a feeling that article shouldn't be used on a BLP. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your instinct is correct. This is not a reliable source. It is a tabloid-journalism gossip piece from a publication that includes user-generated content. That is without getting into at least a half-dozen subcategories of WP:NOT Please stop bringing these questions here. I thought that the editors who were interested in feuds between YouTubers were going to discuss these kinds of sources at SSSniperWolf_sources_overview and not here. If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, you will not find any reliable source on the subject that would pass muster at AFD after five tries. Banks Irk (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Banks Irk, I honestly do not know why Alexis is bringing this here. I started a discussion at the talk page for only the talk page and nowhere else. — Davest3r08 (^ &lowbar; ^)  ( t a l k )  18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Banks Irk, I brought this question here because there seem to already be 450+ articles that use Yen.com.gh as a source and no prior discussion on the site seems to exist.I actually added the transparency line in an edit after posting the question. Maybe I shouldn't have. Sssniperwolf brought me to Yen.com.gh, but if few or no existing articles would be using Yen.com.gh as a source I wouldn't have asked about it here.FYI, new (better) sources surfaced since the last AfD was closed.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698780729193:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Encyclopedia Astronautica
What is the source reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC) We recently asked about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica in relation to one article, about German influence on the Soviet space program. However, it is also being used as a source in other articles. Should it be assessed as:
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Please enter your short answer with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. The Discussion section may be used for back-and-forth discussions.

Survey (Encyc. Astr.)

 * Option 3 or 4 I believe the site is unreliable as it fails to correct errors, is not peer reviewed and stopped being updated or maintained in 2019. In addition, errors have been highlighted in a number of talk pages, refer details below. In 2006 space historian Stephen B. Johnson in Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight (2006) pp. 484–485, stated the following;
 * “Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance.“
 * I did a search and identified the following issues with the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica on the following talk pages. There maybe more:
 * (2012) Talk:Martin Summerfield “ The Martin Summerfield biography referenced from astronautix.com contains a great deal of misinformation crediting Summerfield with developments first made by engineers at other companies.”
 * (2010) talk:Kvant-1 Highlights the Encyclopedia Astronautica is still showing an incorrect mass of 83,000kg. NASA gives the correct mass of 20,000kg
 * (2018) Talk:Apollo command and service module "sources" we should not be using at all, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, a WP:UGC site
 * (2016) Talk:Aerojet General X-8“…such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors.”
 * (2009) Talk:Valentin Glushko “ I urge some caution with regard to the biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica…”.
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Closer to 3 than 2 I can find uses by other sources, but nearly all of them predate 2019 after which the site is no longer actively maintained. I don't take touch weight from article talk page, but given that inaccuracy have previously been found and there is now no way that any corrections at least a certain amount of caution is appropriate.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add my statement from the discussion before this RFC, as I think it still applies I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 There is quite valuable information in it which cannot be easily found in other places or public domain.
 * 1) It is not really surprising that a comprehensive encyclopedia with 79,433 pages and 13,741 images includes some errors.
 * 2) No longer updating it since 2019 is not a reliability issue for topics where technical information was readily available until 2015.
 * 3) The talk:Kvant-1 issue is caused by a naming confusion as I added to the talk. The Russians used the name "Kvant" for two completely different objects. Therefore it cannot be rated as a content error.
 * 4) In Talk:Encyclopedia_Astronautica the space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service.
 * 5) In 2015, the American Astronautical Society gave the site the Ordway Award for Sustained Excellence in Spaceflight History which "recognizes exceptional, sustained efforts to inform and educate on spaceflight and its history through one or more media" in 2015, the award's initial year.
 * 6) As an example, Waldemar Wolff's biography (the later head of the German team in Gorodomlya) is presented according to Stadtwiki Dresden while it is essentially misleading in another renowned publication of space science.
 * 7) Content related to the contributions of German expertise to Soviet space technology during 1946 to 1953 (like in Talk:Valentin Glushko) has to be considered with caution, independent of whether it is provided by this encyclopedia or by space historians. Some sources have not been exploited yet to get the full picture, and the effects of the secrecy policy of the USSR have to be taken into account for analysis.
 * --SchmiAlf (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 based on what the secondary sources in the article say about it - important and extensive source, has some errors - and 's arguments. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Rather 2 than 3: It depends on what you expect. As to my experience, the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica content is higher than most of (English language) Wikipedia spaceflight content. So using EA as a source enhances the overall quality of Wikipedia. One exception: There are many made-up lemmata in EA. Never rely on EA on lemmata. --PM3 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 1: It's my lowest common denominator source (i.e. I will look for other sources with the same data), but it's more-or-less reliable. Lack of updating is a non-factor--all books are non-updating. My rule of thumb is that an article with Astronautix and NSSDC as its sole sources can't rate more than a "C". But for filling in gaps, like with 1951 in spaceflight, it's invaluable. Depecrate Mark Wade, and you'll break a lot of FA/GA/Bs--Neopeius (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 Generally reliable, and a go-to source but like many sources, to be exercised with caution.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Question has this source been previously discussed? What specific claims are being made?  The answer may be yes or may be no but honestly, we should be looking to see if the source is reliable for a specific claim rather than running this RfC.  Springee (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See my comment in the discussion below responding to Pecopteris's similar question (though I have no opinion on the reliability of the source itself).  VickKiang   (talk)  20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a few discussions marked above, most haven't been at RSN but on article talk pages. There was a couple of very minor threads here but not with much input. It relates to an ongoing DRN, so there's more background there if you're interested. I'm not personally of the opinion that this is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 3, maybe 2. I'm not convinced with the general reliability of the source as of yet, and it should be cross-referenced with primary or other secondary sources when used. I don't want to deprecate it completely due to the potential of the source and it not being as consistently unreliable as a source like the Daily Mail, but it's not the most appealing of sources either. Open to changing my opinion with newer evidence.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 10:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Encyc. Astr.)
Could you please include a link to the previous discussion that you mentioned? Pecopteris (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am uninvolved and don't plan to get involved in this, but this source is currently discussed at Dispute resolution noticeboard and had a thread here that has been archived.  VickKiang  (talk)  08:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, there's a previous mention of the Encyclopedia Astronautica on this board back in 2015, but that doesn't add much. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

frequent contributors to Featured articles on astronauts and space exploration may have views on the reliability of the source. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that this question came up at one of the FACs for one of the Apollo articles and we were assured that the site was reliable. All I ever remember using it for was factual information, dates when something happened, which could probably be replaced with either primary (press kit) or newspaper.com sources, but it would be a pain in the butt. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find it offhand. I would agree with Neopeius. A lot of content rests on it and caution should be exercised here. Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Might this be what you're looking for? (also, someone at forum.nasaspaceflight.com summed up Astronautix nicely--"Astronautix is not very reliable and mostly frowned upon on this website ;D Well, Wikipedia plundered Astronautix and both are wrong. As much as Wikipedia can be flawed, sometimes they have decent info sources. By contrast, if they plunder Astronautix, it shows there is no easy, good info sources elsewhere.") --Neopeius (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I note a few editors above are rating the site as reliable, but then they go on to say an article using this source can only rate a C, that lack of updating is ok, that its more or less / generally reliable, that it should be used with caution, etc. However these comments imply Option 3 Generally unreliable, or at best Option 2 - Additional considerations. The criteria for Option 1 Generally reliable  is pretty clear in saying the "that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team". I also note that some of the comments and links above highlight that the site was not being corrected for errors way before 2019, which agrees with Johnson's comment from 2006 in his book, which means the site has never had "...a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction..." as per the criteria for option 1.

I also do not believe the comments about creating additional work to find alternative sources, or causing issues with current ratings of articles, should be given any weight in this RfC. Verifiability is a core Wiki policy, which requires reliable, published sources, would suggest this overides these concerns. I note that this recent featured artcle from the front page of Wikipedia on 28 September 2023 (coincidently the start of this RfC) no longer has any sources from Encyclopedia Astronautica, yet its Talk page highlights there used to be Talk:NERVA. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This example is worth being analyzed in more detail. The Talk:NERVA was originated on 05:28, 19 March 2010 by User:Voronwae for the article version which reproduced the Astronautix data for NERVA. After then, this data remained unchanged over nine years (!) until 18:16 16 July 2019 when User:Hawkeye7 deleted the Astronautix data and added an info box with a different set of data on 22:38 16 July 2019 ([NERVA: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia diff]). The same user made another change on 01:06 20 July 2019 referring to "NERVA XE" data ([NERVA: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia diff]) with again modified data and a lot of new material for NERVA XE. This data is still today's base of the article. There is no comment why doing so, neither in the talk nor in the edit comments. So @[[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]]'s comment would be very helpful to understand the difference to Astronautix.
 * Obviously Mark Wade's NERVA described the original concept of a (complete) nuclear engine with a gross mass of 178 metric tons, while NERVA XE was an experimental step "designed to come as close as possible to a complete flight system" with an empty weight of 18 metric tons (never intended to be tested in flight condition). It was tested between 4 December 1968 and 11 Septermber 1969. NERVA XE was not considered in Astronautix. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All I recall is sourcing material from the reports I had access to. That text was unsourced at the time, so I had no idea where it came from. For me, where the Encyclopedia Astronautica came up was at Manned Orbiting Laboratory, where use was queried during its GA, again during the A class review, where it was accepted based on the RSN, and again at FAC, where it was accepted based on its widespread use in books, academic papers and by NASA itself.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Its not that hard to analyse the Nerva details on Astronautix and see if it is an accurate, reliable source. The complete section is as follows:


 * ''Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application. NASA/AEC Project of the 1960's to develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. NERVA stages, launched by the Saturn V, would have been clustered in earth orbit to send manned expeditions to Mars. Developed up to flight article test before cancellation.
 * ''AKA: Pluto;Rover. Status: Development 1971. Thrust: 867.41 kN (195,001 lbf). Gross mass: 178,321 kg (393,130 lb). Unfuelled mass: 34,019 kg (74,999 lb). Specific impulse: 825 s. Specific impulse sea level: 380 s. Burn time: 1,200 s. Height: 43.69 m (143.33 ft). Diameter: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). Span: 10.55 m (34.61 ft).
 * ''Cost $ : 226.200 million.


 * Have compared the above mainly with the NERVA article. Where I could not find anything I also tried An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program Robbins & Finger, July 1991, NASA Lewis Research Center, plus I also tried a google search. Analysis is as follows:
 * Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application - correct
 * NASA/AEC Project of the 1960's to develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. - NASA/AEC ran the project from 1958 to 1973.
 * would have been clustered in earth orbit to send manned expeditions to Mars. - the planned use included Mars, a permanent lunar base, deep space probes to Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer planets, a nuclear "tug" to take payloads from low Earth orbit (LEO) to higher orbits and as a nuclear-powered upper stage for the Saturn rocket, which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch payloads of up to 150,000 kg (340,000 lb) to LEO.
 * AKA: Pluto;Rover. - Project Pluto was a development of the nuclear ramjet and Project Rover was a predecessor of NERVA. You could say that NERVA had its origins in both, but to say AKA (also known as) is like saying that Apollo program is also known as Project Gemini or Project Mercury.
 * Status: Development 1971 - status is “Retired”. 1971 does not appear to be significant, it was in the process of being cancelled with minimal funding in 1971 and was terminated in 1973.
 * Thrust: 867.41 kN (195,001 lbf)- no idea where this information comes from. XE Prime was 246.663 kN (55,452 lbf).
 * Gross mass: 178,321 kg (393,130 lb). Unfuelled mass: 34,019 kg (74,999 lb). - again no idea where this came from. The NERVA article states XE Prime had a dry weight was 18,144 kg (40,001 lb)
 * Specific impulse: 825 s. Specific impulse sea level: 380 s. - found this one, 825 seconds was the baseline for the NERVA NRX.
 * Burn time: 1,200 s. - burn time on the article is listed as 1,680 s
 * Height: 43.69 m (143.33 ft) - XE Prime length on the article is listed as 6.9 m (23 ft)
 * Diameter: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). - XE Prime was 2.59 meters (8 ft 6 in)
 * Span: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). - no idea where this information came from.
 * Cost $ : 226.200 million. - the article lists Project Rover and NERVA budgets at $1.44B. No idea where this number came from.


 * The above analysis highlights 2 correct (15%) and 11 (85%) either questionable or inaccurate.


 * SchmiAlf, I would like to know the basis for your statement "Obviously Mark Wade's NERVA described the original concept of a (complete) nuclear engine...". There is no mention of a original concept, or any mention of what engine Mark Wade is refering to with these details. There appears to be no way of knowing where these details originated from.  The only thing "obvious" about the Nerva details on Astronautix, is that it is unreliable. Ilenart626 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned above NERVA in Wikipedia is focussed on XE Prime ground testing as stated by the description "NERVA XE PRIME" below the picture in the info box and mentioned as reference "Figures for XE Prime". XE Prime does not have a specification for gross mass because it was never designed for flight. So your thorough comparison above has no meaning at all.
 * David J. Darling quoted in https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html the same parameters as Astronautix NERVA specifications with the following comment: "By the time the NERVA program (NRX and XE-Prime) was terminated, the NERVA-2 had been designed that would have met all of the program's objectives. Two of these engines would have been fitted to a NERVA stage capable of powering a manned interplanetary spacecraft." The mechanical dimensions (10 m; 43 m) are somewhat similar to the drawings in Borowski 1991 (pp. 79-82) for a Mars mission. SchmiAlf (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * SchhmiAlf, the above is again highighting your use of your own original research and synthesis of sources to justify your arguements. Astronautix NERVA specifications make no mention of NERVA-2.  I could also say that Astronautix NERVA specifications are somewhat similar to the Starship Enterprise and it would be about as useful as your comparison.
 * It also highlights that with so many excellent sources such as David J. Darling's https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html, NASA's An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program and the 33 other sources used on the NERVA wikipedia article, why Astronautix NERVA specifications were not used.  Why use such an unreliable source when their are so many reliable alternative sources available? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily Mail being used as the subject of discussion on Sarah Jane Baker
Sarah Jane Baker is a transgender woman who transitioned in prison. The Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, two UK tabloids (the first being the most widely read newspaper in Britain, despite being unreliable enough to have its own shortlink, WP:DAILYMAIL, saying we can't use it as a source except in rare cases, and the second not much better), both wrote big articles that she did this at UK government expense. This was untrue; in fact it was so untrue that Baker, who was refused surgical transition by the government, out of desperation castrated herself with a razor blade four years after the false articles.

