Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445

Scientific consensus statement signed by scientists, published by advocacy group
I don't need it particularly for anything but I'm trying to decide if a particular source is self-published. It's a scientific consensus statement signed by about 20 people, published by Save Tesla Park. It's unclear whether the scientists are associated with Tesla Park (which might make it self-published), but even if they are, does the sheer number of uninvolved people qualify as editorial review under the reliable sources policy? Or can advocacy group's publications (e.g. the Sierra Club, which is pretty big) qualify as non-self-published sources if they have good enough reputation (and possible editorial review)? For context, Save Tesla Park is a small-ish local group, I think, but not that small. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * For context this is related to the Corral Hollow article Mrfoogles (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does look like it is published by an advocacy group. What is claim is it being used for in the article? If is was published in a different setting like a newspaper or book or journal, it may be considered a RS. Sometimes advocacy group publications can be considered RS, but it matters on the claims being made.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like its from the same group as "savemountdiablo.org"
 * https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/A-stalled-housing-project-asks-Should-we-17029697.php
 * https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/flock-california-condors-spotted-contra-costa-18390891.php
 * Originally thought it was a NIMBY front group, but SF chronicle suggests no? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is self-published as it not a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, and/or Save Tesla Park hasn't provided editorial oversight. Cortador (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, a self selected group for advocacy rather than something by a scientific organization. If some secondary site says something about them then that's where any justification for including would come from. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur with @Ramos1990, @Cortador, and @NadVolum. If the goal is to represent the viewpoint of this specific group of scientists or Save Tesla Park, the statement could be used as a primary source to reflect their position. But for scientific claims about the ecological value of the area, it would be preferable to use peer-reviewed studies or reports from established scientific organizations or government agencies. If reputable secondary sources have reported on it or the broader debate, those would likely be more appropriate sources. W9793 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: +972 Magazine
What is the reliability of +972 Magazine?


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

See previous discussions at RSN:, , , etc. See previous discussions in article Talk space: , , etc. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey (+972 Magazine)

 * 1 for the Levant: While +972 used to be a group blog, it is now a more conventional online magazine with editorial controls . There is evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS including The Washington Post , PBS, Al Jazeera , Vox , NPR , and CNN . It has engaged with The Guardian on collaborative journalism projects . It has named gatekeepers and a physical personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. Use should be limited to news/events in the Levant; the publication's budget  precludes the realistic possibility it has original newsgathering capabilities beyond its home region and any reportage from outside the area are likely précis and should be referenced to their source. There is no evidence of USEBYOTHERS for coverage of topics outside the Eastern Mediterranean. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarifying addendum as to purpose of RfC: Dispute and contention have been endemic with this source, and the hundreds of articles in which it is used, on an ongoing basis for 10 years, with the most recent discussion ending without clear resolution just three months ago (e.g. here, and here , and here , and here , and here , and here and numerous other places). Due to these frequent and ongoing disputes, often metastasizing into discussions that are left unresolved, I am left with current and active concern and confusion as to whether or not I can use or remove this source from an article and this question can only be resolved  by formal community input, as all informal processes -- exhaustively and repeatedly attempted over the last decade without previous resort to RfC -- have failed. Chetsford (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1ish for investigative pieces, 2 for opinion pieces: We should probably still use WP:OPINION policy for opinion pieces and only use opinion pieces with attribution. Some of the investigative pieces seem to have garnered respect from other respected news orgs, such as the Lavender AI piece being cited by WaPo. Does anyone know which articles are opinion pieces and which ones are investigative, and how to tell?User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC The concept of pre-approving sources isn't valid. Any editors objections in the future can't be heard in this discussion, as that is the nature of causality. Without any current concerns with the sources there is simply no need for an RFC. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No valid reason to have this RFC per discussion below. In addition, there is no reason not to use this source.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. An excellent source. Rigorous reporting, invaluable investigations. Crucially, in contrast to e.g. al-Jazeera it does not try to be comprehensive, but only reports on issues where it has itself properly sourced the information, so it is far more reliable than other Israel/Palestine outlets even though its coverage is more narrow. Of course, opinion should be treated as opinion, and it doesn't always clearly differentiate news and opinion (much of its content is "analysis"/"commentary", i.e. somewhere between news and opinion), but this issue c an easily be dealt with case by case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1 - Bob has this covered fairly well, but professionally run and staffed, and has a stellar reputation internationally.  nableezy  - 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

1: It's a very competent source. I've never seen anything other than good work coming out of it. Normal rules apply to opinion, of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (+972 Magazine)
I don't think an RfC on this source is needed at this time, per RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. The source is only used in about ~150 articles, and the most recent discussion on the source was nine years ago. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion was three months ago (sorry, neglected to add the March '24 discussion to the lead; now fixed). It's been cited ~500 times (albeit not exclusively in mainspace). Given its extremely limited editorial focus, I feel that meets the threshold of wide use. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any active discussion that the source is unreliable? Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable. This appears to be getting the source pre-approved, which is unnecessary and not a good idea. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable." My read on the March discussion was the exact opposite. Fortunately, we'll be able to sort-out these divergent interpretations via RfC. Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The March discussion was the result of disputed usage at an article but note that the cite remains in that article so it can be said that the objections were not upheld. If there are not any other recent disputes, then it seems that the credibility of the source is not being seriously challenged so this RFC may not really be needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the outcome of that discussion. As for the source at the center of the last dispute remaining in the article in question, I'm inclined to apply Occam's razor to assume it simply means no one bothered to remove it, rather than it representing a coded message that the source is reliable. Given our impasse, some means of resolution is apparently needed. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first type of consensus is by editing, so yes the source staying in the article does show some form of consensus. Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed, having an RFC just because shouldn't be how it's done. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed" While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, you have stated your interpretive assumption the last discussion arrived at a clear conclusion that +972 is reliable and I have said my interpretation is that it arrived at a clear conclusion that it's unreliable. That seems like an issue that needs to be resolved. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. "The first type of consensus is by editing" The second type of consensus is through formal process when an editorial impasse occurs, as is happening here between you and I. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS ("When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit... several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment...") I have chosen not to remove +972 from the article in question -- despite my interpretation of the March discussion -- only in the interest of maintaining editorial decorum and order. With due respect, it seems unnecessarily pointy and procedural to intransigently insist it first be removed to create a formal record of disagreement before you will indulge any further discussion on the topic. Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss once more that particular cite, that can be done, at the relevant article, or even here, once again. There is no need to have an RFC to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "If you want to discuss once more that particular cite" I want to address all the citations in which it's used across the project, and in every article in which it appears. Chetsford (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Somewhat agree with BilledMammal. No need to start a discussion for a source that is not used that often. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be used more often if people stopped claiming it was less than reliable.  nableezy  - 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable? If there has been it would certainly give more meaning to this RFC. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable?" Here, and here , and here , and here , and here (and more I'm omitting for purposes of brevity), plus numerous instances where editors have reverted statements sourced to it sans discussion with non-RS edit summaries, etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No not discussions from a decade ago, recent discussions. Who recently has been claiming it's unreliable? Diff of edits were it's been removed as unreliable would be as good (if they are recent). Otherwise go use the source, if someone objects start a discussion with them, if you can't come to a consensus come back here. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This continually moving target where you won't engage in discussion unless your demand for examples is met, then when examples are provided they're not of sufficient currency, then when those of sufficient currency are provided they're not of sufficient quantity, is difficult for me to track, though this may be a personal failing and, if so, I apologize.In any case, it seems we're at a discursive impasse that informal processes are incapable of resolving and a formal process would be the best way forward. If you'd like to start an RfC on the applicability of the RfC I won't object, though, I'd suggest it'd be needlessly procedural and would be easier to simply participate in the RfC or not, at your singular discretion. This will probably be my last comment on the matter as I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I appreciated the conversation. You raised many interesting points on the ontology of the RSN that are worth future contemplation and I can assure you I will spend time thinking about them and seeking-out ways to incorporate them into my own editing. Chetsford (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is questions of reliability necessarily the reason why its not used often? I mean it clearly still is used, often with attribution.
 * Though, I suppose based on Chetsford's reasoning, if folks have questions about reliability, we should consider doing this RFC to confirm reliability, even if some of those questions happened a while ago. Having more choices of reliable sources is always good. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * While I agree with it being generally reliable, I also concur with those above that an RfC isn't really necessary here - there's not much discussion of use in recent times, and what does exist generally agrees it's reliable. The   Kip  (contribs) 05:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Verification of a phrase
There is a disagreement between editors on whether this article (archived) from The Daily Telegraph verifies the phrase "battle of Kherson". has indicated twice that it does not, however, I have found the phrase in the article. A discussion was being opened up here since it seems other editors need to verify to see if the article verifies the phrase or if it does not verify the phrase.

P.S. I do not know where else to go for a verification-related issue (excluding the article talk page with 52 views in 30 days) and WP:V mentions that for discussion on sources, this is the place to come, hence why I opened a discussion here as this pertains to a verification-related discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Greetings WeatherWriter, you seem to have misinterpreted my use of the failed verification template, feel free to leave a message on my talk page first if there's any ambiguity with my edits in the future. I wasn't disagreeing that the phrase "battle of Kherson" can be found in the Telegraph article; rather my issue is with the sentence The battle of Kherson began on 24 February 2022, as part of the southern Ukraine campaign of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, specifically the first part of the sentence. I'm sure we can agree that no exact date is specified in the Telegraph source. Anyone else reading this can consider this matter resolved. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Blog comment
Gaza Health Ministry cites an opinion from "Ken M", an anonymous commenter on Lior Pachter's blog. This would normally run afoul of WP:USERGENERATED, but there has been an interesting argument for keeping it: the comment was quoted in another blog by James Joyner, who arguably has some relevant credentials.

Does inclusion in Joyner's blog successfully "fix" the reliability of the anonymous comment? My sense is that this could work in principle, but in this case Joyner doesn't really discuss the comment, so he's not really corroborating the argument and lending his credibility to it. He does call it an "insight" though, so that's something.

