Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388

Archive 385Archive 386Archive 387Archive 388Archive 389Archive 390→Archive 395

Google Maps

Is google maps a reliable source for the contents of the article U.S. Route 19 in West Virginia? Note that it is the only source on the page, everything there is putatively sourced to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's break it down, on what information is readily verifiable by Google Maps:
  • "US 19 passes through the limits of the cities and towns of Bluefield, Princeton, Beckley, Oak Hill, Fayetteville, Summersville, Flatwoods, Weston, Jane Lew, Clarksburg, Shinnston, Worthington, Monongah, Fairmont, Rivesville, Westover, Morgantown, Star City, in addition to the smaller communities of Kegley, Spanishburg, Flat Top, Ghent, Cool Ridge, Shady Spring, Daniels, Beaver, Johnstown, Hico, Heaters, Napier, Letch, Ireland, Ben Dale, Homewood, Kitsonville, Hepzibah, Meadowbrook, Enterprise, Arnettsville, Georgetown."
  • Passes verification
  • "Between Bluefield and Beckley, US 19 has been largely supplanted by Interstate 77 and the West Virginia Turnpike. Between Prosperity and northeast of Canfield, the route serves as a major southwest-northwest artery as Corridor L of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). It is along Corridor L that it crosses the New River via the well-known New River Gorge Bridge. Between Canfield and into Pennsylvania, the route has largely supplanted by Interstate 79."
  • Nope. There's two things here, the supplanting by the interstates, and Corridor L. The latter can be cited with [1] (Which I found by going through the excruciating process of copy-pasting "Corridor L of the Appalachian Development Highway System" into Google)
  • "Aside from the four-lane limited access Corridor L, US 19 remains largely two-lane rural road with numerous curves outside of major cities."
  • Passes verification
-- Floydian τ ¢ 18:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
For me google maps doesn't distinguish between cities, towns, and smaller communities it just says names. How are you verifying those characterizations though google maps? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you serious? You look up the municipality. The official website of the city/town/village will indicate as such. Google maps literally allows you to see this by clicking on the name of the place. Are you being a screwball intentionally, or are you just daft on how to read a map? This is getting fucking old; you've made your WP:POINT, you are wrong, and you will not overturn decades of precedent. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If you need to use another source then you can't verify it from google maps. It seems you have realized this already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Well by all means, be an ass and blank entire sections or articles because you can't be bothered to do a basic search on Google but you can type a fucking essay on all the noticeboards and talk pages. You are literally the definition of dead weight, and I don't care if I get scolded for saying so. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This dead weight appears to have more main page creations than you... I contribute in a wide variety of ways and across a wide variety of topic areas. Also note that you would still have WP:SYNTH issues, that basic google search solves nothing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not playing this game, I have 10 TFAs and nearly 100 GAs. You are wrong, end of story, let me know when you have two decades of experience in the matter, or a basic understanding of maps. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I respect your contributions, but nobody is infallible. You were wrong about Google Maps supporting the given text and you're likely wrong about other things as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Then challenge what I laid out above wrt the article text, if you're certain. I think you'll find I'm more infallible than you think. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken you laid out that the text can not be verified by using google maps. I agree with that. Also note that ActivelyDisinterested has also challenged you to support part of the text using google maps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
And this would not be an issue if you didn't blank the text, a large part of which was adequately sourced. Floydian τ ¢ 06:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you blaming me for noticing an issue? Thats a little bizarre, I didn't create the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am blaming you. I want to make it absolutely clear, you are the tempest in the teapot. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope in time you will come to realize that your anger was misplaced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also I want to make it clear that I respect your BLP contributions, but you are in unfamiliar territory. I would never try to understand or question the sourcing on those articles, because I'd have no idea what I'm arguing against. You are in that position now, and you and your two tag-alongs will hit the same wall. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
RSN is not unfamiliar territory for me, I have well over a thousand edit here. I don't think I've seen you around here before though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Because I know what I'm doing. Floydian τ ¢ 06:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't follow, are you saying that those who regularly contribute to RSN are incompetent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
No, I am saying you are with regards to this matter. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If sometime you feel like supporting those WP:ASPERSIONS with diffs you are welcome to, until then that is the last unsupported personal attack I'm going to tolerate from you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
That sucks, cause it's not the last time I'll call you out for your misplaced optimism. Calling a spade a spade. I don't need diffs, I'm not playing the dumb drama board game. Floydian τ ¢ 16:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Let's all be civil and remember aspersions are covered by WP:NPA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
In addition to HEB's comment I have an issue with the third section.remains largely is a judgement of the editor viewing the map, I struggle to see how that's not OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I concur. Along the same lines,numerous curves implies (at least that's how I read it) that the number of curves is numerous in contrast to an "average" road of similar type, which would also be OR. Ljleppan (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is a bit of a funny one. I think that it's reliable, in the sense that I rely on it all the time to get me from point A to point B when I'm driving. On the other hand, I know of quite a few mistakes in my local area - the park I walk my dog in has the wrong name for one thing, there are significant buildings missing entirely, and it has an imaginary bus station on a road near me which is nothing but a bus stop. I'm a 'level 7 local guide' on Google, and it's forever asking me to check facts, but it rarely actually does anything with the updates I send it (to the point where I've pretty much stopped contributing). I feel like it's at least partially WP:UGC, from that perspective. Girth Summit (blether) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Following the line of Girth Summit, I think it is reliable, although there are a few hiccups here and there, which are easily fixable. Roads4117 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    You've missed my point: I rely on it for use in everyday life to get around, but that's because it's exceedingly convenient, not because it's particularly reliable. I'd place it several ranks below something like the Ordnance Survey in terms of actual reliability as a mapping source. I don't really imagine that it would get the names of major cities wrong, they'd have picked that up by now, but they do make lots of small-scale goofs which would make me question it as a source for local information. Girth Summit (blether) 19:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    You know that you can edit those small mistakes. Roads4117 19:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    You don't see how that makes it worse not better in terms of WP:RS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed - 'fixing' an unreliable source with 'local knowledge' (ie OR) is the opposite if verifiability. Girth Summit (blether) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Google maps is (at least in part) user generated content. I might be more forgiving for more official map sources (e.g. ordnance survey data), but wouldn't count Google Maps (or similar) as a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not, for purposes of some basic information. Most of the GMaps errors are in the UGC, but GMaps itself is mostly not UGC. Is it a reliable source for the coordinates of some local HVAC company? No. But for direction of roads, intersections, etc., then I'd say yes. Let's not forget that Google Maps includes satellite imagery (which is certainly not UGC) and, for many places, streetview. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    One other things I've wondered about Google map, how do we deal with the fact is always being updated? The details could be corrected when they are stated, but a new set of images or street view data would change all that. Is there anyway to easily see archival map data? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    A satellite picture isn't a reliable source though. Neither would a picture taken from a moving vehicle on the street be a reliable source, thats the same for me as it is for google. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    You are not considered a reliable source, I think we can trust Google to reliably publish the satellite images. Not sure I'm sold we can then cite those images without OR. Certainly it seems that the line into OR has been crossed on some cases. If an editor interprets a map, beyond what the map clearly states, that still remians OR if another editor checks the map and agrees with the interpretation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    We can't use images as sources for that sort of complex fact even from the best of publications, I can not use a NYT picture of a squad of soldiers in Exemplestan holding Ex-15 rifles to source the fact that the Exemplestani military possesses the Ex-15. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    ECHO echo echo echo - Floydian τ ¢ 04:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    This is a good point, why can we use images of map as references when we can't use images as references. As per my comment below maybe this is better discussion at VPP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that Google Maps has an editorial process for changes to its maps, we can trust that in most of the world it will be fairly accurate and receive timely updates. It is also used as the base map for thousands of graphics in news articles/reports by outlets we deem reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) as well as governments, so would that reliability not trickle down? When used properly and paired with an official government map (which may not be an option in some regions, so we must toe carefully around our Western-centric bias and allow for some cases of GMaps-only use), Google Maps has been deemed appropriate for writing neutral but informative route descriptions for road articles. I myself have used it across all of my road FAs, which have been promoted in the past 5 years. SounderBruce 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Where can we read about thiseditorial process? Absent other information, knowing Google, I bet it's some weird spam-filter AI rather than anything even vaguely approaching what we'd call an "editorial process" in any other context. Ljleppan (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It seems it's been deemed acceptable by the project that is involved in writing those articles, and even if it is there appears a significant WP:OR problem in its use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This seems extremely analogous to the prohibited practice of deciphering what military decorations a person has from their press photos. Perhaps there's some exception to be carved here for the very high level information, but I'm struggling to see how exactly that would be phrased. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment There appears to be two discussions going on that don't appear to directly relate to Google maps, but rather the topic of using maps as references. First there appears to be a discussion about the use of language when citing maps, at least to me and some others there appears to be some WP:OR going. Even given WP:MAPCITE details are being include when citing maps that are not directly stated by the map. The second discussion appears to be in regard to MAPCITE and using maps altogether, and the fact we can't use images as references but we can if it's a map. Neither of these discussions are about the reliability of Google maps directly, and I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to start a discussion on WP:VPP on the use of WP:MAPCITE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think people are asking the wrong question here… rather than asking “Is it reliable?” we should be asking “What information is it reliable FOR?” Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • And in addition to Blueboar's comment, people need to read the top of this page. Reliability is based on source and the context in which it is used. Most commercial maps (Google included) are perfectly reliable for content like "Road X connects from point A north to point B then curves west to point C, passing through D, E, F etc" because a)those are all easily verifiable from the map, and b)verifiable if you want to actually go to the place with a compass and do it yourself. There is no interpretation here. Floydian's comment further up where he talks about content about 'supplanted' is *not* information veriable from a map, as it requires interpretation and information that is not included on the map itself. To use a similar issue with sources that we often come across in media articles where the work itself is the primary source: "In Top Gun the pilots engage in a game of volleyball" - verifiable from the primary source the film. "In Top Gun the pilots engage in a homoerotic game of volleyball" - not verifiable as it requires interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see any case where Google Maps could be used as an RS outside of something involving OR by a WP editor. Using a map to try to prove something existing or not is beyond our scope. Masem (t) 13:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
But we're not using maps to say something like "there's a fruit stand that appears on weekends", we're using it to say "this road exists, it goes from A to Zed, it's number is 4682, it is known as John Street, and it passes through Nottingham Forest." - Floydian τ ¢ 15:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
And how many curves it has in comparison to other roads, and the relative size of town it's passes through... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Where is it comparing its curviness to other roads? "Numerous" is not "numerous compared to". - Floydian τ ¢ 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Its still a judgement call, how many is numerous? Two turns? Four turns? Ten turns? Forty turns? Four hundred turns? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
"Numerous" is not "numerous compared to", so how are you defining numerous? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I use the definition at WP:ANAL. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
As you're the one so insistent that noone touch you work, the definition is very appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
As maps are a primary source for that type of information, that also seems like trying to avoid notability facets then. Given that in the case of the OP post article that only Google Maps is used to show this road exists, that doesn't make it notable. Masem (t) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
