Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477

my grandfather got navy cross and nevy star probem was not on his discharge papers how ever i have documents needed back up such clame, https://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/108110/Boshears-James-Manual-Sr.htm also note ogianal documents posted on google cloud drive here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1svZBNpgy2olEqR3nZJYbFNf2Ex_vRVOe?usp=drive_link there was two people who got navy cross who was never named reason was they was working on top secreat projects, i am his grand son also handle his estate also i have same name james m boshears lll i ask that with this proof that u update the page thanks u 74.215.230.135 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You would be better off posting to talk:List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II, as that's the page for discussing edits of that article. But looking into your edits you can't just copy the text from tracesofwar, that's copyright infringement. You have to put it in your own words. That whole page needs better referencing, doesn't the US government list who has been awarded the Navy Cross? I can find his pdf but it was lasted updated in 2021 and doesn't list anyone called Boshears.

I don't think the tracesofwar site is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, it's run by enthusiastic amateur volunteers and it's relying on your grandfather gravestone rather than any official announcement. Your Google drive link is private, so I can't access it to give an opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

i hold the documents and photos , he not listed as two people wich got navy cross was never named do to what they did , 74.215.230.135 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

so data came from me so is the copy right from it 74.215.230.135 (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You would need some sort of source for that claim for it to be included in wikipedia. Right now, its just you as a random editor making a statement of fact with some photos. Maybe it is true, but WP:ABOUTSELF may be relevant here. Wikipedia works off of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Can primary sources be used to represent an organisation's stated position? As I understand it, WP:PRIMARY allows the use of a primary source for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". WP:ABOUTSELF states that self-published sources "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". I relied on these policies to present an organization's position with proper attribution in the section titled "Positions". I cited an official statement from SEGM to reflect their attributed opinion (not a statement of fact) that they believe puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trial settings: . This was removed citing WP:PRIMARY: But how else can an organization's official position be cited, if not from its own statements or documents? Since this is not the first time this happens, I would like to ask a third opinion on the matter. JonJ937 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be an appropriate use of a primary source. However, this relates to a topic that seems to be in flux… positions change frequently. Thus, the source might be outdated (you should check whether SEGM has any issued subsequent statements that might indicate a change in their position). Blueboar (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I checked their website and couldn't find any recent updates to their position. They normally state their stance with wording like 'It is SEGM's position that...'", or include a separate section titled "SEGM Position". JonJ937 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Even for an organization's official position, it is usually best to have not just the primary source but also high-quality secondary sources to put it into the right context. The question is what is WP:DUE and whether it is reasonable to include (even attributed) medical misinformation in spite of WP:MEDRS. Our article on Andrew Wakefield does not go out and report claims from his pro-viruses activism as "opinion" either. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this. I believe that citations aren't just for verifying whether something is true, they're for verifying why it's relevant. If it's not covered in secondary sources, that calls its overall relevance into doubt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF details can come from primary sources, but remember that is a limited exception. As Kusma said we wouldn't rely on Wakefield for certain ABOUTSELF details because they would likely be self-serving or exceptional claims. SEGM is a contentious organisation, so relying on only it's self statements alone would likely be a NPOV issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm working on editing the "Positions" section, which is meant to reflect the official views of the organization. I think the most accurate way to do that is by using the organization’s own statements, rather than relying on how others interpret them. In my understanding, WP:ABOUTSELF permits to use self-published sources to reflect the person's or entity's own opinions. SEGM’s official position is that the U.S. should limit the use of puberty blockers to clinical trials until there’s more evidence about their effectiveness and long-term safety. I linked their statement above. This is a widely debated topic, and medical organizations around the world have different views. However, there is a general international trend toward taking a more cautious approach, with the WHO acknowledging that "the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes of gender affirming care for children and adolescents". Of course, if broader context on the ongoing international debate over the use of puberty blockers is needed, we can include that as well, along with the organization's official position. I have no issues with that. I just believe that the organization's own views need to be accurately reflected. JonJ937 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem you have is "which is meant to reflect the official views of the organization" is simply not true. In all cases secondary sources are preferred. The article might include how an organisation describes itself, but if there are reliable secondary sources that also discuss the topic then they can't be ignored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

With SEGM, absolutely not, per WP:FRINGE:

• WP:FRIND: The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, as such sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of mainstream secondary sources. Points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles.
• While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article
• WP:PROFRINGE: Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.) For this reason, notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the material must be neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and not involve claims about third parties. This fails on both counts, not even including the fact RSN's last discussion on SEGM found It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here. WP:ABOUTSELF exception applies

The quote you added was FRINGE nonsense put into wikivoice: SEGM believes that due to the substantial uncertainties surrounding the long-term risks and benefits of hormonal treatments, any invasive and irreversible interventions should be limited to clinical trials, following comprehensive psychological evaluations and a transparent informed consent process

• This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that there are "substantial uncertainties"
• This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that treatments are "invasive and irreversible"
• This puts in wikivoice, cited to SEGM with no RS, that they call for a "transparent informed consent process"
  • According to them, this means that informed consent must accurately disclose the limited prognostic ability of the gender dysphoria/gender incongruence diagnosis for young people because as they say earlier Studies consistently show that the vast majority of patients with childhood-onset gender distress who are not treated with "gender-affirmative" social transition or medical interventions grow up to be LGB adults. - which is a piece of misinformation known as the desistance myth
• Every single WP:MEDORG in the US thinks this is bullshit

