Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: NewsClick

An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.

The reliability of NewsClick is:

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

• newsclick.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwan0031461/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey (NewsClick)

• Bad RfC. ND61F has not indicated what Wikipedia article has disputed cites, and four-way forms with blanket-ban options are always bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am counting 4 uses of this as a reference, using a very silly search. [1] I am not quite sure it is used extensively enough to warrant an RFC as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using insource is a better way, as it can see the URLs hidden inside cites.[2] Using that shows 333 pages with references using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  OHH. did not know about that. thank you! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 with a note warning about bias and a lack of independence related to the Chinese government and its talking points. I can understand the concerns about the lack of prior discussion, but I think this is clear-cut enough that we don't have to waste time on it unless someone wants to argue for unreliability or deprecation (which it could still be downgraded to in a later discussion if evidence comes up or if it remains an issue.) There are sufficient reasons to believe it is biased that some sort of warning where people will see it is called for; while it isn't perennial yet, RSP is the only logical place to put such a warning, and a source like this shouldn't be used 300+ time without at least some indicator of the problems where people might see them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (NewsClick)

• For reference the New York Times articles can be found here or in this archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Was there any WP:RFCBEFORE relevant to this RFC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Let's do RFCBEFORE now. The source is used quite extensively, including for topics like Right-wing politics (the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  The source is only briefly mentioned in the NYT article, with it showing bias towards China and talking points of the Chinese government. Would a note about these issues be enough? If so is a RFC even necessary. In the first example you give above the source is one of four used to support the statement, the second is used to support an attributed statement by David Golumbia who according to his obituary[3] was "an expert on cyberlibertarianism, bitcoin, blockchain". Is there any concerns with the reliability of these statements?

  To be clear my point about RFCBEFORE was that it could make the whole RFC unnecessary, not that discussion shouldn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would suggest we close the formal RFC (unanswered) … and continue to explore several of the citations that use this source and the context in which they use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  If so I would suggest a note be added about the validity of the concern of Chinese bias, lest the closure of this RFC become a way to brush those off. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would have thought that, and that it probably shouldn't be used for reporting on the Chinese government or Chinese history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that at the very least noting its biases is worth doing, and that even in the absence of previous disputes over it it's worth adding something like that to RSP (or somewhere) in situations, like this one, where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious. The problem is that AFAIK we can't actually add something to RSP without a designation, or at least it would be fairly awkward to do so. Would it just default to a yellow "unclear" entry, if we don't discuss it in any context except its bias? At the bare minimum concerns over its biases appear serious enough to be an "other stuff applies" situation even if the rest were reliable (which we haven't really examined.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a point I would love clarity on; I was considering for some weeks now starting a discussion about the related question of: where and how do we discuss that a source is biased? Because WP:RSP records when sources are biased, but the "standard options" for RSN RFCs are only about reliability (not bias, which editors have to decide on their own to mention); if someone doesn't dispute the overall reliability of a source (let's even say, one that's already present on RSP, so how to colour-code its reliability isn't an issue), but wants to discuss adding that it's biased, where do they do that? Here? How, a custom RFC which people will complain doesn't have the "standard options"? And then, yes, as you ask, how do we note the outcome / bias in RSP if all we want to note is "unexpectedly, this source is biased about X" and not "this source is reliable/unreliable"? Should there be a separate page—or section of WP:RSP—WP:RSPOVP, where this is noted? -sche (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, nothing prevents us from adding a new record to the RSP table with blank status and a note about the bias in the summary field. Alaexis_¿question? 08:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bias is even more contextual than reliability. I think that it's valuable to note it down precisely because of sources like this one (where the bias is clear-cut but may not be obvious at a casual glance); to me, part of the value of RSP is to give people an at-a-glance sense of a source in order to provide a starting point for local discussions. I don't think we need an entire column for it or more details than that - it's the kind of thing where if there's a dispute or problem related to it you really want to read the entire entry and think about how it applies to using that specific source in that specific context anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the evaluation and documentation of source bias. Your observation highlights a significant gap in our current processes for assessing source reliability and identifying potential biases. The current system, while effective for determining overall source reliability, does not adequately address the nuanced issue of bias. As you correctly point out, the absence of a dedicated platform for discusing source bias creates challenges for editors seeking to address this critical aspect of source evaluation.

I agree that clarifying the appropriate forum for discussing source bias is essential. A dedicated page or selction within WP:RSP, as you suggest, could provide a structued approach to these discussions. Addtionally, developing standardized criteria for assessing bias and documanting finding would enhance consistency and transparency in process. I propose we initiate a formal discussion to explore potential solutions for this issue. This could involve creating a task force in order to develop recommendation for addresing the evaluation and documantation of source bias. I look forward to collaboratng with you and other interested editors to find a satisfactory resolution.

Please let me know if you would like to proceed with creating a task force. ND61F (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that RFC is not necessary. The fact that NewsClick is heavly influenced by Chinese gov propaganda is a serious allegation that requires detail investigation and talk. It can't be dismissed with a simple note. 333 unchecked citations of NewsClick are alarming. It is imperative that we review these instances to analyze impact of this potentialy biased source on our articls. I understand your concern about the length of the RFC proces, but in this case, it's essential to ensure accuracy and neutrality of our content. A well structred RFC can expedte the process by focusing the discussion and gatherings. The NYT article provides imp evidence of NewsClick bias, but it' is not enough. We need a comprehensive analysis of the source, including its editoril policies, funding, connection to the Chinese government. RFC will allow to collect evidence, check the source content, and reach a consensus on its reliability . ND61F (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC Sihang Warehouse - Questionable English Sources?

Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces. Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units. Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines." When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.

However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.

Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.

The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:

1. "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" by James Paulose. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd DIvision.
2. Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. There are a number of passages stating the IJA 3rd Division's involvement but the majority lack citations for where this information came from. One page cites "Hatttori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China, 169" which is from the same English-language essay mentioned above which states only pages later the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred).
3. Niderost, Eric (2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse". Warfare History Network. Web article with no citations.
4. C. Peter Chen (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database. Web article with no citations.

Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I added a summary of mostly secondary and a couple primary Japanese-language sources and their translations on the talk page for the Defense of SIhang Warehouse article.

These sources conclude the participants on the Japanese side were indeed the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (mostly from the Shanghai SNLF) and the IJA 3rd Division albeit nearby, was outside the city preparing for/engaging in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation.

Given the English sources I presented above are in direct conflict with all of these Japanese language sources, including ostensibly reliable secondary sources compiled by Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, I feel it is safe to conclude they are not reliable.