US Route 19 is certainly in newspaper sources, in 2 minutes I found [4][5]. I'm sure there are ones for the West Virginia part of the route. As in the case in such long routes, they get split into different articles. --Rschen7754 16:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
In terms of significant coverage of Rt 19, neither of those sources cut it. Are there likely sources for Rt 19 that are significant coverage? Sure but they aren't likely to be part of an online search, but we should have those articles in place before jumping to expand out the route by GMaps from that. Masem (t) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
May want to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry ring road/archive1 then, it was promoted last week and with Google Maps citations. --Rschen7754 16:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that we will be revisiting dozens of FA and GA, thats a good thing not a bad thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Masem Are you saying the "research" being done when looking at a map (a map which, for the sake of argument, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of) and saying "route X intersects route Y" or "city X borders an ocean" is more "original research" in the spirit of WP:OR than the "research" being performed by someone summarizing a dozen different sources on a single subject? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Its more that those types of statements have no bearing on the notability of an article, and to try to use a map for statements that attempt to demonstrate notability like "it is the only road that can access this national park" would be verging on OR. If you already have a notable road or other geographic feature through other non-map, reliable sources, then its fine to use the map to support what roads it crosses and other nearby features. But we have the added problem here where only GMaps is used as a source, which is not sufficient for notability. This is equivalent to using a movie or TV show itself as the primary source - we can use it for fundamental statements that are non-interpretative about the work, but not to create statements of interpretation in WikiVoice, nor sufficient alone as a source for notability. Masem (t) 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I wholly agree that Google maps (or even maps in general, for the most part) do not establish notability. However, the main issue here is not one of WP:GNG, but rather whether Google maps can be used as a source for describing the route of a road. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no opinion about any of the specific issues, but WP:BLUE is likely relevant to this discussion. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I never understand arguments stating BLUE, BLUE is only for text that's not going to be challenged. If there's an ongoing discussion it has been challenged, and so can't be BLUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    The kind of "challenge" most policies are talking about in the context of sourcing is verifiability. Objecting to unsourced content can/does happen apart from challenges to the verifiability of the claims being made. i.e. "I object to unsourced content even if it's verifiable" rather than "I do not think sources exist to verify this". It's a [relatively -- maybe I'm just getting long in the tooth on here] new trend to go around removing uncontroversial statements for the fact of being unsourced, without basing the removal on some other policy like NPOV (or expanding the meaning of controversial to "anything I see that's unsourced"). Maybe that's where we're headed, but it's hard to have these conversations working with multiple understanding of what constitutes a reasonable "challenge" such that it triggers WP:BURDEN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    There are multiple ways to challenge something, one can remove it, one can tag it, and one can bring it up on a talk page or at a noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    And yet you manage to use the most abrasive of the four as doctrine. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I actually incorporate all four into my editing doctrine as I assume most do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't appear you point is about BLUE itself, but the larger discussion about how to handle unsourced text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    WP:BLUE: "Note that this essay should never be cited in a dispute about whether or not a certain fact is true or not and should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies. Since all material that is likely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is challenging material as false or misleading, then it is by definition likely to be challenged. Remember to assume good faith and consider that something that may be obvious to you may not be obvious to them, and that many things that "everyone knows" turn out to be false." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    "If someone else is challenging material as false or misleading, then it is by definition likely to be challenged." - You interpret policy like a Southern Baptist does the Bible. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    You understand thats a quote from an essay, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Its @Carchasm: you appear to believe interprets policy like a Southern Baptist does the Bible (that sounds like either a personal attack or uncalled for religious bigotry BTW). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    i assume you meant to tag someone else here? I'm not in this discussion - car chasm (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Carchasm: You wrote the part of the lead at Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue[6] whose author Floydian is trashing, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It would've probably been best to just ignore the bible statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I probably would have too if it didn't appear to be based on my editing history, thats the last religious group whose topic area I edited in (see Talk:Billy Graham#Was Billy Graham actually an Ordained Baptist Minister?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'm really hoping that's just a coincidence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I am too, but its an extremely specific coincidence especially since a search for the phrase "... like a Southern Baptist does the Bible" doesn't appear to indicate that its a notable or popular saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It was coincidence, I haven't looked at HEB's edit history. What I meant is that you take a small piece as "gospel" and completely ignore another as mere suggestion. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Essays are not gospel, they are in fact suggestions. What in our policy or guidelines am I ignoring? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    From the gospel of WP:BURDEN: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." - Floydian τ ¢ 00:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    I don't remove material which I believe is verifiable, but at the same time I also am not going to go picking through a mess of OR and trying to source each sentence... Much better to start from a clean slate. Saying something is OR in the edit summary fulfills the obligation of BURDEN you've brought up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Encouraged not required. And can we keep the religious hyperbole to a minimum. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    oh gosh, yeah that was me. Don't worry, I won't take any biblical allusions as an attack on me, the main purpose of that paragraph was really just to reassert/remind that WP:V still exists. I'm generally more in the WP:NOTBLUE camp anyway as I mostly edit articles about philosophy, where things that sound obvious or uncontroversial to a layman (e.g. is the moral option the one that produces the best outcome?) are often the subject of centuries long debate, even if it seems at first like the point being disputed is pedantic.