Yet the episode of the tabloids writing falsehoods about her transition is notable enough to mention; the Independent writes about them. I included a link to the actual DM articles in our article; I added a comment in our article text that these articles are not being used as sources for facts, they are the subject of the discussion; I added an entry in the article talk page FAQ (Talk:Sarah Jane Baker/FAQ) which says that is specifically what is called out in WP:DAILYMAIL as "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." User:David Gerard deleted the Daily Mail link anyway, saying "A talk page agreement cannot override a general consensus at RFC", by which, he presumably means the RFC that established WP:DAILYMAIL, which was held here. So even though this isn't about using the Daily Mail as a reliable source, this is the best place I thought of to go (since it is about the WP:DAILYMAIL rule, and since David Gerard says he won't respect any agreements made on the article talk page). So, can we link to a Daily Mail article when it is the subject of the discussion? Is this what WP:DAILYMAIL means by "may be used in rare cases" or isn't it? --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short answer is no. Never use the Daily Mail as a source in a BLP. If I understand the dispute here: (1) The Daily Mail published something that was false (2) other, reliable publications, published that the Daily Mail published something that was false (3) Can I link to the false article at the Daily Mail that other publications say is false?. No. Moreover, if every reliable source on the planet tomorrow had the same full-page headline THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED SOMETHING FALSE we still wouldn't link to the story at the Daily Mail, under WP:NOTNEWS because it would he same as if they all had the same full-page headline SUN RISES THIS MORNING. Banks Irk (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Banks Irk, I kinda doubt "the Daily Mail is full of shit, look what they did now" would really qualify as WP:ROUTINE like an announcement saying it's Christmas. It's possible I'm wrong, but it seems different to me.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>While it may be obvious for us, it's probably not a universally known fact that the Daily Mail is full of shit. And if some particular thing they wrote is bad enough for independent reliable sources to report on it, why shouldn't we treat it the same as Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's blog? There may be reasons not to include a link to Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's blog either, but that would mean the reason is independent from the Daily Mail being the Daily Mail.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>The outcome here could still be we shouldn't link, but the actual reason would probably be something else like being highly cautious because it's a BLP or actively denying the Daily Mail any possible rise in search engine rankings.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Side note: if all the major independent reliable sources had the same full-page headline "Sun rises this morning", and that headline is not a routine thing, I suspect our policy maybe allows an article like "Sunrise of 1 November 2023". But we wouldn't write any such article based on the weather section of those newspapers which is routine.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698779515739:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You do have a valid point. If there were enough notability, one might consider whether something like this merited inclusion in the long list at Daily Mail, where articles criticizing the Daily Mail are linked, but not the Daily Mail stories themselves. That would be the appropriate pattern here, but I question whether even the criticisms are warranted in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Context: GRuban wrote the "FAQ" they're citing here - not the product of talk page discussion but something they just wrote themselves a few days ago - then linked it at the top of the talk page as if it were a list of settled matters, then referenced it in a comment restoring the Daily Mail. I objected that a talk page can't establish a local consensus against a broad general RFC consensus, especially when their own document emphasises that the Mail story is a tissue of lies of a quality that would be unacceptable to use in a BLP. Anyway, the fact of the Mail's lies is IMO more than sufficiently described in the RSes - linking the potentially defamatory document in article space doesn't actually add anything - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The subpage "FAQ" is not a talkpage discussion, and frankly, it probably should be deleted or moved to their own page. I even question whether it is appropriate in a RSN BLP to even include the story debunking DM under WP:DUE among other policies and guidelines. But that is not a RS issue. Banks Irk (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Banks Irk, I even question whether it is appropriate in a RSN to even include the story Did you mean BLP here? From what I understand, WP:DUE doesn't apply to WP:RSN.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698780021020:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I meant BLP not RSN. A combination of too many acronyms and the fact that my fingers are not to be trusted in the near vicinity of a keyboard. Banks Irk (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need for the Daily Mail article and it shouldn't be restored. There been multiple discusions and RFCs about the source, unless it's specifically an ABOUTSELF statement (which this isn't) it shouldn't be used. As an aside referencing isn't a place to add "See also" material to external sites. This is the purpose of the External links section, and the Daily Mail would probably fail WP:ELNO. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also note that David Gerard isn't the first editor to remove this with the talk page FAQ being used to restore it. Talk pages cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because they've pulled things like this before, you'd probably want to link an independent archive (like a Wayback Machine capture) of the original article even if you were to link the article for some reason. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's how we link it on e.g. (Almost) Straight Outta Compton - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think people forget that one of the reason that the Daily Mail was deprecated is that they lie about their own content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history, the Daily Mail was being used as a reference, which it absolutely should not be. I could see an argument for it being included in External Links or See Also with the appropriate context but definitely not as a reference. Loki (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Well, that's a pretty clear answer: looks like David Gerard had it right. Thank you folks, I appreciate your time. --GRuban (talk)
 * My first inclination here was that because the DM article itself was the subject of discussion from other RSes (in here, how the DM pushed this lie) that a link to the offending article would be reasonable so that the curious could see this article. But I can also see the logic to keep it out, and the fact that the RSes covering that article link to it as well. This is a rare but not exceptional case where what an non-RS has published soarks a controversy covered by RSes (Pizzagate, Alec Jones, Fox News, etc.) Perhaps we need to say not when we have broadly prohibited a source that even In such cases, linking to the source is not appropriate and to rely on the linkages provided by RSes. M asem (t) 13:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem, soarks a controversy What does "soarks" mean? While I can infer from context, I can't find it in the dictionary. Maybe a typo for "soars", but on qwerty the K is on the other side of the keyboard.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698847384870:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One letter typo from 'sparks'. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, meant sparks. Typing off phone. M asem (t) 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Self-published book by subject's son being used as a source on Joseph McGinley
I have marked this source as unreliable, since Google books lists the book as self-published (although the National Library of Ireland (NLI) lists it as published by "An Crann" in Leitirceannain (Letterkenny). (The only reference I can find to anything call "An Crann" in Letterkenny is this NLI record about a local journal / serial. There is an ongoing discussion about the matter between mysefl and. (The discussion has been held on our respective user talk pages, but I have now copied the entire thread to Talk:Joseph McGinley to promote centralized discussion.) Rockypopod and I are in disagreement about the reliability of this source. I'd ask readers of this noticeboard to weigh in on the matter. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Source:
 * 2) Article: Joseph McGinley
 * 3) Content: The book is being used to cite facts about McGinley's personal life ("he was awarded the gold medal for surgery") and about his involvement in the Irish War of Independence.
 * Pretty much completely unusable. I can't come up with a scenario in which this sort of source would be usable on anything other than the author's page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I find two books written by Mac Fhiongaile. This one, and "Donegal, Ireland and the First World War" - which is described as a series of biographies of local persons during the war. These are also the only two books I can find that are shown as published by An Crann by any source, and other sources list the publisher as Mac Fhiongaile himself. It is fair to conclude that the books are self-published, and I do not think that its use in the article falls within any of the permitted uses of a SPS. There is nothing to qualify him as a subject matter expert. I would note that the O'Duibhir book used as a reference cites Mac Fhiongaile as a source. That doesn't disqualify O'Duibhir, but it also doesn't make Mac Fhiongaile an expert. Banks Irk (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if they were a SME its hard to imagine many use cases that wouldn't count as unduly self serving. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bold facts from an American missionary
Hi all. Sorry to bother you all again, but this reliable sources stuff is really confusing for me. I was reading the | North Korean section on Genocides in History and nearly all the citations are from Robert Park (activist). Honestly the journals are mainstream and seem reliable enough. I just feel like the page text requires attribution as it's not from a scholar or journalist.

The sentence that gets me in particular is this one:

"North Korea's Christian population, which was considered to be the center of Christianity in East Asia in 1945 and included 25–30% of the inhabitants of Pyongyang, has been systematically massacred and persecuted; as of 2012, 50,000–70,000 Christians were imprisoned in North Korea's concentration camps."

Thoughts? Is attribution or removal fair? Thanks so much.Stix1776 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does he seem reliable enough? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. I thought perhaps that he's a Christian activist, not a journalist or academic, he'd require attribution.Stix1776 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh I misunderstood, I th0ught you were saying he seems reliable enough. I am unsure he is, and inclusion may thus be undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Status of Polygraph.info
A question, what is the status of the site Polygraph.Info?
 * About this project page indicates "Polygraph.info is a fact-checking website produced by Voice of America (VOA)​. The website serves as a resource for verifying the increasing volume of disinformation and misinformation being distributed and shared globally."
 * As an outlet it appears to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V including correcting information when needed and providing a straightforward contact form.
 * MediaBiasFactCheck indicates "we rate Polygraph.Info Least Biased on a left-right scale but pro-USA on a national interest scale (Propaganda). We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record."
 * Wikipedia policy for the parent says "Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government."

I ask because I found a rant by user Polymathes2357 and a couple of other users who seem to have anti-America or pro-Russia axes to grind. Looking at Philomathes2357's other writing it appears she has an anti-America viewpoint and specifically targets outlets she deems connected to America while pushing for wikipedia to include anti-America outlets known for fabrications and lies. Talking points that were included in the rant and subsequent replies.
 * "Why is "Polygraph.info" cited here as a source with expertise about the Russia-Ukraine war to debunk Ritter's statement? Who cares that polygraph.info wrote that Ritter is wrong about Russia winning the war? Now, in November of 2023, it's clearer than ever that Ritter was right, but that aside, why is polygraph.info reliable or due here?" (comment by Philomathes2357. It also appears that Ritter's claims are debunked by multiple other fact check outlets as well as mainstream coverage about the Russia-Ukraine war which does not indicate Russia to be "winning.")
 * "I don't know about you guys, but I don't trust Voice of America, or polygraph.info, to give an an honest and accurate assessment of the war in Ukraine. Even setting that aside, I don't really see how this is due. We can just say what the guy's opinion is on the war in Ukraine without citing VOA or anyone else to try to debunk it or provide "balance"...can't we?" (comment by Philomathes2357)
 * "The text originally said something like polygraph.info had debunked every claim Ritter ever made so I rewrote it to only mention the two claims that polygraph contested. It isn't pretty but at least it conforms to the source. Whether we should be using polygraph.info for anything is a separate question. It is run by Voice of America. You can guess the rest." (comment by Burrobert)
 * "Hello comrades. I too believe this is unreliable" and "I agree, but we need to be careful. We already snuck in a quote from consortiumnews and we don't want the capitalists to notice" (comments by Just here for the facts)

Virtually every source for the section on his Ukraine views is in a context similar to the Euronews article about disgraced US nationals being used by Russia for propaganda purposes. Based on wikipedia policies and the analysis of the fact checking reputation, I think Polygraph.info should be considered reliable sourcing. I can't square those policies with the proposal made by commenters that Scott Ritter, convicted child molester dishonorably removed from US military service, is an international expert whose views are noteworthy for inclusion on their own rather than because of being reflected in reliable news sources analyzing his position as "among the cohort of Americans courted by Russian propaganda sources" or "tankies." 129.7.0.160 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is its reputation for fact checking with other media outlets or accademics? Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will work on that to provide some more references at your request. In the meantime can you help with the formatting on this page? I don't think the Robert Park footnote showing below belongs in this section. 129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * University of Cincinnati library system puts it in the same category as other websites Wikipedia deems reliable.
 * 129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Rand Corporation sees it as reliable.
 * 129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This all semes to indicate it is an RS, which only leaves non RS objections to its use. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Polygraph is highly reliable. It's a robust fact-checking and anti-disinfo project. It's a project of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, as are Voice of America and RFE/RL, which RSP list as generally reliable, so we can assume it is as reliable as VoA.
 * Looking for use by other RSs, I find:
 * Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict notice and saw that a comment was removed here by MrOllie accusing the user who wrote it of being a sock. I read what the user wrote and I don't find anything that would justify calling them a sock. The accusations that were made are unjustifiable but I think it's a valid concern that Philomathes2357 removed Polygraph content from Scott Ritter, claiming that the talk page discussion justified doing so, when both that talk page discussion and this discussion show a consensus against the removal. I've restored that content for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USNavelObservatory (talk • contribs)

Can we not discus user conduct here? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A banned editor has been harrassing Philomathes2357 for weeks, on this and other pages. We should just WP:RBI, not assist the sock. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources on The Amazing Digital Circus
Hello! Could someone take a look at the remaining sources on The Amazing Digital Circus and determine if they're reliable? I've already removed WP:KNOWYOURMEME and WP:FORBESCON sources, however i Don't have much experience in determining source reliability so I'm asking here for some assistance. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * HITC, they have a page about their fact-checking process. However, I find that they often publish low-quality articles.
 * A random example from the front page:, in which it quotes random internet users. I would say is marginally reliable, because I did see some limited use by others.
 * The Mary Sue – reliable per WP:RSP. Should be perfectly fine for an uncontroversial stuff. However, The article is also quite bare bones and provides no significant commentary.
 * Cartoon Brew - Same as Mary Sue, they
 * In The Know - It is published by Yahoo, a reliable source.
 * Comics Beat has a sizable editorial team, and an reputable reviewer Heidi MacDonald is editor-in-chief. Should at least be reliable for reviews.
 * Nichegamer, redundant, since all its information is duplicated by other sources.
 * Ca talk to me! 09:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should rethink the Know Your Meme source. The byline is by Zach Sweat who appears to be a reliable staff member on the site so the content isn't "user generated." I think it's reliable and usable. USNavelObservatory (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I"m currently discussing it with another user. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Where? USNavelObservatory (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On my talk page. But I'll open a topic about KYM staff articles here soon. Skyshifter   talk  15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Niche Gamer is considered unreliable per WP:VG/S, if it's redundant I think it's best to remove it. Also not gonna lie but The Mary Sue seemed very strange with its last The Amazing Digital Circus articles. Other than the one already cited, they wrote like 4 articles in the span of two days, and many of them are just repeating information or have low encyclopedic value. Skyshifter  talk  15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Who would've thought VG/S would be useful in determining reliability of a source for an article on a webseries (albeit the webseries is technically about a game so) ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 19:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it is definitely unreliable, but if VG says it is unreliable, it's something to consider. Skyshifter   talk  19:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would trust what WP:VG says. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 20:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Valley View Center
Some assistance at Valley View Center would be great. A discussion at Talk:Valley View Center seemed to indicate that a reliable source was needed to support inclusion of an "in popular culture" addition (I felt that even with a reliable source, it was still trivial and out-of-scope). Now there is an edit war about whether this source is reliable (it's a Wiki). A few more eyes on this would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've answered the question yourself. TVTropes is a Wiki, so it is user-generated content, and is not a reliable source either for content or for notability. Banks Irk (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a cry for help, at a board noted for its levelheadedness. There is a determined group of editors insistent on adding that cruft to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. TV Tropes is listed as Unreliable USG at WP:RSP, so you can point them to that. No need to make them believe you or me. Banks Irk (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page, neither the wiki or a primary source is acceptable in a "In Popular Culture" section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Libero (newspaper) a reliable source?
Yesterday at Italy–Russia relations I stumbled upon the Italian diplomacy failed to provide valid support to resolve the crisis with Ukraine and failed to avoid aggression against Ukraine. I checked the source, which is a 2022 article by Libero quoting the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov about the shortcomings of Italian and Western diplomacy. I removed the content mentioning that "Libero is a biased and/or unreliable source, which should not be used for any kind of controversial or sensitive political assessment". I then noticed that Libero has never been the subject of community scrutiny at RS/N and that it is currently cited in 65 WP articles (mostly to support purely factual and not controversial content).

