This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A quick search indicates this site is already used as a source on various articles so this may be worth taking a look at.
The site accepts guest posts. It's not quite clear if/how these are indicated, I haven't been able to find one. They could be rare or I was unable to identify them as such.
I couldn't find an editorial policy, but I did find which appears to have been posted as an article. Not ideal but it does make some statements about striving to be accurate and fact-checking.
was written by Jimmy Donovan who is not listed on but his page says "Jimmy, currently with The Thaiger, translates his global journalism experience to bring insights about Thailand to life." While "currently with" sounds like he's employed, maybe this is a guest blogger. On the other hand, was written by Lilly Larkin who is listed on .
My gut feeling: don't use for any BLP. Otherwise possibly acceptable for uncontroversial facts if the author is listed on but preferably use more established sources, especially for international (unrelated to Thailand) news. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Nothing about this website inspires any confidence in its reliability. Few of the senior staff and none of upper management have any journalism background. The writers are mostly identified by handles or pseudonyms as if they were anonymous bloggers or Wikipedia editors. If you look up the Donovan's Linkedin, for the particular article cited you'll see that he is a second-year student in college. There is no trace of Larkin anywhere other than at Thaiger, and the lack of prior bylines at other publications and the improbable breadth of the subjects on which she is credited as writing at Thaiger makes me question whether she is a real person. According to the Thaiger website , during a 4-hour period today, she wrote 22 different articles, on a staggering range of subjects and events around the world. That is not plausible, and I also discovered that her name is a character in Final Fantasy. This is definitely not a reliable source, and especially not for a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Banks Irk, the character in Final Fantasy may or may not be user-generated as it's part of an MMO. This is unclear to me, and is currently down for maintenance. But the character doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere else (no Fandom page or whatever), so I'd say it's probably unrelated.
    But her name (and photo, I checked) not showing up anywhere else is a bit concerning. And I agree that writing >15 articles/day on a regular basis while doing proper research on all of them seems improbable. It's possible if they're just parroting other sources, but in that case we'd be better off quoting the original source. Or maybe if she's a workaholic and most articles would be within a more narrow subject range which is her expertise. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    If Larkin is a real person, and I continue to have my doubts about that, her 16 articles today (I guess she's slowed down after posting 22 yesterday), give a hint at what's really going on. Once again, the range of subject matters and geographic areas in the stories are highly improbable - obituaries of mostly non-notable people from around the world, fluff profiles of athletes around the world, gaming, manga, Bollywood, TV, a handful of what might pass as actual news from around the world, - none of them having any logical connection to one another. What nearly all of the stories have in common is that they start with "the internet is buzzing", "the internet is currently abuzz", "the latest buzz", "the internet has been inundated"...and minor variations of the same theme. So, they are basically just aggregating social content off the internet and reprinting it, perhaps with some minor variation (hard to say without finding the original sources) as their own under this byline. This site should never be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

This isn't a SPS. The author is indeed a subject matter expert who has been widely published. It is an opinion piece, but it's reliable for use with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I have written at length on my concerns with this source, here.

One of my primary concern was Nableezy's substantial quotation of this opinion piece, to support a single viewpoint. This extended coverage conferred on an opinion piece, published on an online forum, in my respectful view, is WP:UNDUE, given the controversial and serious nature of this article, which is already excessively lengthy and convoluted.

Nableezy appears to have trimmed down his coverage of this source, following the concerns raised by me and a few other editors, prior to posting on this Noticeboard, which certainly addresses the concerns.

One issue remains is that this same author has given a more balanced opinion, condemning both Israel and Hamas, in this interview published by Deutsche Welle, cited by Nableezy himself/herself, than the opinion he gave in the online forum.