This was discussed a little on the article's talk page, but input from uninvolved editors would be helpful. — xDanielx  T/C\R 19:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Ken M? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume it's coincidence but that's interesting! — xDanielx  T/C\R 00:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a situation of a citation/link rather than a source/reference. Content has to be cited to a reliable source, i.e. we write based on the sources, but we can link to whatever. That is to say: if Lyin' Larry's Blog O' Lies publishes an article called "Edward Snowden Is The King Of England", this is obviously untrue, and should not be cited as fact anywhere (and indeed shouldn't be cited as opinion unless it's WP:DUE. But if someone in a real publication mentions this blog post, it's helpful to our readers if, when mentioning that, we also link them directly to the post. This doesn't mean Lyin' Larry's Blog O' Lies is a reliable source, just that (given that someone else already established it's noteworthy) we're giving people a way to see what he said. jp×g🗯️ 02:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle, but is this noteworthy in this case? It’s one blog citing a comment on another. Seems undue. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 03:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

panarmenian.net
i recently removed a link to https://www.panarmenian.net from WP:WikiProject Armenia because it's marked red by a script i use, owing to being designated as unreliable over at WP:New page patrol source guide, and it was restored by (courtesy ping). looked into it further, and it's only been actually discussed once at RSN with minimal participation back in 2020 (/Archive 314) and as a brief aside to another discussion in 2022. it's used in quite a lot of articles, so i think it'd be good to nail some consensus down if possible. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it should also be noted that our own article on PanARMENIAN.Net has several valid maintenance tags indicating that it's promotional, so i don't think it will be particularly useful for our purposes here. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an established media outlet, you can find their editorial team's contacts here. Are there any reasons to doubt its reliability? Alaexis¿question? 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i don't know; that's why i'm opening this discussion - it's been marked "unreliable" for a few years but there's not been much discussion about it; if it's a good source then our project pages should reflect that. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the first time I encounter highlighting that is not based on any community consensus. I'll ask this question at the script's talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing sources in context. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this isn't an issue with the script itself, as the script just reflects what our various source lists, such as the NPP source guide, say. i'm not sure what the benefit of moving a discussion here to a much less visible location is, and i think it's worth actually discussing this source on its merits. the link above doesn't give much detail about their editorial team - no names, credentials, or anything. it seems like most of their stories don't have bylines either, from what i can tell. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It *should* reflect the WP:RSP, but now it doesn't and this is a problem.
 * As you can see at the top of this page, this noticeboard is for discussing sources in context and the initiators of discussions are supposed to "supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Alaexis¿question? 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Its article is almost purely promotional. Unsourced praise, a mission statement, awards and recognition and notable projects none of which are valid by our policies. I've stripped a lot out. Doug Weller  talk 09:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed archived discussions, again
RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) was archived on 2 May 2024. Tpbradbury edited the archive to "close" it on 28 June 2024. David Gerard reverted on 30 June 2024. Red-tailed Hawk put it back on on 2 July 2024. I hope that Tpbradbury will read earlier thread Closed archived discussions, and the threads it references from before that, then self-revert. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should not be necessary when the very act was wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The closure faithfully represents the discussion's consensus. Would you prefer that the user have unarchived the discussion, inserted the exact same closing statement, and then waited for the bot to come around and archive it again? I'm struggling to understand what we gain from that other than extra steps to attain the fundamentally same result. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think we should unarchive discussions before closing them, unless some extreme space issue makes such an action unwise. A new thread with a pointer to the closed discussion would also help. I don't think we have a rule against closing archived discussions, nor do I think we should have one. Our backlog at WP:Closure requests is frequently longer than the archiving period, and I don't want to encourage "bumping" behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference it was a requested close. CNC (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I hear the NOTBURO argument, but it would be nice if there was some way for participants to be notified when a discussion is closed, even if it's closed in the archives. Right now, neither watchlisting nor subscribing will tell you when an archived discussion is closed. Pulling it out of the archives and closing it will (I believe) notify both page watchers and thread subscribers. I'm not sure if there is another, better way, to accomplish the same thing. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no need to unarchive discussions, but I would suggest adding a notification to the board that the RFC has been closed. Unarchiving discussions just causes the board load to become overburdened and difficult to load. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The archiving on the page is short to keep the board functioning. Do the close in the archive, and notify the noticeboard it's been done. There's no need to bring sometimes extremely large discussions back from the archive. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think we should make it so the noticeboard doesn't archive stuff unless it's closed, or at least make it respect something like a "pending-close" template... We have an entire stupid beer disaster because the bot decided to archive that UNBELIEVABLY GIGANTIC ADL RfC, which I have to manually bring back, which messed up the archiving for a while. How idiotic would it have been if that whole discussion had just gotten archived after months of discussion without anybody bothering to close it?? jp×g🗯️ 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was already a close request at WP:CR fir the ADL discussion and it had details of which archive it could be found in.
 * As an example of a better option. The RFC for Mondoweiss was archived, the close was posted to the noticeboard, all without making loading the noticeboard an issue. As the close went to review it obviously didn't cause any issues with visibility. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This sort of practice is sensible. Balances the WP:NOTBUREAU concerns with the ability of watchers to see that a discussion was closed. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * So for example, this RfC I noticed the bot removed the tag from (yes, I occasionally stalk archives). I would like to close it with the relatively clear consensus that has been established; should I return it to the noticeboard with a closure, or simply notify of a closure? For reference sake it's not a particularly byte heavy RfC, and despite the lack of CR, I believe it should be closed. CNC (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It should be unarchived and then closed. Most people don't have the archives on their watchlists. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, follow the rule at the top of the archive page ("Do not edit the contents of this page.") and follow Help:Archiving a talk page ("... unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive.") But not on a discussion that's been effectively closed, as here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Soccerdonna
I feel like this thread will just be a formality based on the fact Soccerdonna.de is part of Transfermarkt (noticeboard thread) - and, frankly, far more England-centric (more likely to be unreliable if not actively biased).

A few days ago, a question about handling RS at List of most expensive women's association football transfers was asked, and I lamented how some entries were still reliant on Soccerdonna transfer profiles. And then I remembered that transfers at Transfermarkt aren't RS, so there's no reason not to apply the same to Soccerdonna.

As there are four entries on that list that have Soccerdonna as the only source, and another that has it as the main source, I thought a community discussion should be held for Soccerdonna specifically before removing/editing those entries based on Transfermarkt being non-RS. Kingsif (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that both Transfermarkt and Soccerdonna both have a login button, I think Soccerdonna falls in the category of WP:USERG. If it is judged as unreliable, many pages which has this site as sources will need to be changed as well as the article linked above. Looking at the terms and conditions, one of the sentences from point 4.1 says You are responsible for all content such as texts, data, photos, photo series (hereinafter "content") that you send to Transfermarkt., so I'm guessing anyone can edit. Therefore I will vote in saying this would not be WP:RELIABLE. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of these links are coming out of the Sport links (see module), have shared it over there. CNC (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not reliable Transfermarkt has been discussed and agreed on as non reliable a number of times (at this location and WT:FOOTY), and Soccerdonna is being run by Transfermarkt and so cannot be considered reliable either. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree - not reliable. GiantSnowman 20:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Snopes Author Attribution Changing
Hi all, I've noticed Snopes, started by David and Barbara Mikkelson, across the years is changing author attribution for very old articles. It's difficult to see many examples as URLs have changed in very recent years, but
 * Unattributed / David & Barbara -> David [1a ][1b ] [2a ][2b ] [3a ][3b ] [4a ][4b ] [5a ][5b ]
 * Barbara -> Barbara & David [1a ][1b ] [2a ][2b ]
 * Barbara -> David [1a ][1b ].

I cannot tell when these changes were undertaken, but the original attribution was up as late as 2011 for at least some of these. This is troubling because it seems the changes happened around / after the Mikkelsons divorced, Barbara no longer was active in the website, and before David stepped as CEO due to poor journalistic ethics. It is possible it is not nefarious.

At this time I am unsure who to attribute authorship of articles to. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Important to note there are still articles attributed to Barbara. [1 ][2 ][3 ] Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Without any further details, or any third party commenting on it, I would just put this down to articles being updated and the author details changing as the updates are done. It could be related to the divorce, but if that is the case it wouldn't impact the articles themselves (other than the author details changing that is). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

pakmag.net
I need an opinion on this source pakmag.net, which is heavily utilized in Pakistani articles related to film and actors. Per external URL stats,, it's being currenly used in at least 350 articles. The website's footer states, PAK Magazine is an individual effort to compile and preserve Pakistan's history online... and I am not responsible for the content of any external site.... which  suggests it is a self-published source. Should we permit its usage in our articles?<span id="Saqib:1720461032493:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is one individuals personal website (some digging turns up this, although it's two decades out of date), and there's no indication they would be considered a subject matter expert in anything relevant. The website claims to only be compiling information, so it should be possible to find the same content elsewhere. Definitely a case of 'better source needed'. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method
Is this statement + source appropriate for inclusion in the article?

A 2020 review of recent literature in Kinesiology Review found "research clearly supports the effectiveness of the [Feldenkrais Method] for improvement of balance and chronic pain management."

Thanks! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for everyone's opinions. I'm content to consider this thread closed as not reliable for the claim. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Kinesiology Review)

 * Kinesiology Review is not indexed by MEDLINE, which is a major red flag for medical citations. One of the authors (Stephens) seems to be a practitioner of this form of Altmed (his affiliation is an individual practice offering such) and would appear to have a COI. This is not the kind of source that we should rely on for this kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim about altmed. - MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This Kinesiology Review review of recent evidence is peer-reviewed; the journal has a well regarded editorial board; the finding is supported by other sources. Kinesiology Review is indexed in Web of Science and has an Impact Factor of 1. This is the type of source MEDRS looks for in its structure and function. The fact that one of the authors is an expert in Feldenkrais is a feature not a bug: we want experts involved in research, and that's only one of the two authors. (For example, if this was a study related to cardiac surgery, it would be expected for a cardiac surgeon to be involved in its conduct). Ocaasit &#124; c 19:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Kinesiology Review publishes primarily applied kinesiology not Kinesiology unless I am mistaken. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * : The academic discipline of kinesiology is taught and researched in colleges and universities and is to be differentiated from Applied Kinesiology and other fields that use the term “kinesiology” (dental, spiritual, holistic, bio-spiritual) some of which lack grounding in the scientific study of physical activity. So, it really seems to be about kinesiology, not applied kinesiology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't like the term... But they do actually publish applied kinesiology, notice how they're saying that only some of which lack grounding in the scientific study of physical activity when they all lack such grounding? They cloak Applied Kinesiology in the veneer of kinesiology but its the same woo woo bullshit, the American Kinesiology Foundation doesn't support academic kinesiology they're attempting to break down the wall between the academic and the applied. Look at this study for example, one of the authors is an applied kinesiology practitioner (and not an academic or scholar unless I'm missing something, but a practicing physical therapist). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the paper is 4ish years old, I tried to check if other RSes had cited it and the [results are pretty unimpressive with only one citation in a journal from a reputable publisher and nothing at all that would qualify as mainstream medical literature. So, based upon what I have seen so far, I am skeptical that this a [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant source that can be used to support claims such as the method's effectiveness for pain management. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Low-impact, non-MEDLINE journal article making unusual claims for a known pseudoscience. Avoid. Bon courage (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_161 for a previous discussion about this article. WPMED people weren't impressed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hypable, Fansided, and Wordsrated in list of best-selling books
In the list of best-selling books, Hypable had been used to support Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets having sold 77 million copies. Fansided had been used to support the Harry Potter books afterward having sold 65 million copies. I removed these entries because I found these sources to be inadequate. These sources seemed to in the same camp as sites like the Valnet properties in which the focus more on entertaining than informing an audience. As such, I removed these entries. However, an anon has reinstated the entries, using a website that seems even more questionable: Wordsrated, which is primarily a tool to help with word games.