However if it is solely my opinion on this matter presented, editors on the contested articles are likely going to keep reverting my changes. I would really appreciate some comments or any input from others regarding these sources. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Gerontology research group

I do not think that the grg should be considered Reliable they have been "validating" hundreds of supercentenarians that have been convenientlly years before serveal other organizations existed so they can claim to have validated them beforehand also some of the "vaildations" have little to 0 actual documentation such as 2 instances in the oldest verified people article Furthermore the people credited with "Vaildating" them were not a part of the group back at the time the cases were allegedly vaildated Wwew345t (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/brazil/ several of these cases that were alleged vaildated include people who didn't even work at the grg at the time and some of these cases are in the pages for both Vaildated Supercentenarians and Validated Brazilian Supercentenarians Wwew345t (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of these cases were not on the site until the last few weeks and have been given fake Vaildation dates that predates any competitions so essentially they are speed validating fake claims and giving fake Validation dates in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you post the examples? Hard to evaluate just based on what you've said. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about from the link I provided pretty much all but a dozen of them were not validated until recently for example comparing https://web.archive.org/web/20240720234253/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2021-validations/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20240720234253/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2021-validations/ Wwew345t (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are several more instances of this Wwew345t (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

the point is they are faking the validation of hundreds of cases Wwew345t (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, I think people are having trouble understanding what the goal is. So maybe it'd help if you could list out the standard information. Try this format:

• Link to article or section:
• Link or citation for source:
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article:

For example, you might say something like:

• Link to article or section: Lee Longlife
• Link or citation for source: https://www.example.com/page.html
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: I want to remove the sentence that says "They claim to be the first to discover it."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have provided the link to the source and evidence proving it's inaccuracies I move to delete every "retroactive" vaildation added to List of the verifed oldest people that has been added in the last 2 months due to a"retroactive vaildation" by the grg on the grounds that the grg is faking the vaildations to make it look like they did it way before anyone else could've done it in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems I am having issue linking the page but that is the name of it The cases on the lists I am Referring to are Easter Wiggins, Magdalena Oliver Gabarró, Diolinda Maria da Conceição, Ophelia Burks, Olindina Juvêncio da Silva, Horacio Celi Mendoza, Maximinao José dos Santos, James King, Jules Théobald,Victor Santos, Efraín Nunez, João Zanol ,Silverio Ayala, Frank Morimitsu, Faustino Perez (this one has a reliable link from another source that can be used as a replacement) Jesus Perez, Henry Tseng and Rodger Auvin, Wwew345t (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They may all seem different and there are a lot of them but they hav several things in commen none of them were on the old grg website all of them were just added recently with dates that conveniently predate the founding of a group that removed Robert Young one of the administrators of the grg and all of them were Added after they hired a new assistant Administrator (who was the same person who created an sockpuppet pretending to be Ilie ciocans Granddaughter) Wwew345t (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that these "Vaildations" are an attempt by the grg to look credible it is no coincidence that they all started popping up right when the new assistant Administrator was promted who has been permablock from this platform Wwew345t (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't going to base its assessment of the source on discussions of internal disputes at the GRG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The internal issues are why the source has become unreliable also I am not arguing for the complete and total removal of the source I am arguing for the removal on the above mention "retroactive" Validations that have just recently been added I do not think that we should be using a source that is using poorly rushed results that they are doing to make themselves look good Wwew345t (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I have just written. We don't base decisions regarding the validity of sources on personal opinions regarding unverifiable claims about internal disputes. Repeating yourself isn't going to change this. Provide independent verifiable evidence regarding the unreliability of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have already sent proof that these cases were not validated at the time they claim to be do you want me to post the proof of the other 12 or so instances? Wwew345t (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 'proof' you posted here [4], the two links are identical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me post them again there seem to have been an issue https://web.archive.org/web/20240509181035/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2022-validations/ Wwew345t (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Throught the use of the wayback machine you can see that these cases were not there Wwew345t (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also if these cases were really validated in those years then they wouldnt have just been added last month but they have Wwew345t (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You really aren't helping yourself. Please explain what it is exactly we are supposed to be looking at: provide specific examples which clearly show that a record is being falsified. We aren't going to compare two entire documents to look at differences, and even if we did, we'd need more to go on than vague assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not there if to take the lists and look at the version on May 6th furthermore none of these cases were added onto wikpeida at the time they were supposedly validated because they were not I will provide more info when I have the time (probably tomorrow) Wwew345t (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, are you talking about List of the verified oldest people? Just this one page, or others?

Are you trying to change the actual words in the article, or just the refs (the little blue numbers that look like )?

(For your technical problem: See those buttons just above the Reply box? Try using them, especially when you need to make a link to another article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The refs I dont not think the grg ones are trustworthy since they lie about the date they were Vaildated Wwew345t (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

None of those cases were vaildated by the grg in 2019 2020 2021 or 2022 edits on this website on the various longevity lists prove that Wwew345t (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That is my main argument Wwew345t (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And that is easily proven the grg website that I posted ago was only invented last year after all these supposed dates and the old one https://grg.org/Archives/E.HTM was last updated in 2015 so how did these Vaildates exist? Because they didn't they are fabrications Wwew345t (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And yes what I'm referring to are a couple of the refs on the oldest verified people Wwew345t (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so there's a spot in the table that says:

Kane Tanaka

and you don't like the source being cited, so you want to remove it. Do you have a {{better source}} that you could cite instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not kane Tanaka the names I posted a few comments above and the sad thing is not all of them have a replacement source because most of them either refused documentation or have none Faustino Perez is the only one who is actually validated of those names Wwew345t (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The ones that have all been added this year with fake dates that make them look as if they were Vaildated years ago Wwew345t (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would help if you could focus on exactly one small change, so other people can figure out what you're talking about. Are you unhappy with the line that says:

Easter Wiggins

and which cites https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2020-validations/ ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes cause that case and many others were not Vaildated in the year that they list (in this case 2020) Wwew345t (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, are we arguing as to whether the supercentenarians listed by GRG are not actually as old as GRG certifies them to be? I don't feel that the date of the verification or the identity of the GRG people doing the verification is particularly relevant to that information. BD2412 T 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes and no I am arguing that the cases that I listed either dont have any proof of their age or that they dont have any yet and that the grg is rushing them in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sending this message to keep this from getting archiver before its finished Wwew345t (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Wwed345t: I'm not sure if there's much point keeping this open, it doesn't seem the community shares your concerns. I think a part of the problem here is that you haven't articulated well enough that many other participants have understood your concerns.

  If I understand correctly, your concern is that GRG says a person's age was accepted on date X but older versions of the page (from after the acceptance) do not show the person. Therefore you fear they cannot be trusted as they might be lying or misleading about when the acceptance happened. (Added:) If I'm correct, while I understood the point you were making, I'm not sure how many others did. (end addition)

  Also, while I would agree that if a source lies or misleads about when something happened that would be a concern, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe this is what happened. In one of your comments you suggested their pages were poorly updated in the past anyway, it seems easily possible that and/or sloppy record keeping means they only posted some of the people who's ages they accepted. Alternatively perhaps there was some legal, ethical or other reasons why they did not post these earlier despite accepting the claims. (I had wondered if it might also relate to the people doing the validation and e.g. re-assessments of whether they trust these people, but some of the new people seems to have been validates validated by people they accepted previously and in any case, "acceptance" implies this is when GRG accepted the validation rather than when the person performed the validation.)