In my view, if this author must be cited, then this Deutsche Welle source should be used, rather than the source from the online forum. Deutsche Welle is a more reputable and credible source of information, as compared to that online forum. It also presents a more balanced opinion from the same author, and should therefore be preferred. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an online forum in the conceptual sense, not in the practical sense, so please don't imply otherwise. It's essentially an analytical platform that publishes expert opinions and analysis on security topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Can’t comment on if it’s DUE in the specific article (might be helpful to give that context) but it’s not an SPS and he’s clearly a subject matter expert anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The argument was that it is not a reliable source as a SPS, so I was seeking comment on that. If the argument is no DUE, then usage by DW would go towards showing it is DUE, but thats for another noticeboard. nableezy - 04:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't SPS and the individual is clearly a subject-matter expert anyway, and can reasonably be cited with attribution. That they are also cited by DW making similar statements reinforces the reasonableness of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely qualified and valuable for the article, but the quote and statements from Oxfam, HRW, Amensty could be better contextualized for the reader. This 2020 IRRC article (which cites and explains Dannenbaum's position in the section "Interpreting the prohibition against starvation: A permissive approach to sieges") is probably a helpful starting point. Unfortunately i don't think WP is really capable of an adequate explanation of the issues for the reader in it's news reporting, so it's just "quote and attribute" without context. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above, Tom Dannenbaum appears to be a widely published subject matter expert in the closely related fields of International Relations and International Law. Should be attributed of course but this does seem to be more of a due weight question than a reliability one per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll refrain from saying what I think this time as it's rather easy to be wrong..
Yen.com.gh is a a news publication from Ghana. It's already widely used as a source for various claims, including on BLPs. Some examples from the first page of search results: Jerry Rawlings#cite ref-11 (the source was added while he was alive), Nana Akufo-Addo#cite note-106 and Asamoah Gyan#cite ref-5. Yen.com.gh has an editorial policy and an overview of their editors.
Our article on them says "It covers local and international news, politics, business, entertainment, technology, sport news and users’ generated news content." They indeed report on user-generated content, e.g. which describes an event that's.. let's say, less important than the presidential election.
For transparency: I found this article while looking for Sssniperwolf sources, but I have a feeling that article shouldn't be used on a BLP. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Your instinct is correct. This is not a reliable source. It is a tabloid-journalism gossip piece from a publication that includes user-generated content. That is without getting into at least a half-dozen subcategories of WP:NOT Please stop bringing these questions here. I thought that the editors who were interested in feuds between YouTubers were going to discuss these kinds of sources at Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf_sources_overview and not here. If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, you will not find any reliable source on the subject that would pass muster at AFD after five tries. Banks Irk (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Banks Irk, I honestly do not know why Alexis is bringing this here. I started a discussion at the talk page for only the talk page and nowhere else. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Banks Irk, I brought this question here because there seem to already be 450+ articles that use Yen.com.gh as a source and no prior discussion on the site seems to exist.
    I actually added the transparency line in an edit after posting the question. Maybe I shouldn't have. Sssniperwolf brought me to Yen.com.gh, but if few or no existing articles would be using Yen.com.gh as a source I wouldn't have asked about it here.
    FYI, new (better) sources surfaced since the last AfD was closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Yet the episode of the tabloids writing falsehoods about her transition is notable enough to mention; the Independent writes about them. I included a link to the actual DM articles in our article; I added a comment in our article text that these articles are not being used as sources for facts, they are the subject of the discussion; I added an entry in the article talk page FAQ (Talk:Sarah Jane Baker/FAQ#Q5) which says that is specifically what is called out in WP:DAILYMAIL as "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." User:David Gerard deleted the Daily Mail link anyway, saying "A talk page agreement cannot override a general consensus at RFC", by which, he presumably means the RFC that established WP:DAILYMAIL, which was held here. So even though this isn't about using the Daily Mail as a reliable source, this is the best place I thought of to go (since it is about the WP:DAILYMAIL rule, and since David Gerard says he won't respect any agreements made on the article talk page). So, can we link to a Daily Mail article when it is the subject of the discussion? Is this what WP:DAILYMAIL