Libero is most famous for its shocking headlines, e.g. "Islamic bastards" (following the November 2015 Paris attacks), "After misery, they bring disease" ("they" refers to migrants), "More potatoes, less mimosas" (on the International Women's Day, which in Italy is celebrated with mimosas; "potatoes" here means pussy), "Matteo Renzi and Maria Elena Boschi don't fuck", and in 2019 also "Revenues and GDP decrease, but gays increase". The 2017 headline "Hot potato" (which in Italian also means "Hot pussy") earned the directors of Libero Vittorio Feltri and Pietro Senaldi a conviction for libel against the mayor of Rome Virginia Raggi. While WP:HEADLINES provides us some protection against all this, IMHO these headlines are indicative of poor journalistic quality, which is confirmed by a series of convictions for libel and other journalistic shortcomings (I can provide details, here some sources in Italian ). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's reliable. It's a tabloid: bigoted, sensationalist and sloppy. File somewhere close to the Daily Express - not quite as bad as Breitbart or the Daily Mail, but heading there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of Libero and its reputation; I suspect that if it was an English language publication it would have been deprecated by now. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Top Italian Scientists
Is Top Italian Scientists a reliable source? This article is relying heavily on this bio on TIS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit blogy to me also this "1 January 2023: the Wiki platform in English and Wiki in Italian is available for Top Italian Scientists with the aim of creating more complete profiles than those in Wikipedia and equally indexed by search engines. Anyone interested in having a Wiki page can request one by sending a message via the Contacts page ." causes some concern about circularity. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Their methodology also isn't great, at least the base was look at Google scholar using a browser extension. The article in particular appears to duplicate at least in part the bio from Sapienza University. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Jacobin
What is the reliability of Jacobin?
 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Previous RfC from March 2019 July 2021 can be viewed here. NoonIcarus (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 (at least) I'm starting this RfC since not long ago I found a report of the Latin American fact-checking coalition C-Informa ("Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of Chavista narratives") that describes Jacobin as one of the English-speaking outlets that republish misinformation related to Latin America, along with Declassified UK and The Canary (classified as unreliable):


 * "English-only media such as Declassified UK, Jacobin or The Canary are the vortex of a whirlwind of republications, translations and mutual quotations that multiply the dissemination of political propaganda and disinformation to millions of Latin Americans every week while disguising their true origin: propaganda organs of Russia, Cuba and Venezuela."


 * This graph should help visualize the portals that Jacobin and other outlets are linked with: Portales de la mentira.
 * In the last RfC, to demonstrate reliability concerns, I cited an open letter by around 200 Ecuadorians, including left-wing academics and activists, that criticized for republishing The Grayzone and for attacking Yaku Pérez, an ecosocialist and indigenous candidate. However, this is far from the only time where Jacobin has cited deprecated outlets with an editorial voice or has had reliability problems. For example, the article "In Latin America, the Long Shadow of Colombia’s Far-Right Is Receding" includes plenty of fringe information, including that Colombian paramilitaries were present in the 2002 coup against Chávez, that Colombia supported paramilitary incursions into Venezuela (citing a Telesur video as a source, by the way), and that the country actively sought to sabotage and promote a military intervention in Venezuela (citing the blog Aporrea, which at the same time cites Russia Today and Venezuelan state media). I'm sure that other editors will be able to provide more examples of misleading or false information for this RfC.


 * Then there are articles such as "Black Ribbon Day Is an Ahistorical, Antisemitic Fraud" ("Black Ribbon Day is also known as the Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. But this veneer of humanistic solicitude is a facade for historical distortion and antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuated by far-right movements across Eastern Europe."), or even "The Srebrenica Precedent", subject to memes ("The Srebrenica massacre, which started on this day in 1995, was a tragic event. But-"). I can already hear people pointing out to WP:OPINION, but in this cases is important to bring up positions to question the representation in article of points of view that are not held by a majority.


 * Jacobin's bias, publication of misleading or false content and its use of deprecated content means that its current assessment seriously needs to be reviewed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Bad RFC The linked prior RFC was not from 2019; it was closed in early 2022. There is no live dispute about the use of the source for a statement in any specific article at this time. I'd also note that, if you actually read the extremely long linked "report", the short quote reproduced above is the only mention of Jacobin; there is no substantive discussion of it elsewhere in the report. There is no reason to revisit the prior RFC. This should be summarily closed. Banks Irk (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The report was released some months ago, this year, and that's demonstrably not the only time it mentions The Jacobin, talking about John McEvoy (who has also worked for The Canary), his publications and republications. It would be helpful if you can offer some insight on the other examples I provided. The date I provided, however, resulted from copying a previous RfC, my apologies. I have already corrected this.
 * I should also mention that the previous close was challenged (Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384), since the assessment was moved from yellow to green; the only thing is that the review happened months after the closure, and not immediately after.
 * Over two years have passed since the last RfC was opened, and Jacobin's reliability has been questioned several times ever since, so a RfC is perfectly in order. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is simply wrong. There is no substantive discussion of Jacobin in that report whatsoever. There is a single note, in passing, that Jacobin is one of the many sites where McEvoy has his work published. There is not one word about the reliability of Jacobin itself or any article which it published by McEvoy or anyone else. Please provide us with specific examples, with links, of where there have been discussions/disputes over the use of Jacobin as a source arising since the last RFC was closed in 2022 other than the CR. Banks Irk (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, since the report's graph not only shows Jacobin's relationship with troublesome agencies (including Sputnik), but also those that have republished its unreliable content in the past. That's alright, however: as an example, one the latest disputes regarding reliability is in the National Democratic Institute (NDI), where Jacobin is used to back up the claim that the NDI played a key role in the opposition's victory in the 2015 parliamentary elections, omitting events that made the government unpopular before, such as the shortages of goods and the 2014 wave of protests. Pinging, who was alos interested about recent changes.
 * When you say CR, are you referring to closure review? At any rate, examples of questioning of the source in this noticeboard include February 2022 (, where the editor was actually invited to relitigate the RFC), May 2022 May 2023 and as recently as June 2023 . These mentions are not notifications, as I don't want to give the impression I'm unduly influencing the discussion, but anyone is free to reach out to the users to learn more about their thoughts and concerns on the matter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I was mentioned above. I don't think Jacobin is a generally good source but I don't see new evidence being presented here.  Absent new evidence a general RfC isn't warranted.  If there is a specific use then we should discuss it instead.  In general I think these blanket RfCs are a net negative for Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing new since last RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * .I'm no fan of Jacobin, especially it's whataboutism of Srebrenica, but I don't see anything that changes anything from the last RFC. WP:RSOPINION, WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG all apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. FWIW, there was also Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 407, where there was considerable debate for Jacobin for this piece, but it was started by an indef-blocked disruptive editor and was closed. Also to clarify that I have no opinion on the source itself due to unfamiliarity, and do not plan to be involved in this discussion further. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure there is anything sufficiently new here to warrant a new RfC about Jacobin in general. Although Jacobin is mentioned in the tagline of the article, it is only mentioned once after that, as a site which has published articles by McEvoy. It has in fact published just four pieces by him and does not seem to have ever used Mision Verdad as a source, so it is not a key outlet in this disinformation network. Having said that, I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. A second point is that the report NoonIcarus introduces (and reports in Spanish that it links to) evidence the unreliability of some sources not currently listed at RSP and which we may not have discussed before: Mision Verdad, the main focus of the report, is used in 4 articles; Declassified UK, another focus of the report, is used in 32 articles; TheCanary, McEvoy's main outlet, is still used in 72 articles despite being red flagged on the RSP; CiudadCCS, currently used in 12 articles, is noted as reproducing RT/Sputnik disinformation;. This linked article say Mision Verdad is used as a source by VTV, and this one says that VTV, La Iguana, Últimas Noticias and Venezuela News uses RT and Sputink as sources; we use VTV in 75 articles. I would suggest, therefore, that we should review and remove use of these outlets as sources in Wikipedia articles. We should also make sure we don't use McEvoy himself as a source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you recommend me to strike down my original statement and, instead, ask if the current RSP should be written? Part of my intention in starting this was reevaluation, as I understand it is the current only option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure. The 2022 debate about the close, initiated by Springee, doesn’t seem to have discussed the actual RSP listing as it focused on the protocol of challenging a close so maybe that’s the right course. I’m also keen that there is consensus confirmation against using other sources that use Mision Verdad, but not sure if that should be a new section on this page or keeping this section open a while. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing to the debate about the close? Where I was previously mentioned I'm having trouble finding a close review initiated by me.  I see a section at the top where I opposed the launch of a RfC based on a discussion.  Is that what we are referring to?  As a general comment that probably applies here, if the originator of this discussion thinks the RSP entry doesn't match recent consensus discussions from here that can be raised and I feel raised at any time.  If they feel the previous close was bad that probably needs to be done around the time of the close.  If they don't have any new evidence and the previous close was a good summary of the discussion at the time I don't see why we would run a new RfC. Springee (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at comment further down in this discussion, I presume this is the material you are referecing? Springee (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Bad RfC/Close per previous RfC As noted by other editors the prior RfC was from early 2022 and discussion since then was started by banned editor. Therefore I don't see that this is a live issue and it lacks WP:RFCBEFORE. Ping me if anything changes in discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 14:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note there was also the May 2023 discussion linked above, so there’s some evidence of persistent dissatisfaction with how it’s listed at RSP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I referred to that discussion started by a banned editor which was closed early as it was a malformed RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 06:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There were a few editors in good standing that felt more discussion would be welcome, i.e.,, (no ping), and there were many who voted generally unreliable. Of course, that RfC was started purely by a pointy and disruptive OP now blocked indef, so was validly closed, but many suggested a future discussion being beneficial. Overall, I doubt the need for a major RfC right now, but some input and discussion on RSN on 1) the reliability of these authors and 2) whether it's suitable for the Russo-Ukrainian War issues seems needed (of which I have no opinions on).  VickKiang   (talk)  07:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry you’re right I was getting mixed up with the May 2022 dispute of the RfC close.  BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All good. This just doesn't really seem like a live topic and hasn't had proper WP:BEFORERFC so I don't know why this is here. TarnishedPathtalk 12:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Close RfC. What has changed? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"> jp × g 🗯️</b> 10:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Springee (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't recall if Jacobin has had any RfC's since 2021. I would hope that we would have more information one way or the other since 2021 if we are going to do a RfC today.  Looking back on the May 2022 close review  I do see an issue here.  If I recall correctly (and I may not) the problem was we had a 2021 RfC that had a close I would have disputed.  However at the time the RfC was archived without being closed.  It was later closed within the archive.  Thus an editor such as myself who has the RSN on the watchlist but not RSP or any archives was unaware of the closing thus couldn't challenge the closing in a reasonable period of time.  Assuming nothing has changed since then I do think it is reasonable to either challenge the prior close as it was done off RSN or run a new RfC.  But, in either of those cases there needs to be a reason why we would rerun this.  It is reasonable to say the prior closing was done incorrectly and the proposed remedy was rerun the RfC.  The net result is we have a bit of a pickle.  The prior RfC was closed in a way that was questionable but not overturned at the time.  I would suggest the best path forward here is to see if new evidence has come out since 2021.  Create some discussion where editors can discuss any changed evidence and/or issues with the prior close.  That may create the justification for a new RfC as well as explaining why a new RfC is justified.  I will note that despite clearly opposing the last close which lead to a RSP color upgrade, I had forgotten about the prior issues and thus was opposed to yet another general RfC without a specific example or new evidence.  I still suggest closing this RfC but I think a new one may be the right answer if the justification/discussion happens first. I will note, the issues with the prior close resulted in a change to the RFC guidelines (original change, current version here ).

Academic paper and book source possibility of misuse
Journal paper and books are not a reliable source because the book publisher does not correct scientific mistakes rather mostly grammatical. academic papers are not reliable because the peer reviewers only reviews the experiment's integrity not whatever explanation or small talk is in the introduction and conclusion. yet this is what is always cited out of them (since the experiment is a primary source).