  While those earlier issues are slightly concerning, and I do think it's disappointing they don't seem to have posted any explanation why they suddenly posted a bunch of new validations from earlier dates; I'm just not seeing enough here to warrant not using the source.

  That said, personally I would support not using any of those oldest people websites/groups as the sole source for information. I feel relying on more general reliable secondary sources, even if they are getting the info from GRG which they've chosen to trust, is a better course of action. Meaning that List of the verified oldest people should only be blue links. But while there seems to be some in the community who agree, unfortunately there has never been enough to change the practice.

  Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Wwew345t: sorry I made a mistake with your name. Also corrected and clarified my original comment. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy

This is regarding the deletion [[5]]

@Amigao's concern is that a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:GLOBALTIMES

However, as discussed on Amigao's talk page, I believe this is reliable sourcing as the content is a primary source for an opinion, and WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL apply. It is not factual content of a kind where WP:GLOBALTIMES prohibition should apply. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Editorial commentary is a reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Global Times was deprecated after a RFC in 2020. In general deprecation means the source shouldn't be used for anything other than statements about the source itself. I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• When trying to use a primary source for an opinion, the issue is usually more WP:DUE than WP:RS. Saying that Chinese state media's Global Times applauded Cheng's sacking... pretty clearly implies that this is a significant position taken by the Chinese government itself. While that might seem obvious to you, there's a lot of Chinese state media, and they produce a lot of stuff; I don't think it's appropriate for editors to dig random things out from them and put them up in lights like that. If it's a significant position taken by Chinese state media worth noting in the article, secondary sources will have covered it. (More broadly, while there are certain situations where a source can be unusable for facts but still usable for opinion, I feel that people tend to overestimate how frequently it's applicable. If a source is generally unreliable then it usually isn't reliable for establishing WP:WEIGHT, either, which makes it very difficult to use for anything nontrivial without a secondary source.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'd like to address two key points: (1) This discussion concerns source reliability, not due weight. If WP:WEIGHT is to be raised as a concern, I propose we conclude by acknowledging the source's allowability under WP:RSEDITORIAL and address weight issues separately with appropriate editors. (2) You mentioned, "If it's a significant position... secondary sources will have covered it." Indeed, at least two reliable secondary sources have quoted this and identified it as coming from state media, with one of those provided as the current citation. This demonstrates the viewpoint's noteworthiness and counters the characterization of "digging random things out." (WP:AFG) I am trying to use the same citation in the same way as reliable media, for the same reasons, not doing as you implied. (WP:AFG) Given the discussion so far, I believe the primary source's citation is merited, and will add it if there is no alternative proposal. I'm also open to discussing weight or balance concerns in an appropriate forum if needed.14.201.39.78 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Bloody Elbow

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Bloody Elbow)

• Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[6] [7] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [8] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [9], [10], [11].

My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I see there was a discussion of SBNation, in which you participated, but there was no consensus. You argued that these blogs were sometimes reliable, and sometimes not,[12] which would be Option 2 if applied to Bloody Elbow. But there is recent precedent for examining the SBNation blogs individually here at RSN. Here is an extensive discussion from July 2023 of team SBNation team blogs, in which you also participated and argued they should not be used for BLP.[13] Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is still unsettled under WP:RSPCRITERIA. The first discussion had three participants and two agreed that it was unreliable. [14] The most recent one, had three participants, two of whom agreed it was unreliable, but my vote likely shouldn’t count since I am a paid consultant to a company written about by Bloody Elbow. [15]. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that to declare a source unreliable you need significant discussions between at least two qualifying editors about the source's reliability or an uninterrupted RfC. @ActivelyDisinterested: Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be listed, and starting discussion and RFC just to get it listed on RSP is non-productive. This board is for advice for disupted sources, not a place to fulfil thr requirements setout to get listed at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable, as its just a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC As the RFC was only started to get the source listed at RSP. Blogs are covered by WP:BLOG, and strongly oppose listing this at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether it was a blog or news source pre-March 2024 is the issue. It was not self-published - it had different owners and employees. Wikipedia editors frequently misuse it as a news source, in my opinion. It has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, such as on the page for Ultimate Fighting Championship more than 35 times, and on ONE Championship. I think most of these uses are incorrect even though they are widespread. A formal decision on an RfC will help prevent further misuse, and also clarify that this does not affect Bloody Elbow post March-2024. This decision will directly impact how I treat the source when making proposals for edits I am planing. That's all I care about, not whether it gets list at RSP. @ActivelyDisinterested:, would you like a few examples of where it is treated like a news source on Wikipedia so you can see what I mean - to establish that there is widespread misuse on Wikipedia, which makes this RfC meaningful. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How it is used on Wikipedia isn't how reliable sources are judged, many unreliable sources are used extensively on Wikipedia. If it wasn't a blog at some point could you provide details? As far as I could see it was always a SBNation source and they are all blogs.
You should make the edit requests and then see if anyone objects. The first part of WP:CONSENSUS is through editing, if someone objects discuss it with them, if you can't come to agreement with them see WP:Dispute resolution (which may include looking for third party input on a noticeboard like this one). You are circumventing the normal editing process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it was always a blog, which is why I chose Option 3. Also, RSN is commonly used outside of disputes that went though Dispute Resolution, apparently contrary to your claim. On this page alone, RSN is used to determine the reliability of a source outside the context of a specific edit dispute on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is NPR a reliable source?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of NewsReports, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#profootballarchives.com. As to bringing up the 500+ edits, I only investigated the angle of how widespread usage has been on Wikipedia because User: Schazjmd brought it up during the previous Bloody Elbow discussion,[16]. When you participated in Profootballarchives.com, you did not object to User:Fourthords starting the discussion stating it has been used in 1500 articles, nor did you object when the same editor stated that they could find no other discussion about the reliability of the source (therefore no previous dispute about the source, which you say is necessary before coming to RSN). Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Australia and the Women's boxing controversy

Videos published by Sky News Australia recently, in the beginnings of August, claim that 2 Olympics competitors, namely Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, might be, or undoubtedly are, Transgender Athletes. As we can see on their YouTube Channel (6 links of videos):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eo1LcoDkBs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQyFHgzU0FA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxUP77Z55Oc&t=445s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUdJapujYxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6hFu0a_DhA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMi6w755qSM

A specific journalist, correspondent, and talk show host, Rita Panahi, has been involved in this the most. Sky News Australia's website says a different and more corrected version of the story, and has repeated it a bunch of times. Their newsletters don't seem to make accusations, but they put the claim out there to say it exists without measures to mention the claim is false or correct. As we can see on their website:

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/trending/sports-icons-react-after-female-athlete-drops-out-of-olympics-fight-with-boxer-who-previously-failed-gender-test/news-story/9ec0063c5f3fb8372fb919a597c330af

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/public-relations-disaster-ioc-slammed-as-womens-boxers-imane-khelif-and-lin-yuting-eye-olympic-gold-medals/news-story/29c061d5108cbe3c7c920a5dbb83d5f7

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/trending/international-olympic-committee-under-pressure-after-female-athlete-pulls-out-of-controversial-bout-involving-boxer-previously-banned-for-elevated-testosterone/news-story/c1b1eb4c7899395c52760d7eeded19ec

Some of their articles say the story with no denial or bias and they do mention that the claim has no evidence, but they persist with a misleading video on top:

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/boxing-legend-jeff-fenech-weighs-in-on-sickening-olympics-gender-debate-after-imane-khelifs-opponent-pulled-out-of-fight/news-story/3914356077d149965c7b1f807922435c

It is distinguishable that their video content is the more hard-line and pressing part of them when it comes to this accusation. Some of their online articles give a vague report, where they don't say it for certainty, they just put it out there, and they cite the IBA tests. Their videos and talk shows, on the other hand, pass around this claim like it's a fact.

Sources that refute this claim: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There is no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex. Viral weirdo (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What’s the claim that these sources are being used to support? I only looked at a bit of the first video but the banner says “opinion”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting? M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say, is that video content by Sky News Australia appears to double down on the unproven belief that Khelif and Lin have XY chromosomes, and that their video content is misleading. I understand that the content hosted by Rita Panahi is opinion, but it still makes false claims that I believe makes Sky News Australia a little less reliable than what it says on the Perennial Sources list. It may have been unimportant if Rita was just a random person being interviewed, but she is one of their most common hosts and probably one of their most common faces.

Basically, my point here is that maybe we should hold some of SN Australia's shows to a lower degree of reliability on transgender issues, considering how hosts like Rita Panahi just say false information with no corrections from their newsletters. And even when their newsletters publish correct things, they put misleading videos on the very top of the page, as if they want to promote their opinionated video content more than anything else. Viral weirdo (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Australia is coded yellow at RSP (in contrast to highly reliable Sky News): it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. Our article says Especially since the acquisition of the channel by News Corp Australia, Sky News Australia has faced scrutiny from the press over its increased focus on opinion programming. Comparisons were drawn to Rupert Murdoch's American news channel Fox News, and there have been accusations that the channel's opinion programming has promoted misinformation and untrue conspiracy theories. We should generally avoid using it for any controversial topic, and gender is certainly controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with BFB. Sky News Australia is primarily an opinion publication, and it's coverage should generally be avoided in favour of fact based journalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Sky News Australia is yellow and is an opinion piece. Trans issues are controversial and this story is controversial too with other news sources expressing that there is a debate on it. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Close review - "RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues"

Following a close review at WP:AN#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues[17], the close of the Telegraph RFC on trans issues has been overturned to the preceding status quo[18]. The closer has also updated the WP:RSP entry[19]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The close of the RFC review has been formally rescinded [20]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't followed this at all, but I'm a bit surprised the Telegraph is still considered reliable for anything these days; it really has gone to seed. Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Update The close review at AN has been reclosed[21] by ProcrastinatingReader. The original close of the RFC has been overturned and the RFC re-opened[22]. I have made a request for a new close[23], once it is reclosed I will post an update in a new section on this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Peoplaid.com and geni.com

I just want to address two suspicious sources popping up on the Philippine side of Wikipedia. Peoplaid and Geni. The articles where peoplaid is regularly used are on Philippine House of Representatives articles, while geni is used in Norberto Romualdez. Peoplaid is reliable for me because it supplies information the same by reliable sources, while geni is probably user generated. Reaching out for your thoughts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Geni.com is mentioned on the the perennial source list, and there is a strong consensus that it is not a reliable source.

I can't find anything on Peoplaid.com, it's website doesn't have any 'About us' information, I can't find any uses of it by other source, and it's never been discussed in the RSN archives. There is a small chance that it's well known in the Philippines, so I've messaged the Philippines project here WT:TAMBAY#Discussion at RSN on Peoplaid.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can see a discussion on my talk page (archived) related to the subject here, which also links the about us section, and also stating that the website is a blog, making it a little less reliable, reaching out for your thoughts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on Geni, but Peoplaid seems to be a Wiki, so should fail WP:RS but sometimes I stumble upon the website checking for Filipino politicians for their past positions and it should be vwry accurate. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes no other sources state this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

PeoPlaid has a Facebook page that started out as "Isko Moreno Fanpage" in 2020 before changing its name, if that's relevant in any way. It also looks like a blog? I can't find any other sites that use it as a reference other than Wiki pages (mostly politicians), and it's hard to verify where the info came from. Personally, I'd err towards not calling it RS. NyanThousand (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Peoplaid.com seems to be a blog, which falls under WP:UGC, failing WP:RS. While the contents it publishes provide information that other reliable sources do, Peoplaid's reputation or reliability as a whole is questionable. Their posts about certain individuals do not cite any sources that could prove that the information is reliable enough. Even their disclaimer page states that the reliability or accuracy of their content is not guaranteed. So yeah, as @Hariboneagle927 has said, if known reliable sources already provide that same information, then it is better to rely on them instead, especially if the information is about a person. AstrooKai │ Talk 21:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"https://peoplaid.com does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of our posts. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (https://peoplaid.com), is strictly at your own risk. https://peoplaid.com will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website."

— Peoplaid.com Disclaimer page

I do not feel confident about Peopleaid.com, the administrator/s of the website which follows a blog format even says so. Using Peopleaid.com is not prudent imo, its better to just use those "same other reliable source" than using Peoplaid.com itself. And we don't settle for Peoplaid.com in cases such information is solely mentioned in Peoplaid.comHariboneagle927 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably partially reliable though? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on experience highly reliable, but I'd use the info found there to find other refs from more reliable sources, then use those sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This generic legalese disclaimer means nothing—many reliable sources have something similar, it doesn’t convey any actual information about fact-checking or editorial policy or any other signifier of reliability. 12.188.91.199 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of ARD Documentary

I would like to seek input regarding the reliability of a 31-minute documentary produced by ARD (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland), a major public broadcaster in Germany.

The documentary is titled Dadvan Yousuf: Kryptomillionär mit 17 and was aired on Das Erste on December 21, 2022. It focuses on Dadvan Yousuf, a young cryptocurrency Investor, and his journey in the crypto world.