means by "may be used in rare cases" or isn't it? --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Short answer is no. Never use the Daily Mail as a source in a BLP. If I understand the dispute here: (1) The Daily Mail published something that was false (2) other, reliable publications, published that the Daily Mail published something that was false (3) Can I link to the false article at the Daily Mail that other publications say is false?. No. Moreover, if every reliable source on the planet tomorrow had the same full-page headline THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED SOMETHING FALSE we still wouldn't link to the story at the Daily Mail, under WP:NOTNEWS because it would he same as if they all had the same full-page headline SUN RISES THIS MORNING. Banks Irk (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Banks Irk, I kinda doubt "the Daily Mail is full of shit, look what they did now" would really qualify as WP:ROUTINE like an announcement saying it's Christmas. It's possible I'm wrong, but it seems different to me.
    While it may be obvious for us, it's probably not a universally known fact that the Daily Mail is full of shit. And if some particular thing they wrote is bad enough for independent reliable sources to report on it, why shouldn't we treat it the same as Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's blog? There may be reasons not to include a link to Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's blog either, but that would mean the reason is independent from the Daily Mail being the Daily Mail.
    The outcome here could still be we shouldn't link, but the actual reason would probably be something else like being highly cautious because it's a BLP or actively denying the Daily Mail any possible rise in search engine rankings.
    Side note: if all the major independent reliable sources had the same full-page headline "Sun rises this morning", and that headline is not a routine thing, I suspect our policy maybe allows an article like "Sunrise of 1 November 2023". But we wouldn't write any such article based on the weather section of those newspapers which is routine. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    You do have a valid point. If there were enough notability, one might consider whether something like this merited inclusion in the long list at Daily Mail#Noted reporting, where articles criticizing the Daily Mail are linked, but not the Daily Mail stories themselves. That would be the appropriate pattern here, but I question whether even the criticisms are warranted in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Context: GRuban wrote the "FAQ" they're citing here - not the product of talk page discussion but something they just wrote themselves a few days ago - then linked it at the top of the talk page as if it were a list of settled matters, then referenced it in a comment restoring the Daily Mail. I objected that a talk page can't establish a local consensus against a broad general RFC consensus, especially when their own document emphasises that the Mail story is a tissue of lies of a quality that would be unacceptable to use in a BLP. Anyway, the fact of the Mail's lies is IMO more than sufficiently described in the RSes - linking the potentially defamatory document in article space doesn't actually add anything - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. The subpage "FAQ" is not a talkpage discussion, and frankly, it probably should be deleted or moved to their own page. I even question whether it is appropriate in a RSN BLP to even include the story debunking DM under WP:DUE among other policies and guidelines. But that is not a RS issue. Banks Irk (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Banks Irk, I even question whether it is appropriate in a RSN to even include the story
  Did you mean BLP here? From what I understand, WP:DUE doesn't apply to WP:RSN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. I meant BLP not RSN. A combination of too many acronyms and the fact that my fingers are not to be trusted in the near vicinity of a keyboard. Banks Irk (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for the Daily Mail article and it shouldn't be restored. There been multiple discusions and RFCs about the source, unless it's specifically an ABOUTSELF statement (which this isn't) it shouldn't be used.
As an aside referencing isn't a place to add "See also" material to external sites. This is the purpose of the External links section, and the Daily Mail would probably fail WP:ELNO#EL2. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I also note that David Gerard isn't the first editor to remove this with the talk page FAQ being used to restore it. Talk pages cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Because they've pulled things like this before, you'd probably want to link an independent archive (like a Wayback Machine capture) of the original article even if you were to link the article for some reason. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah, that's how we link it on e.g. (Almost) Straight Outta Compton - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think people forget that one of the reason that the Daily Mail was deprecated is that they lie about their own content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, the Daily Mail was being used as a reference, which it absolutely should not be. I could see an argument for it being included in External Links or See Also with the appropriate context but definitely not as a reference. Loki (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Well, that's a pretty clear answer: looks like David Gerard had it right. Thank you folks, I appreciate your time. --GRuban (talk)