    To summarize my own view from writing that addition, I'd say that if both editors agree that the sky is blue, one shouldn't insist on citing it or removing the claim without a citation. If they're e.g. fighting over whether "cyan" or "blue" is a better term, or if it's actually blue or only appears blue, that should need a citation. I think in this particular case WP:BLUE (which is only an essay anyway, not policy) wouldn't really apply either way, if the citation of Google Maps is verifiable (appears the same on google maps) then it's cited, and if there are reasons anyone raises to suspect Google Maps might not be accurate enough to trust *in general*, then that's not about the blue sky either. - car chasm (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I would have thought if something is being challenged as being referenced to an unreliable source, or subject to OR then it is properly challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How is this even a question. GMaps is strictly a primary source. There is no "author" of any GMaps location, in fact it contains zero published evaluation or analysis written by a human; everything is computer-generated from geocoordinates, satellite imagery, database entries, etc. Therefore, we can never use it as the basis for any article and it does not contribute to notability considerations. As for its reliability in this case: beyond the fact that that article is the epitome of unmaintainable NOTDATABASE-violating roadcruft, how do we decide what level of zoom is satisfactory for listing what localities it passes through or which roads it intersects? The citation in the article doesn't even have a link to whatever resolution the editor used, so none of that material can be validated in the extremely straightforward way that primary-sourced info requires. Typing "US route 19 in West Virginia" or "US-19 West Virginia" in GMaps gives us a pinned location on the road "Patton Ave" or "ALT 74", neither of which is mentioned anywhere in our article. This is because Google has actually has dropped us in the middle of North Carolina, even though the sidebar still claims it's "US-19 West Virginia". So that's an immediate fail in verification. If this is the reliability of GMaps for places in the US, how much worse is it in the rest of the world? Here's one answer from our own Reference Desk archives. Now if we click on the OpenStreetMap image in the article, we get this map, which actually is of the correct route, but it contains absolutely none of the details dumped in the article aside from that it appears to go through Beckley and Morgantown. We have to zoom in before several of the major intersections or any other towns even appear, but at no point is there anything remotely approaching the level of detail contained in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This page does not determine if sources are good for making an article notable or not. It only determines if sources are reliable for verifiability. Huggums537 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Just from my own experience here, but at least where I live (west coast of the United States) Google Maps is extremely inaccurate. To the point that OpenStreetMaps is almost better. A lot of that probably comes down to the fact they get their road data from years old Tiger data and updates only occur on a hyper local, irregular time frame if at all. For instance there's places where there was a historic road from the gold rush that was paved over in the 50s, but is on Google maps for some bizarre reason. Yet on the other hand they will add a road for a new subdivision before the area for it has even been cleared. So it's essentially worthless outside of an extremely small area of shopping malls in the center of town and some main artery roads. No way would I use it as a citation in an article.