Of course, there is a chance that this is all just a gut feeling on my part. I've already started a discussion at Talk:List of best-selling books, but I figured I'd also start discussion here to focus on the sources themselves. What are your guys' take on this. Lazman321 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that fan-facing book promotion websites have the independent reliability to know those stats – if they are accurate, a better source will have reported them. Based on Wordsrated's other fact boxes, it almost certainly just copied the information from Wikipedia at some point (WP:REFLOOP). I would remove them pending better (pre-dating) sources. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I'll remove the entries. Lazman321 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Aleteia
Two past discussions. One said no way and the other is a very deep dive into Catholic publications.

Used at 2021 Canadian church burnings to source police-blotter stuff about three different fires three years ago. Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's good for attributed information on church subjects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it's being used to reference fires. Unattributed.Elinruby (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * attributed to fires that occurred in Churches, isn't it? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, the fires in question were at churches, but "attributed" here means saying "according to "Aleteria", and we are not doing that. 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't feel this would be the best source for factual information such as incidences of church burnings, as it isn't always clear with its sources of information, and many articles read as opinion pieces. Overall, other sources would be preferable.
 * It openly describes itself as focused on Catholic evangelism, which I find concerning for using it as a main source.
 * The quality of articles seems to vary greatly depending on the topic, author, etc.
 * Some appear to be clearly opinion-based while some seem to be fairly plain descriptions of events related to the Catholic Church like a new bishop appointed.
 * It actually has featured some very interesting and nuanced discussion of fraught topics such as Residential Schools, (e.g. in this article where the individual being interviewed about Residential Schools admits the severe abuses and harm that occurred, acknowledging the existence of gravesites, references denialism, and overall discusses the topic with a fair amount of nuance [1 ])
 * Overall, however, I don't personally think it's reliable enough to stand on its own, particularly on a highly controversial topic such as the Canadian church burnings, which have been the subject of conspiracies. Use of other news sources to support claims would be beneficial. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fluorescent Jellyfish
 * From where would you think ample reports of Church burnings will come from other than the sources related to the Churches?
 * Let me put an example which I have come across few years ago.
 * Some giant news media which I don't recollect now, something like BBC or Guardian, reported
 * in detail on the survival story of a man who was stranded in sea alone, there was a local media report too in English on the same story around the same date. The only difference between the two news reporting was survivor's story relating to God/Bible/Jesus. This giant media selectively censored that part of his quote from their reporting. If say a wiki article on survivor exists and I am about to add his story how bible/Jesus made him strong when he was stranded in sea alone bh citing the local news, wouldn't then some editor remove the content saying unreliability of source, ie., the local news? In short if source to context isn't analysed, every part related to Christianity wouldn't be there in Wikipedia as these giant medias only shy when it comes about Christianity not when Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism is at discussion.
 * So instead of discussing reliability of source as a whole, source in relation to the context where it is used as source is the one which is needed to be analysed and discussed.
 * The exact context including the part of sentence which used Aleteia as source hasn't been provided here yet. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "From where would you think ample reports of Church burnings will come from other than the sources related to the Churches?"
 * Incidences of church arsons are also reported in many news sources that are known to be more reliable, such as CBC [1 ], The Edmonton Journal [2 ], and various other sources for individual incidents. Therefore it doesn't seem necessary to also include citations to a questionable source like Aleteia. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fluorescent Jellyfish
 * yes, if there are news for the fire at first three churches from sources that are already deemed as reliable sources, then it is sufficient. If the information on the burning of fourth Church is only available from publications such as Aleteia, it has to be heard and placed in Wikipedia. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why must a spurious source reporting on something nobody else is be included? What does it "have to be heard and placed in Wikipedia?" Lostsandwich (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not... See WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, evangelical and .org/advocacy groups should always be considered unreliable by default. They are not only biased, but biased to the point where, in my experience, few people outside the organization consider them trustworthy. (There are exceptions, but they're for well known, exceptional organizations.) Reliable sources are supposed to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the onus here should be on anyone who considers Aleteia reliable (or even "good enough") to prove it. Woodroar (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aleteia is not an Evangelical Christian website, but a Catholic one. I'm a bit confused as to the appeal to that here. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sectarian sources can be reliable, especially independently managed ones. This is one such entity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking a bit deeper, Aleteia appears to be consistently one of the better Catholic news websites. Since 2015, it has been operated by Média-Participations, a longstanding publisher based in Belgium. Aleteia has been involved in a consortium of fact-checkers who sought to dispel myths about COVID-19 and vaccination that were circulating in Catholic circles, and that consortium seems to have been fairly reputable. And I do see the website cited for facts in scholarly works (e.g. 1, 2 3, etc.). The website does seem perfectly fine in terms of reliability for these sorts of "police blotter" items. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Aleteia has articles that feature good nuance and quite factual reporting (and I admire their efforts to fight misinformation around Covid vaccines).
 * It's a really interesting source, because the quality and non-biased presentation can vary s quite a bit.
 * For instance, this article features some pretty thoughtful discussion of the ongoing crisis in Democratic Republic of Congo, and the need for aid as well as the potential role of the Western desire for resources. And this one about a coalition of Canadian Catholic schools suing tech companies over social media's effect on kids, it shows its sources and presents the subject in a pretty plain manner. Overall, most of their news reporting looks pretty decent - not, like, top quality, but definitely not bad - and I'm pretty impressed!
 * This, for instance, is a really good article on Residential Schools in the US, and specifically used terms like "forced assimilation", etc., not shying away from the realities of it.
 * When it comes to the non-news articles (like opinion pieces), it can get a bit dicier. I'd definitely urge caution when it comes to opinion articles as opposed to news articles, and making sure the reporting is clear on where the info comes from.
 * But honestly overall, having spent a couple of hours exploring... I have to revise my prior opinion somewhat to give them more of their due. I think that Aleteia could be used with caution, as it appears fairly reliable in many situations.  It might be a good idea to support their claims with other sources, particularly for topics where they evince a slant (e.g. abortion, medical assistance in dying) but I am fairly pleased with their accuracy in general.
 * Yeah, I'd say usable with caution. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like any WP:NEWSORG, Aleteia contains both factual content and opinion content. When it comes to the non-news articles (like opinion pieces) that you mention, we generally would treat them in line with WP:RSOPINION. That is to say, those pieces would be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. This would distinguish from their news reporting, which appears to be quite good. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue overall with the inclusion of the information, it seems reasonable and not strongly biased (the article spends some time mentioning the Residential Schools)
 * But am I misreading the references on the wiki article? Nowhere in the Aleteia article is "St. Kateri Tekakwitha Church in Indian Brook, Nova Scotia". Lostsandwich (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)icle.t re
 * Nope you were not. It has been removed and replaced with a CBC article Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting observation. I am running out the door but will make a point of checking that later. We have already had one instance in the topic area of a source being both unreliable and misrepresented. As for the remarks about 'evangelist' above somewhere, yeah, the word as used here is not referring to the American neo-Christian movement, but to an older movement in the Catholic church to spread the word of God. Missionaries were evangelists. At least that is what dim memories of Catholic school are telling me. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They're published and supported by the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media. They are not an Evangelical Protestant organization, correct, but they are nevertheless evangelists. Their About Us page mentions the "spiritual goals of the project" and "promote[ing] the Church’s presence in the media". Woodroar (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While the term evangelical is used to refer to fundamentalist Protestantism in the U.S., it literally means to be in adherence with the Gospel. There is no evidence that the use of the term evangelization is a reference to Christian fundamentalism. TFD (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think everyone realizes that Elinruby (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. Perhaps I could have said "evangelizing" instead. In any case, their ultimate goal is to preach the Gospel—and that, to me, is incompatible with a "news" organization. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's devoted to spreading the word of God and it's being used in the context of the harm done by people who thought the were spreading the word of God to show how the word of God is under attack supposedly. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that in this context it either needs to be attributed or not used at all, they don't seem to be able to be trusted anytime their reporting is in an area in which the Catholic Church has a signficant interest (for example aledged arson against the Catholic Church). If this weren't related to the Catholic Church I wouldn't have a big issue with them, but in context I think that they're generally unreliable due to their strong bias and evangelical bent (those who don't think that Catholics evangelize probably shouldn't be commenting here). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. No evidence of unreliability has been presented so far. There is some use by RS like the NYT, Le Monde and Le Figaro, so it looks alright. Alaexis¿question? 14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats the evangelizing people have been talking about... Its beyond the realm of traditional media and gets you stories like this one "10 Problems that Christ-centeredness answers"... It certainly wouldn't be approriate or accurate to use this souce to claim at Addiction that only treatment plans which direct the subject to seek Jesus Christ are effective. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Has *anyone* tried to use it in this way? This thread is about church fires. Alaexis¿question? 21:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something none of the stories you brought up to support their reliability were about the church fires. You asked for evidence of unreliability, you recieved it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was demonstrating WP:USEBYOTHERS which is an indicator of the reliability of the source. Alaexis¿question? 13:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what is the problem with my evidence which clearly demonstrated unreliability? Theres no good way to spin that, its either a complete disregard for fact checking or they know that they are publishing pious lies about adiction. In either case its a generally unreliable source, there is no way to publish that article and meet WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not evidence of unreliability. They are not saying that "only treatment plans which direct the subject to seek Jesus Christ are effective". Honestly I don't think that statements like "Christ-centeredness addresses our personal issues" or "Are you addicted? Christ sets you free" are falsifiable. I agree that they should not be used in articles, but in fact they aren't. When it comes to facts, we have evidence of use by others and no evidence of publishing falsehoods. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Successful paths toward freedom from addiction such as Alcoholics Anonymous turn us toward him, because “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”" does appear to be saying that only Jesus Christ can cure addiction, which would be within the teachings of the church. The clear suggestion is that without Christ the addict can not overcome their addiction. These are all presented as facts... Which means they are falsifiable... Which means that they are published falsehoods... For wikipedia's purposes it doesn't matter why something isn't true, it just matters that it isn't true. Pious lies are as much of an issue as malicious ones. Its just as unreliable to say that Jesus Christ cures addiction as it is to say that garlic juice cures addiction... They literally publish this helpful prayer guide "Dear God, someone I love is an addict. I know there is nothing that I can do to get through. Logic, the perfect words, even love is not always enough to break through the haze. You are the only one who can help ________ find the motivation and the hope within to break free from the chains of addiction. Lord, you came to earth to free us from our sins. Pour out your grace on this world so in need of your love, especially upon _________, whom I love so much. Amen." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that there are inherent contradictions between being religiously orthodox and being accurate, all of the sources you mention are using them within that context. Its not hard to see either, the contradiction is in their mission statement: "The Aleteia site offers a Christian vision of the world by providing general and religious content that is free from ideological influences." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:NORN
There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Indian Residential School Survivor Society
does not appear to meet standards for RS, thoughts? It's a dead link to a blog, although it *is* archived. It is being used at St. Mary's Indian Residential School to support "many other former students have fond memories of their time at the school" among other less questionable claims such as the number of students and that they were mostly Stó꞉lō, which seems likely given the location. This is from the About page: The IRSSS’s Education Project was created with support and in conjunction with the community-based Vancouver Foundation. It is designed to help educators teach their students about Indian Residential Schools by developing accurate, balanced, and engaging lesson plans and resources to supplement Social Studies and other course curriculums. I am thinking self-published advocacy although I think they are a legitimate voice that RS should listen to. But not themselves RS. Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The link that you've provided itself notes only one source in a "further reading" section (it's unclear if this is intended as a citation). There's no indication of authorship for the page or any indication that it was fact-checked. I would say in this case, that page shouldn't be used for facts. If the IRSSS is being cited for an interpretation of facts, that should be attributed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Although surprising to hear....statement can easily be sourced to other publications .....like . Moxy 🍁 00:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it but it's currently not sourced to something else and changes are having to grind through noticeboards because the topic is plagued by a) defenders of the faith b) TL;DR c) editors who have never thought critically about the topic and d) something about reparations from Americans who know nothing about the history. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who here is causing a problem? ..Talk:St. Mary's Indian Residential School has zero talks? Moxy 🍁 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And its sourcing sucks and doesn't need to. it is not, as I have pointed out all over this noticeboard, as though the sources are lacking. In 2021, yes, it was a bit of a struggle to source that there were plans to use ground-penetrating radar at a given school without using a press release, but three years in there are now local RS such as the Chilliwack Progress and peer-reviewed sources like the journal of the Canadian Medical Association for pretty much anything, I am finding. Elinruby (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question was about a specific source. I answered that question. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, and thank you. Ignore Moxy. He's been following me around making rude comments. I am not sure why. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sono Nis Press
The article on St Joseph's Mission relies very heavily on Whitehead, Margaret (1982). The Cariboo Mission: A History of the Oblates. Victoria, British Columbia: Sono Nis Press.