Discussion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a noticeboard to discuss the reliability of specific sources, rather than general concepts. Your question may be better suited to WT:Reliable sources which is for discussing Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" policy, as you seem to be questioning how Wikipedia defines reliable sources in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @बिनोद थारू Unless you give a specific example of a source and its possible misuse then this discussion will be closed. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree to close but I did not learn yet how to do it with the background. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliablity of LegalEagle
Is LegalEagle reliable for use in BLPs? (Further context at WP:RSN) He has claimed to be a lawyer, so I don't really see anything unreliable here.<span id="Davest3r08:1698527117607:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Davest3r08 (^ &lowbar; ^)  ( t a l k )  21:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Its entertainment. Not a subject matter expert. Not a reliable source, for BLP or otherwise. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. Unless there is something that shows he is a subject matter expert, this needs to be treated as a regular blog. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * He's definitely a qualified lawyer with a law firm. While his YouTube videos are entertaining and informative, I don't really see any circumstances that we would want to cite him as a source on a Wikipedia article, especially a BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At best he might be considered a self-published subject-matter-expert for law per WP:SPS (this would require that his work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication, ie. he's published something outside his Youtube channel.) But even if he meets that bar, he still can't be used in BLPs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. He could possibly be used for unexceptional points of law that don't relate to BLPs, or for interpretation and analysis for the law that don't relate to BLPs (though probably with attribution if it's a legal matter that there's any dispute over), but not for anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This has become tedious, and, as noted in the prior discussion, you aren't even bothering to link to the specific source, statement and article, forcing us to search back through old AFDs. This isn't a good source. I find it hard to imagine that there are any reliable sources that would establish the notability of feuds between YouTubers. Banks Irk (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In BLPs? No, definitely not, Aquillion has already quoted the relevant section and it's unambiguous. However, as he's a professional lawyer, I'd definitely consider him a subject-matter expert under WP:SPS. Loki (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of SPS would be satisfied by being a "professional lawyer"? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I see no evidence that anyone regards him as an expert,and he has zero independent publications listed. Banks Irk (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends what the claim is. Is there an example of a claim where someone wanted to use LegalEagle as a source? Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the OP has been particularly unhelpful in this regard. But if you go through the links he provided in an earlier thread, you can discover that someone wants to cite a YouTube video from this YouTubeer about whether a different YouTuber legally or illegally doxxed yet another YouTuber in a YouTuber feud. I take it that the question is whether this is a RS for the existence of the feud, as well as for the notability of the feud. Handbags at Dawn! Banks Irk (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the number and history of questions, my impression is simply asking it of every source that might be of relevance to the whole SSSniperWolf thing. (add: Though I see that will now be done on Wikipedia talk:SSSniperWolf sources overview, which is probably for the best) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * About being published by reliable independent publications, would Wired, Entertainment.ie, The Oakland Press and KTEM count to establish him as a subject matter expert?<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698585879744:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those are examples of him being published. These aren't articles that he wrote. Banks Irk (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Banks Irk, WP:SPS says "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published", not articles?<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698590525447:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Three of these are just links to his YouTube videos, and the fourth is an interview. This is not publication of his work by an independent reliable publisher. In this context, a proposed SME in law, what we would want to see is books, law review articles, articles in bar journals or similar periodicals within the scope of his expertise, that he wrote himself. Banks Irk (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. I think if a respected newsorg quoted a lawyer for their opinion, that would obviously be sufficient under WP:SPS to count them as an expert opinion elsewhere. And I know people on here do not like YouTube videos but there's nothing inherent in the medium of video that makes a source unreliable. An expert opinion delivered via video is no less an expert opinion. Loki (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is Not even wrong. Some entertainment writer posting "I like this blog" does not establish expertise and doesn't constitute independent publication of a link to the blog. This is wrong at every conceivable level. Banks Irk (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These are articles about his YouTube videos not his legal opinion being published by a third source, so they wouldn't count for the purposes of SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree (and lawyers get interviewed all the time by the press; we shouldn't open the door to those passing interviews meaning any lawyer who gets interviewed becomes an expert). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you making an ill-timed joke or is that a serious question? If serious the answer is a hard no... That does not count, has never counted, and almost certainly never will count. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye's Back, I'm not joking, I'm just not familiar with how WP:SPS typically gets interpreted. I don't see why the medium should make a difference and WP:SPS says "work" without specifying it must be written text. So a video or podcast should be able to count. When e.g. The Oakland Press embeds (not merely links) his video, I see that as The Oakland Press publishing his video. Whether embedding is different from self-hosting here I don't know, but as the end result for the visitor is the exact same I'm not sure it should matter. The video on Wired is an original video he made for Wired, so that seems like Wired publishing (and hosting, it's not embedded from YT) his work to me.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Banks Irk did provide examples of what would be expected (for which I say thanks) without mocking me (for which I also say thanks), but WP:SPS doesn't seem to require either whole books or periodicals within the scope of expertise, only "reliable, independent publications". Perhaps those requirements are documented elsewhere.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1698596784193:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Either they published it or they embedded a link to another publisher... Can't do both. Entertainment content doesn't in general count, someone who played a doctor on TV isn't a SME based on the publication of that television show and that doesn't change if the person playing a doctor is a doctor in real life. The LegalEagle is a character. They produce entertainment. Confusing the actor and the character is a mistake. "X responds to tweets" is also patently entertainment content... If somebody publishes "Kim Kardashian responds to tweets about the middle east" that doesn't mean that Kim K is now a wiki SME on the middle east. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Devin Stone is a real lawyer who has sufficient expertise to answer legal questions. If you went into his law office and asked him a question about the law, he could charge you for an answer because of that expertise. That he's publishing his expert opinions on legal matters on YouTube instead doesn't change that they are in fact expert opinions, though with the large caveat that the law is complicated and questions about legal matters do not necessarily have a single correct answer.
 * That all being said, WP:SPS says we can't use his video on Youtube for WP:BLP matters. However, if Wired has asked him to do a video on legal matters and publishes that video, we should treat that as if Wired had published that in text. I think I'd say similarly for The Oakland Press embedding his video as well, though I'm less confidant about that. Neither of those videos are about the BLP-related issue that is talking about, though, so they're still not sufficient to allow in his video about that topic. I think they're very much sufficient for counting him as an expert opinion under WP:SPS on non-BLP matters tho. They're no different from a newsorg quoting a legal expert, which would obviously count. Loki (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, these example are not even remotely sufficient to meet the standards of SME. First, some entertainment writer at a newspaper writing "Legal Eagle" posted a video about X case, with a link to a YouTube video does not establish that anyone competent recognized him a a SME in legal matters. Second, that does not constitute third party independent publication by a RS on legal matters. This argument is not serious enough to merit further discussion. I know what is required to be a subject matter expert on legal matters. See one of the hundreds of articles we have on actual experts. Yale Kamisar, for example. This guy has never written a single word/sentence/paragraph/article/book in an independent, reliable, scholarly source on legal matters. To claim he is a SME is a bad joke. Banks Irk (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in WP:SPS that says that "independent publication" means you have to publish an article in a scholarly journal. Indeed, for many types of SME that is not feasible. What about a subject matter expert on basketball? Or politics? There are no scholarly journals for either of those topics, so does it follow there can't be subject matter experts in those topics? Loki (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) Being a subject matter expert on law, or physics or engineering or medicine or rocket surgery is a very different matter than being a subject matter expert on basketball...or politics. And, even so, subject matter experts on basketball (i) have independent, qualified, reliable sources identifying them as SMEs and (ii) have written articles and books published by reliable, independent publishers on the subject matter of their expertise. This guy has neither. This is not a close question. Banks Irk (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point in general and asked something similar a while back. I think the critical part is context and what facts are being used.  As an example, I would be far more inclined to accept Burt Rutan's opinion on why a particular airplane was very efficient or Ralph Firman's opinion on how racecar suspension functions vs the views published in popular automotive press.  But I think when we use such SPS would depend greatly on what claim is being supported.  It's deep in context matters. Springee (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, using LegalEagle as he is a SPS and just being a lawyer isn't sufficient to establish that he is a subject matter expert nor that his opinion is DUE. Consider that his credentials are little more than we know he is a lawyer and he is on youtube.  There are a large number of other lawyers on youtube.  How would we decide which ones are reliable and which aren't?  Would we limit it to lawyers like Alan Dershowitz who is very notable for is work outside of youtube?  Perhaps in cases where the person is well known outside of their youtube channel a case can be made but then in what context?  In general I don't think the answer should be a solid "no" but I do think the standard has to be much higher than just "is lawyer, has youtube channel".  That seems little different than "is lawyer, has blog".  I think the case would be much stronger if the question were about a SPS from say the dean of a well known law school talking about a particular legal question where they are a known expert (extensive publications on the topic, acknowledged by others in the field) then I would be more inclined to use their perspective. Springee (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I see some arguments along the lines of "this guy doesn't write law review articles, he posts videos; it's the same thing, just in a different medium." No, it's not. I could start a blog. That wouldn't make me a SME. I am a SME in real life, with independently published books and articles in scholarly journals in the area of my expertise and third party publications recognizing me as an expert in my field. Those things are what establish me as a SME, not having a Vlog. Banks Irk (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my argument is not that a self-published video is the same thing as a law review article, and I explicitly do not think that. It's that having published a law review article is not necessary to establish that a lawyer is an expert on the law. All lawyers are experts on the law, that's what the law degree means. Loki (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The videos contain disclaimers that his videos are not legal opinion/advice. Someone else publishing his personal opinions might make him a subject matter expert of his personal opinions for the purposes of SPS, but nothing else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Loki, that argument is simply wrong. Having a law degree does not make one a subject-matter expert on the law, as others have repeatedly pointed out above.Banks Irk (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All lawyers are experts on the law: even granting that, their self-published material is not a reliable WP:EXPERTSPS until they meet the criteria set forth in our verifiability policy, which is that their work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. A law review article isn't necessarily the only way to achieve that (e.g. a book published by an academic press would also clearly count) but simply having a law degree is not sufficient. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are confusing a wikipedia term of art and the colloquial use of expert, you need to stop doing that immediately. Its just as disruptive as the people who confuse NPOV the wikipedia term of art and the colloquial use of neutral point of view, that disruption can not be allowed to persist. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to politely suggest to you that you don't need to be the fourth person to say this same thing to me, and especially that you don't need to say it with this level of apparent urgency.
 * Also, while I recognize the consensus appears to be against me in this discussion, I disagree that it's a term of art the same way WP:NPOV is. WP:NPOV defines itself at length to not be a single neutral point of view. WP:EXPERTSPS does not similarly define "expert" (apart from the publication requirement), and therefore what "expert" means in this context is, more-or-less, the same thing it means anywhere else. Loki (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to still not to understand what anyone has told you. Why does it need to define it apart from the publication requirement? The publication requirement is the definition and is what expert means in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it's not, and an example is going to make this pretty obvious.
 * There is an influential physics paper that has a cat as its co-author. If the publication requirement is the definition of a subject matter expert, is this cat a subject matter expert in quantum physics? Loki (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That only shows that the cat has been published, you would also separately have to argue that the cat was a subject matter expert. WP:SPS has two requirements, you have to be both a subject matter expert and previously published by reliable independent sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and that's exactly what I'm arguing. Loki (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One sentence, two parts Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert which the cat would fail, and whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications which many subject matter experts fail. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing that the cat is a subject matter expert? You? Someone actually has to make the argument in order to consider the question. Presumably a competent editor is capable of identifying a joke or sentimental statement (as when a pet, geographic location, or long dead figure is credited), but perhaps I am mistaken about that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who's arguing for it? You, apparently. The point I'm making here is that clearly Wikipedia has a concept of "subject-matter expert" that is separate from "published a paper", such that not everyone who has published a paper is necessarily a subject-matter expert.
 * There are other less clear cases, where someone who is not really an expert but in a less obvious way than a cat gets included as an author of a paper. So for instance, there's been cases where a high school student published a peer reviewed academic paper. While it's reasonable to cite Fried's paper regarding the specific historical dispute in question, I don't think anyone would consider her a "subject-matter expert" generally. Loki (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But the cat's work was not actually published and no competent editor would argue that it was. It is humor or sentiment, not a serious indication that the cat is a true author of the article. The high school student might actually count, we don't discriminate based on age as far as I am aware nor do we require earned degrees. If an 18 year old was sufficiently published (one does not get you over that plural S after all) it would in fact be reasonable to treat them as a SME for wiki purposes. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of counting an unaccredited high school student as a subject-matter expert in history is absurd, and that your idea of what a subject-matter expert means is obviously incorrect. But this is no longer relevant to the topic at hand (as if it ever was) so let's drop it. Loki (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is or is not a subject matter expert is always going to be a somewhat objective point, but unless they have been published by other reliable independent sources they are not a reliable source. The being published part doesn't make them a subject matter expert, it's a requirement that self-published SMEs must also pass. The point is if other reliable sources consider them an expert then so does Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Loki (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So if they had a degree at 18 you wouldn't have a problem with it? So its the degree which makes the expert for you? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the expertise that makes the expert, but the degree is a pretty strong signal.
 * What exactly constitutes a subject matter expert is going to be different for different situations. I mostly just object to the idea that "subject-matter expert" means "published a paper in an academic journal". There's lots of subjects where that isn't a reasonable expectation of SMEs (say, sports), and others where that sets too low of a bar. Loki (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

British Comedy Guide
Would the website British Comedy guide be considered a reliable source?

I found it being used on Jonathon Morris as a source for a role in a TV show he was in, however the about us section on British Comedy Guide says this "We have guides to thousands of TV, radio and film comedies - and documentaries about them. The largest database of its kind, it's lovingly curated by hand and includes plenty of information you won't find anywhere else.".

To me that makes the British Comedy Guide feel like IMDB which is not a reliable source. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * One of the issue with IMDb is that it is in part user generated content, that doesn't appear to be an issue with British Comedy Guide. You can request corrections but not make them yourself.
 * Although the about us page says British Comedy Guide - BCG - is a fan-run website, it does go to discuss it's ownership and staff. I think the "fan-run" comment is a bit of marketing speak.<Br>
 * The advertise with us page discusses "Feature content" (advertorials), and I don't see whether they are marked as such or not. I suggest care be taken with any interview or preview articles.
 * Although I can find a few books making note of the site I can only find one academic source using it as a reference.
 * For anyone interested there about 2,500 pages that currently use the source.
 * It's a bit of a mixed bag, but for it's use in Jonathon Morris (series and episode details) it's probably reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement about the prior comment. The short recaps are not obviously user supplied like IMDB, though they do look suspiciously similar. Given the sourcing on the article, this one sticks out like a sore thumb, but it's probably OK. If there is a real concern, there are probably alternate sources. Banks Irk (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Northern Transmissions (again)
There is this source I want to use for The 8G Band (I cannot link it here). Considering that it's an interview, it shouldn't be a controversial source, but I found out that this source was apparently blocked due to spam over 10 years ago. Per this stale discussion last year, the site seems to be a decent source for independent music and interviews. The site has articles written by notable journalists (I think), which have been listed in the aforementioned discussion. Should this source be unblacklisted? Spinixster  (chat!)  02:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding much to like about this site. The lack of a masthead, author bios, and editorial policies are red flags. I opened a dozen or so articles and none of the authors had any journalism education or experience that I could find by googling. If they do run articles by professional music journalists, they're evidently rare. Personally, I don't see why we'd remove a site from the spam blacklist simply to get some amateur primary sources like interviews. (Some might say "but they're only interviews"—and I'd argue that interviewing isn't easy. It requires a great deal of research and fact-checking and some people are just bad at it.) Perhaps we could whitelist the specific interview if it was done by a recognized expert? Woodroar (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree; there's nothing that would inspire confidence in its reliability. It's mostly just a compilation of press releases. Not a reliable, independent source. Banks Irk (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Anthroposophy
Source: https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Usage of the source: see Talk:Anthroposophy.

Question: does it fail WP:FRIND?

Joaquin Muñoz: I don't have a smoking gun, but by the way he uses the word "we" seems like a Waldorf education insider. See: https://issuu.com/anthrousa/docs/bh22-web/s/10838439. More eyes needed. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Objective peer reviewed research published independent sources, there are many more of these: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184
 * There are over 3000 Waldorf schools in major cities around the world:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Objective? The author Attfield is trustee of a Waldorf school.
 * There are over 3000 Waldorf schools What is this, an attempt at argumentum ad populum? Does not work here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional research recognized and published by independent journals and publishers: how do these overall not meet WP/FRIND ?
 * https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/8nyN7QDpx6JYdh4VvYsPBHN/
 * https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej432784
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15507394.2017.1294400
 * H. A. Alexander, Reclaiming Goodness: Education and the Spiritual Quest (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); D. E. Hall, A. M. Catanzaro, O. Harrison, and H.G. Koenig SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Another source
Source: https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069

Usage of the source: see Talk:Anthroposophy.