Also, from what I've seen Street View images are increasingly being farmed out to third party photographers. So there's major issues with using it as a source IMO. Although I will grant that there's probably zero chance of a professional GIS company uploading fake images to Street View, but it still creates a scenario where the images aren't actually coming from Google even if they are being hosted on Google's site. They have a policy for it here if anyone is interested. From that it looks like they give certain venders a "trusted badge" and then review their images as needed. How often that is or how they do the reviews is anyone's guess, but I don't think they should be used as source of information regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • To answer the original question, as of this version Google Maps was used to source the junctions and mileages, which is basic map information. I see zero problem with this. As to the broader question, the issue with maps is when editors make the map say what it does not say. --Rschen7754 23:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    The reference appears to be incomplete, no URL has been supplied to direct to which map has been used. Certainly just from looking it's not possible to get distance, which is the other peice of information it's used to support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Actually looking at Google maps I'm failing to see any data about distances between junctions, how are they being calculated? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    I personally never have done this but I believe it is some sort of tool, not just using a ruler. --Rschen7754 00:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    So it's not something the map shows, but something the user has to do with the map? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Looking at one junction in Morgantown, Walnut Street, where does the informationNorth end of US 119 south overlap; south end of WV 7 west overlap come from? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Reading the map and an understanding of Concurrency (road). --Rschen7754 00:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    .... But where in that map is that data shown? Not what does that information mean. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry I've made a mess I've this, I should have just replied in one big comment. I'm unable, especially as no URL has been given (see the multiple error messages the template is producing), to verify the data and have tag the reference accordingly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    [7] - this is basic map reading of seeing where the fancy 119 and the circular 7 go. (Different zoom levels may be needed to see them, as at more zoomed out levels labels are omitted.) --Rschen7754 00:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    In what world does "basic map reading" include using an obscure GMaps tool to reconstruct mileages or knowing how to describe road junctions using DOT subcommittee jargon? JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Do we consider "concurrent sentences" obscure legal jargon? Or "concurrent lines" obscure mathematical jargon? Even without that article, wikt:concurrent clearly applies here. --Rschen7754 03:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    As below Wikipedia is not just America, this is not BLUE. And a wikitionary link to Concurrent doesn't say anything about Concurrency in road routes makes me wonder if you understand WP:V at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Using a measurements system not shown directly on the map it absolutely WP:OR, it's even OR by WP:MAPCITE standards. Using a ruler built into the app is no different than using a standard ruler on a physical map. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    So 7=WV7 and 119=US Route 119, which is written on the map where? Before answering bnonits not BLUE, Wikipedia is not the US alone, and the US route numbering system. This is basic being able to look at something l, and seeing what's not there skills. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    I have read the comments but I do not wish to get into a further meaningless argument about whether the average person can read maps or not. (Though I will point out that the same icons appear in the same line in the table.) --Rschen7754 04:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    Cool I do not want to get into further meaningless arguments on what is obviously WP:OR. (Though I would point out that if you're using a ruler to make measurements against a map, it definitely is). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    No it's not, maps have scales for a reason. Just like books have words for a reason, and it's not OR to read words in a book. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    So scale shows distances to within parts of a mile between two points (as chosen by the editor) without any other need for measurement? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    But you can't measure the height of the font in a book and then put that in the wikipedia article, thats very clearly OR. Nor could I measure how thick a book was and put that on the page. Nor could I do other analysis like asking a word program to find every instance of "apple" and then adding to the article "Wuthering heights includes 37 mentions of apples." If you want an exact imagery example if we have an article on an orchard I can't go on google maps and count how many apple trees they have, that requires less analysis than measuring distance too. For a notable house I can't go on google maps, count the garage doors and add "there are five garage doors" to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    ^This. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd say no. If we could cite it at all it would clearly be WP:PRIMARY, but there's no indication of how it does its fact-checking or what sort of editorial controls it has. It can be linked, of course, but I feel that citing it directly to support any statement is inevitably going to be WP:OR. Also, the subtext to this question is probably about notability (ie. should we have articles on roads that are cited entirely to Google Maps, which exist on a map but have no further coverage whatsoever) - which is something I've noticed about a lot of recent WP:RS questions. The underlying issue here is that Google Maps is full of errors and isn't really structured like an RS, so if it's the only source we have on a road, there's really nothing we can say about that road with any certainty, meaning that we shouldn't have an article on it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    For those claiming that Google Maps is not reliable - any concrete examples of errors? --Rschen7754 20:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    Read my top-level comment above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    China is considered an outlier because of Restrictions on geographic data in China. What I'm looking for are actual instances of errors (more than an unusual search term not being located properly) showing that there is a systemic problem with Google Maps, to the point that it cannot be trusted like other secondary sources (remember, no secondary source is perfect). Think the Fox News RFC a while back, where citation after citation was presented. --Rschen7754 20:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    An "unusual search term" like "US-19 West Virginia"...? If Google can't even get the correct state for literally the road in question -- and even claims the site actually is in the correct state -- I can't see how it can be reliable "in general". And what are you talking about, "other secondary sources"? Google Maps is a primary source, point blank. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    Simple way to find examples: look at the mapping for a place that you know well and compare it with reality. For me, that means missing buildings, buildings that don't exist, paths marked as roads... and in rural areas it's often a liability. Or look online: Washington Post, more WP, BBC, more BBC, ABC in Australia, BBC on Australia, comical BBC one (of many), another Australian one, with a company response: "The various types of data found in Google Maps come from a wide range of sources, including third-party providers, public sources, and user contributions", from India. The examples are limited only by enthusiasm to find them. EddieHugh (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    As has been explained, the GIS data is the primary source, and Google chooses what to put in the map from that. Thus, secondary source, just as most other maps would be. Also, when was the last time that you typed in something like US 19 West Virginia into Google Maps? It is a strange term because US 19 is a multi-state route. I liken it to typing in "Interstate 95" in Google Maps - what does one expect to find for a 3000 mile plus route?