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

What about MEDORGS outside the US? Springee (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether an opinion is fringe or mainstream; we are discussing whether it is appropriate to cite an organisation's stated position with proper attribution. I believe Wikipedia’s guidelines allow this, regardless of whether we personally agree with the opinion. Regarding the "substantial uncertainties," this debate is indeed not limited to the United States. I cited the WHO, the organization that usually reflects global medical consensus, which states that the evidence for gender-affirming care in children is variable and limited. The European Academy of Paediatrics has stated: "The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested". Even in the United States, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons notes that "the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty". The NHS in the UK also acknowledges uncertainty (the same word as SEGM uses) about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment and lists possible permanent complications. These are not fringe opinions, In fact, WP:MEDRS advises us to pay attention to positions of both the WHO and NHS. I could provide many more sources, but it is clear that SEGM’s position on puberty blockers aligns with a broader shift in international consensus. It has long been argued that the U.S. is becoming a global outlier in not taking a more cautious approach to the medical treatment of gender dysphoria: JonJ937 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The opinions of SEGM have already found to be fringe on this the WP:FRINGE/N board previously. We don't need to establish that again as it is established that they are a fringe group who publish fringe opinions. As such WP:FRIND most certainly does apply as per YFNS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a strong consensus on the fringe board that opposition to puberty blockers is not a fringe position. So SEGM's opposition to them is not fringe either. This discussion is not about fringe theories, particularly since there is consensus that this specific view is not fringe, but about the use of primary sources to represent an organization’s stated views. JonJ937 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think ActivelyDisinterested is correct here. I asked a similar question years back with respect to the NRA. The NRA's views on things like red flag laws shouldn't be viewed as factual views on the topic. However, they are the view of a gun rights organization and thus, within the NRA article, their aboutself stance on the topic may be quite relevant. Certainly if a claim from a source conflicts with the SEGM's stated position that should be noted. In this case, if a RS says, SEGM's stance is X but the SEGM's official position is !X then aboutself can be used. What shouldn't be done is if no RSs bring up a position SEGM has stated but we quote their position anyway. Springee (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this includes cases such as the WP:ADL when they describe something as antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, SEGM's position that puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trials is consistent with the recommendations of international and national health authorities and medical organizations, particularly in the UK, Finland, Sweden, and others. So, can we include a sentence like "SEGM believes that puberty blockers should be limited to clinical trials", linking to their official statement? Also, since there is an ongoing international debate about the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers, should we include an overview of that debate in the article? If so, what would be the best format? Should we follow SEGM’s position with the views of major international and U.S. medical organizations and point to the divergence in opinions? JonJ937 (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The main concerns here about due weight and npov are not being satisfied by your belief that SEGM's views are similar to that of some national medorgs. I understand that you really want to show off SEGM's views, however if secondary rs don't write about them, why should we.LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not my belief. This is what Undark Magazine writes:

On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

SEGM advocates for similar restrictions. How does WP:WEIGHT prevent including an organization's own views in a section titled "Positions" in the article about that organization? The article exists to describe the organization's activities and viewpoints. If we leave out its main position, how is that neutral? JonJ937 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Because it's a crackpot view per WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not, because the position held by health authorities in many countries cannot be considered fringe. This specific position was discussed on the fringe board (see above). Secondary sources also mention SEGM's position that puberty blockers and hormones should be limited until more evidence on their benefits becomes available. Undark Magazine:

Against the backdrop of these rapidly diverging continental perspectives, Malone began looking for professionals who shared his belief that better research is necessary before youth are given access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries. In 2019, he co-founded the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, or SEGM (pronounced SEG-um).

So there are both primary and secondary sources on SEGM's position about puberty blockers. JonJ937 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Again you are trying to re-litigate the recent RfC at WP:FRINGE/N that established that SEGM is a fringe advocacy group mostly known for spreading transphobic misinformation. That some authorities have fallen for their nonsense doesn't change that they're fringe.Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

People raise important points about WP:DUE that often militate against the use of primary sources as you describe. That said, there are definitely situations where those concerns are satisfied and it is appropriate to cite an advocacy organisation (that would not be RS in general) about its own opinion. In those situations, SEGM is reliable for its own position. The due weight debate can happen on the article talk page or WP:NPOV/N if needed. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

More sources.

In 2022, the Swedish government’s National Board of Health and Welfare said hormone treatments for minors “should be provided within a research context” and offered “only in exceptional cases,” while adding that the “risks of puberty suppressing treatment … and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits.” In Norway, the country’s Healthcare Investigation Board recommended in part that gender-affirming care treatments such as puberty blockers be defined as experimental. Meanwhile in France, the Académie Nationale de Médecine in February 2022 recommended the “greatest reserve” when considering puberty blockers or hormone treatments due to possible side effects such as “impact on growth, bone weakening, risk of infertility” and others, according to a translation.

In 2020, Finland’s health agency restricted the care by recommending psychotherapy as the primary treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria. Two years later, Sweden restricted hormone treatments to “exceptional cases.” In December, regional health authorities in Norway designated youth gender medicine as a “treatment under trial,” meaning hormones will be prescribed only to adolescents in clinical trials. And in Denmark, new guidelines being finalized this year will limit hormone treatments to transgender adolescents who have experienced dysphoria since early childhood.

Also --JonJ937 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to cite an organization's own statements when presenting its positions, in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Some context about the global debate on the use of puberty blockers could also be provided. Quite frankly, it is a highly contested topic with no clear scientific consensus, and Wikipedia should aim to represent the views of all sides objectively and in a balanced way. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to get a look at this one. Long story short, The Schlock Pit is a genre website that tends to focus on Z grade horror films and the like. I saw it pop up while looking for sources for a somewhat obscure film and I wanted to see if this could be usable.