The publisher's About page seems reasonable. The source is mainly used to source administrivia about who was the principal at the residential school when, which is somewhat important given the criminal convictions among the staff. The source doesn't seem to be listed at Google Books, however, although I see it in several bibliographies there.

My own impression is that it might be a rather uncritical history, based on some other search results, but I am not actually sure how much that matters for things like: The Oblate priests lived in the same building that the boys lived in, while the Sisters lived in the girls building.

However when you get into things like this: The priests of the Mission relied on grand church-opening ceremonies to replace Indigenous rituals such as the potlatch, which they had now banned. Bishop Pierre-Paul Durieu founded the Indian Total Abstinence Society of British Columbia in 1895 at Saint Joseph's Mission to encourage prohibition on all reserves. Band chiefs under the Durieu system were encouraged to publicly whip people in order to encourage members to follow church rules, a practice which was tacitly endorsed by the government. However, a court case in which a priest and chief were found guilty of assault after administering thirty lashes to a 17-year old Indigenous girl for promiscuity led Bishop Durieu to found the Total Abstinence Society instead. (The government overturned the sentence after an appeal by the church.) The Society would become responsible for holding new converts to their pledge to give up alcohol, and to punish people who fell short. I think it is a lot shakier. And am I the only one who finds the chronology there unclear? Normally I would try to clarify it based on the source, but since I haven't found the source online...Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like some input; thinking of adding a refimprove tag to article given that it relies so heavily on this one source and the report of the Truth an Reconciliation Commission. Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Whitehead is a history professor, her area of study appears to be this specific issue, and the work appears to be used by others. So the work looks reliable. I can't say anything about the specific content, as I can't find the source online either. You could try making a request for pages 93–97 at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
 * As to tagging the article you could use one source rather than refimprove. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a good suggestion, thank you. And I missed the fact that she is a history professor. I will go ahead amd change the tag as you suggest. I feel a little better about using the source so heavily now, and will go ahead and address the repeated references. In some cases I would have questioned the notability of the staffing changes, but given the criminal convictions I think that in this case it is important to note who was in charge at a given time. Appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Solomon Islands Historical Encyclopaedia, 1893-1978
Curious if anyone has thoughts on the Solomon Islands Historical Encyclopaedia, specifically its article about Peter Kenilorea (https://www.solomonencyclopaedia.net/biogs/E000525b.htm). The entire website appears to be written by one person, Clive Moore, but he's an academic historian and has written about the country in other publications. My other immediate concern is that in this particular entry, it lists Kenilorea's date of birth as 19 May, but most other sources list it as 23 May, including government websites. Another consideration is that Moore worked personally with Kenilorea as his editor when Kenilorea wrote an autobiography. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Practically, SIHE is Clive Moore's personal blog and not peer-reviewed; however, as you say, Moore is an academic historian and a highly regarded one. So, WP:EXPERTSPS applies, which means that we ought to report both the dates. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the full work, but this snippet from Kenilorea autobiography could be useful "... 23 May 1943, a date I accepted as my official birthday until, only recently, I discovered, in July 2003, amongst Dad's old records, that "Kauona Keninaraiso ona Kenirorea was born on 19 May 1943". -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 09:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Bare Bones ezine
https://barebonesez.blogspot.com/2011/12/robert-bloch-on-tv-part-four-alfred.html This ezine seems to be comprehensive in the material that it catalogues. It also has legitimate print issues. The issue is that it's hosted on blogger. Could anyone kindly take a look? — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 21:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem is that that article states that one of its sources is Wikipedia, this appears to be a WP:CIRCULAR issue. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 23:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is pv-magazine.com reliable?
3 independent editors (@Chris Capoccia @Reywas92 and me) have requested to remove PV-magazine.com from the spam blacklist (you'll have to reach the website yourself as I can't link to it). Admins declined the request as they claim RSN should decide if it is reliable first. So here we are.

It was blacklisted due to spam in 2011 (yes that's 13 years ago) and it remains there despite at least 14 requests to delist it by as many editors stating over and over again that this is an important source in the sector and it is absurd that it should still be blacklisted after all this time.

Here is a rundown of the 14 previous attempts:
 * 1) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011 declined If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered.
 * 2) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2013 ignored
 * 3) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2013 defer to whitelist . One admin proposed to delist it but was ignored "It seems that Pv-magazine is the authoritative reliable source for photovoltaic topics, and it is often difficult (I have tried) to find alternatives"
 * 4) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2015 First Declined due to "no rationale to overcome the past spamming." (not sure what that means)
 * 5) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2016 ignored
 * 6) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2017 ignored
 * 7) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2018 declined without a reason (same admins) and Defer to Whitelist
 * 8) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2019 declined by the same admins and Defer to Whitelist
 * 9) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2019 declined by more admins
 * 10) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020 basically ignored
 * 11) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2020 declined, same admin same reason
 * 12) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2021 ignored
 * 13) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2021 declined again by same admins
 * 14) MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2021 declined again by same admins

Also there have been 8 whitelist requests of which several have even been approved (with admins even commenting Reliability of a site does not have a lot to do with the blacklisting, it is the abuse that triggers it Source).

All of those requests include links and specific attempts by editors to add this source to various encyclopaedia articles.

Basically this spiralled from a simple spam blacklist in 2011 to a total ban for reliability reasons but it doesn't seem anyone really believes this source is unreliable.

I believe this source is reliable. Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The rationales for past declines were omitted from the description above. Here's some context. I declined the most recent request, and asked that, once and for all, we get a wider community consensus. For the spam blacklist, administrators make use of this noticeboard to aid our decisions, both to add and to remove entries from the list. It has been a normal practice for us to request a link to an RSN consensus for delisting requests.
 * The first delisting request listed above (May 2011) was a from a spammer who admitted the intent to spam, so naturally the request was declined.
 * The third one listed above (October 2013) suggests moving the domain to XLinkBot to see what happens.
 * The July 2016 request wasn't "ignored" (I struck that out above), the delisting was requested by the editor-in-chief of PV Magazine. It was answered. Requests from anyone with a COI are not actionable.
 * "a lot of the material on this site is regurgitated (aggregated) from the original (basically this is a primary source for most information, it is almost exclusively scraping information from primary sources and rewrites it" - February 2019
 * "As per prior requests, this is basically a trade paper that is based in large part on press releases and they are known to watch this page with a view to resuming linking, e.g. by employed writers.... There is no shortage of peer-reviewed engineering journals that are a substantially better fit for Wikipedia" - October 2019
 * "appears to be mainly churnalism" - January 2020
 * "Most of the material is churnalism, more than original journalism. They republish material. Examples, quoting from their front page: [examples given]" - May 2020
 * " it has useful information that it regurgitates from the original source. Only very little information on this site is original... we do have that standard, we remove primary sources / replace them with proper sources" - April 2021
 * "This is mostly just a primary source masquerading as a secondary source." - November 2021