Question: does it fail WP:FRIND?

Seems like a thoroughly Anthroposophic writing, just read its summary (who else would make such arguments about applying the "social tripartition"?). tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hm, so these are all published via independent reliable journal sources - on a call here, but these should meet the standards listed via WP/FRIND hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Reason: most mainstream academics have never heard of the Steinerian social tripartition, and most of those who have heard of it, consider it antidemocratic hogwash.
 * "On the anti-democratic aspects of Steiner’s conception of politics see Zander, Anthroposophie in Deutschland, 1314-21 and 1695-96." https://social-ecology.org/wp/2009/01/rudolf-steiner%E2%80%99s-threefold-commonwealth-and-alternative-economic-thought/
 * Another WP:RS: tgeorgescu (talk)  16:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Steiner's writings are clearly focused on political 'equality' eg one person one vote, as the C&H piece outlines. He was run out of Germany by the early 1920's by Adolf Hitler himself, who personally ordered his Nazi followers to 'wage war on Steiner' - he died soon thereafter. Though some fascists later attempted to leverage some of his ideas many years after his death, he was clearly and obviously anti-fascist, plus attacked and persecuted by the fascists of his time:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, it does not work like that. I have two mainstream academic sources against one hearsay rendered by a journalist. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have cited two academics, a journalist, and two additional Google Scholar Links. Steiner advocated for sustainable 'democracy' based on 'political equality' eg one person one vote - he was run out of Germany by the fascists and died soon thereafter in Switzerland. Some of the fascists would much later on attempt to leverage some of his ideas to further their control and anti-human agenda - for additional info, please see below:
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-7500-3_12
 * https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o-c4DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=rudolf+steiner+political+equality+democracy&ots=S6A0G1fjE_&sig=KXR3Rl_XHZ8O7Z_sskbODZZEAEs#v=onepage&q=rudolf%20steiner%20political%20equality%20democracy&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dpG6CrEzrysC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=rudolf+steiner+political+equality+democracy&ots=D9kF2tCPTB&sig=OtPMY9yoCecDYFS7iTHySZI_M7E#v=onepage&q&f=false SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Therefore facilitating NPOV, with independent sources.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the guideline WP:FRINGE, vote with your feet. We don't need your help. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The extensive range of sources posted above pass Wikipedia's standards for 'notability', 'parity', 'independence' and attribution etc as stated on the WP/Fringe page you cite, so they meet the guidelines needed for inclusion in the article.
 * Do you deny this, and on what grounds? Which articles specifically should not be included? We can pull the Attfield article, and then include the other five independent sources on Waldorf education for example, if you prefer. SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You never seem to get the point: and  are WP:FRINGE sources, so they cannot count as WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk)  17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so how about these sources then as an initial preview:
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-7500-3_12 https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/8nyN7QDpx6JYdh4VvYsPBHN/
 * https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej432784 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15507394.2017.1294400
 * H. A. Alexander, Reclaiming Goodness: Education and the Spiritual Quest (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); D. E. Hall, A. M. Catanzaro, O. Harrison, and H.G. Koenig (UTC https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184 https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yhttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.htm
 * SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are defending WP:FRINGE sources with more WP:FRINGE sources. I'm speaking seriously: don't waste our time, take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two Google scholar links as you've requested, the other ten links do very much appear to meet the WP/Fringe page's standards for 'notability', 'parity', 'independence' etc and attribution. Do you contest this for any specific link, of the ten links? And on what grounds? SamwiseGSix (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that all advice I gave you was in bad faith: you will get blocked really soon. It's unavoidable if you don't change course. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just seeing this message hm - but on what grounds would you be able to block? I am simply bringing independent, neutral, notable and verifiable source to help improve NPOV here right, are there any specific policies you're concerned I'm not properly adhering to here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a bad choice of words. The point is, nevertheless: I did not feed you false information about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia, and you are expected to learn something from what experienced editors tell you about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At least on this page, your "explanation" seems to be repeatedly saying WP:FRINGE without explaining how that applies. Samwise appears to be trying to address the concerns in that guideline, by trying to bring up reliable sources that might show the material reaches the "significant-minority view" that said guideline calls for. It may that his sources don't reach that level of reliability (although he is now citing university press material and the NYT, we're not talking Joe's Real Truths Publishing here) or significance, but that is not something that can be stated without explanation. His seeking to comply or at least understand is not well responded to by telling him to "take his business elsewhere". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did try for several days to explain them the rules. Through WP:REHASH my patience got exhausted. First I told them not to engage in offtopic discourse about materialism. Then I had to tell them not to engage in offtopic discourse about existentialism. Then I had to tell them not to engage in offtopic discourse about existential risk and the future of mankind. And they cited approximately the same sources over and over.
 * They talked about materialism, then they talked about existentialism, then they talked about Stoicism, then they talked about Aquinas (I told them I will give them a level 4 warning if they continue to push Aquinas), then they told that the reason for accepting their edits is about existential risk and the future of mankind&mdash;while none of these issues had anything to do with editing the article they were supposed to discuss.
 * And my understanding is that, regardless of sources, Wikipedia never renders fringe POVs without explicitly stating these are fringe POVs. We could have sources which passed through peer-review in bona fide journals, but if these sources endorse fringe POVs, we never trust them. E.g. when WP:BESTSOURCES say it's quackery, it's quackery regardless of any other WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I recall Cosmos and History from its having published Christopher Langan and his nonsensical "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" . I do not think it has any standards to speak of. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What are these sources being used for? Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I really do know better than to comment, but I will anyway.
 * -The first question relates to a PhD thesis. Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP those can be used as sources, with limitations. First, they are often primary sources, which is what I would conclude about this one based on the abstract. Second, they probably should not be used unless they are cited by other independent, scholarly sources. Given how recent this one is, it doesn't surprise me that I don't find that it has been. For those reasons, and because the author clearly is connected to the subject, I don't think it would pass WP:FRIND.
 * -The second one appears to be published in an independent peer-reviewed scholarly journal. I don't see any obvious connection to the movement/philosophy in the journal senior editors themselves (maybe I'm missing something). If I'm correct about that, I don't see any issue under WP:FRIND of using that source, even if the author is connected to the subject (which I assume to be the case).
 * -I'm not going to comment on those myriad of sources that came up after this went off the rails, and this is the last I'll comment in this particular discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Decolonial Atlas
I am submitting this RfC to discuss the inclusion of the Decolonial Atlas as a reliable source on relevant Wikipedia pages.

New research has at long last brought accurate information about many Indigenous place names of North American cities to the public. Misinformation about these names is widespread, so the Decolonial Atlas spent 9 years consulting with hundreds of primary sources - tribal language programs and elders (all of whom are cited) - to accurately document place names for major cities and historical sites. These names are mostly unknown beyond Indigenous communities. Many are being shared publicly for the first time.

Multiple Wikipedia editors have said that their edits to add this information to their respective Wikipedia pages keep getting rejected for citing a blog or free web host. The Decolonial Atlas is hosted on a free WordPress website.

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.

The Decolonial Atlas has been engaged in this work for a decade. Its expertise has been recognized by the BBC World News, Brown University, the University of Maine, the New York Map Society, and more. The project is cited in 161 academic articles according to Google Scholar.

FISHERCAT5751 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello FISHERCAT5751. Suitability of a source is affected by several things....a few of them are wiki-wide standards the specifics of the each particular use....I.E case-by-case basis.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This can be raised at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Senorangel (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend the nominator or an administrator to procedurally close this RfC and move it to RSN, which is the more appropriate venue for these discussions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Also agree this should be procedurally closed and moved to WP:RSN, since the RfC question pertains to relevant Wikipedia pages, and this is a specific article. I think it would also be helpful to provide examples at RSN of where Decolonial Atlas is being used as a source.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 08:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarification re: provide examples at RSN of where Decolonial Atlas is being used as a source, or how and where it could be used as a source.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 02:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a blog, so it is a SPS. The blog's author, Jordan Engel, is a cartographer, not a historian or a linquist. (Or for that matter, botanist, as will become relevant below) According to the website, he's basically crowdsourced the placenames that he is using in his maps. I see at least one complaint on the website that he has violated other person's copyrighted maps in developing his own, though I am in no position to judge if that is a legitimate complaint or not. There are certainly a number of instances where is work has been covered in other media, but that goes to notability rather than expertise. I don't see any indication that he has been independently published within his supposed expertise. I think he fails SME at both the expertise and publication test levels. So, I do not think that this is a reliable source.

Moreover, getting to the substance of the question that was originally posted, the Native American placename for Atlanta, the source says: "'Atlanta, GA Pvkvn-Huere “Standing peach [Prunus spp.]” in Muscogee. Refers to a precolonial village at the confluence of Peachtree Creek and the Chattahoochee River. Peach might refer to “Indian peach” rather than the non-native Prunus persica.'" The problem is, not only is there no Prunus persica in precolonial North American (see Peach), there is also no such thing as "Indian peach" in precolonial North America; an Indian Peach is also a variety of the Prunus Persica imported during colonization. While there were claims of a precolonial "Indian peach", the origin is undoubtedly importation from Spain. . (See List_of_food_plants_native_to_the_Americas) So, the purported precolonial placename is almost certainly wrong. Banks Irk (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion concerning the reliability of this publication. However, Prunus persica, imported by the Spanish to the Americas, was adopted by Indian tribes as a crop very early and grown extensively. Peaches were grown by Indians from New Mexico to the East Coast in the 17th century, long before white settlement in many areas.  So an Indian town called "Peachtown" on the site of Atlanta is in fact credible. Maybe I'll get around to adding that to the Wikipedia article on peaches. Smallchief (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct about that, and my statement above was imprecise. It is definitely possible that there were peaches in the area of Native American settlements prior to the founding of Atlanta. Another interesting article on that point, calling peaches "America's first invasive species". What I should have said was that the cited passage is wrong on its face that the "Indian peach" is possibly a precolonial indigenous plant different from the imported species. If it has that fact wrong, why should we have confidence in other things stated in this blog?  Banks Irk (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding urls under https://www.bitdegree.org/crypto/news to the Reliable source list.
Unlike other cryptocurrency focused news outlets that are banned as promotional, and in addition to produce educational contents, it claims to produce fact checked articles under it s news section. And indeed as a result, while it still talk about some news the general purpose/non specialized press don t talk about, a lot of informations in cryptocurrencies that can be found elsewhere can t be found on Bitdegree. I understand most sections of the website can t be trusted as reliable and that the huge number of banners doesn t inspire trusts but urls under https://www.bitdegree.org/crypto/news seems to be possible to be trustfull while the remaining of https://bitdegre.org should be untrusted.

My aim would be to use it as source of events such as sourcing the amount of money from a hack or an attack was technically thwarted later or recovered. 130.190.51.103 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not reliable and contributors have may have COI and the site sells NFT certificates and NFT-gated courses  If they sell NFTs thats a COI
 * a lot of informations in cryptocurrencies that can be found elsewhere can t be found on Bitdegree No reason to trust and it has less information. Find other sources Softlem (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Again, I m not talking about the site and the articles on it in general. But urls under https://www.bitdegree.org/crypto/news which seems to be managed differently (with fact checking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.190.51.103 (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Softlem. There is no description of editorial policy, as the "fact check" note by some stories is an inadequate editorial process; the contributors are not journalists and are providing self-promotional content about their own businesses; and the site itself is selling products and services. This is not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments by Softlem and Banks Irk, find a different source. Also the WP:RSP list is only for sources that have been regularly questioned, it is not a list of all sources. Many reliable sources won't appear on it as they have never been questioned, and many unreliable sources won't appear as no-one has ever tried to claim they are reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources inside a country about its own institutions vs. sources outside
This was discussed here, and I was wondering, wouldn't the former be inherently less reliable on objectivity about itself, kind of similar to having primary sources/personal sites? Wouldn't external sources have a better chance at being objective about countries they don't reside in? Not sure if this was ever discussed before, here, or any guidelines ever agreed upon... 92.18.127.206 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case (description of some political party as far-right), it depends on depth of coverage. Passing mention in some foreign reliable source probably is not as strong source as eg. substantial coverage in domestic reliable source, or in some scholarly work. Sometimes, labels like "far-right" are applied quite liberaly. If that political party has its own newspaper, that would be close to about self like you wrote, but that is not the case here. Pavlor (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to answer that question in the abstract. A WP:NEWSORG is subject to the same considerations when evaluating a source regardless of what country it is from and what country it is reporting on. A prominent national newspaper with an extensive international bureau is likely to be just as reliable on a foreign story as its counterpart in that other country on the same story, and perhaps more reliable than a small local newspaper. We'd need an example of what source for what statement in what source is being proposed for use in what context to answer the question. Banks Irk (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Forbes Contributor

 * Page: LastPass (a password management tool)
 * Content: "In February 2021, in response to LastPass limiting its free tier to one type of device, Barry Collins of Forbes called the change a "bait and switch" that makes free accounts "much less useful than they used to be" that "ruins" the free tier.[31]"
 * Citation: Forbes Contributor
 * Reference: WP:FORBESCON
 * COI Disclosure: I work for LastPass

I've disclosed my COI and asked to remove what I see as a highly editorialized statement cited to a guest blogger pursuant to WP:FORBESCON. Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "Senior Contributors" at Forbes have "minimal editorial oversight, and [are] generally unreliable." I understand I have a COI and may be bias. Please let me know if I am mis-interpreting the rule for Forbes contributors. Thanks in advance for your help. AmyMarchiando (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutley not. FORBESCON is absolutly not reliable. As you say, they basically have free reign over what they publish. Now, you may use the reference if you follow ABOUTSELF, however I don't think that applies here. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 21:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Statements of opinion, clearly marked as statements of opinion, may come from unreliable sources like Forbes contributors per RSOPINION, but UNDUE comes into play. If this is the only person making that complaint, and the person that wrote that has no other authority on the matter, its not appropriate to include. M asem (t) 21:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. but the position of a Forbes contributor is not inherently unreliable, but rather falls under self-published source rules. Collins appears to have a respectable history writing or editing about technology topics; whether that makes him a sufficient expert is the next question (and not one I have the energy to research at the moment.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A Forbes Contributor alone is not sufficient sourcing by itself to cite this sort of "outrage". Sergecross73   msg me  21:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You correctly interpreted WP:FORBESCON: the source is not reliable and should not be used in the article. You also followed WP:COI exactly correctly, requesting on the talkpage that the statement be removed rather than editing to article yourself. Banks Irk (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd
Is the book Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707–1813 a reliable source? Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @SlaterstevenSlatersteven, Jaswant Lal Mehta is the author. The above link is not working? Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see his name, not who is. What is his scholarly reputation? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I couldn't find those. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So then then why should we think this author is reliable? What is their reputation? Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is a well known author in India. But his details are not found in the internet. The publisher is fine? Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * we judge a book by who writes it, not who publishes it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I got some of his details. Read the acknowledgements here. Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The author according to Google books is Jaswant Lal Mehta, but their seems to be some confusion online between this author and Jarava Lal Mehta. I don't think their the same person, I can't find details of exactly who Jaswant Lal Mehta is.
 * Ajayraj890 could you describe what content you want to use the book to support? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to use this book to support mainly the military conflicts in the India history. Click here to know something about the author. Ajayraj890 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There can be a lot of disagreement about Indian history, with some authors making exceptional claims. I don't have time to read the whole book, so could you give some examples of what you want to use? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * May I use it as a reference for gathering information on the strength and casualties in the battles? Actually, I found it nowhere in the internet a free copy of the book to read it. I asked its reliability because I saw this on some articles. Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested, sorry, but I am still waiting for your reply. :) Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ajayraj890, this was lost amongst a sea of other things. This seems to be a slightly obscure work but it is used by other academic sources. So it does seem reliable. A couple of points though, there's a difference between th author saying a casualty figures and reporting that a third party gave that figure, the context of the figures matters. This can be work in the content by correctly attributing the claims. The other is that age matters and this work is several decades old now, so watch out for newer academic sources giving other figures. Battle of Buxar does a good job of showing how to handle differing causlty figures (it's towards the end of the section). And remember in infoboxes you can use a range using different references for the different figures if necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance! Ajayraj890 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is the Author? Slatersteven (talk)

Source for “Holodomor denial”
Is the following article a reliable source about how to define Holodomor denial in the article on the subject?



