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.

Would this opinion piece from The Washington Post be considered a reliable source for supporting allegations of rigging, given its usage three times in the following manner?

1. Polls were held amidst allegations of pre-poll rigging.
2. A strict order was given to stop mentioning Khan's name on television and PTI protests were suppressed, while PTI supporters were arrested and harassed by the military, judiciary as well other political parties.
3. The Washington Post in its editorial board wrote following the election outcome, the military's control is being questioned more than ever before, possibly in decades as for the first time, the military-prefered candidate, Nawaz Sharif, was unable to win the most seats.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Anything from an op-ed would need to be attributed. You don't need to use an op-ed for these points as they are also discussed by plenty of reliable sources. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Saqib To prevent a future contention and confusion, it would be prudent to remove the op-ed as a source and support the content with sources pointed out by Burrobert above. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems from WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERGENERATED that newspaper-associated opinion pieces like this one could be considered reliable. Personally, I'd avoid unless there is attribution to a 'notable person', but the letter of the wiki-law might support the notion that the opinion piece linked above could be a reliable source ... but in the interest of avoiding contention might be good to either omit or, if you are so inclined, include in the "further reading" section. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

When WP:RSEDITORIAL clearly says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author,... then I don't understand what the fuss is about. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib Source is used at three locations, only attributed at one location. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, I copied the contents of a former section in LGBT representation in children's television to produce a draft and hastily submitted it to AfC. After being declined on account of having inadequate sources, I decided to make and fill out a source assessment table. Here are some sources that have yet to be ruled out as unreliable as far as I know:

GLAAD is cited multiple times:

• "GLAAD 2002". (permanent dead link)

  On June 18, 2002, Nickelodeon ran a program titled Nick News Special Edition: My Family Is Different. Produced by Linda Ellerbee's Lucky Duck Productions and hosted by Ellerbee, My Family Is Different featured children of gay and lesbian parents talking with children from households that oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian families.

• GLAAD 2018, p. 31.

  They would be the first pair of married male characters to be depicted on a Nickelodeon series. In later years, Luna Loud would be revealed as a bisexual girl who sent a love letter to a girl named Sam Sharp in the June 2017 episode "L is for Love". She is also revealed to have a crush on a boy named Hugh.

• GLAAD 2019, p. 33.

  Later on, Sam seems to feel similarly about Luna and appears to reciprocate Luna's feelings in that episode and others, with Lori describing them as beginning to date in the episode "Racing Hearts," though neither character calls their excursion a date throughout the episode.

• Where We Are on TV: 2020–2021 (PDF) (Report). p. 40.

  and Sam, her girlfriend, along with Howard and Harold McBride, "the two Dads of the protagonist’s best friend Clyde."

  In 2020, Nickelodeon debuted a new television show, Danger Force. The episode Say My Name portrayed two dads of a lost child in which Danger Force was trying to find his parents.

Autostraddle is cited twice:

• ""Steven Universe" and the Importance of All-Ages Queer Representation".

  Some noted that while the relationship between two bisexual characters, Korra and Asami, was built up during the course of the series, the words "I love you" were never uttered, nor did the characters kiss.

• "I Have a Lesbian Crush on This "Loud House" Storyline About Girls Having Crushes on Girls".

  In later years, Luna Loud would be revealed as a bisexual girl who sent a love letter to a girl named Sam Sharp in the June 2017 episode "L is for Love". She is also revealed to have a crush on a boy named Hugh.

Each of the following sources has only been cited once:

• Sun Sentinel: "NICKELODEON UNDER FIRE FOR A SPECIAL ON GAY PARENTS".

  This program was subject to much criticism from Christian organizations, such as the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, who believed the program pushed a "pro-homosexual agenda" and was not suitable for children.

• The Sundial (California State University Northridge): "The effect of LGBT characters in our generation".

  In the aftermath of series finale, which aired on Nickelodeon and Nick.com, there were debates about "queer representation in children's media."

• Logo TV / NewNowNext: "9 Cartoons That Were Censored For Being Too Gay". (it belongs to Paramount, so it could be a primary source)

  Even so, the latter was censored by a South African broadcaster, DStv,

• Press Telegram: "Local sisters' new Nickelodeon show aims to shape young entrepreneurs".

  Also, one character, Yuna, in the main cast, had two moms, who appeared in two episodes as secondary characters who give Yuna moral support, giving her the inspiration to finish her fashion designs.

• Out: "This Tweet Is Why People Think SpongeBob Came Out as Gay".

  On June 13, 2020, Nickelodeon promoted LGBTQ+ characters in their shows, highlighting SpongeBob SquarePants and The Legend of Korra.

• Backlot Magazine: "Rugrats Gets First LGBT Character in Reboot".

  Betty is voiced by queer actress Natalie Morales. Morales described the character as a "single mom with her own business who has twins" but still hangs out with her community and friends, even casually talking about her ex-girlfriend.

• Gayming: "Power Rangers Dino Fury Green Ranger confirmed as LGBTQ+".

  In September 2021, Izzy Garcia, the Green Ranger from Power Rangers Dino Fury was revealed to be a lesbian in the episode "The Matchmaker".

• Kotaku: "New Transformers Series Introduces Its First Nonbinary Robot ".

  In November 2022, the Transformers: EarthSpark two-part midseason finale "Age of Evolution" introduced Nightshade, one of the three new Terrans.

• MovieWeb: "Nickelodeon Gears Up to Introduce Bossy Bear to New Audiences".

  In March 2023, Bossy Bear introduced Ginger's dads Tyler and Greg.

• WPDE-TV: "Paw Patrol spin-off episode by 'Queer Mister Rogers' features first non-binary character".