The site is run by two people, Matty Budrewicz and Dave Wain, who have been writing for the site for about 10 years. The two seem to be pretty well thought of in the horror genre - they were brought in to curate a box set for Arrow Films and were highlighted in this article by Slant Magazine and this one by Dread Central. It looks like Arrow has also brought them on for audio commentary for some of their movies - so far I can see that they did commentaries for Arrow's releases of The Wolf of Wall Street and Critters. They were also brought on for commentary on this boxset of I Know What You Did Last Summer by 88 Films. They have also been cited as a RS in books by the University of Zaragoza Press (by es:Héctor Caño Díaz) and McFarland (by Joseph Maddrey). I think there are more, as their name comes up in relation to "It Came From the Video Aisle!: Inside Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment Studio" through Schiffer Publishing, but as it has no snippet view I can't tell what relation they have to the book. I've got a copy somewhere so I'll try and find it to see. Other than that, they seem to have run a video store that got covered by Fangoria.

I think this would establish the two (and more specifically their site) as a RS on Wikipedia. Arrow is a very well thought of company and given the lineup at their film festival FrightFest (it's the largest and most well known horror themed film festival in the UK), they can pick and choose as they please for commentary. That they would choose these two is pretty telling.

This passing as a RS probably won't save the article in question, but it would be extremely useful for some of the more obscure films out there, especially as the two tend to go into some depth with their reviews and commentary. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOGS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Budrewicz and Wain are recognized as subject-matter experts by other reliable publications; and they have contributed material to other projects because they are considered to be subject-matter experts. That meets the standard, IMO. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd concur. This sounds like an expert SPS. I'm also familiar with the outlet through my work as an art critic and would personally support the idea this blog is made by people who know their stuff.Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sweet - I figured it'd be usable, but always good to get some consensus just to CYA. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Just remember the limits on expert SPS means don't use them for any BLP statements. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Not a worry on my end - I'm going to use them more for themes and review sections in articles. But still good reminder to have, since of course some of those films are sometimes the focus of controversy. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Could this site be used to support basic information about television DVD commentaries? https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/ While it takes input from readers, the named editors have full editorial control. For full disclosure for the entry for Merlin (also the article I tried to add it to: Merlin (2008 TV series) I am credited as one of two people who submitted underlying information that was compiled by the editors, but neither me or anyone else credited for various entries have any say in what is published and the editors added additional information, for example in the former case about differences between a U.K. and U.S. release that I had no knowledge of. I don't see any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information. It does disclose the use of affiliate links, though so do many established news websites. newsjunkie (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's just a fan site. https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/contact explicitly says that it's run by three "fans", and there's nothing whatever to indicate that it's any more reliable than any other fan site. JBW (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is a fan site with commentaries on shows. I think that a better source would be wiser to use as this can be challeneged by anyone and I don't think this can be defended as somehow reliable. Seems like user genreated content. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't have any actual commentaries, it's just saying that these are the commentaries that exist on certain DVDs. To what extent does context matter in that what is being verified is very uncontroversial and not an exceptional claim? In some ways I think it could be considered either like a Vendor/Affiliate link or convenience link in that it's just compiling the information that is available on the DVDS themselves in question similar to individual listings on a vendor website. Is external recognition by a another source the only way to verify accuracy if there is also no evidence of inaccuracy? There is evidence of disclosure in terms of the affiliate links and that there is some editorial oversight (not just a page where anyone can register or post something) newsjunkie (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Not even sure what this would be used for if it does not even have commentaries on DVDs. What exactly do you mean when you say DVD commentaries? Do you have example of an artcle edit using this source? Iam trying to see what claims have been used with this soruce on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see . Its just on what actors, producers, etc have episode or movie commentary on DVDs right? I see other fan sites like there too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this page is actually more reliable the the first one, because this one can't be edited by anyone, only the editors. And it's across multiple different series, not one in particular. newsjunkie (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It compiles in list form for each show which episodes of a series on DVD have audio commentaries and who is speaking on those audio commentaries (actors/writers/directors), which is information that is of course on each individual DVDs but but not broadly accessible otherwise, so it just verifies that the commentaries exist and provides further information on them. It also has an overview of actors/speakers providing commentaries across different shows, so like showing that Thomas Schlamme has provided commentaries on DVDs for several different series.https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/commentator/schlamme-thomas newsjunkie (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the tumblr blog is on the Merlin article already and the other refs for the commentaries is amazon UK, I don't think there is much I can object to using this as a source. I suppose this is better than nothing. But if there is enough push back, then it is best to leave it out. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I would consider replacing the Tumblr one with this one, the Merlin entry was added to the database more recently, and the database page is at least definitely one that not just anyone can edit. newsjunkie (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that DVD listings from sellers provide some decent material. Also sometimes IMDB is ok for this basic info , but it not seen well in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know IMDB is tricky because anyone can register and edit, which is the one of the reasons I think this page should be seen as somewhat more reliable since it does not have that option. newsjunkie (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: Considering that the tumblr blog [111] is on the Merlin article already and the other refs for the commentaries is amazon UK, I don't think there is much I can object to using this as a source. That would appear that you're making a determination that this is a reliable source based on "there are other bad sources on this article already"? A source isn't considered reliable simply because bad sources already exist in the article. This source is a blog/fan site, which is a self-published source and on that basis, it should not be used. The Tumblr blog you noted should not be used for the same reason.