This was discussed previously at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417, but most respondents commented on other sources and ignored this one; and subsequently whether it was accepted as reliable was disputed by user:Stix1776. —Michael Z. 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Specifically applicable is the paragraph straddling pp 159–60 (“Most recently . . .’), with specific examples given on 160–61, and general comments 162, paras 1–2. Paragraph 2 on 159 (“The Holodomor and the Holocaust . . . ”) might also be useful in this article and others. —Michael Z. 17:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly reliable Wiley publication promoting archaeological nonsense concerning Gunung Padang
Gunung Padang is a fairly recent megalithic site. However, geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja author of "Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia" has claimed it to be much older and to be a buried pyramid. This is nonsense but he along with a number of other authors have had recent work published in a Wiley peer reviewed journal an article backing that claim.Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia concluding that "The oldest construction, Unit 4, likely originated as a natural lava hill before being sculpted and then architecturally enveloped during the last glacial period between 25 000 and 14 000 BCE" and buried 9,000 years ago. See also which is not an RS itself but has good background material and sources. I expect attempts to add this to the article. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The journal is "Archaeological Prospection" established in 1994. The article is in early online state (put online 20 October 2023) so not yet formally published though should have gone through peer review and been accepted.   Its area is "Archaeological Prospection is a comprehensive and up-to-date guide of scientific techniques available for the study of the near-surface environment".  So it specializes in techniques not interpretations of results.  Only one of the authors has an affiliation with a university archaeology department.   Given its acceptance by an apparently respectable academic journal, it likely can be cited (though include the hedge words); however, I expect a strong academic response to its more speculative statements. Erp (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any responses yet except for a telling one by Jason Colavito: "Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, the Indonesian government-affiliated geologist who claims Gunung Padang in Indonesia is a prehistoric pyramid complex that coincidentally makes Indonesia the oldest civilization on Earth, published a new paper repeating the claim, to the delight of Graham Hancock, who claims it is “vindication” of his speculations. However, Natawidjaja only provided radiocarbon dates for organic material buried within the hill of Gunung Padang without providing evidence of human occupation at the time or of human deposition of the organic material." Doug Weller  talk 08:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This would almost certainly come under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE if it contains any outlandish claims. If it doesn't, then there probably isn't a problem and it is RS? Reliability is usually a property of the text not the writer. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * n archaeologist I know says “When you look at the data, however, all you really see are some soil and strata inclusions that are dated to these periods. Not a single verifiable bit of cultural material. The one lithic object claimed to be cultural has all the appearance of natural weathering and none of the appearance of cultural use. No use-wear; patination; etc indicative that this Rhyolitic looking material was created by a person. Natawidjaja put in a lot of work, that much is clear. But filling a page with spurious data then claiming this is evidence for a culture without showing the evidence of a culture really isn't how it's done.”
 * Looks like the article published by Wiley is related to a poster session at a conference in 2018 where what seems to be the findings of the article are analysed and debunked. I'm not saying this meets RS but I have no reason to think this analysis is incorrect.
 * Doug Weller talk 08:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to go into reliability of the source too much then, I think we can treat it as WP:FRINGE? It's notable in the sense that the claim exists and is published by a reliable source, but probably not due for the article until a variety of sources discuss it. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We also should consider it a primary source, research papers in the humanities are treated the same as scientific papers in this regard.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

roman-empire.net
Is this site a reliable source, https://roman-empire.net/ GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please read the instructions. What statement in this source is proposed as a reference, in what article, for what content? Banks Irk (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ancient Rome is extremely well covered in scholarly literature, so I don't see the need to rely on pop history websites anyways, reliable or otherwise. As an extended-confirmed user, you should have access to JSTOR through WP:The Wikipedia Library. Curbon7 (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Each article appears to be authored by the same person, Vladimir Vulic. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are almost certainly better sources, and the website and its author does not inspire confidence. But, I encourage RSN inquiries to be made in context. Banks Irk (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not all written by Vulic: there are a few visiting contributor articles. It's not clear to me that any are experts in ancient Rome, though, and some are entirely pseudonymous.  Aside from those, the articles seem to be self-published by someone who, as best as I can tell, has no specific qualifications in classics or ancient history (the profile linked by Curbon claims he has a bachelors and masters in world history, which is a very broad subject area and it's entirely possible that he never studied ancient Rome at university level at all), and no evidence of having published any academic history, let alone related to ancient Rome, which might suggest that he is an WP:EXPERTSPS.I know you like to encourage RSN queries be made in context,, but in this case I don't think the context matters: I can't see any situation where this would be a good source.  It's self-published by a non-expert in a field where there are enormous amounts of clearly reliable scholarly sources available. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is for the article, Sextus Quinctilius. Here is the source he is mentioned in . GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In that specific case, I'm not seeing anything which isn't in Broughton; as Broughton is as far as I know still the standard reference work for Roman office holders, I would stick with him. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Eliezer Tauber and "The Massacre That Never Was"
The work of Eliezer Tauber, which denies that a massacre took place, is cited on the page Deir Yassin massacre.

See Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre, as well as a previous discussion with a lot of content at Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre.

I suspect it is not a reliable source and is propaganda and denialism.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * as he seems to be a respected academic and professor, I suspect you are wrong. He may be Undue, but it does not seem to fail RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That book was rejected by a ton of academic publishers, and it could only get printed by going to a popular publisher. Academic reviews of it have found it wanting as well. It is a distinctly minority view being pushed in the book. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for the claim that the book was rejected by academic publishers? I think Tauber's views and book probably do belong in the article but should be accompanied with the disclaimer that his views are contrary to the consensus of most historians, and it should be mentioned that his denials of the massacre of Deir Yassin have not been published in peer-reviewed publications. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Tauber himself, here, though he says it was political: Tauber's book was initially rejected by a leading American university press "precisely" because it "might harm Palestinian interest[s]." Eventually accepted by a trade publisher, Tauber said his book "was not received positively by American professors." Even Haaretz, "the most leftist newspaper" in Israel, published three positive reviews, with one written by a Palestinian. "Basically, [in the U.S.] we have academic professors betraying the profession in deciding to try to conceal a book because of political consideration[s], which is ... ridiculous." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It has to be attributed to Tauber, but this seems to be one of those cases where the subject is a subject matter expert albeit with controversial opinions so they should be noted but only to the extent due. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Indian Hindi News Websites
Hello, i am here to know that, the Hindi News websites of India are reliable or not. These are News24, News18, Jagran, Bhaskar, Navbharat Times, Navodaya Times, Patrika, Amar Ujala, Republic Bharat, Haribhoomi, Punjab Kesari etc. Please help me over this — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry but this is just much too broad a question to effectively answer here. If you have a question about a specific source in a specific context you will find this noticeboard much more useful (but please try to answer that question on the article talk page first). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's WP:NEWSORGINDIA which warns about paid content in Indian new sources, but there's no way to give any answer to such a wide question. No sources is 100% reliable, and most sources could be reliable in specific contexts. Without a more concrete question the best we can do is advise to always be cautious, if the source claims there's a plane on the moon don't believe it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Are Know Your Meme staff articles reliable for entertainment-related content?
I've used Know Your Meme staff-written arricles in two topics about entertainment, Summoning Salt (a YouTuber) and The Amazing Digital Circus (a webseries). Both sources ended up being removed at some point citing WP:KNOWYOURMEME, but that only refers to the user-generated entries — which indeed should be kept unreliable — not the editorial stuff, which didn't get any consensus. I think we should get consensus about it too. I've found Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390, but in that case the source was being used for very serious grooming alegations in a BLP. I think it is fair that we should discuss only its use for entertainment-related articles.

For both the sources mentioned, the authors had credentials. For the Summoning Salt article, the author, a senior editor, has worked on Paste (magazine), Spin (magazine), Village Voice and others (according to LinkedIn). For TADC, the author, a Managing Editor, has worken on IGN, Lifewire and others. Know Your Meme page on the news staff shows other people with credentials (not all of them, though). Many of them are cited in this Wall Street Journal article, which apparently gives insight on Know Your Meme editorial stuff, but I can't access it as I don't have a subscription.