  In September 2023, the Paw Patrol spinoff series Rubble & Crew introduced a non-binary character River in the episode "The Crew Builds an Observatory".

• Them: "Paw Patrol's Nonbinary-Coded Character Is, Um, Very Subtly Coded".

  Same sentence as WPDE-TV

If you think that's a big handful, this is less than a third of that draft's citations. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Wow, that's a lot of sources – I don't know how much useful engagement a question about all of these sources together is going to get. As an initial observation from a "should we have an article on this topic" point of view rather than a strict "are these sources reliable" point of view, I am struggling to see any source out of the 71 in the current draft which discusses LGBT representation on Nickelodeon. There are sources which discuss specific instances of LGBT representation on Nickelodeon, and at least one source about LGBT representation on television generally, but nothing about LGBT representation on Nickelodeon. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• That's a lot of sources. Some of them would probably require attribution (either for WP:BIASED reasons or WP:RSOPINION reasons) and others wouldn't, but glancing over them there's probably enough there to write an article, and certainly enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. While this is probably enough, I would suggest searching for some academic sources as well; a quick glance on Google Scholar suggests that there's some papers that at least discuss this topic (not surprising given that Nickelodeon is very prominent and shifts in LGBT representation have a lot of academic discussion.) While, again, they're not strictly necessary, having them there from the start could help inform the article's structure in a useful way, and I suspect they'd be useful in terms of forming a complete timeline. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Seems to be more of an undue question than an RS one. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

While none of your responses have helped me determine how any particular tile in the source assessment table ought to be colored, they do bring up important caveats to take into consideration. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, GLAAD is an advocacy organization, so they are not WP:INDY. That doesn't mean they can't be cited for anything, but as a partisan organization, their views need to be attributed, not claimed as fact in Wikipedia's own voice. Same will apply to various other of these sources including Autostraddle, Gayming, Them, and Out. You may be able to find various journal sources here: .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Along with some of the work I've done on the source assessment table since I started this thread, this narrows it down to just three sources for me to ask about the reliability of:

• ComicsVerse
• Press Telegram
• Backlot Magazine (Comics and Gaming Magazine)

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus at WP:BASEBALL for inclusion of FanGraphs statistical information in articles about baseball players, as the site has a comprehensive collection of baseball statistics that exceeds in scope other sites. Were the site used as a reference for hard statistics, I wouldn't object.

However, an IP editor used a column at the site for a source in the Rowdy Tellez article (diff cited source). The immediate red flag to me was "blogs" in the path to the article, as it's an indicator of an author's opinion and not content that has been through a publication's full editorial review cycle. The IP did not provide a link to a masthead or about us page that discussed their editorial policy for blog pages when asked, nor could I find one in my own search. Can a blog/column/article at FanGraphs be relied upon as a reliable source? Or is this an IMDB-type situation where the site provides a valuable resource and should be included in external links for articles but is not a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The term "blog" used in the FanGraphs url does not fall under user generated content. These are articles from columnists that are highly regarded baseball analysts with a full editorial process to back them. Articles from blogs.fangraphs.com are about as reliable as you can get for factual information and statistical analysis. More generic community generated content would fall under community.fangraphs.com. While these articles still have editorial backing and discretion, they can be created by anyone in the fangraphs community and I would argue shouldn't be considered reliable. - Skipple ☎ 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

FanGraphs is reliable. Its journalists are members of the BBWAA, and many have decades of previous experience in print journalism. Mach61 (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61 @Skipple Thank you both for the replies. The issue of "blog" in the URL had come up a while back with another site, and I wanted to see what the take was on this site. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the concern if one is unfamiliar with Fangraphs. The term "blog" typically invokes ideas of self-published non-authoritative sources. Thankfully, Fangraphs is neither of those things. - Skipple ☎ 20:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Following the discussion on bnnbreaking.com, I thought I would check out its associate medriva.com - another product of the same owner. It purports to be a library of medical articles and medical news, all enhanced by AI somehow. It’s been used as a source on two Wikipedia articles:

1. 2022–2023 mpox outbreak, which cites 7, which appears to be a near-literal translation of the Somali-language source here: 8. That source is at least somewhat credited, as “Capital Online”, which seems like a literal translation of the name of the source. I’m unsure of the copyright implications of publishing “near-verbatim translations”, but it doesn’t feel wholly above board.

2. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, which cites 9, another “Medriva newsroom” article, which this time is a very light paraphrase of 10. The source has a permissive license: 11. However, although Medriva mentions ECDC, it does not at any point attribute the text of the article to ECDC. This is therefore a COPYVIO.

In terms of the medical articles, meet the “renowned” Dr Jessica Nelson: 12, who has found the time to write no less than 12 articles today. She must have been busy seeing patients because she managed to write 22 articles yesterday. The articles do at least link to sources occasionally, but usually to explain terms rather than to provide credit. This one: 13 appears to be based on this source: 14 but doesn’t say so. Observe the “ray of hope” wording, which echoes the “beacon of hope” phrase beloved of BNN (Twitter link, sorry, but illustrative: 15).