The ,,early life" section of the Article could be expanded with this documentary, as Yousuf and the German television team went together to Iraq. The Documentary is just in german available as I could not find any other languages. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've watched one ARD documentary on an article topic I was working on and it was excellent with regard to facts. ARD is a respected public broadcaster so their documentaries would, AFAIK, be just as reliable. Don't see why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In general, ARD is a reliable WP:NEWSORG, as far as its news programming is concerned; it gets substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS (e.g., here is a France24 piece about a report the ARD and NYT worked on, and here's Reuters relying on ARD reporting for a story about cyber attacks). If a particular claim is (for example) only made by Yousuf and not by the ARD's reporters, and is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, or if it or other claims in a particular documentary are contradicted by other sources, it would be prudent to discuss that specifically; however, unexceptional statements about his early life made by the reporters/documentary can be expected to be generally reliable. -sche (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Self published source by founder of Glen's Markets

I have the book International Leadership by Glen A. Catt, son of Glen's Markets founder Glen Catt and longtime employee of the chain. Although the book is self published, is it considered a reliable source for historical information on the Glen's chain? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Short answer 'yes?'. Long answer they aren't going to match the requirements of WP:SPS, but there's no doubt they would have intimate knowledge of the subject. I would be cautious of any exceptional claims due to the familial / employment connection. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say only for noncontroversial claims, and even then maybe only with attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick note for anyone investigating: Not International Leadership but Intentional Leadership. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be wary on verifiability grounds alone. Worldcat says two libraries have this book: the Otsego County Library (in Gaylord) and North Central Michigan College, a community college in Petoskey (next county over). That's probably not enough critical mass for interlibrary loan. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also on Google Books, albeit only in snippet view. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not enough for interlibrary loan, but it is an in-print work that can be had for as cheap as $3.99 (Kindle). As barriers to verifiability go, that's pretty low. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How difficult something is to access doesn't effect reliability, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is NPR a reliable source?

In 2014 a study was conducted to find the reliability of news organizations. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/10/30/which-news-organization-is-the-most-trusted-the-answer-is-complicated/

One of the things that stood out was NPR because it showed that not a lot of people have heard of NPR, only 53%, And only 55% of the people trust it.

0.53 x 0.55 = 0.2915

So, 29.15% of the total population trusts the news source.

This tells us that while just over half of the people are aware of the news source, only about 29% of the total population actually trusts it. The overall level of trust in the news source is therefore relatively low in the context of the entire population. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is not measured in general fame. 53% is in no way "not a lot of people". It is literally most people, and far more than most of the things we rely on as sources.... but again, that's irrelevant. And we don't judge reliability on response of the general public. And the study is not a study of the reliability of sources, it's of the trustedness -- which is different than trustworthy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What I meant that 53% of people know of it, I meant by 53% of all the people within the survey know it, the other news articles had at least 90% of people know them. Also, trustedness often stems from perceived trustworthiness. If something is deemed trustworthy, they are more likely to achieve a high degree of trustedness in the eyes of others. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk)

No, that section of the page is just showing select examples from the sources studied. If you look at the full list, you'll find 36 sources listed, with 15 being less famous than NPR. It ranked 12th among the total percentage of the poll respondents who specifically trusted it, beating such sources as the Washington Post and The Economist. And none of that matters, none of that is how we measure reliability. As you can see at our list of sources that have been brought repeatedly to this board, NPR has been repeatedly judged reliable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As Nat Gertler pointed out, Wikipedia does not evaluate sources based on how much trust the general public has in it, but on reliability as defined by Wikipedia itself.

NPR is also part of the perennial sources list since its reliability is often debated and currently reads:"There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution". Yvan Part (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the ranking that Nat Gertler said it got was also based on the general public too. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a ranking but part of Nat Gertler's first reply "And we don't judge reliability on response of the general public". Yvan Part (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was saying your statements were simultaneously inaccurate and irrelevant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most people know their local NPR affialiate, in the pre-internet age thats who actually delivered the content and even today its who delivers the vast majority of it. This means that as far as the listener in Alabama is concerned they're listening to Alabama Public Radio and as far as the listener in Boston is concerned they're listening to Boston Public Radio but both may actually be consuming a NPR program. This has also already been pointed out but just about every inference you draw from that data is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As Nat says, reliability is not measured by a popularity contest.

A stupid example, The History Channel used to air somewhat(?) reliable black and white documentaries of various WW2 campaigns and such. Its viewership had been dwindling for years though.

To increase popularity, it started airing alien documentaries instead and becomes significantly more watched. It is arguably much less reliable now, however, even though it appeals to more folks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While it's correct that we not care about popularity, the example is IMO not particularly apt. It's easily possible people trust The History Channel less than they used to. Even if you are talking about absolute numbers and considering it likely more people know of an have an opinion on the trustworthiness of The History Channel, it's still easily possible less people trust it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean people trust it. However as I said at the beginning, even if a lot of people trust a source, it doesn't mean it's reliable (and vice versa). Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is generally also made that the most reliable sources (high end scientific and medical journals) are almost entirely unknown outside of a specific circle of experts and practitioners. They have no public recognition and as a result they have no public trust (at least as Luke prefers to do the math) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just another editor chiming in to say this is in no way how we determine the usability or reliability of sources on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• +1 that source reliability is not a popularity contest; this is Wikipedia editing 101. Left guide (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Mike Ashley

There is a discussion at Talk:Historicity of King Arthur#Additions from Mike Ashley whether Mike Ashley is a reliable source for the article. As editors do not agree I am bringing this to RSN. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

