Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9

RFC archived without closure
Similar to the one at the top of this page, this RFC was archived today without being closed. Anyone want to step in to do so, and update the perennial list? The  Kip  19:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've created a closure request at . —  Newslinger  talk   05:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for closing this. See the result at . —  Newslinger  talk   09:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Youtube and Spotify as sources
I have just added an edit to the page on Madonna's Drowned World Tour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowned_World_Tour), explaining that the rendition of the song Lo que siente la mujer, Spanish version of What It Feels Like for a Girl, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axlNwcRga7Q) contains elements from the Calderone & Quayle Dark Side Mix of the original English language version of the track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_K54-27qFY), instead of using the original instrumental (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdULo9N7A0Y). My edit got questioned on the basis that Youtube is not a reliable source, but this is Madonna's official channel. Doesn't it count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phastolph (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Madonna's own channel is a reliable source under WP:ABOUTSELF limitations... which doesn't mean that you might not be doing some WP:OR here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No websites specifically state that the mix I cited was the basis for the live rendition, but it's very clear upon listening to the videos on Madonna's channel. Does the fact that it's not outright stated make the addition irregular? Phastolph (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It does. It's both WP:OR and, lacking a source caring to talk about it, not shown to be worthy of inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Reference
Some time ago I added a reference on the buccellato di Lucca page, is it reliable or not? Also, I would like to ask that the reference I added, in case it's a good reference, be corrected, as I didn't format it very well. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

ICTFSOURCES
A discussion is undergoing in the talk page of WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force for the verifiability and for the inclusion of reliable sources for Indian cinema. Any veterans of RSN who are good at judging the sources, please drop by with your comments and insights. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Archived without closure redux
As above, this RfC was archived without closure. I've made a close request here. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweiss
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_427#What_is_the_reliability_of_Mondoweiss? Archived here] and at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_427#What_is_the_reliability_of_Mondoweiss? Close requests here (89 days)] Don't think it is that hard, probably same as it is already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done here now. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Independent Australia
Independent Australia has been censored(Talk: Don't be evil, 2024, "Criticism" section). I am not promoting this organization or trying to spread their views, but I want to ask the question why one biased news source gets targeted while others romp free here (Fox, CNN, The "Guardian" OMG so bad..) are we really going to play favorites to the bigger media companies? This too is a slippery slope. Ref https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-australia/ Ref https://journalists.feedspot.com/australian_news_websites/ Ref https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-01/News%20in%20Australia_Impartiality%20and%20commercial%20influence_Review%20of%20literature%20and%20research.pdf Also note the section in question is not about right or wrong per say, but is focused purely on major criticism (using a specific motto), as a general topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanf (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If you read the discussion about Independent Australia, you'll see that it's not just their biased reporting, but that their reliability is awful—reporting rumors as facts, misrepresenting or faking sources, etc. We also don't use the New York Post, so I've removed that source at Don't be evil.
 * As for Media Bias Fact check, see WP:ADFONTES.
 * Also, please remember to sign your messages on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Sorry, it's been a while and I can see now things have changed. I'll try to go through some of this when I get a few mins. Ty. Scanf (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)