In short, this thing appears to be very much cut from the same cloth as BNN Breaking. Stylometrically, it’s almost certainly using the same LLM-based filter/generator behind the scenes. I can’t find any reliable sources discussing it, but I feel confident in stating it provides no value as a source for Wikipedia. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

From their "about" page: "Spearheaded by visionary entrepreneur Gurbaksh Chahal and part of the esteemed Procurenet Group, Medriva champions the union of avant-garde AI technology with age-old medical wisdom. Our genesis lies in a clear vision: harmonizing the tech revolution with reliable medical insights." Oily, buzzwordy BS, and that's completely ignoring Chahal, who has been discussed in these pages above and previously. This is toxic-waste level AI garbage, made all the more horrible by being in a topic area where MEDRS should apply. Absolutely not reliable for anything. I would not oppose a blacklist. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like weaponized link farming to me in a new era. What's the proper way forward towards blacklisting? I'm still trying to recall my own memories regarding the proper place in WP to address such matters? Cononsense (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell, but we use it16 in over 20 articles.17 Doug Weller talk 11:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They appear to be saying the right things18, and their editorial board19 is made up of people from the right fields, and I can't find anything negative about them online.
I'm not sure RSN is always up to the task of judging journals, as they can be from such niche subjects that those outside the area may not be able to give any helpful insight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

our article is rather positive but the website wants me to sign in, which makes me think there is some level of user-generated content. It doesn't seem to have come up here before. The article is 110th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) and the text is: it has gained notoriety for its part in the Battle of Avdiivka, and it is said to have performed well in spite of the amount of new Russian resources sent to this front

Thanks for any thoughts Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They appear to just translate articles from other sources (which they have licensed), the url from the 110th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine)20 is just a translation of a Pravda article.21 They provide a link at the bottom of their translation.
As with aggregators such as MSN or Yahoo reliability doesn't apply to the repost/translation but to the original source. As with MSN/Yahoo I suggest replacing the Worldcrunch reference with one for the original source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you running that down. Was that Russian or Ukrainian Pravda, do you remember? I'll go take care of that, or makes make sure you did already. It's still in the cue though Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, Ukrainian Pravda, ok. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with a reasonably new editor @SebbeKg: that has been creating a number of new articles which are heavily but not exclusively based on content from a medieval chronicler named Jan Długosz 22

Examples:

• Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1069–1071)
• Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077)
• Jan Zamoyski's expedition to Moldavia
• Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)
• Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)
• Polish–Pomeranian War (1099)
• Hungarian–Ottoman War (1437–1442)

Others articles in the same area: 23

Is there a consensus on what extent should the above primary chronicle should be considered a reliable source for historical narratives (for context see the above)? I'm pretty sure this new editor will want more than my opinion. // Timothy :: talk  09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend to use history books (there are plenty of them about these topics) instead of such primary source (especially editions of dubious provenience). This source is so old it is unusable without context provided by recent historiography. Note these topics concern history of eastern Europe, so we should be really cautious about sourcing. Pavlor (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TimothyBlue,

I tried to look at the source but unfortunately I don't read Polish, however:

1. Secondary sources are preferred as it helps corroborates the content. As this is a primary source, I wouldn't say it's unreliable straight away, but without any other verification, I'm not sure it's suitable.
2. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources - age matters, as older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed etc..

I'd try to find some secondary sources that have been published more recently.

Starlights99 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've come across this new website thepakmilitarymonitor.com billing itself as a "ONE STOP CENTRE FOR MILITARY NEWS ON PAKISTAN" and it appears to provide coverage on topics that may not always be covered by conventional news outlets. The content appears to focus on Pakistan's military activities, providing analysis and insights. Considering its potential relevance to WP articles on Pakistan's military personnel, I'm contemplating using this source. However, I'd like community input on its reliability and suitability for WP. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated in helping me decide whether to include this source in WP articles. Saqib (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's probably relic, but I would use some caution. The editor24 is a seasoned journalist having previously worked for the Hindustan Times, but he's also the author of "Coming Blowback: How Pakistan is Endangering the World". In general I would always be careful using Indian sources for Pakistan, and vice versa. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Could you please clarify why you referenced this book? would appreciate any context you can provide. As for using Indian sources for Pakistan, I agree it requires caution. However, in cases where Pakistani news sites lack coverage, we may have to rely on alternative sources like this one. --Saqib (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it's was written by the editor, and doesn't appear to be the most neutral of works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The source is probably reliable, as I said I would just use some caution when using it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Which of these two sources could be considered generally reliable, generally unreliable, or somewhere in between depending on context? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide the context? A comicbook website and a local paper from Longbeach is an odd couple. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

ComicsVerse is used to support this statement about characters in The Loud House:

Later on, Sam seems to feel similarly about Luna and appears to reciprocate Luna's feelings in that episode and others, with Lori describing them as beginning to date in the episode "Racing Hearts," though neither character calls their excursion a date throughout the episode.

Meanwhile, Press-Telegram is used to support this statement about characters in another Nicktoon called Middle School Moguls:

Also, one character, Yuna, in the main cast, had two moms, who appeared in two episodes as secondary characters who give Yuna moral support, giving her the inspiration to finish her fashion designs.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The site are probably reliable, but there's a problem with how they are being used. The Comicverse link supplied doesn't verify any of the details in the content. No mention of Sam appearing to reciprocate Luna's feeling, no mention of date not being called a date. The same problem is apparent in the Press-Telegram source. It only verifies that Yuna has two moms, everything else is not in the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Since 2012, there has been a consensus that Engadget is "generally reliable for technology-related articles".

Unfortunately, earlier today The Verge reported that Yahoo is laying off part of Engadget's staff. According to the article:

The changes are designed to give the outlet a stronger emphasis on commerce revenue, while removing key editorial leaders from its newsroom, including its editor-in-chief. ... Taken together, the changes paint a picture of an outlet cutting staff to focus on things like Google traffic, SEO, commerce, and affiliate revenue — areas that could be potentially more lucrative for Yahoo, but also have a tendency of being fickle and subject to advertisers’ and Google’s business decisions.

The article goes on to note that these changes are similar to those made at CNET after their 2020 acquisition by Red Ventures, which caused us to downgrade CNET's reliability.