Considering everything though, it seems like Know Your Meme news section has some competent editorial staff when it comes to entertainment content, with some having worked for other reliable magazines in the past. Skyshifter  talk  16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've never known or seen anyone argue that KYM was usable in any capacity on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comment shows how, unfortunately, the user-generated entries and the editorial, staff-written news articles get simplified as being the same thing. They are vastly different. The user-generated entries should never be used in any capacity indeed, but the editorial stuff deserves discussion. (I've edited the original post to make it clear that I'm referring to the news section only). Skyshifter   talk  17:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the same publisher as cracked.com. There's no reason to think their staff articles are any better. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Its true, I've never personally witnessed anything there that looked like it came from a professional publication. Not to mention that their "Senior Editors" have profiles that look like this. Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet, this guy has worked for Paste, Spin and Village Voice. I don't think an ironic description invalidates his credentials. Skyshifter   talk  18:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To what capacity? All we have is a (self-written) name drop on a social media profile. Sergecross73   msg me  18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've searched and he has written at least one article for these publications. One of his Paste reviews is even used in the article Painting With. Regarding other editors, at least some cite credentials such as working or being featured in CNET, or CBS News, or The Washington Post... Like, I don't get why we are just going "no that's not usable at all and that's it" without a proper discussion. Some people there do have valid and important credentials to consider. Skyshifter   talk  18:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'll accept the outcome of this discussion whatever it is. I just don't think the analysis being done here is fair. Skyshifter   talk  19:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really following. We're doing a proper discussion right now. I'm looking over the case you've made. I just find it to be a rather weak argument for reliability. Sergecross73   msg me  19:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I respect your opinion. But the arguments so far have been basically "the staff descriptions are ironic". That's what I don't think is very fair. But again, I'll accept the outcome whatever it is. Skyshifter   talk  19:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an "ironic" staff description. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyshifter I agree with you and I think folks are not fully considering how KYM has evolved as a media company, and conflating its UGC with editorial content. We can't just write off a publication with a full, robust, professional, salaried editorial staff, that's a household name, and has carved itself out a niche in covering the meme world. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion so far. Skyshifter   talk  18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief, no. KYM is not a reliable source (you only have to look at their staff profiles), and I would be quite happy to block anyone who repeatedly used it for contentious material on a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can understand not using it for contentious material on BLP. There are better publications for that I assume. But entertainment-related, non-contentious content, such as the above? I've showed above some staff writers that have some credentials and published for notorious/reliable magazines in the past. When you say that "you just have to look at the staff profiles", I see at least some people that have worked with important publications in the past. Couldn't this at least be a case of "you can use KYM articles written by these specific people"? Skyshifter   talk  18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite I'd love to hear a reason why their editorial (not user-generated) is not RS other than the fact that their staff profiles are intentionally written to be a little silly. One can easily look the people up to see their editorial experience. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the staff profile for Zach Sweat that made me want to look deeper. His employment history seems to be that of a legitimate journalist.
 * LinkedIn:
 * KYM staff page:
 * I think it's worth reviewing the difference between KYM's crowd-submitted writing and their staff writing. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion from 2022 about KYM staff articles: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_390, which definitely not positive about their reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned it above — "but in that case the source was being used for very serious grooming alegations in a BLP. I think it is fair that we should discuss only its use for entertainment-related articles." Skyshifter   talk  18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * While I don't have anything to really add to this discussion, when I removed the source from the article I hadn't known that Know Your Meme even had non-UGC content, so I had simply removed it because it's Know Your Meme. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze&#95;&#95;wolf 19:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think it makes the "high quality source" grade for BLPs, it's a poor source. As for it's use in anything else maybe if it's for the most non-contentious content and even then a better source should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the biographies question is a red herring, the discussion above was whether it could be used for pop culture information about an animated tv show, The Amazing Digital Circus. USNavelObservatory (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread asks about that and also about a use on Summoning Salt, which is a biography. The Digital Circus cite is being used to support this text: The show garnered a dedicated internet fanbase due to its captivating concept and compelling narrative. - such subjective statements shouldn't be made in wikivoice, certainly not based on such a low quality source. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the statement used there and I can't see where there's a problem with the BLP policy. The statement is in the reception section, the quote is attributed to the journalist and it speaks to the existing popularity of the youtube channel. The controversy over the Mega Man 2 video is earlier in the page and has 3 other sources. USNavelObservatory (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because WP:BLP says Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, and this is anything but a high-quality source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Those who are arguing that Know Your Meme content, at least some of it, is reliable could make their case much stronger by citing what other sources have written about it. ElKevbo (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, that's easy enough to do. It took me seconds to find the site mentioned and sourced numerous times in the NYTimes. Here's one example: For a website that belongs to something called the Cheezburger Network, Knowyourmeme.com is surprisingly detailed. Source.
 * And as per WP:RS: How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can do you one better. Pretty convenient round-up right there (maybe they pulled from KYM's own list of mentions?). For the record I think their staff editorials are probably something like marginally reliable for entertainment. Not sure about defending any more radical a change than that from status quo at the moment due to all their various eccentricities. VintageVernacular (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think that that paper supports using them as a WP:RS; in fact, its author seems to have written it specifically to remind people that KYM isn't what we would call a RS, but instead usable only as what we would call a primary source. They're specifically skeptical of its editorial controls, saying What are the implications of attributing such credibility to a select editorial team? Should researchers be wary of an opaque editorial and curation process? Reading the conclusion, I definitely don't think that we should be citing it KYM directly for anything. --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's the view of that one author, versus the outlets and other papers they cite as people who trust it or use it as a source. Those taken together, plus the fact that the paper is mainly about the meme entries, which have less editorial control than the, well, editorials, brought me to the marginally reliable conclusion. When thinking specifically about editorials. As for their entries, I would probably not ever cite them. VintageVernacular (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no reason why KYM staff pieces could not be used to support what is essentially meme content. Been any assertion that the claims as cited are innaccurate? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, I would cite them at about the same level as Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's a record, in the sense that an image or a post being listed on KYM on YYYY/MM/DD is obviously proof that it existed at that time. Apart from that, I would not say it's reliable for anything -- their entries are frequently extremely inaccurate, they date memes to months or even years after they actually appeared, or incorrectly explain their origin. They also have a tendency of writing lots of articles, linked to on the sidebar and top bar, where the "meme" in question is a drawing of boobs; no real evidence that it's in common circulation as a meme, but I suppose very easy for people to click on. I would not cite a KYM page to substantiate any claim other than "KYM said XYZ on this date". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"> jp × g 🗯️</b> 03:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, the user-generated stuff is being conflated with the editorial stuff. No one is debating the use of the user-generated stuff. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When I go to knowyourmeme.com and click on the "editorial" tab, what I see, from the top, is:
 * 25 Random Images That Will Make You Go 'Hmmm?!'
 * Each is a totally random piccy from somewhere online. Some of them were kind of funny. I did go "Hmmm", but without a question mark or exclamation point. It's hard to say whether this is a good source, because there are no factual claims being made.
 * 10 'November 3rd Fortnite' Memes About The OG Season 1 Map's Return In The New Update
 * I don't know anything about Fortnite. I guess these are 10 memes about Fortnite.
 * What's The November 3rd 'Fortnite' Update? The 'OG' Map's Return And Its Memes On TikTok Explained
 * This seems normal, I guess, although literally all of the things in this article are trivially verifiable by looking it up. Here is an example: About a week ago, the official Twitter / X account of the game posted an announcement which revealed that its new update, called Chapter 4 Season 5, was set to release on November 3rd, 2023. It was reported by outlets like IGN that the new update was going to bring back the original map used in the game's Chapter 1. Why cite this when you can just cite the tweets/xweets?
 * What Does 'Bhocolate Bhip Bookies' Mean? The Viral 'TikTok' Meme Explained
 * This at least makes factual claims, but I don't consider it very reliable. It says: The phrase "bhocolate bhip bookies" first started becoming popularized in memes 10 years ago in 2013. Then it mentions the B emoji meme thing (which I know to be from 2016-17, it existed nowhere in 2013) and links a Vine... from 2015. Where did 2013 come from? There is not really an explanation. If you read the user-generated article on KYM for "bhocolate bhip bookie", it links to a tweet from February 2013 mentioning this phrase, with two replies, six retweets and one like. It looks like the old style of QT or RT where it mentions someone else's @ at the beginning, whose account is suspended, but this indicates that they would have posted it way before. This isn't mentioned in the KYM page. Their Twitter account has a single capture on archive.org from 2013 but it doesn't go back far enough to record when they posted this. Why would somebody claiming to write a comprehensive treatise on the history of this meme not mention that the "first instance" was obviously a repost of a tweet whose original date was unknown? My guess is they just didn't care, which is fine because their job is to make a website that gets traffic and shows people funny pictures from online, not to seriously document the history of Internet memes.
 * What I take away from this is that KYM's content, even from its editorial staff, is at best capable of producing the same sort of web-sleuth work that we do here on Wikipedia (in which case why not just do it ourselves); at worst it's just a random content aggregator like BuzzFeed or Upworthy or TopViral or ClickHaven or ViralHog (I made a couple of those up) or doing rather sloppy research noticeably below the standards we use for referencing on Wikipedia. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"> jp × g 🗯️</b> 06:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree, though, BuzzFeed is a yellow tier source on RSPS (which is where I would say KYM editorials ought to go). By the way, KYM staff seem pretty responsive to entry update requests if you send them proof they were wrong about something (such as where a trend originated). I would expect they do that for editorials too. KYM overall seems to be much less of a free-for-all than E.D. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it passes the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy requirement of an WP:RS. The few mentions in other sources above don't really seem to support that - if the only external coverage is the NYT calling one specific aspect of the site surprisingly detailed, that's really enough to move it past "some people with a website said this." (Especially since the quote seems to be talking about their WP:USERGENERATED content!) What are their editorial controls? Just because a website exists for something doesn't make it a WP:RS. And the one [paper] cited above is broadly skeptical.  --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for statements of fact, may be relevant for attributed statements in some cases. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Fox News reliable for GENSEX (gender and/or sexuality related) articles/topics?
Im not sure about this topic and am hoping to hear other editors opinions, Im conficted as I have seen good relatively unbiased coverage of GENSEX issues by them, but I have also seen some relatively biased articles in the area. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavens no. GENSEX issues have become highly political and highly political issues are not handled well by Fox (to put it politely). O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most Fox pieces on GENSEX issues are likely to be either scientific, political, or both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What FFF and O3000 said. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example source and use case? Certainly this would be a use with caution (or lower) but use with caution is probably true with most GENSEX sources. Springee (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a good example would be using this article to back up claims that transitioning causes mental health issues, the article appears to be fine at a glance, but it only cites a non peer-reviewed study and doesn’t cover any other studies. (To be clear I don’t believe that article would be valid as the sole or primary source for that claim) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That would almost certainly fail on (multiple points of) MEDRS unless taking an extremely narrow interpretation of biomedical information. I can't think of any interpretation of BMI that would allow it actually. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is why how something is going to be used is relevant.  Fox should be reasonably reliable if the claim is something like, "a controversy occurred between parents and a school board related to a GENSEX policy".  That case would be using Fox for basic news reporting (assuming it's DUE content).  We shouldn't be using Fox or basically any other news media source for medical claims related to this topic. Springee (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say concretely without concrete examples of what one might consider the good relatively unbiased, and what sort of claims we might use those to support, but I also find it unlikely that any GENSEX claims would fall outside of the science/politics scope as previous mentioned. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Googleguy007, GENSEX-related topics have become very political in the past few years, and Fox News has been considered to be generally unreliable for political and scientific subjects.<span id="Davest3r08:1698327889321:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Davest3r08 (^ &lowbar; ^)  ( t a l k )  13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be amazed if you could find a GENSEX topic that doesn't overlap with either politics or science at all. And regardless, I don't think Fox News should be considered reliable for any GENSEX topic even if there exists some GENSEX topic that is somehow neither political nor scientific. Loki (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Only for attributed opinions. If you're writing about the political right's opinions, I personally wouldn't have a problem with careful usage of Fox News. But for objective facts, very likely not due to politicization.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Fox has a well-documented history of opinion-based shows masquerading as "news" that are, virtually 100% of the time, pushing pseudo-scientific opinions about gender and sexuality, including but not limited to the supposed success of conversion therapy, detransitioning, etc. It's too far away from actual medical data to be considered reliable in any way. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just as Fox should not be used for any US politics topics, nor should it be used for topics that are part of the culture wars related to US politics (“critical race theory”, gender, etc). BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with : in the absence of concrete examples, it's just opining to say anything about Fox coverage of this issue. Someone cited one single article above and while no substantive objection was found, the article itself wouldn't be sufficient to support anything anyway because according to Googleguy it doesn't cite a peer-reviewed study anyway, so obvs. an irrelevant article cannot be used as an example of whether Fox is WP:RS. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is no basis for deprecation: «Emotion does not trump logic. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"». XavierItzm (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Which topics Fox are thought to have a presumption of reliability for a "reputation for fact checking" has kind of already been discussed to death anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And right now Fox is WP:RS for anything other than science and politics. I know WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but come on! XavierItzm (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP it's currently red for politics, reddish-yellow for science, and yellow for everything else. So, consensus unclear at best. There's also a continued rumbling to completely deprecate Fox News, but it's just a loud and grumbly 15%. Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem is, to Fox everything is politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's worth covering, a better outlet than Fox will cover it. Why waste time citing an outlet that was literally designed to poison national and international dialogue with disinformation? 129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This isnt an RFC. I dont appreciate you casting the aspersion that, for some reason, I hold grudge against fox and am trying to get it depricated by ... stating that I have seen some good articles by them and some bad articles by them in the topic area and asking for other editors opinions on its reliability. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Fox has admitted to posting fake news to boost viewership, I'd hesitate to use them under any circumstances. If you can find a better source instead, I'd use that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Information from police gang officer regarding criminal street gang
Would the quote of a 26 year veteran of the Police Department in Culver City who worked the gang unit be considered reliable in the area of the Culver City Boys Gang? This would be a primary source, but due to the subject there aren't many published references. The ones included in current selection are from small local newspapers and there are several errors I noticed. I have testified in court as an expert witness on this criminal street gang, and have extensive first-hand knowledge of the group. Would I be able to make corrections to the existing text regarding well known facts such as the spelling of the gang name and the abbreviations used to mark territory? How would I provide a reference to first hand knowledge which has never been published and will most likely never be published? Or should I just challenge the incorrect information? Anwatsadat (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome! One of our core content policies is that all material must be verifiable. So knowledge from personal experience that has not been published somewhere is not appropriate to use as a basis for article content. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anwatsadat So multiple newspapers are making the same errors and no one has tried to contact the outlets to correct the errors? Why doesn't this indivudual reach out to the newspapers for the correction? Presumably the reporters got their information from somewhere? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also read wp:coi and wp:SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with the other comments above. The Verifiability policy means that a source has to be published. I had the same thought as Phrrho; talk to a reporter at the small local papers you referenced, and see if they will write an article based on your information. Then, that article could be used as a reference.  That would not run afoul of the self-published sources requirements, and the way for you to comply with the conflict of interest requirements is to (i) disclose that you provided the information included in the newspaper article and (ii) request on the Wikipedia article's talk page that some other editor make the corrections, rather than make them yourself. Good luck. Banks Irk (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional content from BuzzFeed appearing on BuzzFeed News
BuzzFeed News is currently a "generally reliable" source. Beginning on September 13, however, content from BuzzFeed has started appearing on BuzzFeed News under the same domain. The content appears to be from the same few authors and pertains to celebrity gossip. Though I agree with the consensus on BuzzFeed News, it is not reflective of the current state of the publication. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an issue similar to that with Forbes. Forbes is generally reliable, but Forbes Contributors are not. In deciding whether or not to use an article at Forbes, editors have to take a look at who's writing it. If BuzzFeed articles are showing up at BuzzFeed News, editors can go through a similar process in deciding if the content is from the news side or the celebrity gossip side. Banks Irk (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the same, and this should be noted at RSP. They're repurposing a WP:GREL brand for WP:MREL (or worse) content. DFlhb (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do they make the different sources clear or is it the same content with no indication which editorial standard was used? Are these stories from before BFN shut down?  BFN shut it's doors in May 2023.  Thus anything after that shouldn't be considered reliable or should be viewed as BF content vs BFN content.  If they are taking BF stories from before May 2023 and publishing them on BFN in a way that makes it impossible to tell then I would suggest we put a clear warning on the BFN entry and possibly downgrade it with a note why. Springee (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The author byline states whether or not the article was written by a BuzzFeed reporter, but that alone may not be able to adequately determine the source. For example, Exclusive: New York Times Internal Report Painted Dire Digital Picture from 2014 is attributed to a BuzzFeed writer. Though most sources state that the article was published on BuzzFeed, it was first published on BuzzFeed's business section before moving to the news section of the site and later the BuzzFeed News domain. It was likely written by a BuzzFeed News reporter. This does not appear to be an issue for articles written after May 2023. The content appears to be nascent. Upon reconsideration, it seems as though BuzzFeed is using the BuzzFeed News label for celebrity news but not BuzzFeed's standard listicles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

How best to check a possible source?
Working on Indira Joshi (singer) I found a source which might be useful, or might be considered unreliable: https://www.biofamous.com/indira-joshi-biography. Before trying to use it in the article, I searched RSN using the link above: nothing there for "biofamous". I wasn't sure, so I wrote a careful enquiry for this page, asking about biofamous.com, quoting their own description from their "about page" ... and when I clicked to publish the post here, my post was rejected and I was told that biofamous.com was on one of two blacklists. A waste of my time.

Is there a simple way to check whether a website is on either or both of those two spam blacklists, and preferably to search RSN for it at the same time, so that if an editor has doubts about a source they can easily find out whether it has already been considered and rejected/blacklisted? Pam D  15:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * wp:RSP is one place. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLACKLIST. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And, that's where it can be found in the Blacklist Archives . Banks Irk (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to find one single place where I could check a site to see whether it's blacklisted or not, or whether it has been discussed at WP:RSN, or whether it's one of the "Perpetual" issues: it seems there are 3 or 4 different places to check, which is less than ideal. Pam  D  15:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's only two place you should need to check, this notice board and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist have search boxes in the header. If the site is completely blocked like biofamous you should search the one on the Spam-blacklist page, if the site was blacklisted after a discussion at RSN the entry you find on the Spam-blacklist noticeboard should mention that discussion. If it's just a question of reliablity not blacklisting you can just use the search box here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source for "Sextus Quinctilius"
In the book, The magistrates of the Roman Republic by T. R. S. Broughton it states that "Quinctilius died in the pestilence of this year [452 BC]". The book,  A History of Epidemic Pestilences (1851) by Edward Bascome it states that "anno 452 b.c., nearly one-half of the inhabitants of Rome were destroyed by the pestilence loimikié", however this book is the only mention I can find of this pestilence and I put the word in Google Translate and it said that it was a Māori word, while DeepL translate says that it is a Finnish word, and I can't translate it into English.