This noticeboard is for determining whether a source is considered reliable. This source does not meet our standard of measure. Suggesting "this isn't as bad as that" isn't a reason to use the source. It's a reason to find a useable source or remove the content. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Cool. But on the same post you quoted I did say that leaving it out would be good if others agree it is not a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Duly noted, thanks for clarifying. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources guideline emphasize that context matters and reliability is on a spectrum and that "no source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything." There is also the suggestion on the informational page about perennial sources that "Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources" newsjunkie (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Context does matter, but you can't take the "context matters" concept out of context. A self-published blog and/or fansite is not citable, with the obvious exception of a site published by "recognized experts". There is no recognized expert at the helm - just three "big fans of TV shows on DVD" - that's the context. Why would we cite this over some-tv-fan-blog.com? There is nothing about this source that establishes it as qualified. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Having some of DVDs in question for several of the shows cited the listings appear to accurately and correctly reflect the information on the DVDs. That is something anybody with access to any of the DVDs for the shows in question covered by the site can verify. (since the DVDs are also published and available as public sources, in case that raises original research questions.) And there is also reference on some pages to them making corrections based on input from readers. https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/Simpsons newsjunkie (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Accurate ≠ Reliable. These are not interchangeable terms. Just because some-tv-fan-blog.com has accurate information, that does not mean it is a "reliable source". Accuracy is necessary, but that's not the criteria. Who are Carol, Paul and Emily? Other than being "big fans of TV shows on DVD", what qualifies them as reliable sources (or any of the other unnamed masses that have evidently contributed to the site)? ButlerBlog (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there no circumstances where accuracy and no evidence of any negative reputation can show reliability or is external validation the only mechanism for that in all situations? newsjunkie (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

When the source is someone's personal website, there has to be some qualification that makes the person a reliable source. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. We have already explained why the source you are talking about is unreliable, but you keep egging it on. It is clear that you are WP:NOTLISTENING to us, and this has been consistent from you for the past 2 months. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Article: Vishwananda and Bhakti Marga (organisation)
• Source: https://ipsnews.net/business/2024/10/17/rui-patricio-the-famous-portuguese-goalkeeper-has-revealed-his-secret-to-staying-at-the-top-of-his-game-yoga/
• Claims: Multiple, including nearly the complete section on Atma Kriya Yoga.

This is only about the content under https://ipsnews.net/business and not their general reporting under https://ipsnews.net. The latter is unquestionably reliable. The two sites are kept distinct, with different archives.

I strongly suspect the content at https://ipsnews.net/business to be advertorials generated by untrustworthy and not neutral third parties, not by the Inter Press Service itself. Further examples:

• Advertisement for Smartcard Marketing Systems
• Advertisement for a flower delivery service in LA
• Advertisement for fusionmarketresearch

Without any exception, all of this content is labeled as "Content Marketing". See also the (short) Terms of Use: https://ipsnews.net/business/terms-of-use/

In an effort to raise more funds to support our independent news service, IPS has started redistributing newswire content to the site IPS News Business, in partnership with a few selected sources. We may, from time to time, monitor the content posted to IPS News Business, but IPS cannot monitor or thoroughly review all the information that is submitted to IPS News Business. Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sites that repost material don't change it's reliability. As an example MSN.com repost news reports from other news organisations, the reliability of those reports come from the original publisher and not MSN. So if ipsnews posts news wire content, it should be handled as if the original source published it and not ipsnews.
In this case the original source is unclear, so it should be treated as being from someone involved with Paramahamsa Vishwananda or Rui Patricio. Such a source can be reliable for certain limited details, see WP:ABOUTSELF, as it's basically a press release. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This company provides (or at least has historically provided) ranked lists of 'Best' things relating to higher education in the USA, including 'Best Professors', apparently based on student feedback etc. although I am not clear on the methodology used. Appearing in those rankings is cited in a few articles e.g. Karl J. Niklas. Do we have a view on whether it's (1) enc/noteworthy and (2) a cite-able source please? My initial feeling is 'probably not' to both, but keen to get further input. YFB ¿ 16:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

If anyone replies to this, please @ping me. I can't cope with checking this page in my watchlist due to the ludicrous WP:FRINGE UFOstuff battle that's happening in the topic below. YFB ¿ 21:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason to use https://bookauthority.org as a source or include it in External links sections? It is currently found in 37 articles.

The main page of the website claims to list "books recommended by thoughts leaders and experts"; the About us page says "We meticulously search the web daily for the most recommended books, then review them and categorize them by subject", which sounds all well and good, but their help page for authors is much more honest about what they actually do:

BookAuthority operates through a fully automated process. Our AI and algorithms scan the internet, analyze recommendations, and determine which books are featured. To maintain impartiality, we have no editorial control and cannot manually add, feature, or review any books.

Oh, and also all book links on the website are Amazon affiliate links. Any objections to removing the link from where it can be found in article space? --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

With that admission of theirs, I think it should be removed across the project. (I've removed it from several places in Jennifer Cook, including inline attribution.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to include it, if the reviews it aggregates are relevant they should be cited directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Ditto to what ActivelyDisinterested said - it's an aggregator (albeit a well put-together one), so citing what it is pulling from is better, much like any news source that is actually noting another article - it's better to cite the original article than the reprint. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if it is extracting from a better source, it may be better to cite the better source. That will at last reduce objections to the material being inserted into wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously, but bookauthority does not extract information from sources and present it – it is almost only used in Wikipedia articles as a primary source for claims like "Her book was listed as one of the 20 best books about topic Z", meaning that it was included in an autogenerated list at bookauthority.org. And that is clearly not a relevant piece of information, even if it is picked up by another source like here (which is pretty clearly paid promotion anyway).