    I also question whether some of those opposing would support even maps from Rand McNally as a source. --Rschen7754 23:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    That is not how secondary sources work. Per our own policy:A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A computer-generated depiction of raw data with whatever filters on it is still primary. No matter how many changes are made to bare stats, or pictures, or music, if they don't include discussion of the original thing they are not secondary sources for that thing. And unlike physical published maps where every page is manually assessed, there is no "author" verifying the accuracy/quality/appearance for any specific place on GMaps, let alone giving their analysis of it. Citing a page in Rand McNally is plainly different from citing the exact coordinates of where a Wikipedia editor was accessing a tool at a particular time, although if a subject can only be sourced to Rand McNally maps then it also shouldn't exist as a standalone.
    Using GMaps to list every intersection and town on a particular road is exactly like using your ApE plasmid editor to list every restriction enzyme site in a gene. Actually, it's even worse than that with all those third-party distance measurements; it's more like listing every feature that gets highlighted in your ApE editor due to it already existing in your personal annotated feature library. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    The author is the cartographer. Satellite imagery I won't argue as being primary, but the actual road map layer has been analysed, evaluated, and has reinterpreted the raw data into a presentable navigational aid. It has taken physical evidence and presented it in an understandable (and perhaps even conceptual) way. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    LMAO who is the cartographer of "US-19 in West Virginia" on Google Maps? Someone writing code that automatically renders database queries into something we can visualize is no more an "author" of any particular query output than someone who developed a contrast transfer function model or Fourier shell correlation algorithm is of a particular cryo-EM reconstruction. The developer of an Instagram filter that autopopulates Disney eyes on all the faces in a picture isn't a secondary source we can cite for how many people are in that picture... None of these examples are publishing their commentary on the specific subject; they aren't even personally interacting with it. JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    It does count as "synthesizing facts" though. Huggums537 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    In the same way a calculator "synthesizes facts"... JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but that is a very rudimentary example of "synthesizes facts". Also, it sounds desperate that you are now comparing GMaps operations to those of a calculator. Which one sounds more plausible? GMaps operations "synthesizes facts", or GMaps operations are comparable to those of a calculator? And, which sounds like it is trying to convince someone? Huggums537 (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Like calculators (or Wolfram Alpha, or R, or CAD), GIS and related technology are tools for storing, processing, and visualizing data. Aside from very simple descriptions, we are not permitted to create or interpret a graph ourselves on WP, even though graphing data is also "synthesizing facts". This is because the graphs or maps do not themselves make any conclusions about their content, they just present it. Per OR, we have to have human interpretation of the graph for us to say anything about what it means. That's what makes these things primary. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe you have a point, but it is all academic, and purely incidental as to the question of whether the source is reliable, so I have realized it was a mistake engaging this part of the discussion, especially considering both of the facts that, for one thing, I find myself encountering debate with you more often than I should, and for another that my stated concerns in most of this discussion have been that notability and primary/secondary sourcing issues are not relevant to the topic of reliability. So, it is hypocritical for me to propagate those discussions by entering into either debate on this forum. My best option is to disengage while I still have a shred of dignity left. Good day to you. Huggums537 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Wow. --Rschen7754 01:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    Also that's not how this works. Someone needs to prove they are reliable, against whatever reason others bring up. fact-checking or editorial controls is something that needs to be positively proven. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, Coventry ring road just passed FAC, and it uses numerous Google Maps citations. Are you saying that this was a mistake? --Rschen7754 19:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think I'm as stridently against Google Maps as some, although I'm swayed by the argument that it's a primary source. My main concern is the obvious OR that is happening in concert with using Google Maps. And I note, happily, that all distance data in that article is referenced to proper sources. As to whether it should have passed or not, I'll let someone else comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know, it seems like the distances are sourced to Google Maps. (Which must be the method that is being used to determine distances, which I didn't realize earlier). --Rschen7754 20:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Your right I missed that there was distance data in the junction table, so it does contain OR. Although there is also this link in the junction table, so maybe there measured it on that map using finger lengths. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    What are your views on WP:CALC and why you believe (I assume) it would not apply to this situation? --Rschen7754 21:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    No WP:CALC wouldn't apply, not even close. If a source says 10 and 10 then you can say 20, if a source gives no numbers at all you can't make you own. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    But this [8] gives me the number 3.0. Why can't it be used? --Rschen7754 00:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    A list of GPS coordinates chosen by the user, I'm struggling to understand why you don't see that as a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    And when I do go to that link it gives me a distance of 2.3, so it fails verification as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