Should we consider downgrading post-February 2024 Engadget to "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" status at WP:RSP, similar to CNET? Ed ^talk OMT 19:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to rush re-evaluating the source IMO Mach61 (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Too early. Cononsense (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If something happens that actually affects their article quality, it would be worth considering. Right now all we have are layoffs and guesswork about what they might mean. I do suspect they're entering Stage III in the ongoing enshittification of the Internet, but let's wait to see what happens. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a reason to keep an eye on it, but it's to early to change the rating. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Can preliminary autopsies be reported on Wikipedia articles in general? A discussion about this topic is happening at this page Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Preliminary_autopsy_results. The sources citing the autopsy and/or its results include the NYT, USA Today and the Associated Press. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing the autopsy directly? No WP:BLPPRIMARY still applies to the recently deceased. You could use other sources to say "such and such reported the details of the preliminary autopsy as" etc. However whether that detail should be included is a matter for discussion on the articles talk page. Just because something can be reliable referenced doesn't mean it should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but Vice is apparently no longer going to publish material. I wouldn't be shocked if the whole site gets taken down at some point, so any citations to that site may need adjusted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests. Even in the doomsday scenario that the entire website gets taken offline, most of the citations should be backed up by the internet archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the successful lawsuit against Internet Archive, I'm more wary. But thanks for the link to the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is anyway to still access the source then this isn't a reliability issue (WP:Sourceaccess). Even if an issue comes up with internet archive another third party could buy up the content and put it somewhere else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been working a bit on the article for Tristan Tate, with the goal of establishing a personal life section talking about his children, partners/ex-partners.

For context, Tristan Tate was an European Kickboxing champion who was involved in a very high profile criminal case with his brother, Andrew Tate

The website seems to cover various sports and athletes and I am curious whether this article/source could be considered reliable

Here is the article in question:

https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-who-is-tristan-tate-s-wife-everything-you-need-to-know-about-andrew-tate-s-brother-s-married-life-and-kids/ Mr Vili talk 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The have an editorial guidelines and a advisory board, but they also offer "seamless integration" of advertising (read advertorials). I would also be careful with exactly what you use, note the use of "rumoured" or "Reportedly" they are deliberately not saying these things are true, just that others may have zaid these things. But for things like he has two daughters, and two dogs it should be usable. For BLP details about third parties (rumours of who he had relationships with and such) I would suggest finding a better quality source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Great points. @ActivelyDisinterested if the subject (Tristan) has also stated and claimed these things on podcasts, would it make it safer to assume they are valid (Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF)? Mr Vili talk 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As long as the statements are about him, and not third parties it should be fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Vulcan Post an RS? For Mang Inasal. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The language seems quite promotional, and their about us says their goal is to inspire entrepreneurs. It's likely reliable for basic details and dates. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's apparently a digital lifestyle publication. The about page includes a list of staff and writers, and authors are identified in bylines. From skimming a couple articles, it seem like they write profiles of entrepreneurs and entities, especially ones that seem emerging. I agree they're most likely reliable for basic details, dates, information, etc. I don't know enough about their history as a periodical to assess more interpretative claims, e.&ngsp;g. if they make a projection about what might happen in the future (though from what I've skimmed, they seem to avoid trying to do that in their articles? I've seen endings hat are along the lines of 'the company leader says this is what they'll do; time will tell how things pan out'). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Outlets like this are fundamentally promotional. There's a ton of them and the main thing I see them used for on Wikipedia is to pump up corporate promotional articles that can't find real sources. They are not NEWSORGs of any stripe. At best they have the status of a press release. Not usable for notability, I wouldn't use them for content, or at all really - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

During a recent conversation with David Gerard, I raised the question of whether our general deprecation of Fox News carries over to Fox Business. As I said there, I had not found any discussions in the archives here that specifically address FBN, and the deprecation specifically states that it does not extend to material reported by Fox affiliates. So I think it is reasonable to conclude that we do not consider Fox Business to be deprecated by mere unstated association with Fox News. But conversely this does not mean that we give FBN a presumption of reliability, either (and for good reasons, as I'll go into below).

When I mentioned to Gerard that I felt it was a good time to open this discussion (in fact it's well beyond time, IMO), he counseled me that the history of discussions of Fox here is fraught enough that if I chose to do this, I should make sure to research past discussions and uses of FBN as a source in existing articles. Forthwith:

• Previous discussions: The only discussion in the archives to directly address Fox Business was quickly closed because it was initiated by an IP who felt that right-wing media in general should be deprecated because of its political orientation ... obviously, we wouldn't do that. A year earlier, one participant in a discussion five years ago says she finds Fox Business reliable

  Other than that, I find only passing mentions that I will not link here as they don't really have anything to offer one way or the other.

• Existing use as a source: Outside of articles related to conservative media, politics and personalities, and notable people's statements about themselves made in Fox Business reporting, it seems that FBN is used as a source for the net worth or investments of individuals:25, 26, 27 and 28 (of note is that this last one is used in a featured article about a living person that ran on the Main Page last year; the FAC does not mention it despite questions about the reliability of other sources during the discussion). But there are other uses, mostly the sort of facts that are part of standard business coverage: 29, 30, 31 (part of a bundle) and 32. I'm sure more could be found—this is just a sample.

I would agree that any determination that Fox Business is a reliable source come with the following carveouts:

• Any content originating with Fox News,
• Any scientific or political content (likely a huge overlap with the first),
• Any content originating with Maria Bartiromo, or a guest on her show, post-2016 (Her article even says that she's become fanatically pro-Trump since he was elected. I've also been reading Network of Lies lately, and Brian Stelter reports that by 2020 many of her own friends and former coworkers didn't recognize her (save physically) as the onetime pioneering and respected financial journalist, the first to report directly from the NYSE floor, she had been 10-15 years earlier) and
• Any content from Lou Dobbs's show (cancelled in 2021).