His work would in general be considered reliable, but it might not be in a given context (see WP:RSCONTEXT). You should look to the best quality sources on a subject. Ashley's book shouldn't be weighed the same as more academic works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this particular context, Ashley's work is pertinent and reputable. The article is on the Historicity of King Arthur and gives due credit to the skeptical perspective of most current specialized scholarship on Dark Age Britain (Dumville, Halsall, Higham). It nevertheless refers to other scholars' and authors' attempted identifications of a historical Arthur and has a section on "candidates" for him. Since the evidence does not allow a positive identification -- if it did, specialist scholars would not tend to deny his existence, such identifications remain inevitably hypothetical and subjective. If Ashley is considered a more popular author and less of a specialist, his work remains applicable especially to this section of the article. The work in question is A Brief History of King Arthur: The Man and the Legend Revealed, 2010, an updated extract (the first, historical section) from his earlier The Mammoth Book of King Arthur, 2005, which had included a discussion of the medieval literary sources beyond Geoffrey of Monmouth. Despite its title, the more recent work essentially accepted that there was no King Arthur of the kind popularized by Geoffrey of Monmouth; Ashley's disagreement with the likes of Dumville and Higham is that he is not ready to deny the possibility that the Historia Brittonum (829) could contain viable pieces of earlier information that can shed light on Dark Age Britain -- to wit, the list of twelve battles culminating at the victory of Badon. Dumville himself was somewhat ambivalent, denying the viability of the Historia Brittonum as a source on the 5th/6th century (being written in 829), while at the same time showing some readiness to consider this section of it (the battle list, chapter 56) the incorporation of an older battle poem, as had been proposed. Ultimately, it comes down to a negativist and positivist take on the scant available evidence, such as it is. If the article seeks to provide comprehensive and objective coverage, it ought to refer to both. Ashley works through the sources down to Geoffrey of Monmouth in great detail, and then considers the various interpretations offered by others, as well as discussing observations of his own -- all the while referring back to both the sources and the literature, specialist and more popular alike. In the process, he mulls over much that could have been safely left aside (particularly where the obvious fantasies of Geoffrey of Monmouth are concerned), but it is because in the end he seeks to identify possible historical prototypes that might have served as sources for the composite literary figure of Arthur -- in Geoffrey of Monmouth and perhaps already in earlier Welsh tradition and even the Historia Brittonum. He does this with greater patience and in greater detail than Higham, and also serves as a more comprehensive reference to the arguments of other scholars, as well as a basically fair critique on them. I think that the "candidates" section of the article can only benefit from the inclusion of the figures discussed in these publications (Ashley's and those of others, seemingly exhaustively referenced by him), for the benefit of the reader who might want to explore further. And the reader would already be informed that specialists today tend to be very skeptical, so the expansion of the list of candidates to something more comprehensive can hardly be considered irrelevant. StefThrax (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You arguing for the inclusion of content, which isn't an issue of reliability. Although all content must be verifiable not all verifiable information needs being included. Ashley's work is likely reliable but how that is weighed against other sources and what should or shouldn't be included in the article are issue of WP:NPOV, which are better discussed at the articles talk page. Sorry this bounces you back and forth but RSN isn't the right venue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The content was added because it was pertinent. Then it was removed, because another editor felt that Ashley was supposedly not a "reliable source" -- although he is published reputably and verifiably (as a matter of fact, none of these are sources, they are all secondary literature and all interpretative) -- compared to, say, Higham. There is no real correspondence in the extent or depth of treatment of the "candidates" between Higham and Ashley, so Higham is insufficient to relay possibilities, even if he is more of a specialist than Ashley. Do they all need to be noted? Possibly not, but we would be extremely subjective in denying the inclusion of those that have been published and discussed. StefThrax (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That why I apologised for bouncing your back to the talk page, it's wrong to say this is a reliability issue. As I said Ashley is probably reliable, but whether some is pertinent for inclusion is a matter of WP:DUE/WP:BALASP. e.g. will the article be neutral with or without Ashley's opinions and how should they be included if are included. These are WP:NPOV issues that are separate from reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that reliability is not the issue. StefThrax argues on the basis of his own opinion of Ashley's work. Other editors have stated that Ashley is an RS without giving any reason. There is an element of judgement in all writing, and the personal views of Wikipedia editors are not irrelevant, but basically we have to rely on the evidence. Ashley has written extensively on a wide variety of subjects, especially fantasy, science fiction and mystery novels. His only books on early medieval history are his books on Arthur, so there is no evidence that he has a basic knowledge of the historical background required for a full understanding of the subject. Even more importantly, his A Brief History of King Arthur is not listed in bibliographies of books on Arthur, which would be the best evidence that it is a reliable source. Halsall does not list him in the bibliography of Worlds of Arthur. Higham lists his edited work Arthurian Legends but not A Brief History of King Arthur, showing that he regards Ashley's collection of sources as useful, but not Ashley's own views. Marc Morris's The Anglo-Saxons lists Halsall and Higham in the bibliography, not Ashley. We have to go on the evidence for reliability, not our own personal opinions, and the evidence does not justify regarding Ashley as an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick search shows that it's found in the Bibliography of the International Arthurian Society, published by De Gruyter, a Montclair University course assignment specifically on this book, including the note "Mention at least five of the personages discussed by Ashley.", a University of Michigan dissertation bibliography, a Saint Francis University reading list alongside the Cambridge Companion and Oxford Guide to Arthurian Legend, Higham's work, etc. --Yodin^T 12:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

These sources are mostly focussed on the legend of Arthur rather than the historicity, which is the subject of this article. It is also unclear whether some are comprehensive - all books on the subject - or curated lists. The criterion should be citation by experts, not inclusion in a bibliography or discussion by non-experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As you say, the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are not irrelevant, but I feel that you are pushing yours. You note that Higham cites another work of Ashley's, and infer it is because the one I referred to did not impress him. But it doesn't seem to occur to you that perhaps Higham either did not read A Brief History of King Arthur, or he found it less convenient to dismiss. Higham's scholarship is most impressive, but he is not above running with his own subjective assumptions and pushing his own point of view. As ActivelyDisinterested noted, this discussion is only partly about "reliable sources" but also much about neutral point of view. By excluding the additional "candidates" from the article, which are discussed by Ashley (all of them) and by other authors (those who proposed specific identifications), you are being the opposite of neutral. There are ways to indicate that such identifications do not have the support of the most specialized scholars today without denying them inclusion in this section of the article. But excluding them does no justice to the topic.

To give an illustration: Higham notes and dismisses a "candidate" for a historical Arthur, Arthwys ap Mar, in a couple of sentences (p. 269), on the basis of his appearance in the 12th-century genealogies, his variant name, and references a much more "popular" and speculative book by Keegan (n. 153, p. 345), ignoring the more sober treatment of the same figure by Ashley -- who does credit the genealogies' ability to preserve possibly credible information to a point, and who regards this Arthwys ap Mar (significantly the only Arthur-like name that can be placed c. 500) as a possible partial historical prototype of some of the tradition that got bundled up in the later literary character of King Arthur (in the Historia Brittonum, possibly Y Gododdin and beyond).

Since we are conversing here, pertinence also seems worth noting: Dumville, Halsall, and Higham represent something like a single school of thought that, responsibly, seeks to base historical argument on reliable historical evidence and evaluates the primary sources critically. However, this Medievalist can tell you that what pass for primary sources in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages are more often than not everything but primary, and the expectation that such evidence should be available in every instance is both unreasonable and naive. That does not mean that the Historia Brittonum or the Welsh Pedigrees can be verified and vindicated, but it also does not mean they can be summarily dismissed with anything like the certainty these scholars advertise. Which does leave room for other, more positive assessments, of varying quality. Some authors have put the pieces together in a way that has supposedly yielded a single identification of Arthur: as Riothamus, as Owain Danwyn, as Athrwys ap Meurig, etc. I don't buy them, but they are published and should be referenced. Ashley actually provides a different approach, and I think that is worth noting: he realizes that there was no historical King Arthur as such (in part by following Dumville and others), but he also wonders how the literary character of Arthur came about and seeks to uncover possible historical precursors, the stories about whom ended up in the Arthurian tradition. StefThrax (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Religious affiliations of vice presidents of the United States

A recent edit switching Walter Mondale’s affiliation from “Methodist” to “Presbyterian” drew my eye to this list. I assume the edit was made in good faith (no pun intended) - but because no sourcing was included (for either denomination), I have no idea if the change is accurate or not. And THAT made me realize that the entire list is mostly uncited. This is a problem that needs fixing. Are there any suggestions for reliable sources that could be used to verify the list? Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please try the reference desk. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem… I posted here because I wanted to highlight an article in desperate need of reliable sourcing (which is within the remit of this noticeboard). But I can also ask at the ref desk. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia?