For my part, I'm in favor of letting XLinkBot handle this domain instead of the blacklist. As for reliability, it's likely a reliable source, but unnecessary to use if much of the material in it is simply regurgitated from other sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not impressed with the reliability of this source. Doing some spot checks, I see a bunch of non-independent content (articles written based on press releases and articles packed full of quotations). In my opinion, this source would never pass GNG.
 * I am not sure I agree with this idea that low quality sources should be un-blacklistable though. There are numerous examples of generally unreliable and deprecated sources that are not on the blacklist.
 * Here we have multiple experienced editors stating that this source does have some articles that would be useful to cite. I am inclined to trust our experienced editors rather than just reflexively keep this on the blacklist.
 * By the way, can you please link to a couple of the "higher quality" articles that you'd like to cite if this is unblacklisted? – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreliable or deprecated sources that aren't on the blacklist, aren't listed because they haven't been spammed. Once a source gets on the blacklist due to spamming, we need to know (a) that we aren't risking future spamming by de-listing it, and (b) that its reliability makes it worth de-listing at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae I also haven't reviewed the entire website obviously so I agree the reliability of each single article should be evaluated by editors on a case by case basis depending on the context (like all sources!). However I am 100% sure that they should not be entirely blacklisted as a totally unreliable source as they do publish original high quality content. This is demonstrated by the fact that we have explicitly added some links to the whitelist and that top sources (such as The Guardian) cite them and use them as sources.
 * The article I wanted to cite is www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/06/worlds-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china-2/. It's a basic article but it reliably covers a niche topic and provides key data for articles such as List of photovoltaic power stations. I've checked and I don't think the topic has been covered very much by other sources. I don't see the point of not using such a source for simple facts (e.g. a new large PV plant is online). In the case of Midong PV (the largest PV plant in the world) our article is incorrectly stating that it is under construction while it is already in use. Blacklisting this source has made our encyclopedia worse. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist could you clarify what XLinkBot does? I've never heard of it. Thanks! &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See User:XLinkBot. It lets established users add links but automatically reverts them if an unconfirmed editor or anonymous IP address adds it. That would allow you to link to pv-magazine.com but still disallow spamming from new accounts or IP addresses. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/03/25/turkey-introduces-duties-on-pv-module-imports-from-5-countries/ is not simply regurgitated but links to the official non-English government regulation. I think it will be easier for most readers of Solar power in Turkey if I cite this as well as the official announcement. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And when I do a google search for news of “turkey solar panel taxes” https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/11/turkeys-solar-ambitions-range-beyond-its-borders/ appears second below an irrelevant article. I cannot see why I should waste time looking further down the search results when I want to keep the above Wikipedia article up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Gtoffoletto for getting this started. I am not familiar with XLinkBot, but I believe this site should be removed from the spam blacklist, 13 years after the incident. Some articles that could be helpful include www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/29/solar-leading-baltic-states-to-energy-security/ for Renewable energy in Lithuania, Energy in Latvia, and Energy in Estonia; www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/13/weekend-read-take-off-at-last-for-egyptian-pv/ has information about Energy in Egypt and Benban Solar Park; www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/28/israeli-startup-launches-agrivoltaic-pilot-in-desert-with-double-axis-sun-tracking/ could be used in Solar power in Israel or Agrivoltaics; www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/28/california-rooftop-pv-companies-face-high-risks-says-insurer/ could be used in Solar power in California; www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/17/lebanon-signs-11-solar-ppas-but-financial-closure-remains-challenging/ could be used in Energy in Lebanon; www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/23/solar-buyers-market-but-us-developers-face-price-premium/ might work in Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act; www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/18/the-weekend-read-24-7-hourly-matching-a-new-granular-phase-of-renewable-energy-sourcing/ has info usable at Renewable Energy Certificate (United States). While a lot of their articles are industry news that may not be encyclopedia-type content or have sufficient depth for GNG, I find pv-magazine a useful source for information about solar technology and installations. This is a subject area that is often lacking up-to-date or localized information on Wikipedia, and pv-magazine can help fill that gap, including with its international versions. In addition to some topical analysis, many articles report on official data, academic publications, or foreign language news that are not easily accessible elsewhere, even if editors should be advised that there may be primary sources that could be cited directly. Even if it's not the best or only source in all cases, I don't believe it is likely to add incorrect information and do not believe it should contine to be blocked entirely. Reywas92Talk 12:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See User:XLinkBot. I think that would satisfy everyone, allowing established editors to add it while still maintaining some spam protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Anachronist, this seems reasonable. Reywas92Talk 15:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * XLinkBot hasn't run for over a year. It isn't an option unless the maintainers fix it. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know that.  What's the story with XLinkBot? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm all for being prudent but if the bot doesn't work I really don't see why this precaution would be needed. It's been over 10 years since the last spam incident? I don't see any reason to suspect anyone will spam this again. I think the company that spammed this definitely "got the memo". And if it is spammed: the spam blacklist is one admin action away. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, it might be a trade rag, but I'm hitherto unaware of any kind of Wikipedia policy where trade magazines with mid reliability are put on the spam blacklist, for Pete's sake -- is there an actual compelling reason it needs to be on there? The spam blacklist is not supposed to be the "spam-but-also-we-just-kind-of-keep-stuff-forever-once-it's-on-there-if-we-think-it's-mid blacklist". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're unaware? I've participated in the spam blacklist maintenance for years. Sites get put on the spam blacklist for spamming, period. They get blacklisted regardless of reliability or lack of it. PV-magazine.com had a history of spamming, therefore it was blacklisted. Once on the blacklist, administrators are reluctant to remove a blacklisted site unless they can be assured of two things: (a) it's unlikely to be spammed again, and (b) it's actually worth de-listing because it's a reliable source. Here we're discussing the reliability as an aid to an administrator decision to de-list. And that reliability, based on the prior discussions listed above, is questionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's certainly easy to be unware of this process because Spam blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist still do not say anywhere that a site must be established here to be reliable before they can be removed. Reywas92Talk 13:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with @JPxG. This looks like an inappropriate use of the spam blacklist to me. It should be about spam not reliability. Of course there is no point in reinstating something that it unequivocally unreliable (e.g. WP:BREITBART). But this definitely doesn't seem to be the case. There is no consensus for deprecating this source or even claiming it is generally unreliable. Time to fix this. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you that this discussion isn't about the blacklist, it's about reliability. I'd like to see more participants chime in. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In my experience (for example background reading in bringing solar power in Turkey up to good standard) this is a reliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delist. There is excellent evidence that this is a generally reliable source. Here are articles by IEEE Spectrum, Opto-Electronics Review, and iScience that cite it, which is evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Here's an Oxford University research lab bragging about its work being featured in PV Magazine.


 * Regarding process and policy, assessments of reliability are editorial decisions rather than administrative ones. Normal Wikipedia practice is to allow automation to interfere with editorial decisions only when it's needed to prevent disruptive levels of vandalism and spamming. If automation is interfering with normal editorial processes then frankly it's the automation that is being disruptive.
 * The community has historically discussed, but not chosen to use, automation to block the addition of links to non-spammed, generally-unreliable sources. Even total crap like Russia Today is not on the spam blacklist. A site that is not at high risk for future spamming should be removed from the blacklist and if any editor feels it should be re-added on reliability grounds, the onus is (or should be) on them to get consensus here to re-add it. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe reliability should never decide what's on the spam blacklist, but this suggestion would at least help for this case and maybe verywellhealth.com. Does the suggestion mean change the WP:RS guideline? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not sure what suggestion you're referring to, but as far as I can tell, nothing in the above discussion calls for changing the WP:RS guideline. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, I read "A site that is not at high risk for future spamming should be removed from the blacklist and if any editor feels it should be re-added on reliability grounds, the onus is (or should be) on them to get consensus here to re-add it." as a suggestion. I understood wrong, eh? Okay, never mind. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What a wonderfully eloquent comment. Absolutely agree with @Clayoquot. Well done. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

opensource.apple.com and its mirrors
I have been trying to write an article on the Wilson-Kaplan direct-mapped (WKdm) virtual memory compression algorithm.

Its latest incarnation was declined (again) due to the reviewing editor stating that Github was not a reliable source and therefore causing the draft article to lose a secondary source which reduced the number of sources in most of the explanation of the algorithm to just one (primary) source, which is obviously not a sufficient number of sources.

The source code to which the secondary source in the draft article linked was on Github, but the specific repository was under Apple's official account and it was the official Apple mirror of the OSFMK / XNU source code repository available on opensource.apple.com.

The sources under question are links to specific source code files containing block comments in the OSFMK / XNU source code that provided a secondary explanation of the WKdm compression and decompression algorithm.

In summary, my question is whether source code in the repositories on opensource.apple.com and their direct mirrors (eg. on Github) can be linked to for secondary sources ( in my case eg. here ) -- opensource.apple.com is cited 117 times in the enwiki.

Jdbtwo (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm confused these aren't secondary sources, they are (unless I'm missing something) implementations of the algorithm. They do not contain analysis or evaluation of the algorithm. They could be reliable in a primary sense that they could be used to show that the algorithm has been implemented into certain code, but they are not documentation of that code or secondary sources on the algorithm. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess they aren't secondary sources then -- the draft article has sources that would definitely qualify as secondary sources, as in the analysis of the benefits, performance etc. of the algorithm. I am a little confused because I thought the the original 1999 research paper would qualify as a primary source and any other explanation of the algorithm at least once removed from said primary source would be a secondary source.


 * Anyway the complaint that the reviewing editor had with the latest incarnation of the draft article was that "Github is not a reliable source." This is why I posted my question regarding the reliability of opensource.apple.com as the sources under question are in a mirror on Github of an opensource.apple.com repo, but they could easily be changed to point to the repo on opensource.apple.com.


 * As I stated in my reply to Bluethricecreamman, maybe this is just a lost cause and I should give up.
 * Jdbtwo (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * source code is def not a useful source for wikipedia, I think. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK probs applies, more specifically we aren't a source of technical info or implementation details for algos, and even tho comments aren't implementation, they are in the sourcecode.
 * If that algo isn't notable enough except as technical implementation, the article probs wont be approved. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as I stated above in my reply to ActivelyDisinterested, the complaint that the reviewing editor had regarding the sources was not that they referred to large block comments in Apple's source code, but that "Github is not a reliable source." The repo that the sources reference was Apple's official mirror on Github of the corresponding repo on opensource.apple.com, hence my post here.


 * I know that source code itself is probably not reliable on Wikipedia, but what the sources in question in the draft article reference are large block comments near the beginning of the source code files which contain high-level descriptions of the algorithm.


 * The sources under question are used in the high-level explanation of the algorithm in the draft article -- the "Notable implementations" section of the draft article contain notable implementations of the algorithm, including Apple's OSX, the OLPC project, the Darwin-XNU kernel and others.


 * Maybe I am just beating a dead horse though.
 * Jdbtwo (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no clue about the consensus, but in general, I think source code comments should not be a reliable source. It's WP:PRIMARY at the very least (also in software engineering, deceptive comments regularly lie about what the code is doing anyways)
 * Try to find someone who references the comments maybe? Like a wired.com or something article that talks about how "According to the source code, x happens" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliablity of idlebrain.com for Telugu cinema
There have been earlier discussions on Idlebrain.com, as seen here. Additionally, articles here and here praise and mention the website as reliable.

The credibility of Idlebrain.com is well-documented with cited references on their wiki page. Highlighting some of them:

- In August 2002, Geetanath V. of *The Hindu* opined that Idlebrain.com was the most happening among the various film websites. - In April 2006, Y. Sunita Chowdhary of *The Hindu* called Idlebrain.com "a leading player in its segment." - In its October 2008 issue, the lifestyle magazine *Hyderabad Josh* noted that Idlebrain had a sizeable following among movie buffs in metropolitan cities of India like Hyderabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Pune, and Bangalore. - In August 2009, CNBC TV18 wrote, "Idlebrain is an online Telugu movie ready reckoner for film buffs who find themselves working in a distant land." They also noted, "While most film websites run on industry gossip, what strikes you about Idlebrain.com is information about overseas screenings for Telugu expats starved of their regular dose of popular movie stars." - The website won the Andhra Pradesh Cinegoers’ Association award for the Best Telugu Film website in 2008.

Moreover, Idlebrain.com is highly referred to and trusted by Telugu cinephiles and has built quite a reputation in Tollywood.