What might be possible to do is use bookauthority like one might use a Wikipedia article, going to the sources and reading them to see if they are useful, and what information they contain. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The quality of what it generates is.... well... one of the links currently being used as a source points to this page of the "best selling Nigerian biographies of all time", the second of which is not a biography but a system for using AI to generate a biography. Slop slop slop. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we might want to consider whether VOA should be considered GUNREL from May 2025 forward per this NYT article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be a notable concern according to the Guardian as well. DN (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Raised this already at WT:RS. Masem (t) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a particular fan of VoA as a source, but should we see this veer in the direction this suggests, it would be due a re-consideration. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should definitely be concerned, see what happened to covid.gov, but has the output of VOA changed yet? If they do start outputting reposts from OAN then they would become unreliable as OAN is unreliable, and where an unreliable source is published doesn't change its status (all the DM reposts on MSN and Yahoo for instance). I just worry about jumping the gun before changes have been made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

But we should also wait, until we see what it does. But we do need to keep an eye on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

For now its a wait and see but its likely going to need to be date seperated as you suggest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I was just flagging it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to have any link to it archived automatically? Just to prevent tampering with older articles. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:PLRT the Internet Archive runs through the Wikipedia EventStream and archives all links it sees automatically within about 24 hours, which is probably about as good as we can do. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed there would be a larger delay, this is probably good enough, thanks. FortunateSons (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, so much for it advertising the land of the free and the home of the brave. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It can't happen here. I wouldn't trust any US government source for at best the next 4 years. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I can thoroughly recommend 'Travellers in the Third Reich' which is about what people travelling to Germany said in the years before WW II. It is quite fascinating seeing what tourists, businessmen, diplomats, writers and others said about their journeys there, I still find it hard to believe how it all happened and how those who disagreed were cowed into silence or had to flee, how people one might expect to know better became ardent believers, how the youth in particular were taken over. NadVolum (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support infinite (non date specific) deprecation of all USAGM properties because (a) the sources clearly support that they have always been unreliable, and less importantly but still observedly, (b) our unwillingness to deprecate in the past exposes us to ridicule now.

One year ago I advanced a successful RfC that led to the deprecation of VOA sibling broadcaster Radio y Television Marti. I also advanced an unsuccessful RfC related to another VOA sibling, RFE/RL, on an objective basis of unreliability (chief among them was that its reorganization under the USAGM removed all cushions between editorial and political policy). While I still strongly believe all USAGM broadcasters (including VOA, RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia, etc.) should be deprecated, I will generally note that now when we do it -- having declined to do so last year -- we will open ourselves to claims of political bias. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, of course. However, deprecation, when it happens, should cover the whole history of VOA as clear evidence supports that it is and has been unreliable throughout its existence; any recent events are superficial when viewed through a holistic lens of USAGM and BBGs documented, decades-long history of errors, omissions, political manipulation, and agenda-setting oriented towards supporting the wild global ambitions of its sponsor. It's perceptually perilous, but -- more important -- factually incorrect, to suggest VOA's reliability can be turned off and on like a light switch. Chetsford (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If VOA stops it's current reporting and starts reposting OAN, then there will have been a definitive switch. Just because the name would stay the same doesn't mean it's would be the same organisation. If someone bought a newspaper and completely changed it from the ground up, then reassessing it and potentially changing it's reliability would be valid. If something no longer bears any relationship with it's past, there is no reason it should be treated the same. If anyone wants to make a claim of political bias they would have to show where that happened, not just that different sources are handled differently.
I would agree that nothing should happen now, as I said in my original comment. We should wait to see what happens and how secondary sources report on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really certain we agree at all. To clarify, I believe all USAGM properties should have been deprecated ten years ago and the error can be remedied at any point including now. We already have decades worth of secondary sources that demonstrate to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that each of the USAGM brands have not been functionally independent since they were founded, even with the ostensible protections offered by the now defunct BBG. I itemized a mere fraction of these in the Radio y Television Marti and RFE/RL RfCs. Whether or not it starts simulcasting or syndicating OAN is superfluous; that's a drop in a reservoir that long ago crested the dam. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not being drawn into past RFC, especially if they closed with a consensus that these were reliable. If you believe there is already enough evidence to change that consensus you can always start a new RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

"I'm not being drawn into past RFC" I don't think -- or at least didn't mean to -- draw you into a past RfC. You seemed to imply no secondary sources exist about the unreliability of USAGM brands; I was merely correcting that point that, in fact, there are scores of secondary sources spanning decades. "especially if they closed with a consensus that these were reliable" One closed with a consensus to deprecate, the other closed with a consensus that additional considerations apply. I would respectfully posit that, in the second case, that consensus occurred largely due to !voters similarly adopting a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach to the subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the key concept here is the presumption of regularity. If our treatment of government sources varied with the change of political party then yes, we'd be open to a charge of bias. I doubt you'd find much support for the idea that we can say that about the present situation in the United States. Developing an argument that the VOA has always been unreliable, and that the current (possible) changes make no different, seems like a difficult and unnecessary hill to climb. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As the person who closed the past two RFCs, I agree that that would be a tough battle, and probably one that would generate more heat than fire. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It is difficult, I agree, though I'd posit that's largely due to the American sensibilities of most of our editors whose cultural frame associates VOA and its sibling brands (particularly Radio Free Europe) with Cold War-era nobiliary intentions to such a degree that they're willing to overlook decades of documentation that reveal a more pernicious M.O. that would warrant deprecation for any other outlet. The second RfC was correctly closed by Voorts as a consensus for Additional Considerations. However, the !votes of many editors were still and undeniably bizarre. Faced with a dozen points from RS showing RFE/RLs historic and ongoing infiltration by intelligence services, its politicized editorial focus, its routine disciplining of editorial staff for reporting that challenged the wild global ambitions of its sponsor, and its history of broadcasting fabrications and falsehoods, many editors still simply lodged a simple and perfunctory "meh - don't see any reason not to trust it *shrug*". I've been on the wrong end of many RfCs and I can usually comprehend the perspective of the other "side" even if I don't agree with it. This one, though, left me utterly befuddled. Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree entirely fwiw although as one of Wikipedia's loudest VOA critics that probably is no surprise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"You seemed to imply no secondary sources exist" I don't see how I did, and iif I gave that impression it has nothing to do with my comment.