I added this to the Similarweb talk page, but I discovered it doesn't belong there & I believe the question is better posted here per suggestions from other editors found at the bottom of this posting (copied directly from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing). The original question was posed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Similarweb#Should_Similarweb_be_cited_to_report_web_traffic_rankings_on_Wikipedia? & contains further discussion of the subject.

(I apologize if I've used the incorrect template. If so, please replace it with the appropriate one.)

This topic came up on Talk:GunBroker.com where I have a COI, and merits further discussion by the community at large, given the large number of pages that could be affected (to date, 166 pages). It is not my intention to engage in Wikipedia:Edit warring, but to work toward Achieving consensus.

User:Lightoil stated on 4 May 2023 that "Similarweb may be used if it is considered a reliable source."

On 24 August 2023, User:Spintendo implemented a COI edit request to cite Similarweb web traffic data.

On 26 September 2023, User:Graywalls removed the cited data and maintains that "Similarweb.com is not really a data source. [...] Similarweb is just a data aggregation."

Graywall and I have not been able to reach consensus on this matter, so it seems opening up the topic is warranted.

Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia?

Similarweb is used to report rankings all over Wikipedia, most notably the entire List of most-visited websites page, which relies solely on Similarweb as the source.

There are at least 165 other Wikipedia pages (to date) relating to website traffic for entities like Facebook, Weather Underground (weather service), WebMD, and numerous international entities. Other notable pages using these metrics include List of most popular Android apps, List of employment websites (which sorts the data based on Similarweb traffic rank), and List of online video platforms, to name a few.

The question is whether or not Similarweb rankings are a valid source, as it is common practice to use them as an exclusive source on Wikipedia pages (as evidenced by the above links and articles). Since data from sources like Alexa Internet has been discontinued, I'm at a loss to find other secondary sources for website traffic data that could be used on any pages. I would welcome other reliable secondary sources if any could be provided. LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think to start with it's best for someone to establish why a data aggregator cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Aggregation does not make data less reliable, it just means you're taking data from different places and putting it into one place. An ETL pipeline usually involves aggregation. That makes data more usable, normally, not less reliable. Komonzia (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion starting a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard would be best to settle the issue on whether Similarweb is a reliable source. Lightoil (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The Reference desk is not the right venue for resolving issues concerning Wikipedia policy.  --Lambiam 20:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Minnlawyer.com for attorney BLP

See also:

• Churnalism attorneyatlaw.com used to create previous draft, August 2023
• Multiple other draft creations, suggestive of PE or COI, August 2023

Following on the issues above with attorneyatlaw.com,

• Draft:Christopher W. Madel

has been submitted by a Florida IP with a resume-like structure, still using non-reliable attorney-at-law.com, and now relying also on minnlawyer.com.

Similar to attorneyatlaw.com, Minnlawyer.com

• has some staff writers (Bohlander, Sjerven, Beneke and Brown)

but seems to be mostly user-submitted churnalism:

• People and practices
• Business connect
• Verdict & settlement
• Partner content

and it goes on. I can't determine what their "Attorney of the Year" is based on. No Minnesota attorney I have spoken to has ever heard of this website or its people.

Looking down the other sources used in this draft, many are very brief, passing mentions of the subject as any run-of-the-mill attorney would get in news reports about a case or client (samples: Denver Post, New York Times, Brainerd Dispatch, The Guardian, ESPN, and so on.)

The one minnlawyer.com source used from staff writer Brown is subscriber only, so I can't read it to determine if it has any journalistic qualities or is purely promotional churnalism. Mother Jones and MPR news have the most indepth coverage of the attorney, so I suspect the subject may meet notability even though the article does a poor job of demonstrating it.

But should minnlawyer (distinguishing between Brown the staff writer and other writers) be used in the context of a BLP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Minnesota Lawyer is unreliable. It seems to be a legitimate legal publication per its about page. Regarding the categories of content you've noted, the publication expressly labels those things as paid content. The "People and practices" and "Business connect" section are expressly categorized under "press releases". For example, in an attorney hire announcement, the bottom of the article states: "Announce your new employees, promotions, board positions, community notes and leaders in your organization to Minnesota Lawyer’s influential audience. The information in the People & Practices section is provided by the submitter." Likewise, the "Partner content" is expressly labelled as "sponsored content" at the bottom of the main page. The "Verdict & settlement" thing is a common practice of legal publications; the New York Law Journal, which I don't think anyone would dispute the reliability of, calls on readers to submit decisions for coverage. The paid content may be usable for ABOUTSELF purposes, but obviously shouldn't count for notability purposes. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The Central India Gazetteer series (1907)

Is the source, the Central India Gazetteer series (1907) a reliable source for discussing kingdoms and states within India in the 1400s? The article/template in question where the source is being used is Template:South Asia in 1400.

The source does not even seem to be addressing the 15th century. Link: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Central_India_State_Gazetteer_Series/Qv0bAQAAIAAJ?hl=en Ixudi (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner

FitzGerald, Michael; Barber, Barrington (2013-07-05). The Nazi Occult War: Hitler's Compact with the Forces of Evil. Arcturus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78212-703-1. Rudolf Steiner was always regarded as a mortal enemy by the Nazis but many of his ideas were sufficiently similar to theirs to become incorporated in their occult mythology. The source of the 'acceptable' aspects of Steiner's ideas was never credited but as there was considerable overlap between the views of many German occultists it was not hard to adopt an idea from one 'thinker' and assign its origin to another.

I don't think it's bad source; I don't think it's a good source. Help me decide. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

None of author (i don't see Barrington Barber on title page or in work), publisher, or content inspire any confidence. Why wouldn't you use Staudenmair for such content? fiveby(zero) 15:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby: That's why I was asking. I wanted to be sure I make no mistake. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Just in case, here is his profile: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B004AQBGUI/about tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

UkrainiansintheUK.info for George Raffalovich

I'd like to use this page as a source for George Raffalovich. The about page implies that anyone can submit material, but also implies there is editorial control, without making it really clear what the academic level is of the contributors or editors. Does anyone know more about the web site, or have other evidence bearing on its reliability? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field

More eyes needed at Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Transcendental Meditation, and Transcendental Meditation technique. One specific issue is the reliability of a primary research paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. It proposes that group practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field (the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program) during August and September, 1983, in Jerusalem, would reduce stress in the collective consciousness and behavior of Israel and Lebanon. It concludes that the "yogic flying" by the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation.

Orme-Johnson, David W.; Alexander, Charles N.; Davies, John L.; Chandler, Howard M.; Larimore, Wallace E. (December 1988). "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 32 (4). Sage Publishing: 776–812. doi:10.1177/0022002788032004009.