Given this extensive recognition and credibility, can we establish Idlebrain.com as a reliable source for Telugu cinema? Wiki Reader 997 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (Here after the discussions at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films) The points raised by the user are good and the praises by The Hindu and other sources are valid, it seems. However, on a surface level and after skimming a little bit in the website, I could hardly find it any different from a WP:BLOG. Nowhere in their about us section or disclaimer section have they disclosed their sources or any presence of an editorial team which can validate the reliability of their publishing. The layout and design of the page is very mediocre and doesn't look professional and reeks of self publishing. The lack of an editorial team is what concerns me the most. They are just another Sacnilk.com like cite for Tollywood it seems. Based on these observations, I'd place them in the unreliable category at WP:ICTFSOURCES table. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

amomama
Does anybody have any expertise or familiarity with AmoMama? I'm looking through a few of their articles from throughout the years:


 * "Little Mix Star Perrie Edwards Shares Two IG Pics of Newborn Child with Soccer Player BF Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain" about Perrie Edwards and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain
 * "Cher's Son Called 'Very Handsome' - His Transformation and Likeness to His Dad Stuns" about Elijah Blue Allman
 * "Sofia Vergara without Makeup: The Actress Shared Some of Her Beauty Tips" about Sofia Vergara
 * "Cillian Murphy Remains Faithful to His Very Private Wife of Nearly 2 Decades — What Does She Look Like?" about Yvonne McGuinness
 * "Robin Williams Wanted His Children to Be Proud of Him — Meet His 3 Kids Who He Cherished" about Robin Williams
 * "Carrie' star Sissy Spacek, Who Turned 74, Ages Gracefully at Ranch After Leaving Hollywood at the Height of her Fame" about Sissy Spacek.
 * "Savannah Smiles' Star Bridgette Andersen Liked Making People Happy but Died Tragically in 1997 about Bridgette Andersen

These all come across as unreliable supermarket tabloid journalism at best, and I don't feel sanguine about using the source, but I would really appreciate the input of more well-versed editors. Thanks, —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a low quality internet tabloid. I would avoid citing it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, I thought the same, but didn't want to judge it unilaterally. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As soon as I opened the site, I got a popup about blocking malware from one of my browser extensions, so that's never a good sign. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's great to know and certainly indicative, thanks! —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Worldatlas.com
Feels super clickbaity and there is a small team working on it but it appears to be used in a lot of articles. <b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">48</b><b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">JCL</b> 18:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per, I get a WP:BLOG-ish impression. In cases like Balearic Sea I don't expect them to be wrong, but a stronger ref couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They have a fact-checking policy and an editorial team, for what its worth. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Reform UK a reliable source for its MP James McMurdock
Specifically his work history, especially given the comments at - which I doubt is an RS we could use but informative. The article also uses a tweet and GB News. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Without looking at the article, I'd assume it's reliable to a WP:ABOUTSELF extent, "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Seems as though it’s been edited out. But the article uses GBNews, not sure it should. Doug Weller  talk 18:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about them, but it seems the intent was sourcing a video where he says something the article quotes. However, . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There are also a number of allegations flying around in relation to this MP. I attempted to add one of them, which if true was a matter of legitimate public concern, using thelondonecomic.com as a source, but I was told that this is a deprecated source. Maybe it should be, but would it be useful to have a discussion on this issue, since I don't see it mentioned at "perennial sources"? PatGallacher (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * While The London e-comic sounds a bit dubious, I don't find much on the London Economic in the RSN archives either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think these articles attract a lot of new editors. Farage’s article is off, the section on Reform is more about him, eg his range of gins, nothing about the fact the party is a private company in which he owns the majority of shares. Doug Weller  talk 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I only have Gordon's atm, not much of a range I'm afraid (attempt at humour). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
added some text with a source to the Divisions of the world in Islam and Kafir articles and upon his semi-protected edit request, added the same to the Jihad article. Now, has reverted those - see this and this asking  to achieve consensus for adding that sentence. I don't know how to, "achieve consensus", so I request one of you to restore that sentence in both articles. For your information, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam#Quotes mentions that sentence (the last sentence).-Ganeemath (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This, "jihad" is mentioned in the Wikipedia article Milestones (book) also.-Ganeemath (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve removed it from Jihad following CheeseDealers comment Kowal2701 (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The source says, "Offensive Jihad: Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard the borders and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the Enemies of Allah. It is the duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an Army unit into the land of War once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of Jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The Scholars of the principles of religion have also said, "Jihad is Da'wah with a force and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until the remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam." Defensive Jihad: This is expelling the Kuffar from our land and it is Fard Ayn, a compulsory duty upon all.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, silly me did misread it. — <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;border:2px solid #000;color:#ffdc62;background:#e85d04;padding:0px 4px 0px 1px">🧀The Cheesedealer <sup style="color:#e85d04;">talk  14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That content can be reliably verified doesn't mean it must be in the article. Rather all content that does appears in the article must be reliably verifiable. The discussion of what content should or shouldn't be part of the article should take place on the articles talk page. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I have started a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam?searchToken=dgtqo0atw1slp3u345mionkcq#Removal_of_sourced_content -Ganeemath (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We need some experienced editors to come and comment on the Talk page there.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've notified WP:WikiProject Islam, hopefully that will bring some additional input to the talk page discussion. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ￼Thanks!-Ganeemath (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So many editors have responded above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Sources_for_Muhammad but nobody is bothered to respond on the Talk page I posted a link to above. What else can be done to draw the attention of other editors to come and take a look at the Talk page I posted a link to above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam?searchToken=dgtqo0atw1slp3u345mionkcq#Removal_of_sourced_content)?-Ganeemath (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Dispute resolution has advice on how to deal with content disputes. Also remember that other editors may not be able to respond immediately. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Paucity of reliable right-wing sources
The problem: There is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources that are trustworthy and usable. A few possibly good ones are mentioned in the hatted "Good and bad sources table" below.

Please name more right-wing sources that can be trusted. A test is their position on the myriad false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, especially his Big Lie of a stolen election. Are they honest about these things? If not, they are not RS and should be downgraded or deprecated.