Anybody else want to help resolve this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that reporting by Fox Business that is solely about financial conditions of companies, financial markets, economic data, and so forth would be considered reliable, but if there's even a hint of science or politics, then it's best to look elsewhere. The thing about business news that much of it is routine, any reporting worth citing isn't going to be unique to Fox, it would get picked up by other news organizations. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been hoping to use Eleanor Terrett's stuff but had qualms about Fox News because I have qualms about Fox. I suspect it's a happy accident when Fox doesn't suck. OTOH, Fox Business may be a suitable area to carve out - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, older versions of that sort of reporting is also sometimes more likely to be found on FBN, though, due to archiving and paywall policies on other business-news websites. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's currently used in over 100 articles, probably because it comes up in every "Song explained" search, but is 100% unreliable. Until 2018, the website was a fansite for actual old-time music, but in 2018 pivoted to spammy gear "reviews", and in the past year or two has added AI generated pages about songs (as demonstrated here which frequently reuse sentence fragments. Also, the site contains a blatant lie on its home page, claiming to have been featured on Billboard and Pitchfork. I think it should be added to the spam blacklist, as I keep seeing it when doing AfC reviews. Mach61 (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like spamy bullshit Mr Vili talk 07:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I support blacklisting the source, it seems devoid of actual meaningful content. Even the names of its contributors are repetitive (Kellie Potts 33, Kellie Melton 34, Kellie McCarty 35, Kellie Hill 36, Kellie Gray 37, Kelli Stein 38, Kelli Robertson 39) and thus most likely fake. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not a reliable source. It’s noise pollution. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources on Mongol Banners & Suldes, and I have come across two that I'm not able to verify. Here they are:

https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ICV27-E7-Zhao.pdf

https://mongoltoli.mn/history/ (Has a lot of info on mongol banners and images)

Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Mongoltoli.mn should be reliable, as it's backed by the Mongolian government. 40 I'm less certain of Flaginstitute.org, as it describes it's members as novices and experts, vexillologists and vexillographers, flag geeks and flag nerds.41 Also although there's some details of the author at the bottom of the PDF it's unclear what those details amount to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it enough to source that Joanne McCarthy (basketball)'s sister Jenny McCarthy is cousins with Melissa McCarthy and separately source that Jenny and Joanne are sisters. Alternatively, are any of the following RS for the cousinship of Joanne and Melissa 42, 43, or 44.
2. Although generally not reliable, does the photo of a social security card make this a reliable source that their grandfather was born Michael Carty.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

   1a. Yes it should be, if they are sisters they share cousins. Be careful as in some situations it wouldn't be true, step-siblings could have different sets of cousins and other such fringe cases. But in general 'the cousin of my sibling is my cousin' is an uncontroversial statement.

   1b. In regard to the sources, I'm not sure about the first, the dailymail is a deprecated source, and the last link just keep redirecting me to scam adverts (you have won a MacBook pro and such).

   2. The problem with images is provenance, how do we tell that the image is what it claims to be. As it's in a self-published post on Medium by a Genealogical adventurer & storyteller I would probably avoid it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

At Talk:Low Traffic Neighbourhood we are discussing the reference Rachel Aldred, Anna Goodman, James Woodcock. Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London, Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 35, 2024, 101771, ISSN 2214-1405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101771. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140524000173), used to justify the text:

Increased physical activity followed the introduction of LTNs and other lesser measures in areas within greater London.¹ The resulting benefits to employers from reduced sickness absence of employees, and the financial benefits from reduced premature mortality, were estimated by the methodology of the Department for Transport.¹ These benefits were equivalent to some £4800 per person over twenty years, compared to a per-person cost of £28–35 (for LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 per person (for higher-cost LTNs with, for example, crossing improvements and greening measures).

Areas that were not given the full LTN treatment showed much lesser benefits; nevertheless, the health economic benefits of the overall programme were some £1,056m, more than ten times greater than the cost which totaled c. £100m.¹

This has been removed with the comments "we really need WP:MEDRS for health impacts of LTNS." and "Would need WP:MEDRS; these are simply not reliable sources".

I note that the Journal of Transport & Health is a well-established academic journal and describes its own rigorous peer-review process; the paper describes its process of extensive fact-gathering and its use of recommended estimation methods from the Department for Transport. I also notice that the essay WP:NOTBMI describes this sort of economic estimate as not biomedical and not subject to the special requirements of WP:MEDRS. I feel that this paper is uncontroversially a reliable source for the comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's go through the claims in the source:

1. LTNs increase active travel.

2. Active travel is as good as any physical activity.

3. Physical activity prevents health problems.

4. The health problems prevented cost some amount of money to treat.

1+2+3. LTNs prevent health problems.