"that consensus occurred largely due to !voters similarly adopting a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach" I find that it's best just to take editors at there word, rather than trying to guess some secondary meaning.

My point was (only) that if you believe that you have enough evidence to start a new RFC you could, and that I didn't want to get into discussing prior RFCs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The VOA's last story is from March. If the VOA is just syndicating stories from One America News Network then the source is still One America News Network. It is a waste of time to bother editing the reliability of a source based on things that may happen. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sort of. It makes sense for us to update our WP:RSP entry to highlight this, since it's the sort of thing that many editors may miss. And it doesn't make sense for us to leave a green RSP entry with no warnings that only refers to a VOA that no longer exists - it ought to be updated to note the change in order to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no point in updating the VOA entry when they haven't published anything, this is just politicking rather than actual concern in regard to the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about other editors' motives. I posted this because it's noteworthy and we will likely need to act on it. I could care less about the politics of VOA. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, the Trump admin fired 600 VOA employees - a third of the entire staff, per NYTimes. Seems to indicate that they are indeed making course towards partner content. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

For Mehzeb Chowdhury, is this article a reliable independent source? — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It's heavily promotional, it might be reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF details (as it contains so many quotes) but I doubt it's independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I found. In that article, there's both author's name and date. But I think it's too fast to determine that the source is reliable just because it includes both author's name and date, so I wanted to ask about it here. I'm trying to use this source on singer's albums or songs. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that including "author's name and date" made a source reliable, but it doesn't. Not on its own. Not remotely. The website appears to be a platform for paid promotion. Not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Hello! Appreciate your reply, but

The website appears to be a platform for paid promotion.

could you please tell me how to determine this fact? I read reliable sources criteria of cource, but I still have a trouble defining WP:RS. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

See : "Our platform allows for a variety of different advertisement opportunities for companies and individuals. From social media posts to sponsored posts, we will do our best to make sure your marketing strategy goals can fit ours." They are engaging in marketing, not journalism. As for identifying WP:RS more generally, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see. I tried to find another source and checked "About" section to see whether the source is independant or not, then this source seems reliable because they said

RUSSH Magazine is an independent fashion magazine showcasing innovators in fashion, beauty and the arts.

I hope I'm doing it right. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

A statement on a website that it is independent is in no way sufficient to establish it meets WP:RS criteria. A moments inspection of the website's 'contribute' page demonstrates that they are taking payment for contributions: "We consider both donated submissions in exchange for bylines and backlinks, and paid submissions".

If you are having difficulty establishing the reliability of sources, I suggest you stick to only citing major publications already frequently cited by Wikipedia in the relevant topic area. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Because of the paid advocacy, it's not reliable as an independent secondary source for what it covers.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR: Would Rohingya Refugee News be a reliable source for Rohingya-related topics?

Hello, Rohingya Refugee News is a substack page ran by Shafiur Rahman.

Rahman is a journalist who had his work noted in the BBC. He also wrote for Democratic Voice of Burma and Dhaka Tribune. He criticizes the Bangladeshi government, the Myanmar anti-junta National Unity Government, the Myanmar junta,BROUK, ARSA, RSO, and the Arakan Army in the RRN Substack. In contrast, a lot of Rohingya and Burmese publications are slanted towards one side. Many anti-junta Burmese publications are either pro-Arakan Army (Narinjara News and Development Media Group of Burma News International for examples) or mostly hesitant to cover Rohingya issues. Battlesnake1 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Because Rohingya Refugee News is a self-published website (with Rahman being its sole author), the WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS policies severely limit the content from this website that can be directly used on Wikipedia. Specifically:

• WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself."
• WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

— Newslinger talk 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Are government census which are recorded in 2001 or 2011 unreliable? A certain user in this article Bangladeshis, keeps removing the amount of Bangladeshi in India directly from the infobox just because the census by government is too old.. According to several reports, there are approximate of 2Million to 3Million Bangladeshi born people in India Source1 (states 3.7M), Source2, Source3. Now given with the data, its clear Bangladeshis diaspora are largely present in India, yet is it wise to remove India from infobox just because the census source is "old"? Next, if we add a analysis from BBC, it would state even higher [bbc]. So how wise is it to directly just ignore the 2001-2011 census and remove the whole country from a infobox diaspora? WinKyaw (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There are reliable for saying that the figure was correct in 2001 / 2011, really all census data should be presented with the year they were taken (as censuses are snapshots in time). That they are old doesn't make them unreliable, old sources are made unreliable by new sources that contradict them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

An infobox should be based on (and cite) the most recent census… and is not the correct location to mention historical population data. The historical data can be mentioned in the article text. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If there is a more recent census it should definitely be used, but the entry shouldn't just be removed because the source is old. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the new census is considered at least as reliable as the old one in regards to what is being cited. Government censuses do change what they ask or change who they ask (if for instance there is a change in policy on whether or not to count immigrants or to record where they were born) or change because of external circumstances (e.g., war making it impossible to gather information in occupied areas). I note that 2011 is the most recent Indian census; the next census has been postponed repeatedly. Erp (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

As long as it's clear that the data is from 2011, it shouldn't be a problem. KnowDeath (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Again… an infobox isn’t the right place for out of date info. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