If there is something in the hatted areas below you want to discuss, then please quote it and use that here. We need to keep the discussion up in this one thread. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Personal opinion is that with Trump (and probably even earlier around 2013-2014, as the Gamergame situation brought more of this to light), the sources on the right have either closely tried to stay close to just being to the right (like WSJ), or allowed themselves to drift far to the right to fight the explicit left-leaning bias (and to back up the type of cult of personality that Trump exuded), whereas the left-leaning sources haven't really changed beyond small shifts either direction). Hence, why I think we are never going to see an equality of reliable right leaning sources compared to what's on the left, at least for several years from now.
 * I could argue a few sources on that table between the middle and leans left columns, but that's minor and doesn't affect your fundamental point here. M asem (t) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I largely agree. You mention the Gamergate situation and how that affected right-wing sources. I'm pretty sure you and others can provide even more information about that. I tend to focus on Trump's influence as the "great mover" for right-wing sources, as mentioned below. Look for "Trump's effect on the Overton window of media coverage." Until that time, no one with his type of influence had openly declared war on all media sources that didn't repeat his lies. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on specific sources mentioned below (or not). -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do now remember that even before GG, there was the basic Culture war in the early 2010s that was considered the trigger of GG, and of course laid the framework of misinformation to fight it. Fox News may have led the charge prior to that, but numerous factors gave way to the host of other sources.
 * The one thing that I do think might be unfair to use is labelling the two right-leaning columns as related to Russian disinfo. Could there be Russian disinfo at play with those? Personally, highly likely. However, until we have evidence from RSes, to back that, probably best not to label them that way. you can talk to how they do do misinfo (eg deny climate change, deny COVID, claim election interference, etc. in addition to presenting Russian disinfo) and hence why they will never be RSes until they distance themselves from it.
 * Also I would add the WSJ editorial board separate from the WSJ itself, and that would go into the "strong right" column. M asem (t) 20:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. ✅ -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you confusing "liberal-leaning" with "left-leaning"? Many in the left don't consider liberals to be left insofar as liberals are for capitalism and only support fiddling at the edges of the status quo on matters of individualism, which isn't a left or right issue per se. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * although you aren't asking me, I'll share my thoughts. I am a retired American who has lived in six countries with vastly different political systems, and lived in Europe most of my adult life. Liberals, and most of the left-wing in America, are capitalists. Only the most radical left-wingers are Social Democrats (who use mixed market capitalist economies), Socialists, or Communists.
 * I'll mention two different types of sources that back this view in different ways. Below you write: "occupyDemocrats are liberals, not left-wing." The "Media Bias Chart" from Ad Fontes Media rates Occupy Democrats as "Hyper-Partisan Left". Pew Research Center doesn't even use the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing" (although they occasionally say left or right). Instead, they substitute "liberal" and "conservative" for "left-wing" and "right-wing". See Political Polarization & Media Habits. That's a goldmine. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where I'm from Social Democracy isn't radical, in fact it's the stated ideology of the right faction of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The right faction of that party is the controlling faction nationally. The ALP is the current party in power at a federal level and I wouldn't consider Australia to be a bunch of radicals. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 03:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My wording above isn't very clear. I'm describing the American POV. In Scandinavia, Social Democracy isn't radical either. In America, it's considered so, even though, seen from European and Australian eyes, it isn't. My understanding is that the progression toward the left end of the political scale is in the order I described. I'm personally a Social Democrat who thinks traditional socialism is too radical, and communism far too damaging to be used at all. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Masem. However, I have noticed a decline in the quality of left-wing sources since the start of the pandemic, but it is not comparable to that of right-wing sources yet. Scorpions1325 (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual paucity of right-wing reliable sources? Is there a lot more left-wing sources in comparison, such that it destroys wikipedia's credibility?
 * We easily filter out the worst left-wing sources, like occupyDemocrats, too.
 * Another possible test for right-wing sourcing is whether they acknowledge man-made climate change. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * occupyDemocrats are liberals, not left-wing. Liberals occupy a centrist to right-wing position insofar as that they support Capitalism and only propose fiddling at the edges of the status quo on matters of individualism. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. See my response to you above. (This has to do with differences between American and European views on left and right.) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not the universal definition, nor the most accepted definition, nor the original definition, nor the sole definition, nor (and most importantly) a definition that is supported enough to be complaining every time people use a more attested one. XeCyranium (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe The Bulwark (good news, they hate Trump!). Also, the Washington Examiner and The Washington Times are probably generally reliable for non-opinion reporting, even if a majority of Wikipedians don't like the tone or inconvenience of opposing emphasis (and LOL at the Daily Beast below). Predictably, both articles are top heavy with op-ed criticism from left-leaning sources. The Weekly Standard is full green at WP:RSPS, but it doesn't exist anymore. Reason is also generally reliable, and across the pond, the Daily Telegraph, even if they sometimes emphasizes facts or POV opponents would prefer not be emphasized (which is a bias held by liberal RS as well, not a sign of unreliability). &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have had positive experiences with the Washington Examiner, Reason, and the Telegraph. Can’t vouch for the others. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, and Reason. I see no reason for them not to be regarded as "generally reliable". Pecopteris (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose the deprecation aka depreciation in this case. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A good addition would be the Washington Free Beacon. It was previously listed as unreliable due ~entirely to a discussion with two examples of 'false' claims, one of which is mostly true. They cite their sources and usually include links to evidence in their articles, all of their articles are attributed to a writer, and they're sometimes cited by reliable sources eg NYT as in . That's because they sometimes break important stories, as in that example. Hi! (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a daft thread. It is not our job to try and find reliable right-wing sources. It is to assess what reliable sources say and relate it to our readers. It's not our problem if a lot of fairly popular right-wing sources are unreliable. A much bigger problem is the ongoing campaign to decree that sources which have right wing views on social issues are unreliable by default. In the long run this is going to kill our credibility.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What is going on here? This seems well off topic for the board, and to what end? It seems weird to be putting a "russian misinformation" lens over this, and exceptionally weird to claim that Gamergate was a significant influence on mainstream news media (I was "on leave" at the time, but as far as I can tell, it was an incredibly inside-baseball online troll war that largely passed mainstream news media by). And why is it only about newspapers? What about books and journals? And why is this thread orbiting American politics and Donald Trump, as if views on Trump were the sole determinant of what "right wing" means? I can't see a useful outcome here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gamergate had a significant influence on mainstream news media and mainstream politics. It was one of the pivitol moments in the rise of the contemporary Western right. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is going about things the right way... Reliable sources do a decent job seperating news and opinion content, it shouldn't matter how far left, right, or center the WSJ and NYT's editorial boards go as long as the reporting stays solid and reputable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't really the point. You are right that left, right, or center makes no difference "as long as the reporting stays solid and reputable". Source bias is okay, as long as it doesn't distort the facts. It's when we get into the far-right and far-left fringes that their bias is so strong that it affects their reporting. They start pushing narratives that please them, even if the facts are ignored or reported in a false light. My interest with this thread is more about learning of other right-wing sources that are generally reliable, IOW not radical. Please name some. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the point as far as I am concerned. You are wecome to name some somewhere else, don't abuse this noticeboard and I will not be joining you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about offending you. That wasn't my intention. I thought I knew why I created this thread. The backstory, which isn't described, is that we always have driveby comments and vandalism with claims of left-wing bias and not using enough right-wing sources. I'm a lefty and fully understand why there are so few reliable right-wing sources, and why most left-wing sources are more reliable, but I wanted to talk to the experts here (This board is about sources, right?) about the topic and get some suggestions. That's all. I'm not pushing any particular agenda. Just seeking to pick the minds of experts here. I learned a lot from Masem.
 * If there is a better venue to discuss this, please say so. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not accept the single-issue litmus test that OP proposes for "right-wing" sources. I cannot imagine such a litmus test being proposed for "left-wing" sources. Pecopteris (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your initial reaction to my quick-and-easy litmus test for right-wing sources. I assume you're referring to this: "A test is their position on the myriad false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, especially his Big Lie of a stolen election. Are they honest about these things? If not, they are not RS and should be downgraded or deprecated."
 * That actually covers hundreds of issues, not one "single-issue", because Trump lies about literally everything, including things he doesn't need to lie about. It's just his instinct to always lie. See Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years in 2021. It's a really good test, because it establishes whether they have a connection to facts and the concept of truth in reporting. If they fail that test, they totally fail our most basic requirements for being considered a RS.
 * That's policy, not my idea. It's the idea behind this noticeboard. It starts with how competence is required to vet sources for reliability, very relevant at this noticeboard. Then how we judge whether sources use fact-checking and try to be accurate. These are central issues to the RS policy and this board, so we are very much on-topic in this discussion.
 * I also mentioned a huge one that controls the GOP and all MAGA, his Big Lie of a stolen election and his lies about (non-existent) voter fraud. You mention a "litmus test". Ironically, his Big Lie is often described as Trump's litmus test of loyalty. Not only did he make "shooting someone on 5th Avenue" a litmus test that has proven true, he has made acceptance of his big lie a litmus test. He is big on loyalty tests, especially fealty to his grotesque lies. See For Republicans, fealty to Trump’s election falsehood becomes defining loyalty test
 * I'd love to hear suggestions for quick-and-easy litmus tests for left-wing sources. Maybe best on my talk page. The same litmus test applies to them (they reject the lies), but maybe you can think of others, but they would be quite different and not related to believing a lie, but more about defending certain facts, like "vaccines are good", "climate change is real", etc. See some suggestions here: User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that the reason why we get accused of left-wing bias is because of some specific narrow issue with lacking right-wing sources. We have always been accused of bias (Conservipedia was created long before RSP was a thing.) The reason is simple - as an encyclopedia, we have an WP:ACADEMICBIAS. And large swaths of the right-wing movement in the US currently have an anti-intellectual strain to them. The things that make people on the right see us as biased aren't subtle nuances in our sourcing, they're the result of a conflict in our fundamental non-negotiable missions - things like a refusal to entertain creationism, or presenting anthropogenic climate change as fact, or dismissal of other positions that are clearly academically WP:FRINGE. More generally, while we should avoid articles that have lopsided sourcing, it's important to understand that many people will differ about how they categorize sourcing, and that the pop-culture / talking-head divisions in US politics don't necessarily reflect the divide in higher-quality academic sources. The balance we aim for should, when possible, be what you'd see in academia and similarly high-quality sources, which isn't necessarily the same as what people get on the evening news. Part of the reason why those pop-culture media-bias charts aren't very useful to us is because I think they tend to reflect that vibe-based pop-cultural divide, rather than a more rigorous understanding of what's academically mainstream and what is more exceptional, opinionated, or further towards the fringes.--Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But remember, currently it isn't only about wp:ver. Currently the wp:RS 'shorter list" is also used to determine wp:weight etc on political viewpoints. So that means that what you just said is that on political topics, Wikipedia is coverage is biased towards what academia says.   :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The "Good and bad sources table" below only shows one less Right-leaning good source than it lists Left-leaning sources. So I wouldn't call that a paucity (which means scarcity/scarceness) at all. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Good and bad" table, Time Magazine skews left, not right, according to Ad Fontes, AllSides, and Media Bias/Fact Check. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The paucity of reliable right-wing sources is a problem. This is part of the reason we frequently receive accusations of a left-wing bias in articles. Documenting the bias in a source is proper and compliant with NPOV, but it would be nice if we had more right-wing sources that were reliable and usable.

The accusation reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable. Some are named in the hatted table below.

It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) and that "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" (Paul Krugman). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.

For more about this, see Trump's effect on the Overton window of media coverage

novinite.com, outono.net, thenewdaily.com.au , vvng.com , allisrael.com , thespectator.com , tampabay.com , canberradaily.com.au
All claiming the recent shot's at Donald Trump was an assassination attempt before official confirmation. All well-established political and national news outlet's are not reporting this. They are just hyperbolic for clicks and should not be used on 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally or Donald Trump

,, , , , , &. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an open RM in which these sources are being cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Tampa Bay Times is a mainstream newspaper, associated with The Poynter Institute for Media Studies; presumably reliable. Canberra Daily is an Australian local newspaper, but the story byline is to the Australian Associated Press. The New Daily is an Australian newspaper, owned by, but editorially independent from, Trades Union-operated investment funds. These seem presumably reliable. Not certain why we would reach across the Pacific for sources, but if we did, the Australian Broadcasting Commission's ABC News is also supportive. The Spectator is a publisher of opinion content, and should attributed; to both the author and the publication. I would, however, urge caution per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. Rotary Engine talk 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As the page has now been moved and there was never a real question of the reliability of these sites, I don't think this needs any further input. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this is clearly a SPS, as it's an anonymous blog by a single writer. I also question the reliability of this site. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia


The source that is being reintroduced in that diff quotes unnamed band official as "attesting" to a "paucity of excavation work and absence of bones", which is, I guess, *one* way of saying that the community is divided about whether to excavate any remains that are found, and therefore there have not been any excavations to date. The source's exquisite drive for accuracy and meticulous attention to detail is reflected in its quote from one of the foremost denialists of residential school deaths, whom it refers to as "she" even though his name is Jacques. This is not a mistake a Canadian publication would make, and indeed, it is owned by a corporation based in India. It is most certainly not an authority on indigenous affairs in British Columbia and by no means the only source available about the underground radar findings in Kamloops. 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

reinserted the material, along with another uncited sentence to the same effect. Perhaps he has reasons he would like to share. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw this when following a link to the page on WP:RPPI and I was also doubting that this was a proper source. It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this
 * Time Now wasn't the only source. Times Now was reporting on a Canadian news agency called Western Standard's coverage on the issue that made headlines.
 * There are other agency apart from Western Standard independently reporting the same issue such as Blacklock's Reporter.
 * See this, for the sources and lines അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As discussed elsewhere on this page, Western Standard and Blacklock's also appear to be unreliable sources. If the main sources reporting on this are all unreliable, mostly or entirely with similar editorial bias, that makes this look quite questionable indeed, and Times Now getting even basic details of the people they're quoting wrong doesn't instill confidence that they're reliable, either. (The overall effect of seeing so many unreliable biased sources being used is to suggest there's a POVPUSH going on.) &#45;sche (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Western Standard is not a RS, they are a biased source, similar to Rebel News, in that they push an agenda similar to what Trumpites in the US publish. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