Claims 1 and 4 are not biomedical information, claims 2, 3 and 1+2+3 are. WP:SYNTH says it's not okay to use multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any single source, and I would say it's also improper to synthesize MEDRS and non-MEDRS to reach a conclusion only stated in the non-MEDRS. There then needs to be a MEDRS that explicitly states 1+2+3, even though claim 3 is obvious enough to not need MEDRS. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

For a statement about the health effects of LTNs we would need a WP:MEDRS about the health effects of LTNs (i.e. not a primary source as linked). See WP:MEDFAQ if WP:MEDRS is too heavy going. Also, we can't smudge research into active travel (not LTNs) as a proxy. Bon courage (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• While economic statements are not biomedical, as you correctly point out, saying that a study found economic benefits from reduced sickness absence of employees and reduced premature mortality is inherently making claims about sickness and mortality. Those claims require support from MEDRS. The same applies to the finding of increased physical activity, as it is widely understood that physical activity is related to health. As described in BMI, Information that is not typically biomedical may still require high-quality sourcing if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information. However, this source could be used if the health-related components could be sourced from elsewhere, or to support discussion about any benefits that are unrelated to health. Sunrise (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the wording of that text overstates the study's assumptions as facts in wikivoice. They observed changes in travel behavior via the surveys. But they didn't measure or observe health/absenteeism changes; they merely assumed them as givens and assigned monetary values to them. Perhaps rewording the text would also allay any MEDRS issues by making it clear that the study didn't make a biomedical claim but rather it just assumed a health benefit for the purpose of computing an estimated economical impact. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all who have commented here. This paper is a reputable primary source for the finding of increased active travel in LTNs. From there, it uses an established method published by the UK's Department for Transport, an appropriate MEDRS-compliant source with a well-documented empirical base, to estimate (very approximately) the economic benefits derived from better health, in turn derived from greater physical activity. This form of synthesis is entirely appropriate for a reliable source, per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH. I propose to rewrite the comment, approximately per Schazjmd, perhaps as follows:

Increased active travel followed the introduction of LTNs in areas within greater London; the method of the UK Department for Transport was used to estimate and value some predicted health benefits, at some £4800 per person over twenty years. This compared to a per-person initial cost of £28–35 (for LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 per person (for higher-cost LTNs with, for example, crossing improvements and greening measures).¹

Any comments on reliability of sources for the above purpose, before I proceed (and take any RSN-inappropriate discussion to the article's talk page)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You'd need a secondary source for this. The primary is not usable in the way you want. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not clear on what policies and guidelines form the basis for your comments. Would you be kind enough to point us to them, and explain briefly how they apply? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In the new quote, the scale of the problems is definitely reduced, but it still contains the central implication that LTNs are associated with health improvements. In addition, a Department of Transport is not MEDRS-compliant as their subject of competency is transport, not health (even a Department of Health may not qualify as MEDRS, depending on context), but their MEDRS status doesn't apply here since they are not the source under discussion. The statement that Increased active travel followed the introduction of LTNs requires MEDRS if active travel is presented as having health benefits.

....OK, personally I'd probably accept a review by the Department for Transport, on the intersection between travel and health, as being MEDRS, but I'll drop this argument here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I would normally recommend looking at the main article on this topic, in this case active travel, to see how the topic of health is discussed. However, that article itself requires a substantial cleanup with a focus on MEDRS. Sunrise (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think even if there were not WP:MEDRS considerations there would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. This is recent primary research, so why should Wikipedia (which is meant to reflect 'accepted knowledge') be interested? Asserting the novel finding as fact in Wikivoice is especially problematic. Bon courage (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A valid point, that we may discuss on the more appropriate talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek's current status is to evaluate sources post-2018, after IBT ceased ownership, on a case-by-case basis. However, there hasn't been much consensus on whether genuinely good pieces from this outlet are high-quality enough for Featured Articles. Right now I'm working on bringing Etika up to FA, and I wanted to ask if this source is high quality and reliable enough to pass, or at least an exception? This covers parts of his life before his career, was written in 2020, and the author has written for other reliable sources like NME, PC Gamer and Insider (culture). PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid it. FAs require RSes and current Newsweek isn't one - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it's probably best to omit it if I can't find a better source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

https://dustedmagazine.tumblr.com/ and http://www.dustedmagazine.com/ before that. I've been working on Draft:New York City Jazz, and this is one of the sources to establish the notability of the album. But is it actually reliable? To the site's credit, it's been operational for over twenty years, and with one to two dozen writers contributing at some point. It has also been linked to over 800 times. On the other had, the site is staffed exclusively of volunteers, and most of them have never been published in "serious" magazines. Would you accept this as a notable source in an AfD? Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a group blog, I've asked for some input from WikiProject Music. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, it seems to function like any other digital publication, just with hosting on Tumblr rather than their own site (explained here). I wouldn't immediately discount it, though I'm not aware of any specific credentials any of its regular writers can claim. Being volunteers shouldn't disqualify anyone either, though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever this discussion concludes about the source (hopefully WikiProject Music is able to provide more guidance), I agree that neither volunteerism nor using Tumblr as their platform should necessarily disqualify Dusted as a periodical with a history and a team. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• I can't speak to anything on Tumblr, but Dusted was an independent review site with editorial control when I consulted it semi-regularly in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I'm not sure if it had a paper outlet, but the website was one that contains valuable information and criticism of independent and experimental musicians up until it stopped publishing (I want to say mid-2010s?). I don't know anything about the new site and who's managing the name of the publication now, but for historical profiles/interviews/reviews, I have and certainly would cite them in an article and have many times accepted them as an RS at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Chubbles It's the same folks running it, the OG site was abandoned due to having outdated code Mach61 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am working on adding some information on the networth & career of Tristan Tate, I would like to know which of these sources could be considered reliable in the context of WP:BLP and in general.