The following is comment on the article by the journal's editor, from a history of the journal published in 2017.

Extended content

The role of editor of a scientific journal is rarely smooth, and sometimes a ride that is both hilarious and dangerous through potholes. I remember best an article entitled “International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field” (Orme-Johnson et al. 1988). I’ll not reproduce it here, but you can get the basic message from their abstract...After the reviews arrived I made, in some fear and trepidation, the decision to publish it with the following comment to precede the article (Russett 1988): "The following article presents and tests a hypothesis that will strike most readers (myself included) as, to say the least, unorthodox. The hypothesis, supported by the empirical tests, is that the practice of Transcendental Meditation by a relatively small group of individuals can lower the manifestations of social conflict in a much wider circle of individuals not in any contact with the meditators. This hypothesis has no place within the normal paradigm of conflict and peace research. Yet the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems competently executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are normally subjected." "The manuscript, either in its initial version or as revised, was read by four referees (two more than is typical with this journal): three psychologists and a political scientist. One dismissed the first version summarily, as “using social scientific method to legitimate religious/philosophical teachings.” Two others, reading the first version, raised various questions about the methods employed in the study. One of those referees, himself technically adept, began his report with the words, “This paper illustrates that Box-Jenkins techniques can be used to support any hypothesis.” The other, after a detailed methodological critique, nevertheless concluded that the paper “has a great deal of merit in that the author(s) proceeds to examine a hypothesis that is on (or just beyond) the fringe of accepted ‘scientific knowledge’ in a very professional fashion.”" "A year later, I received a revised version of the paper, in which the methodological problems with the original seemed to have been properly addressed. I sent this version also out to referees: one of the previous referees and a respected associate of the Journal. Both essentially passed the methodology as competent. The first discussed the research design and execution in detail, replying that “if I apply the criteria I would use to judge any other example of ‘traditional’ research I would have to recommend publication.” He then nevertheless expressed reservations about the implications this had for the conduct of scientific research, and offered to write a commentary, which I am happy to print at the end of the article. The second disdained the paper as “a logically and methodologically coherent effort to test a set of hypotheses that, to be blunt, I regard as absurd.”" I decided, also ambivalently but with the opposite conclusion, that JCR should publish the article. While one should have serious reservations about research originating in highly implausible assumptions, the criteria for plausibility are unclear. For example, even non-Marxists would hardly find it acceptable to dismiss a piece of research simply because it originated in Marxist assumptions. I am also sympathetic to the second referee’s further stricture: “I do not trust a quasi-religious organization to conduct fair and impartial tests of the predictions of the founder of the organization. I’d be willing to consider seriously the current research for publication if, and only if, it were conducted by an independent, scientific body such as the National Academy of Sciences.” Yet, this is a bit of a catch-22. For a study with premises as heterodox as this one, it is almost impossible to imagine a body like the National Academy of Sciences being willing to fund such a research effort without some prior appearance of evidence for the hypothesis as produced by the normal scientific review procedures. Acceptance of the stricture would in practice mean the virtual impossibility for evidence ever to appear in print. Some would doubtless reply, “and so it shouldn’t.” Certainly, one can imagine a system of science becoming deluged with quackery passed off as research. Certainly, there is a great deal of quackery in the world at large (not all of it being practiced by quasi-religious organizations). It is vital to uphold normal scientific standards. But the practice of censorship in science, as in more overtly political realms, can be very unedifying. See, for example, DeGrazia’s (1966) report on the methods used to discourage publication of Immanuel Velikovsky’s rather outrageous work; Galileo was censored because his views offended the precepts of religious authorities. Most research—at least the presentation of new findings—is performed by scholars who begin with the belief that their hypotheses are plausible. Who else would spend the effort? Those who doubt that plausibility can try to replicate the original findings, and if they cannot do so they cast new doubt on the plausibility. This adversarial process must be conducted according to scientific norms and standards for evidence. Eventually, the dialectic begins to produce something like a consensus. It is possible to “cook the data,” in ways from wishful thinking and marginal adjustment to massive fraud ... . The procedures for detecting error are cumbersome, and most of the time, we must rely on the scientist’s own honesty. But the costs of being caught cheating are severe—few people lose status faster than a scientist so apprehended. All in all, it is an imperfect process, though less so in instances such as this where the data are basically in the public domain, and what really is the alternative? Publication by itself provides no “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” It does, however, provide the opportunity for anyone who either believes in the plausibility of the hypothesis or who does not to carry on subsequent research. Attempts to continue or replicate such research should explicitly compare results produced by these authors’ hypotheses with those of alternative hypotheses. The research should incorporate the best safeguards against the intrusion of personal bias. All the data must be publicly available for scrutiny. It also would be desirable for major replications to include in the scientific team members whose initial bias is against the hypothesis as well as those in favor of it. This whole affair produced numerous jokes and complaints—so many that I sometimes regret publishing the article. But JCR survived it, and so, I hope did my reputation as editor. On the whole, I think it raises issues which are still relevant.

What are editors views on the article's reliability? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As a general principle Wikipedia tends rightfully to be somewhat wary of citing primary-source papers on any subject. More so if the research seems to run counter to current scientific consensus. And given that this paper doesn't so much run counter to scientific consensus but depart off at a tangent into a new reality entirely, there are no circumstances I can imagine where policy would permit it to be cited as factual evidence for anything. Wikipedia reflects current scientific consensus. It is not part of its mandate to demolish it, and to construct a new paradigm where bouncing around on ones arse (which is a key component of 'Maharishi Technology': any good search engine will find plenty of videos depicting 'Yogic Flying') results in outbreaks of world peace. Hokum isn't science, even when misguidedly published in a scientific journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

https://www.xda-developers.com/ for tech

editorial policy: https://www.valnetinc.com/en/editorial-integrity

staff: https://www.xda-developers.com/page/about/ (12 people listed)

publisher: https://www.valnetinc.com/en/our-brands

I want to use it for this claim in Flutter_(software): (this is currently an unsourced statement that someone else added some time ago, not me.)

On May 6, 2020, the Dart software development kit (SDK) version 2.8 and Flutter 1.17.0 were released, adding support for the Metal API as well as new Material widgets and network tracking development tools.

source: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-flutter-117-dart-2-8-stable-sdk-app-development/ J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Out, PinkNews, and Pride.com

I am using Out and Pride on "Lacy" to source that some critics considered the song to have potentially sapphic lyrics and PinkNews and Out on "Ballad of a Homeschooled Girl" to source that a lyric about the artist liking gay men received a mixed reaction online. I wanted to ask if any (or all?) of these could situationally pass as high quality sources if the articles were to go to FAC. I'm a bit torn since articles should represent diverse viewpoints but these are not the most reputed websites. All four authors are gay if that helps ([24], [25], [26], [27]), so not sure if that would represent a conflict of interest or help their credibility...--NØ 17:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)