    Hm, 2.3 is what I meant. I don't see "a chosen list of coordinates" as a problem, provided that the precision is not overestimated. In other words, 2.3 is fine, but I would be skeptical of 2.30. --Rschen7754 03:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    User generated content isn't a problem! I give up, this is just nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Aren't most of our images "user generated"? Aren't we taking it on good faith that the images are taken at the places people say they are taken? The conspiracy never ends. --Rschen7754 00:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    You can't use an image as a source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    A caption appears in the article next to the image. Shouldn't it be cited? --Rschen7754 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    If a caption appears next to an image it should have a reference for that caption. If you know of any instance of that reference being an image please just let me know, I'll remove it and replace it with {{citations needed}} tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    If challenged or likely to be challenged it is required to be cited, the more complex the description the more likely it is to be challenged. "US President George Bush" as a caption for an image of George Bush is unlikely to be challenged, a caption that says "US President George Bush wearing a Gucci suite and Ralph Lauren shirt contemplates doing a summersault but decides against it" is almost certainly going to be challenged and as such would require a WP:RS from the get go. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    The whole thing I am getting at is that at some point we have to trust our editors and that goes to the coordinate selection. Who would know that the picture that I took of Route A was actually of Route B? Who would know if I was faking citations that were from a book? And besides, anyone (who can read a map) can verify that yes, that coordinate point is at the interchange specified. And that satisfies WP:CALC. --Rschen7754 01:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I'll bite, why does Google Maps show the old Rockingham County Courthouse in Wentworth, North Carolina, as the current location of the Superior Court (it's a museum now, and been one for several years), when the superior court judges assigned to that county actually meet in the new Rockingham County Justice Center about a mile down the road? Why does Google Maps list the historic county jail building across the street at 1011 NC-65 as Apex Bail Bonds at 1091 NC-65 (1091 NC-65 is actually the building Google Maps thinks is 1075 NC-65, right next door). I drive past these buildings probably four times a month. The jail is an abandoned county office with a billboard advertising Apex Bail Bonds placed on the front yard of the house at 1105 NC-65 (the other neighbor). Is Google Maps generating business locations based off of reading signage text in photos without cross-referencing, I don't know, actual property records? This particularly problematic, since some roads editors like to landmark routes by saying they pass certain historic/"important" buildings at various points, using Google Maps of course (see Special routes of U.S. Route 76#Chadbourn–Whiteville business loop). -Indy beetle (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
      • But is a paper map going to be any better? Especially if an editor doesn't own the latest copy of the map, or doesn't go out and dutifully buy the latest copy every year, or the map is not detailed enough? And if someone is writing about Bail Bonds or most other individual businesses in a road article they are obviously trying to pad. --Rschen7754 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
        Of course it would be better, readers could just look at the book and actually verify the text of our article was accurate on the date of the map's publication, even if it's no longer true. With GMaps we have no assurance that a human has actually validated any piece of info at any point in time, and a reader would have to access archived versions of it to even see what the editor saw in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
        Archived versions are the norm for any web based references, as data on websites can change at a whim. But it is certainly easier to download Google Earth and scroll through the historic imagery than it is to go out and find the 2022 road atlas in five years time to verify the information attributed to it. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
        Not to take this tangent too far, but that's the sword that cuts both ways. The ability of Google Maps to update more-or-less continuously means that errors can be corrected pretty much at any time, and the most current version will thus have possibly corrected an error that existed in an old version; a 2022 print atlas with an error will have that error forever. It's the nature of the type of medium we're working in here, there's a tension between permanence and accuracy, and I find where we can't have both, accuracy is preferrable. --Jayron32 16:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
        Just FYI that free downloads of google earth haven't been available for a while now and free web based users can not access historical imagery. Because you already had it downloaded you're grandfathered in, but if you ever switch to a new device it won't be grandfathered in and you will have to pay for those premium features. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
        This is not true in the slightest. Google Earth Pro is free for all desktop computers, and is in the process of being replaced by a web-based version.[9] Even if it did cost money, so does a newpaper subscription, a scholarly journal, or a paper map from the local automotive/corner store. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
        The free web based version you just linked to does not host historical imagery. Kind of funny you're telling me this isn't a thing, I just changed devices and now pay Google a few hundred more a month than I did before. I guess I should call them up about that or something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
        Probably, since it's been free since January 2015. Might also want to update the Google Earth article as well. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    • And just in the same county, why is the marker for the historic Settles Bridge listed on at some person's house on a street to the north, when one can clearly see "Settle Bridge Road" cross over the water to the south? I think a map made by an actual human being would label the only actual bridge in a five mile radius as the bridge. (And before you say, well, that's the closest real postal address, the historic Mebane's Bridge in the same county has no such mislabeling. This implies just sloppiness.) -Indy beetle (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    A somewhat parallel discussion is ongoing here regarding whether databases are primary and whether they can be used to establish SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Not reliable per what I and others have outlined above. The citing of Google Maps is near inextricable from the OR it is constantly employed in across roads articles, but that is a slightly different matter which applies more generally to how we use all sorts of road maps, and should proably be the subject of its own discussion. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Not reliable per all the comments above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Rschen7754 Why on earth have you placed a new comment middle of the discussion? Please move it to a sensible position.I see what's happened, the OG template has broken the string of comments.