PS I have just noticed the Times of India RfC above. This website is owned by the same corporation as the Times of India. Elinruby (talk) NB - just now ec-protected the article but a good 40% of the issues are coming from editors with accounts, so this is not resolved. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, if those edits are coming from autoconfirmed accounts, it is. For now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. Because the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc were the first to announce underground radar findings, Kamloops Indian Residential School is the nexus of the denialism, and protecting it is huge. I have removed this sort of stuff from these articles...too many times. So what you did allows long-standing accounts but not new ones, is that what you are saying? I am not sure how many edits everyone has but this will definitely cut down on the Sandy Hook BS that's been going on. So thank you. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * EC is 50 days and 300 edits. We can also revoke it if it is abused. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Not  30 days and 500 edits? I think  you transposed the numbers.  Doug Weller  talk 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. Thank you (Although I think that ratio might not be a bad idea for some editors ...) Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * noting here that the source was previously reverted back in by, who may wish to comment. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby claiming that editors who disagree with you are engaged in 'denialism' and 'Sandy Hook BS' is simply not productive.
 * Regarding the source, I think it should logically follow the Times of India RfC as a subsidiary thereof. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, since the same corporation owns them. You do know, however, that the reliability of the Times of India is being questioned in an RfC just a few sections up? As for your objections to "denialism", huh. We go by sources and that is the word that they use to describe people who are convinced that there are no bodies in those graves Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RfC in parent companies do not necessarily follow to subsidiaries. One only needs to take a look at Murdoch's empire for why that isn't the case. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. But doesn't it suggest that it deserves some scrutiny? Not that it matters, since the thing about the pronoun indicates MT and and I mean, look at it. Meanwhile I got 64,000 hits on Scholar, some of which would have been American residential schools. Still shows there is no need for this sketchy source definitely-not-best source Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course scrutiny is warranted given everything presented above. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure the pronoun should be a reason to question the source… has gender identity been checked? Someone named Jacques could actually be a “she” under Canadian law. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can convey how impossible that seems to me as a French speaker, but I realize we are in English here, so look, returns from an image search. That is not a woman. Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * note beard.Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby, I think you didn't address the main issue in your post. Are there other sources whose reliability is not in dispute that contradict the claims added here (that no bodies were excavated and no evidence of graves was found)? Do you believe that they are false, and if yes, why? Alaexis¿question? 06:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So the question would be: How would they know and what is THEIR source? Did they dispatch reporters to BC or are they just repeating what has been told? Presumably British Columbia or Canadian sources would know more about this because it's a local story. The CBC covers stories like this all the time with a lot of depth and neutrality. So the simple question is: what do they have to say? They should have priority for sourcing over foreign media. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No question the CBC is a reliable source. On a par with the BBC. I would put CTV a little lower than that but not much. The daily nearby (!) would be the Prince George's Sentinel, afaik a broadsheet, and a tabloid in Hope does come out with a print edition. The Hope Standard is one of several online news sources run by something called Black Box Media, but they do a pretty professional job of keeping track of road closures and the local emergency levels. Also stuff about elections and bylaws and what ever. There are about 10 to 12 of those in places like Williams Lake and Agassiz. The Vancouver Sun is a fine paper of course. Globe and Mail is equivalent to the New York Times. Toronto Star is kind of People Magazine. I assume people know the Washington Post and the New York Times. I put a sample of journal articles in the thread above titled Canadian House of Commons and the Pope. Elinruby (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are all other sources are or could be used in the article. What do you want a source for, exactly, ? Elinruby (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something, but I understand that the source was used to support this edit which added two claims to the article:
 * , no remains have been excavated
 * As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the site have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves.
 * Do you believe that they are false? Are there sources whose reliability is not in doubt that contradict these two claims? If yes, the question would be a no-brainer. Alaexis¿question? 20:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As of when I was updating the article there had been two or possibly three excavations by archaeologists. Neither of them found bodies.
 * there are many sites. Investigation has not ended in the sense of closing the file at most of them. There are many sources for this at individual schools. At some locations they are unsure whether they want to excavate, and at others they are debating where. There are lots and lots of sources for that also. Think ANI: consensus has not been achieved in some places for an excavation. There is absolutely no reason to use this questionable source, not with so many RS available. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then there are the bones they found in Qu'Appelle, but that wasn't a body, see, and neither was the skeleton they found at Blue Quills . This is what we are dealing with here. At another school they kept accidentally digging up bodies while trying to fix the water supply, and there there is another where bodies were sliding into the river after a flood. So it is possible to define "body" and "excavation" in such a way that you can say no bodies have been found in an excavation as a result of this discovery.

Now do you understand? Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow your logic. If remains were found near other schools, then this information should be added to the articles about those schools. If you agree that nothing has been found at this particular school, what's this whole discussion about? Alaexis¿question? 19:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ok. (to self:this does not seem to have made the news outside of Canada.) They ran underground radar at Kamploops and got hits. Then some other First Nations ran underground radar and they got more hits. The various First Nations where this was the case (there are quite a few) are in various stages of deciding whether or not they want to do an archaeological excavation. Kamloops in particular is undecided. They already have whackos showing up with shovels to dig up the graves. So meanwhile, for reasons that are unclear to me, some bloggers and fringe sources have been pushing a narrative that there are no bodies, or there are no graves, or... pick your Alex Jones flavor of choice. At least three articles in the topic area have had people repeatedly adding that no bodies were found with the same tabloid sources. That is the issue. Why it is here at RSN at this moment is that apparently some of the fringe and Catholic sources are so fringe that they have never been discussed here. At least one of them is funded by some sort of Alberta oil tycoon; the details escae me but I can look them up if you are interested. Meanwhile I am trying to keep the Kamloops article, one of those involved, from from saying over and over again that no bodies have been found. The article already says that the community has not yet decided what to do. I do not know wny this stuff keeps being inserted. However I would like to establish that the publications in question are not very careful about accuracy and therefore should not be used as a source in this sensitive topic, where they have been pushing a hoax. made a long post to the Kamloops talk page about the hoax part. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TL;DR no bodies have been found in excavations at Kamloops because there have not been any excavations in Kamloops. Tt is unclear whether the community in Kamloops wants to excavate. People are not required to dig up their dead relatives if they don't want to. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To me this just doesn't look like a reliability question. We could say "No excavations have been carried out" or "No excavations have been carried out and no bodies have been found". Both are true statements (based on what you wrote) and so it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide on the right wording.
 * To take a step back, one could argue that a given source is unreliable for a specific claim because it's contradicted by others (which is not the case here). Or one could argue that a source is in general has low standards and should not be used for a given topic. To make that argument you'd need to focus on Times Now and show that it's not a reliable source in general and I don't see any evidence of that in this thread. Alaexis¿question? 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that it is pushing disinformation, but what's a little thing like that between friends? Elinruby (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you referring to? Which claim constitutes disinformation and what RS prove it? I already understand the context, so could you be more specific? Alaexis¿question? 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see this diff to the OP of this thread Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course this is a garbage source for this material, if the only thing you can find is some news source a half a world away from what it is covering that should clue you into whether or not you should be including something.  nableezy  - 22:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We should probably get that written into policy somewhere. Along with Elinruby's "People are not required to dig up their dead relatives if they don't want to" comment above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the claim originated with this 'article' and was repeated by similar generally unreliable  right wing sources like western standard  (note this is cited in the article and is an WP:RSOPINION and coastal front .  Work seems to be ongoing and there haven't been any digs so the conclusive tone of those articles is troubling. Further RS are warning about denialism [] [] which is likely at play here. Finally, it seems that the First nation has softened it's language and these crappy sources are taking that farther than they should []—blindlynx 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for Whitelisting a Reputable Music Website
Hello,

I am seeking help to get a domain whitelisted that is a reputable source for Nigerian music and cultural content. I tried to add a link to a Wikipedia article about Olamide’s latest music project, but the domain is currently blacklisted on the global spam blacklist.

The website contains relevant and valuable content about Olamide’s project that would enhance the Wikipedia article.

Could someone assist me with the process to have this domain (naijawide dot com) whitelisted?

Thank you for your help!

Best regards, Naijawide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.23.114 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the similarity of the website and how you've signed your post can I suggest you read WP: Conflict of interest and WP:Search engine optimization. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Lithub.com
Is this article on Lithub.com reliable for factual information? They have an masthead, but it's not clear what level of fact-checking they do. Also, the author of this story has an attenuated familial connection to the article subject, but she's also a retired professional genealogist and it would be weird for her to lie about her findings. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there some particular point you're interested in? I can't see any worries with the site, but the article is written in a very flowery fashion. I wouldn't trust statements such as It was the expression of a man who sees everything but withholds comment or When he was amused his smile went wide, his eyes sparkled under bushy eyebrows, but I can't see why it wouldn't be reliable for factual details. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, except for lax proofreading. Did the man really have "an eighth education"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes (and typos). That doesn't concern me. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for sources to be added
Please note, these are from my point of view. I would like to add a website, with a summary and name of the source:

OMGShay 92 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are only added to WP:RSPS if they are discussed multiple times by the community. We also don't generally discuss sources in the abstract, without some context about what it's being used for. Also, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there's "no consensus" about Roblox's reliability. I'm not even sure how a video game could be cited as a source for factual information. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, zooey.pub is not cited by any articles, so there is no need to evaluate its reliability at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on some searches it doesn't seem to be cited anywhere, but just listed as a link in Roblox articles or with the URL as text for reasonable stuff. (And just removed from one article due to that being vandalism.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood the purpose of Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It's only for documenting discussions that have occured. It is not, and it not meant to be, a complete list of sources.
 * Unless another editor is questioning the reliability of a source you want to use, and you want a third opinion on the matter, you are at the wrong noticeboard. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedway related sources
Zaine Kennedy is nominated for AfD by myself. I question whether the sources such as https://britishspeedway.co.uk/championship/scorpions-bring-back-kennedy/ are non-independent to be used for establishing notability. A user has questioned this in Articles for deletion/Zaine Kennedy. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's the website of the company that runs the races he takes part it, there is a direct financial link between the company and the subject. I don't see how it could be considered independent, reliable yes but not independent. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Byline Times a reliable source for James McMurdock and Reform UK
I've looked at this source before and was dubious. But now I've found this discussion Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338 I'm convinced its not. We use sit for a lot of articles. On the other hand, our article Byline Times is full of praise. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * They were still relatively new during the last discussion and didn't have any use by others, but from a quick search that is no longer the case. I don't think it's the best sources, their investigation tends to follow their bias, but I'd think it more 'marginal' than 'unreliable'. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested does it matter if it's being used in a BLP? At McMurdock's page it's used for the 2nd sentence in "He worked in the banking sector for Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers – specialising in energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing. How long he worked for these banks is unclear."
 * I'm inclined to believe it, but it seems to be the only source. Doug Weller  talk 12:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's banal details I might use it, but WP:BLP does state Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Given the source that could be an issue with certain subjects. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested And when there are no other decent sources, WP:UNDUE surely applies. Doug Weller  talk 13:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, or possibly WP:BALASP. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

howtogeek.com for software
Is this source reliable? It is cited 51 times already on enwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=howtogeek&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

from https://www.howtogeek.com/page/about/:

>How-To Geek, founded in 2006 and acquired and owned by Valnet Inc. since 2023, is a digital publication focused on technology that reaches millions of readers each month on our website and across social media [...]

>How-To Geek has been recommended as an expert resource by industry groups like the Wi-Fi Alliance and newspapers like The New York Times. Organizations like the BBC  and Wirecutter have directed their readers to us for our helpful tutorials. Technology news outlets like Techmeme, The Verge, Slate, Digital Trends, TechCrunch, and John Gruber’s Daring Fireball have linked to stories we’ve broken. We’ve been cited as a source in books like Team Human  by Douglas Rushkoff, a media theory professor at the City University of New York’s Queens College and CNN contributor. How-To Geek has been used as a resource for everything from university textbooks  to late-night TV. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this shouldn't be reliable for tech related details. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering the above accolades from other tech platforms, I would consider it reliable for technical advice. For citations on specific claims, however, it might be possible to track down the original "secondary" source which howtogeek.com uses in its articles. SmallMender (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

geeky-gadgets.com for software
Is this source reliable? It is cited 125 time already on enwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=geeky-gadgets&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

It appears to only have two full time writers as implied here: https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/about/ J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This seems a bit more marginal than howtogeek.com, as it doesn't have the external recognition of that site. I'd be a bit more cautious with anything exceptional that isn't backed up by other sources. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

dataconomy.com for software
cited 25 times already: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22dataconomy%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

has multiple writers but the main writer for most articles from a quick look seems to be the Editor-in-Chief listed here https://dataconomy.com/about-us/ J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * These are very small numbers of citations; at one point the Weekly World News was cited 100+ times on Wikipedia. Is there some reason that you feel these three sites need to be discussed?  --JBL (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to use these sources myself. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This looks somewhere in-between the last two, it has some use by other but not as much as the first one. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested thanks for your review J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)