According to what policy? KnowDeath (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it misleading to include it, even if clearly dated? For example, do we have later estimates which indicate it's seriously wrong - and if so, why don't we use them instead? Alternatively, is it misleading to exclude it? This is a list of the numbers of Bangladeshis in different countries; completely omitting India makes it look, at least to the naive reader, as if there aren't any Bangladeshis in India, but there might even be more there than anywhere else, bar one or two other countries or bar none at all. NebY (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The latest census data is 2011, it's not out of date or historical. The 2021 census details won't be released until next year, due to delays causes by COVID. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Population counts on any sizable place are always out of date. People are being born, dying, moving in or out, or cloning or fusing themselves even while the study is taking place. That doesn't mean population is unimportant, and if we have the latest reliable source and date the source, we're good and clear. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Heres the government data, the news outlet is from Bangladeshi media itself stating Indian govt census of 2011. WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

They are reliable for the year they were made (and should be denoted with said year when used in text). The information cited to them should only be changed when a newer reliable source is added. Just removing the information with no replacement is pretty close to blanking vandalism, in my opinion. Silverseren^C 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

If consensus is reached I'd prefer someone to restore the stable version before the edit reverts, currently I can't do it cause that will be WP:3RR. Also I'd like to highlight another claim by the same user on Indians in Bangladesh and it's talk page. WinKyaw (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the details and added a second reference for the Pakistani numbers, as the first source uses Bengali rather than Bangladeshi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a question about using a Youtube source in an article I'm currently working on.

Here is the context:

The video is an interview with a well-known musician. It's clearly two real people (not AI fakes), with standard editing (i.e. trimming in post to make it watchable). The interviewer is a reputable member of an established music supply company, and the channel has 248,000 subscribers and 1,200 videos.

During this interview the subject provides a lot of interesting information -- including material that a lot of people haven't heard yet. So we're talking about new, interesting information provided directly from the subject himself (not filtered secondhand).

My feeling is that maybe a video like this could qualify as a reasonable exception to Wikipedia's Youtube policy, with respect to usability. By utilizing this source, we can get this information out to the world via Wikipedia. Whereas NOT using this video is equivalent to depriving the Wikipedia-reading public of the only current source of this information -- and maybe the only source where it will ever be shared.

I would like to know if: a) this could indeed be an exception; or b) if not, why not?

Thank you in advance for providing as much detail as possible, so I can best understand the rationale, and be better informed for next time.

Thanks for your help and happy editing! Chillowack (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of our WP:YOUTUBE guidelines you are concerned about. Plenty of YouTube videos can be used, the real question is who put the video up. Is it published by a reliable source? If Rolling Stone magazine put it up, it's fine for statements about the subject. If the article subject themself put it up, it's also usable for statements about himself. If it's some individual who is not the subject, then it's a problem, under our guidelines for use of self-published sources for biographical information about living people (I'm assuming the subject is alive, as many musicians are.)

But yes, many things published on unreliable sources are full of interesting information... we just can't rely on it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Re:By utilizing this source, we can get this information out to the world via Wikipedia. - That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Youtube is already doing that, in which case, we do not need to duplicate it. We are not a tool for promotion. Further, regarding the idea that we'd be depriving the Wikipedia-reading public of the only current source of this information -- and maybe the only source where it will ever be shared - We are not "depriving" them of the only current source - it already exists openly on a publicly accessible site. Further, if it's likely this is the only source where it will ever be shared, then that calls into question whether it is notable for inclusion. That would seem to cross the line of what Wikipedia is not, most specifically, that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

They are also full of wrong information. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP wants to use Youtube for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Which is probably fine. Just remember that an interview in a self-published source absolutely cannot be used to make a statement about a living third party. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input, it's very helpful. Chillowack (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Simon, that is a good point, and I had been wondering about it for a while. WP:YOUTUBE is in the external links page. But is there any explicit guideline anywhere that states something to the effect that: "If in a Youtube video, professor X states that statement Y is true , then we can state that according to professor X statement Y is true". Of course if professor X makes that statement to the NY Times, we can use that as a WP:RS item. But can we use the Youtube video for the same purpose, given that statement Y may not be ABOUTSELF and may state that Quantum computing is at least 50 years away? Please clarify. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

There is WP:EXPERTSPS. If the person in the video is a subject matter expert in the field who has previously been published in other reliable sources, then there self-published works could be considered reliable. So if a professor, who has had books published by reliable publishers in the field of quantum computing, publishes a YouTube video about quantum computing then that video could be reliable.
There are limitations, such sources wouldn't be enough to support contentious or exceptional statements, even if they are attributed. If the video contained the claim that the best quantum computers are made of cheese then it wouldn't be reliable, as that would be an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It's also important to remember that you can't use attribution to say anything you like. No matter the source you shouldn't add an attributed statement to the Earth article containing the claim that it's flat. Attribution isn't a get out clause to ignore everything else.
They also must never be used for any claims about living people, you couldn't use such a video to support "Professor X says that Professor Y is an idiot who knows nothing about quantum computing". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Actively, thank you. I think you have done 2 things. One is that you clarified the issue for me, and others who read this board. Secondly, you indirectly answered the question about any explicit guideline. The fact that you had to type your explanation rather than provide a link to a guideline means that no explicit guideline is present. Your explanation is well written and needs to be added somewhere beyond this board. You or someone else who knows the issues (yours truly excluded) must add that somewhere. It would be a very useful thing to do. Please do so. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