1: https://coinwire.com/tristan-tate-net-worth/

2: https://moneymade.io/learn/article/tristan-tate-net-worth

3: https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-is-tristan-tates-net-worth

4: https://accumulate.com.au/tristan-tate-net-worth/ Mr Vili talk 02:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

5: https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity/romanian-authorities-reveal-the-true-value-of-andrew-tates-empire-and-fortune-and-its-a-far-cry-from-300-400-million/

1: Coinwire to me seems somewhat reliable, they have editors, and principles regarding unbiased reporting, integrity and transparancy

2: Seems accurate to me, only a small disclosure about affiliate disclaimers https://moneymade.io/disclosure

3: Personally, I think the Sportskeeda source seems unreliable in this context, it states his networth is $10m but that is a fraction of the cost of his luxury cars, furthermore, it says his brother purchased a yacht in 2022 costing around $100m, yet it says their combined networth is $100m which seems highly unlikely considering they own private jets, luxury properties, luxury cars, and expensive jewelry & watches

4: Appears to be reliable, and niche-focused on networth of celebrities, but not much information I could find about their editorial policies/team Mr Vili talk 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili I would be careful with gauging the networth of a subject like Andrew Tate. Unlike your typical businessperson who maybe has stock in companies or some kind of venture capital funding, it's probably impossible to do the same for Andrew Tate as his assets are unclear, as can be seen in his career section.

I'm pretty sure that for Wikipedia, net-worth should almost always be based on an estimate from Forbes (not contributor, that is). Or some other very reliable sources like the New York Times (which typically also relies on Forbes). You could probably say something like revenue from his businesses but networth is likely contentious. TLA^tlak 03:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also,

1. Coinwire, doubtful. It's like a crypto blog, it seems.

2. Same as Coinwire.

3. WP:SPORTSKEEDA, hell no.

4. Blog.

5. Hell no. WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH

In addition, a lot of them have contrasting figures. So in my opinion we should not financial information unless we get something from Forbes staff. TLA^tlak 03:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that it would be very difficult to get an accurate representation of their networth, especially due to the subjective nature of their online brand identity which also carries some worth and not easily measurable.

However that being said, do you consider them at least somewhat reliable in regards to the career section? Mr Vili talk 03:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth and Sportskeeda are generally unreliable (I would not use this for something like a career section, maybe it's fine for pop culture info), and the others read like a tabloid. I personally wouldn't use it, and there are sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources that write about Andrew Tate anyway.

Let's see what other editors say TLA^tlak 03:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks I had not checked whether some of those had already been discussed/included in the RS list so my bad Mr Vili talk 03:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't use any of these; they're garbage as this is a WP:BLP. As noted, blogs and previously identified unreliable sources. Mr. TLA is absolutely correct - any site that is attempting to quantify a net worth of a marginally notable minor public figure is simply lying. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kuru agreed. Follow-up, my BLP articles aren't really businesspeople just mostly human rights activists, but for something like net-worth, does Wikipedia only use Forbes staff articles, profiles, or their lists? That's at least what I've seen. TLA^tlak 03:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I personally think even the Forbes and Bloomberg lists are fantasy, but at least they're limiting themselves to figures with significant public holdings of some generally agreed-upon value. I'm not kidding when I say there's thousands of goofy scraper sites and blogs that randomly apply a "net worth" to minor actors and sports figures in order to offer the pretense of biographical completeness. But yes, we frequently mention net worth for billionaires leveraging Forbes and Bloomberg; certainly not for pedestrian biographies. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Forbes and Bloomberg, noted. Andrew Tate's net worth is $900 million, wait no $370 million USD, oops, $12 million, TLA^tlak 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User @Pbritti has been citing a website, Church Executive, as a reliable source, in the article for Ryan Binkley even though every article that is cited, is on the website's "Blog" section. This is a flagrant violation of WP:BLOG, however, Pbritti insists that Church Executive is a reliable source with an editorial staff, even though their website has no "about us" section to confirm this. Additionally, the source has never before been used on wikipedia prior to this so there is no precedent as to using it. Can someone help weigh in on this? Scu ba (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The specific article in question is RYAN BINKLEY & CREATE CHURCH: Welcoming by (divine) design Scu ba (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Every article posted to the website populates under the heading "blog"; this is probably just a filing quirk. You can see the cover story for the most recent issue is on Walter McCall. The accessible version of that story is visible here, filed under "blog". The magazine's editorial staff is listed here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

this is probably just a filing quirk, regardless, if they call it a blog... it's a blog. 2 people, who are also the only reporters for the "magazine" isn't an editorial board. Best, Scu ba (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What is your evidence that there are only two reporters? I see articles by Jeff Harvey, Sharon McDowell, RaeAnn Slaybaugh, and Eric Spacek. None of these people are the two editors, who appear to have a tight leash on what gets published, considering articles are only shared by the account labelled "admin". They appear to prefer people read their emagazine rather than use the website, which seems to just serve as a backup to the articles they've published. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay... then cite the physical magazine under {{cite book}}, don't cite their blog.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact the magazine has never been cited before on wikipedia, and appears to just be self promotional material for church leaders. Scu ba (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, {{cite magazine}} is a template for citing magazines, whether physical or digital. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba, I'm guessing that you haven't seen WP:RSBLOG before. If a magazine calls something "a blog", it doesn't matter. It's still published by the magazine. (Also, technically, what makes something a blog is the content and publication schedule, not the software used to post it online. Blogging software often gets used for non-blog purposes, and vice versa.)

I really appreciate you being cautious about sources used to describe people, and I'm glad you asked about it. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've seen print editions of Church Executive. It's a magazine about ecclesiastical leadership, like a trade periodical for church professions, that's been around for around two decades. Every physical edition of the magazine includes the URL of its website (churchexecutive.com) on page 2 and a list of its editorial staff and editorial board on page 3. I suspect Pbritti's right on the money that the URLs of the online versions of articles are genuinely a filing quirk. This source meets the basic expectations of reliability for Wikipedia, which considers periodicals with editorial review (newspapers, magazines, etc.) reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Are https://soaphub.com and https://nedhardy.com/ reliable sources when it comes to biographies? Like birth dates etc.