My first inclination here was that because the DM article itself was the subject of discussion from other RSes (in here, how the DM pushed this lie) that a link to the offending article would be reasonable so that the curious could see this article. But I can also see the logic to keep it out, and the fact that the RSes covering that article link to it as well. This is a rare but not exceptional case where what an non-RS has published soarks a controversy covered by RSes (Pizzagate, Alec Jones, Fox News, etc.) Perhaps we need to say not when we have broadly prohibited a source that even In such cases, linking to the source is not appropriate and to rely on the linkages provided by RSes. Masem (t) 13:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Masem, soarks a controversy What does "soarks" mean? While I can infer from context, I can't find it in the dictionary. Maybe a typo for "soars", but on qwerty the K is on the other side of the keyboard. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

One letter typo from 'sparks'. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, meant sparks. Typing off phone. Masem (t) 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Source: Mac Fhiongaile, Niall (1985). Dr Mc Ginley and His Times. Niall Mac Fhiongaile.
2. Article: Joseph McGinley
3. Content: The book is being used to cite facts about McGinley's personal life ("he was awarded the gold medal for surgery") and about his involvement in the Irish War of Independence.

I have marked this source as unreliable, since Google books lists the book as self-published (although the National Library of Ireland (NLI) lists it as published by "An Crann" in Leitirceannain (Letterkenny). (The only reference I can find to anything call "An Crann" in Letterkenny is this NLI record about a local journal / serial. There is an ongoing discussion about the matter between mysefl and Rockypopod. (The discussion has been held on our respective user talk pages, but I have now copied the entire thread to Talk:Joseph McGinley to promote centralized discussion.) Rockypopod and I are in disagreement about the reliability of this source. I'd ask readers of this noticeboard to weigh in on the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much completely unusable. I can't come up with a scenario in which this sort of source would be usable on anything other than the author's page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

  Even if they were a SME its hard to imagine many use cases that wouldn't count as unduly self serving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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

The sentence that gets me in particular is this one:

North Korea's Christian population, which was considered to be the center of Christianity in East Asia in 1945 and included 25–30% of the inhabitants of Pyongyang, has been systematically massacred and persecuted; as of 2012, 50,000–70,000 Christians were imprisoned in North Korea's concentration camps.¹

Thoughts? Is attribution or removal fair? Thanks so much.Stix1776 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why does he seem reliable enough? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. I thought perhaps that he's a Christian activist, not a journalist or academic, he'd require attribution.Stix1776 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahh I misunderstood, I th0ught you were saying he seems reliable enough. I am unsure he is, and inclusion may thus be undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A question, what is the status of the site Polygraph.Info?

• About this project page 10 indicates "Polygraph.info is a fact-checking website produced by Voice of America (VOA)​. The website serves as a resource for verifying the increasing volume of disinformation and misinformation being distributed and shared globally."
• As an outlet it appears to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V including correcting information when needed and providing a straightforward contact form.
• MediaBiasFactCheck 11 indicates "we rate Polygraph.Info Least Biased on a left-right scale but pro-USA on a national interest scale (Propaganda). We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record."
• Wikipedia policy for the parent says "Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government."

I ask because I found a rant by user Polymathes2357 12 and a couple of other users who seem to have anti-America or pro-Russia axes to grind. Looking at Philomathes2357's other writing it appears she has an anti-America viewpoint and specifically targets outlets she deems connected to America while pushing for wikipedia to include anti-America outlets known for fabrications and lies. Talking points that were included in the rant and subsequent replies.