I would like to include the pestilence in the article on Sextus Quinctilius, however I am doubtful of the pestilence actually existing and so I have come here to ask if the aforementioned book by Edward Bascome is a reliable source in referencing the pestilence that Quinctilius died of. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * loimikie looks like a romanisation of the Greek word λοιμική ("pestilential"), and as far as I can tell isn't a name of the plague. The death of Quinctilius from the plague comes ultimately from Livy (3.32) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (10.53). And indeed Dionysius does describe the disease as λοιμική νόσος ("pestilential sickness").
 * In general, a source written in 1851 is deserving of caution. I wouldn't trust a book called something like "a history of epidemic pestilence" from so far back for either medical or historical information; some very specific works by classicists have held up but something so general is likely to have been superseded by modern scholarship. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Caeciliusinhorto, it really is too old to be considered modern scholarship. In general you should be skeptical of any scholarship from more than 30 years ago in a subject like this, for something like computer science even a decade is hopelessly obsolete... If it hasn't been used by more recent sources don't use it and then only as they do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Apart from anything else, this demonstrates the uselessness of Google Translate. The Māori language in its standard form does not use the letter 'l'. (A very few place names do, but as vestiges of isolated regional pronunciations). Daveosaurus (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

MSN news created by AI creating a mess of the news
(copied from Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414 )

MSN reportedly fired all 27 of its journalists in 2020, replacing them with “artificial intelligence software,” The Guardian reported in 2020. Specifically "Staff who maintain the news homepages on Microsoft’s MSN website and its Edge browser". Today, The Daily Beast reports about an epic-fail AI-generated news article that leaked out and was soon after deleted but not before being captured by the Wayback Machine, providing evidence they are indeed using AI. -- Green  C  20:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yikes. Another reason why it is better to cite an news outlet directly rather than an aggregator. Ca talk to me! 10:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

More coverage: "How Microsoft is making a mess of the news after replacing staff with AI", CNN.

We need strong warnings about MSN News, post 2020, preferably an entry in WP:RSP. Is an RfC required when so obviously a problem? -- Green  C  22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big deal is other than another story of "AI doing stupid stuff." Any MSN links will show a clear link and identifier of the original source, same as Yahoo or any other aggregation page that does republishing. Don't the policies already say you have to assess the original source, not the republisher? USNavelObservatory (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Prior to 2020, MSN had human reporters writing original news stories (so does Yahoo! News btw). The MSN journalists were fired in 2020, and replaced with AI. The AI is now producing original news stories, which are completely unreliable. See the above links.  --  Green  C  23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do people use MSN at all, just like Yahoo news they are reposting other content. The Guardian situation comes from MSN running stupid content next to reposted content that is available from the Guardian's website. The link that was posted above was Yahoo news reporting CNN. There's simply no reason to use either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sites like MSN and Yahoo contain a mix of original reportage by journalists employed by MSN and Yahoo, and news aggregation from other sites. -- Green  C  01:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing MSN and MSNBC. USNavelObservatory (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had no clue they even had original news articles. I thought they only republished from other sources. What was the reliability of their pre-2020 original reporting? VintageVernacular (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked.... Seriously, has it ever been considered a good source? Yahoo appears to be more accurate at selecting stories. If a story is from an aggregator, look at the original. If they added one written in-house, ignore it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you saying news stories written by journalists employed by Yahoo and MSN are unreliable? In my experience, they have written some fine quality content. The issue here is not let's nuke everything, but specifically content "written" by MSN post-2020. -- Green  C  01:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody "writing" anything at MSN was let go. They replaced the people who were hand-curating an aggregation feed with an AI tool. The tool picked up something wacky from another content generator for a short time, and nobody has yet claimed it was "written by MSN." USNavelObservatory (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, you are right I misread. There were 800 editors who "curated" news stories from other sources for the MSN website, who were let go. So I guess the question is, as others pointed out, do we want to link to this site at all vs. the original news source. -- Green  C  02:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting some words for a new section below. I think Masem was right and the policy isn't written clearly enough. USNavelObservatory (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing we should do: I am unaware of any PAG that says "Use the original source for a story, rather than an aggregators or another source that just repeats the highlights of the story." I may have missed this, but this is something we should be striving to do for content. --M asem (t) 00:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If it isn't explicit enough in the reliable sources policy I fully support adding it to the policy.
 * There's a section that mentions content farms, and the section on newspapers already says the following.
 * "Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it."
 * Maybe we can add a more specific section if that would help and title it "News Aggregators?"
 * "Some news sources such as MSN or Yahoo's main pages function partly or entirely as aggregators, reprinting items from websites of news agencies, blogs, websites, or even Wikipedia itself. These may constitute a curated feed or an AI-generated feed but in either case, just as with newspaper reprints the original content creator is responsible for accuracy. For content linked through an aggregator, reliability should be judged based on the original source." USNavelObservatory (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support Masems and USNavels ideas. We need it for WP:V and attribution Softlem (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

MSN reprints are almost always bad, because they vanish after a time! We should use the original if at all. An RSP on MSN should note the impernanence of MSN reprints. Yahoo reprints are pretty durable in my experience (and AFP often send out wire copy they don't put on their own site, making Yahoo a good source for it), but MSN reprints really are not - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've certainly had cases where the Yahoo article appeared to be the only trace online from an AFP wire. Maybe it's just a case of what Google indexes, I wouldn't know. I got the impression they republish things fairly indiscriminately, so at times it seems that it's possible Yahoo is the only site hosting a wire agency's article (most usually AFP but perhaps even Reuters), oddly enough. I haven't had this experience with MSN, so personally can't vouch either that they are useful for that. Though it's quite possible they are and I just have never seen it. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We can use it as a courtesy link if it's the only one available, assuming there's no doubt that it reflects the original source and the original source is a WP:RS. But it is reasonable to say that a link to the original source is preferred if it is available. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Tasnim News Agency for specific use case
I'm trying to get a source for what the "E." stands for in E. Michael Jones, and the best I can come up with at the moment is Tasnim News Agency that gives me his name as "Eugene". I'm seeing a few other sources also say it, but they're mostly blogs or self-published things.

There's been some previous discussion involving Tasnim more directly, as well (1, 2, 3), and general argument seems to have gone in the direction of treating it with some degree of caution. I know that we've deprecated Press TV, an Iranian state-operated news station, and Tasnim is very closely linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And yet, at the same time, I feel like they are probably reliable enough to give the name of the person whom they are interviewing. Is there something I'm missing here? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No opinion on Tasnim but his website links to  and that says Eugene. The site  looks self published and unreliable but ABOUTSELF might apply Softlem (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Infogalactic is an EnWiki fork and WP:USERG, so it's probably not something I can use as an alternative. I very much don't have a doubt that his legal first name is Eugene, it's more of a matter of finding a good enough source. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

NewsNation
Is NewsNation a reliable source? It is currently being cited at the 2024 United States presidential election page. Prcc27 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It used to be WGN Chicago, it's owned by Tribune broadcasting. I think it's generally reliable? USNavelObservatory (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't make us search for it in scores of references in a long article. What reference for what specific statement is it being cited for, and where is there is any question about its reliability? Partial credit for at least identifying the article. Banks Irk (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed it wasn’t listed at WP:RSP, so was a general question. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah I'd like to know more specific info too USNavelObservatory (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Owned by Nexstar actually but I haven't seen anything to suggest its unreliable. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of links between Fox News and NewsNation:
 * The Daily Beast makes the comparison in their article "This 'Centrist' Cable-News Channel Is Just Fox News Lite", saying how Leland Vittert, Bill Shine (former Trump communications staff) and other Fox staff members currently work there. The article describes NewsNation work as "unseemly biases artificially buffed and ironed into a centrist façade" saying that "Left-leaning voices are heard on NewsNation rarely, briefly, and cursorily—as if to tick a box."
 * Then there are the multiple employees who resigned according to The New York Times, writing that staff say the network was "increasingly become a venue for right-wing views" and a "mini Fox News." The New York Times also says that the creator of NewsNation, Sean Compton, was also responsible for giving Donald Trump his radio show in 2004. Staff members also noted that the network did not confront false or misleading statements by Donald Trump.
 * Axios writes how former Fox executive Cherie Grzech was hired for newsgathering oversight for NewsNation.
 * So while we shouldn't look down on NewsNation due to guilt by association given Fox News' determination by the community to be unreliable in some instances, there should definitely be additional considerations made before using it in articles and discussing politics, especially given the allegations by current and former employees. Regarding talk shows, it would probably be generally unreliable given that it is mainly opinion to balance bias that does not depend on reliability. WMrapids (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the Daily Beast ref above is a clearly marked opinion piece by opinion columnist and cheese-writer Joe Berkowitz, and the Daily Beast is consistently regarded as left-biased at best, gossip rag at worst.. Of course, every source should be examined for appropriate use for the statement cited. As a liberal myself, I find it disheartening when people freak out over allegations a source includes *gasp!* right-ring views (b-b-but, aren't those the wrong views???). If Wikipedians insist on downgrading or qualifying every publication that gives >50% weight to non-left viewpoints, then they're only giving free ammunition to critics accusing this project of partisan bias. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a response to WMrapids comment or are you just ranting? If a response to WMrapids comment you might want to re-read their post, you don't appear to be accurately summarizing it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NewsNation (previously known as WGN America and before that WGN-TV) is the flagship of Nexstar Media Group, a national U.S. television network that operates a ton of major U.S. regional television stations. These stations include WPIX, the flagship of The CW. In every sense of the word, NewsNation is a well-established and generally reliable news organization (it easily falls in WP:TIER3). The usual caveat goes for the talk shows, which by nature of being opinion talk shows are opinion journalism. None of the reporting presented above (which includes a labeled opinion piece, btw) persuasively cuts against the good reputation in the 70+ years of television news that NewsNation and its predecessors at WGN have attained. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * NewsNation's news programming is more aggregation than their own work, they don't really do investigative journalism or unique reporting... Its primarily just a remix of the wires. The only thing we would seemingly ever need to actually use them for is interviews, which is the context of this discussion here. To me thats a very limited use. Their non-news programming (for instance the radical Christian stuff they run on Sunday) is highly unreliable and should never be used on wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Softonic
For the article Only Up!, is this article from Softonic reliable? It currently cites this statement: "Content creators throughout Spain featured the game, adding up to 250,000 views on Twitch."

It was previously discussed here, but there was no clear consensus. I'm not sure if this source is reliable. Thanks, Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 19:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They're an app store that also has articles. There's no apparent editorial policy and they offer advertorials but don't state if they will be marked as such. The specific article even states at the end Some of the links added in the article are part of affiliate campaigns and may represent benefits for Softonic, as the only link in the article is to Only Up! I wouldn't consider it reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll remove it as soon as I can. Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 02:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Out, Instinct, HX, and Gay Times magazines
I was wondering if these four LGBT-related magazines - Out, Instinct, Gay Times - can be considered to be reliable? They are used in the article He-Man as a gay icon, and was wondering if they are acceptable, based on what they claim within the "Sex appeal" section; the character's popularity with gay men. I'm asking because I'm curious if these sources and claims - to a degree, the whole section - would be acceptable / appropriate for a FAC. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say they are reliable for statements regarding LBGQ+ culture (such as whether He-Man is considered a gay icon). Whether they are reliable in other situations depends on the specifics. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with the history of the others, but Gay Times is a long running and highly respected publication that I'm pretty sure would count as a general RS, let alone for the specific case. You should be fine using these as evidence of something being a gay icon or not - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Had forgotten to check its date and indeed, being founded in in 1984 is quite "long running". If you don't mind me asking, how exactly is Gay Times a "highly respected publication"? Since it's not on the main list - unlike, say, The New York Times - I'm sure this question would come up during a FAC, and you seem familiar with it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The answer is that you have no idea what inclusion on the "main list" means. You're working backwards from a mistaken assumption. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP is a list of sources that have been discussed many times on this notice board. It's not a list of all reliable or unreliable sources. Most reliable sources will never have been discussed, let alone had multiple discussions, and so won't appear on the list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not WP:INDEPENDENT from topics about LGBT. So I would strongly doubt they are reliable for LGBT-adjacent article. For example, saying X is a gay icon. This may not even be the universal perspective since there are lots of pop stars which are popular with gay community, even in general all pop music is very popular (well-represented) among the gay community. For other topics, it has listed journalists and a long, verifiable history of publication so I would suggest reliable. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous claim. Expertise is not a COI - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a clear distinction in what is and is not considered expertise. "Catholic News" is not WP:INDEPENDENT about minor aspects of Catholicism. Same for lgbt news about a minor aspect of lgbt. But not for Tech news since it is a verifiable topic and not an opinion. Also WP:AUD is relevant here. The audience is mostly meant for lgbt containing jargon specific to that culture which can be misinterpreted (taken out of context) into an exaggerated statement (eg. He-Man is THE main gay icon). बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If this was a discussion about the notability of companies and organisations then AUD might apply, are you sure you linked to the right wordsalad? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a company but still reflect the prior consensus in a similar situation. For example Instinct (among publication you mentioned) making an article about how porn star Joey Mills is notable within gay porn for speaking about equal pay did not count for notability discussion (his page got deleted at AfD). बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That publication isn't even specifically mentioned at Articles for deletion/Joey Mills, so it's hard to say it was judged. There were some who mentioned the coverage of the matter at question in that article, but largely in saying that it was a WP:BLP1E event, a concern which would have been applicable even if it had been a New York Times article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was publish at a prior date, so it means it was part of WP:BEFORE बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should gain more experience editing Wikipedia before offering your opinion in discussions like this. 172.58.232.38 (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am lazy about editing article recently but you are maybe right बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it got noticed as part of Before; the process is done by hooman beings, flawed creatures are they. That one editor may have missed this one source in a Google result that Google claims millions of results for should not be taken as a consensus judgment. (And if the editor added other search terms to separate this Joey Mills from, say, the makeup artist of the same name, the article may not have even come up in their search results.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You replied to me, but I never mentioned Instinct, and appear to be mixing up reliability and notability. Just because a source does or doesn't count towards notability doesn't immediately mean it is or isn't reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you retrace the conversation, it is a statement about reliability (giving undue weight to topics/opinions since it is directed at a very specific audience). Also much less likelihood of fact checking if the audience is meant their own small community and not the general public. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick look at the Instinct website (which is the only form it comes in; they dropped the physical publication years back), I'm not finding any "about us" page to get editorial information from... but at least one of the authors has "senior editor" in their description, so there appears to be at least some editorial structure. I'm not familiar with the mag, our article on it doesn't say anything that would suggest reliability. The fact that most of the pictures accompanying the article feature bare-chested men doesn't inherently mean not reliable; one may be able to pander reliably, but it also doesn't suggest that high-minded journalism is goal one. So I'm at least dubious on their reliability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about reliable sources for watch collectors
Participation is invited at Talk:Bulova. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Banjska attack has an RFC & RS-related discussion
Banjska attack has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Griboski (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)