Regarding soap hub I got a thanks from one experienced editor when I added it to support the birth date of Heather Tom but now another editor continues to revert it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say they are just a bit below the WP:MREL category, for now. From my experience, typically a lot of sources might cite a subject's birthyear, so I would suggest just focusing on that and keep looking to see if any reliable sources note the birthdate. TLA^tlak 04:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2018, the Organization of American States set up a Panel of Independent International Experts to analyse the commission of possible of crimes against humanity in Venezuela (press release, executive summary and final report).

Is the report a reliable source to use in the Guarimba article? NoonIcarus (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment More context on the dispute can be seen here: Talk:Guarimba#Tags. The panel was made up of three experts: Santiago Cantón es, Irwin Cotler and Manuel Ventura Robles es. WMrapids has argued that since Irwin Cotler was a lawyer for opposition leader Leopoldo López, the source might have a conflict of interest and not have due weight. Cotler was also Nelson Mandela's lawyer in the 80s and a Canadian MP. The disputed content can be found at this diff: 45. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's a primary source, so very likely to need attribution if we are talking about anything even vaguely controversial. If there is criticism of the source, it is likely to be WP:DUE as well. Of course, it is impossible for us to say whether it is reliable unless we know the specific claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the OAS is not a neutral body, so any claims attributed to it will often need to be presented with counter viewpoints. It made a lot of untrue claims with regards to the Bolivian election of 2020, for example, so care is needed with anything it publishes. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

CEPR (a pro-Maduro thinktank) in turn, despite its academic veneer, is not a reliable source for whether OAS is reliable. Many of the claims of inaccuracy in this text are simply false. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Several sources reached the same conclusions, including the European Union, and the OAS reaffirmed the report, so it isn't widely accepted that the claims are unture, let alone that this is a systematic issue for all the reports by the OAS.

Even if this was the case, this RfC is about a Panel of Independent Experts, not about the OAS Bolivian election report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times investigation also found clear errors in the OAS behaviour, as you must know. The OAS is a political organisation, and its committee is selected and paid for by them. We would also attribute statements by the EU on anything remotely controversial. Attribute it, or don't use it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times article also cites experts who believe that the conclusions were correct, so my point stand. In any case, I agree that attribution can be included. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say this could be used with clear attribution, but I would not use it to source statements in wikivoice. Ostalgia (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, has the Panel's findings been used by other sources? Is there journalistic or academic endorsement or criticism of it? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto: Absolutely. Back in the day it was a big headline because it was seen as a precedent for the current investigation in the International Criminal Court (ICC): (4647484950515253545556), and it was the first time that the OAS did something similar. Former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo was involved with the audiences, and after published the report has been cited by both the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela57 and the ICC.58 Just a few months ago, the ICC approved the Panel to submit an amicus curiae to the Court.596061

The Venezuelan government expectedly condemned the report, calling it a "grotesque media farce",62 and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone questioned why situations like the one in Israel weren't investigated.63 Incidentally, Blumenthal also questioned Cotler for being a lawyer for Leopoldo López. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And they attribute the report too when they cite it. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

While working on one article, I found contents sourced to https://plaskett.family/mansfields-were-pacific-valley-pioneers/. Upon looking for other articles using this source, I've found nearly all insertions of anything sourced to plaskett.family site was done by one user. I reached out to the user at User_talk:Btphelps their talk page. The user said The site contains excerpts from a historiography written by a person who lived during the era described. It's first person reporting of events and people the author knew.. An example of contents sourced to that site I've removed. What it looks like is a website maintained by some random person based on notes and unpublished materials from family. Simply having it uploaded on website doesn't make it reliably published and fleshing out contents based on a such a personal website is undue. With my interpretation of WP:RS, this should be treated as a blog. Since the other user is disputing this, I am seeking outside comments. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If the source was authored by a person firsthand experiencing the events that the source is being cited to describe, that would make it a primary source. Primary sources aren't necessarily automatically reliable or unreliable, but as a project we generally prioritize and prefer citations to independent secondary sources—something written by a historian would be a reliable, independent, secondary source. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

They're all written by some random people late Mabel Plaskett and Bill Alderson. Not only is it just a primary source, I would even argue that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Research based on someone's diary, family notes and other unpublished "internal documents" would be based on unpublished documents. If a person writes contents onto Wikipedia based on papers found in their family's attic, that would be fully unacceptable original research. Now, simply having that information ricocheted off a blog site by WP:OR process having done by some random internet dudes that put their research on their personal website doesn't turn it into reliably published sources. Graywalls (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYN apply to Wikipedia content, not sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a fine line. If you wrote up something that would be considered original research or synthesis, then hosted it on weebly, then cited that website, it might not technically be OR or SYN but it would be on par with citing Twitter and Instagram of random people. Graywalls (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Quoting random people from twitter or instgram would be an WP:RS issue. If I was an expert who had previously been published by other independent sources (WP:SPS), then my post on Weebly could be used with caution (WP:SELFCITE). All of this is about reliability though, not OR or SYN which apply to editors not sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to discuss what, if anything outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, MyWikiBiz is reliable for, and whether I should restore a recent deletion at WP:CANCER.

Previous RSN discussions: 64, 65

Article: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#MyWikiBiz

Edit in question: 66

Source in question: h t t p : / / m y w i k i b i z . c o m/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

Claim that the source was used to support: "Although this essay focuses on spending, not fundraising, it could be argued that the ever-increasing spending is a direct cause of the kind of fund-raising that has generated a storm of criticism.^12345678ref deleted⁹ These complaints have been around for years,¹⁰ leading one member of a major Wikimedia mailing list to automate his yearly complaint about the dishonesty he sees every year in our fundraising banners.¹¹"