• 13 "Why is "Polygraph.info" cited here as a source with expertise about the Russia-Ukraine war to debunk Ritter's statement? Who cares that polygraph.info wrote that Ritter is wrong about Russia winning the war? Now, in November of 2023, it's clearer than ever that Ritter was right, but that aside, why is polygraph.info reliable or due here?" (comment by Philomathes2357. It also appears that Ritter's claims are debunked by multiple other fact check outlets as well as mainstream coverage about the Russia-Ukraine war which does not indicate Russia to be "winning.")
• 14 "I don't know about you guys, but I don't trust Voice of America, or polygraph.info, to give an an honest and accurate assessment of the war in Ukraine. Even setting that aside, I don't really see how this is due. We can just say what the guy's opinion is on the war in Ukraine without citing VOA or anyone else to try to debunk it or provide "balance"...can't we?" (comment by Philomathes2357)
• 15 "The text originally said something like polygraph.info had debunked every claim Ritter ever made so I rewrote it to only mention the two claims that polygraph contested. It isn't pretty but at least it conforms to the source. Whether we should be using polygraph.info for anything is a separate question. It is run by Voice of America. You can guess the rest." (comment by Burrobert)
• 16 "Hello comrades. I too believe this is unreliable" and 17 "I agree, but we need to be careful. We already snuck in a quote from consortiumnews and we don't want the capitalists to notice" (comments by Just here for the facts)

Virtually every source for the section on his Ukraine views 18 is in a context similar to the Euronews article about disgraced US nationals being used by Russia for propaganda purposes. Based on wikipedia policies and the analysis of the fact checking reputation, I think Polygraph.info should be considered reliable sourcing. I can't square those policies with the proposal made by commenters that Scott Ritter, convicted child molester dishonorably removed from US military service, is an international expert whose views are noteworthy for inclusion on their own rather than because of being reflected in reliable news sources analyzing his position as "among the cohort of Americans courted by Russian propaganda sources" or "tankies."19 129.7.0.160 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What is its reputation for fact checking with other media outlets or accademics? Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I will work on that to provide some more references at your request. In the meantime can you help with the formatting on this page? I don't think the Robert Park footnote showing below belongs in this section. 129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• University of Cincinnati library system puts it in the same category as other websites Wikipedia deems reliable. 20

129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rand Corporation sees it as reliable. 21

129.7.0.160 (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This all semes to indicate it is an RS, which only leaves non RS objections to its use. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Polygraph is highly reliable. It's a robust fact-checking and anti-disinfo project. It's a project of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, as are Voice of America and RFE/RL, which RSP list as generally reliable, so we can assume it is as reliable as VoA.

Looking for use by other RSs, I find:

• Shesgreen, Deirdre (21 September 2018). "Donald Trump's State Department outgunned in Russian propaganda battle". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Lockie, Alex (27 February 2018). "Leaked Audio Reportedly Captures Russian Mercenaries Describing Humiliating Defeat By US In Syria". Task & Purpose. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Kasprak, Alex (28 February 2023). "Did Biden Say, 'Wait Until You See Our Plan for the Destruction of Taiwan'?". Snopes. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• "Did Sagres cease production as a preventive measure due to the Covid-19 pandemic? It's fake!". Sul Informação. 18 March 2020. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
• Mukhina, Helen (2 September 2018). "Polygraph: When Putin visited depressing Siberian city, Russian TV showed footage of Moscow to beautify its report". Kyiv Post. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

Here is NBC's profile. This is their main reporter. It's a member of the Credibility Coalition of fact-checkers. It's included in lists of fact-checking sites provided by Cincinatti University library and the Sunlight Foundation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict notice and saw that a comment was removed here 22 by MrOllie accusing the user who wrote it of being a sock. I read what the user wrote and I don't find anything that would justify calling them a sock. The accusations that were made are unjustifiable but I think it's a valid concern that Philomathes2357 removed Polygraph content from Scott Ritter, 23 claiming that the talk page discussion justified doing so, when both that talk page discussion and this discussion show a consensus against the removal. I've restored that content for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USNavelObservatory (talk • contribs)

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

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

Hello! Could someone take a look at the remaining sources on The Amazing Digital Circus and determine if they're reliable? I've already removed WP:KNOWYOURMEME and WP:FORBESCON sources, however i Don't have much experience in determining source reliability so I'm asking here for some assistance. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• HITC, they have a page about their fact-checking process. However, I find that they often publish low-quality articles.

A random example from the front page: 24, in which it quotes random internet users. I would say is marginally reliable, because I did see some limited use by others.