erm.. I mentioned the explicit policy in my first sentence, it's WP:EXPERTSPS. The rest of my comment was trying to put that policy in context with the other relevant policies and guidelines, as it's a limited exception to otherwise WP:QUESTIONABLE sources that would normally not be considered reliable.
Someone could write further documentation if they wanted to, but any preexisting documents only exist because editors stepped forward to write them. There are very, very few instances where editors "must" do or not do something. Writing documentation is not one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there is an implicit assumption there that "text and video sources" are treated the same way regarding reliability. The WP:RS page says that "Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited." I am not sure how we decide if the youtube video of someone talking at a conference published by a reliable source. Consider the video of a talk. The speaker Margaret Macmillan is an expert. Now what if someone sitting in the audience had recorded that, and put it on you tube. Would it be as reliable as the video I linked to? What if 3 audience members had done so? I am not going to push this issue further, but in my view, the matter is less than settled. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You would be citing the speaker as an expert, not the person who recorded the speach. It would be an expert in a self-published source, as I've said there is a policy covering that.
Consider as a different example the situation when it comes to WP:ABOUTSELF details in an interview. If some entirely random YouTuber conducts the interview it doesn't matter, as you citing the interviewee not the interviewer.
Now for EXPERTSPS the speaker at a conference isn't going to be the one recording the speech, but it doesn't matter you are citing the expert's speech not who is recording the video. There is nothing more to be said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, let us take that as the conclusion of this discussion. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

BTVA is currently listed as generally reliable with restrictions regarding notability. A previous RFC in 2022 here determined it to be generally reliable. I don’t want to challenge that result, but rather clarify what the reliability applies to.

According to their FAQ, the results properly verified by their fact-checking process get a green tick, which includes a corresponding screenshot of the credits. Therefore I'd like to propose to limit reliability of role-credits to ones with a green tick.

Additionally, I would like to challenge the general reliability of statements about BLP content other than role credits—such as birthplace or date of birth. Firstly, this is because no source is ever provided for such claims. Secondly, in their FAQ they list their usual ways of verifying data, none of which typically include such information. Overall, I get the impression that this type of information is not part of their fact-checking process, but rather a courtesy to their users.

Please note that my two proposals are independent of each other and can be approved or disapproved separately. ~Squawk7700 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I've posted notifications to WT:WikiProject Anime and manga and WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as both projects have discussed the source previously. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

These proposed restrictions are reflective of how it's already used in anime articles. WP:ANIMESOURCES states: Roles and lists that are not checkmarked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used and further that Other site sections such as actor biographical data, trivia, side-by-sides, voice-matching analysis, polls, credits count, and forum sections are not verified and should not be used. I see no reason to not expand these restrictions to Wikipedia at large. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

For procedural reasons, I want to point out that WikiProjects don't have rules separate from "Wikipedia at large". If it's not a rule for Wikipedia at large, then it's just a suggestion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Similar to the discussion above on classical sources (and WP:CLPRIM), it's unfortunately common for colonial sources to used in articles on the African colonial period. For anyone unfamiliar with the context, see African historiography#History, I've also written an essay on this. What's an absolute showstopper for me is that they completely exclude African perspectives, so no matter how alive an editor is to the source's positive bias, it will always result in a partial and very POV account.

Having a guideline or adding something to WP:RSP might be an idea? I'd like a near blanket ban on colonial sources pre-1940 (the '40s were when African history separated from colonial/imperial history and when the SOAS started producing Africanists) as it'd be easy to enforce, but that may be an oversimplification (a bit of qualified language and a couple caveats might address this?). Kowal2701 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think your essay makes some strong points about reliability of colonial sources for history, cultural and anthropological topics. A blanket ban doesn't make much sense to me though as that would catch, for example, a lot of geographical and scientific content (e.g. on flora and fauna) originated by colonial entities, that is much less likely to be subject to bias due to colonial attitudes and prejudices. In many cases these are the earliest documentary records for whole blocks of important articles. YFB ¿ 11:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Would you consider moving your essay to projectspace? Instead of an RSP entry, I'd rather have an explanatory essay on colonial sources since it would have broader applicability beyond Africa (see WP:RAJ, another essay on colonial sources in India) and I could cite it easily in discussions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chess done. I did want to write on colonial sources more generally but didn’t know enough outside of African history. Agree with YFB that for other topics they can be usable. It’s a bit of a blindspot on WP, but RSP is probably inappropriate since that’s more for individual publications. Maybe a section listing essays on particular sets of sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently compiling sources for an article about Avi Shlaim's Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, and came across an article from this magazine/journal that reviewed the book. The last discussion on this source's reliability dates back to 2010, and that's a lot of time for it to drastically change. I would not mind using this source, as it is run by experts in foreign policy, but I am somewhat hesitant to do so (possible WP:UNDUE issues), as it tends to cover the the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am posting this in order to see other people's comments on this before I proceed any further. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 17:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article, and an idea of what you want to support with it? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

They favourably reviewed a 9/11 conspiracy book in 2011 (for some reason the article isn't available on their website).

Also, I'm not sure that it's "run by experts," at least their key personalities don't seem to have scholarly credentials.

It would be helpful to know what exactly you'd like to use and who the author is. In general, we should do WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis to check its reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay and the incoherent request. Here is the source I want to use:

• Brownfeld, Allan C (June–July 2024). "Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew". The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 43 (4): 67. ISSN 8755-4917.

I didn't want to immediately proceed with writing as the article and the book it's reviewing cover I/P, so I decided to post here first. My question was if this source is appropriate for info related to the aforementioned topic. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

For reference the review is available here. The review itself is probably uncontroversial, or at least anything controversial is said in the words of the author of the book rather than the reviewer, but looking into The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs using it may not strengthen your article. A lot of the criticism against it comes because of it's opposition to Zionism, but opinion and bias don't make a source unreliable. Other criticism is more justified, for instance to go along with the 9/11 book there an article about Mossad's involvement with JFK's assassination. Saying that I don't think it can be just written off as totally unreliable, it has seemingly extensive use by others and is well established, but it's controversial and in an already controversial topic area I'm not sure it's inclusion would always be helpful.
Unless you really need something from this review I would suggest using a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)