• The Mary Sue – reliable per WP:RSP. Should be perfectly fine for an uncontroversial stuff. However, The article is also quite bare bones and provides no significant commentary.
• Cartoon Brew - Same as Mary Sue, they
• In The Know - It is published by Yahoo, a reliable source.
• Comics Beat has a sizable editorial team, and an reputable reviewer Heidi MacDonald is editor-in-chief. Should at least be reliable for reviews.
• Nichegamer, redundant, since all its information is duplicated by other sources.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you should rethink the Know Your Meme source. The byline is by Zach Sweat who appears to be a reliable staff member on the site so the content isn't "user generated." I think it's reliable and usable. 25 USNavelObservatory (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I"m currently discussing it with another user. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Where? USNavelObservatory (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

On my talk page. But I'll open a topic about KYM staff articles here soon. Skyshifter ^talk 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Niche Gamer is considered unreliable per WP:VG/S, if it's redundant I think it's best to remove it. Also not gonna lie but The Mary Sue seemed very strange with its last The Amazing Digital Circus articles. Other than the one already cited 26, they wrote like 4 articles in the span of two days, and many of them are just repeating information or have low encyclopedic value. 27 28 29 30 Skyshifter ^talk 15:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Who would've thought VG/S would be useful in determining reliability of a source for an article on a webseries (albeit the webseries is technically about a game so) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 19:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is definitely unreliable, but if VG says it is unreliable, it's something to consider. Skyshifter ^talk 19:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would trust what WP:VG says. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 20:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Some assistance at Valley View Center would be great. A discussion at Talk:Valley View Center#The “In Popular Culture” section should stay. seemed to indicate that a reliable source was needed to support inclusion of an "in popular culture" addition (I felt that even with a reliable source, it was still trivial and out-of-scope). Now there is an edit war about whether this source is reliable (it's a Wiki). A few more eyes on this would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• You've answered the question yourself. TVTropes is a Wiki, so it is user-generated content, and is not a reliable source either for content or for notability. Banks Irk (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: It was a cry for help, at a board noted for its levelheadedness. There is a determined group of editors insistent on adding that cruft to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. TV Tropes is listed as Unreliable USG at WP:RSP, so you can point them to that. No need to make them believe you or me. Banks Irk (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, neither the wiki or a primary source is acceptable in a "In Popular Culture" section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Libero is most famous for its shocking headlines, e.g. "Islamic bastards" (following the November 2015 Paris attacks), "After misery, they bring disease" ("they" refers to migrants), "More potatoes, less mimosas" (on the International Women's Day, which in Italy is celebrated with mimosas; "potatoes" here means pussy), "Matteo Renzi and Maria Elena Boschi don't fuck" 31, and in 2019 also "Revenues and GDP decrease, but gays increase" 32. The 2017 headline "Hot potato" (which in Italian also means "Hot pussy") earned the directors of Libero Vittorio Feltri and Pietro Senaldi a conviction for libel against the mayor of Rome Virginia Raggi 33. While WP:HEADLINES provides us some protection against all this, IMHO these headlines are indicative of poor journalistic quality, which is confirmed by a series of convictions for libel and other journalistic shortcomings (I can provide details, here some sources in Italian 3435363738). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable. It's a tabloid: bigoted, sensationalist and sloppy. File somewhere close to the Daily Express - not quite as bad as Breitbart or the Daily Mail, but heading there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of Libero and its reputation; I suspect that if it was an English language publication it would have been deprecated by now. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Top Italian Scientists a reliable source? This article is relying heavily on this bio on TIS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit blogy to me also this "1 January 2023: the Wiki platform in English and Wiki in Italian is available for Top Italian Scientists with the aim of creating more complete profiles than those in Wikipedia and equally indexed by search engines. Anyone interested in having a Wiki page can request one by sending a message via the Contacts page ." causes some concern about circularity. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Their methodology also isn't great, at least the base was look at Google scholar using a browser extension. The article in particular appears to duplicate at least in part the bio from Sapienza University. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)