    As to you comment no we don't trust our editors as sources. Anyone would know if you fake a citation that's the whole point of WP:VERIFY. I can go to a source and verify if it confirms the details that use it as a reference. I can't confirm this with the references to Google maps without doing my own WP:OR to see if it confirms with your OR. User generated GPS coordinates are WP:UGC and what is being done with them goes far beyond WP:CALC and into WP:OR and that isn't rhetoric. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Not a basis for notability It's an utter embarrassment that anyone would think we can have entire articles sourced to just a map like this. Sure it may be reliable or verifiable that one can trace the route of a road on a map and name its intersections, but that's not something we should have articles for without sources with actual substance. There are far too many crap road article like this. Reywas92Talk 02:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Reywas, I'm confused by your vote, and statement? You say the source may be reliable, but made your vote about notability?? Are you voting for the source as reliable for verifiability? The vote is not about notability... Huggums537 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Reywas92 would you please clarify your vote? The poll is about the reliability of the source, not the notability of any article, and not even about whatever the underlying basis for notability of any article might or might not be. I understand your view is that there are "crap road articles", but the vote isn't about any articles, or their notability, just the reliability of a source. In other words, could the source be used to verify facts inside articles that aren't crap? Huggums537 (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable - recognizing that there are errors inherent in all sources. --Enos733 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable for the purposes of describing the physical nature of a road and measuring distances or taking coordinates. Generally reliable for labelling of current route numbers, road names and points of interest (the "undated" issue in a misnomer, as satellite imagery from old dates can be verified with Google Earth). Not a basis for notability, and in almost all cases should be considered a primary source (as opposed to published maps which are secondary sources). Most of the discussion has derailed entirely on a separate tangent and the examples provided are very poor articles, and not a reflection of the proper use of this resource. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Not a basis for notability and not reliable for the amount of info in the article at hand. External tools for calculating distances, determining the municipal designations of localities on the map by googling them, choosing some arbitrary zoom level as the threshold for which places even show up on the map (and using that for what we cover in the article), and specialized terminology for describing the route of a road all go beyond the simple functions allowed by WP:CALC. And especially in this particular case where not only is there no link to the GMaps coordinates used by the editor, reasonable search terms for the road, like "US-19 in West Virginia", return a completely different road. JoelleJay (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • It's fine for the purposes of identifying things like route descriptions, where the road goes, towns it passes through, etc. Describing routes and calculating distances and the like are basic map reading skills, no different from paper atlases etc. It does not require extraordinary knowledge nor complex interpretation, it's just reading a map. Google maps, while it does contain errors, like ALL sources do, has not been show to do so at a rate which calls their reliability into question, and they have a clear corrections process which adds to its reliability. I'm rather agnostic on the matter of notability here; highway pages are not targets for commercial activity/spam/advertising nor are they likely to be used as attack pages or to be targets for controversial information, nor are they used for pushing or promoting a controversial viewpoint, nor are they BLP-based articles. It's rather boring, banal stuff, and as such a low priority for WP:N concerns. --Jayron32 14:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    towns it passes through It should not be used for this. AFAICT there is nothing on GMaps that indicates what municipal level any location is; in fact, when there is any info on a place at all it is sourced to wikipedia. Plus, which municipalities and roads are visible on the map is totally dependent on the level of zoom (and on what's around it -- even very large cities are eclipsed by proximity to larger cities) so either we're expecting editors to be extremely thorough in documenting these things at the most granular level, or we're listing items at some arbitrary depth that may or may not contain relevant info. A published RS map dedicated to a specific area will have been validated for all its content by editors and will contain a degree of detail that reflects expert consensus on what is important to show.
    GMaps depends on user error submissions for any one area to be "updated" or "corrected"; since this varies heavily by population, internet availability, app engagement, priority, local government, etc. we should absolutely not be giving it a blanket rubber stamp of reliability for even basic details. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    "AFAICT there is nothing on GMaps that indicates what municipal level any location is;" - irrelevant. The municipal level and the passing of a route through a place are mutually exclusive.
    "when there is any info on a place at all it is sourced to wikipedia." - Google gives precedence to Wikipedia for displaying information about existing places. That isn't used to validate the existence of that place nor its location.
    "either we're expecting editors to be extremely thorough" - yes, that would be comprehensiveness, and required in any article with multiple sources with differing opinions for them to weigh them accordingly.
    "or we're listing items at some arbitrary depth that may or may not contain relevant info" - Again, this is routine. Every list on the encyclopedia has some "arbitrary depth" to its scope.
    The rest off your comment, I 100% agree. Google should be used alongside a reliable published map, but the lack thereof shouldn't prohibit its use. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    What I'm saying is that there is no way to tell from the map that a route is passing through a "town" or a "smaller community"--a distinction nevertheless present in the article in question--or some other locale, or that all the relevant towns are mentioned. And because of this it's not possible to be "extremely thorough" or to reflect only DUE info. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    You're right, but you're dealing with miniscule details at that point. Is the vase oval or round? The ideal solution is that we are linking to that municipality, and it indicates that it is a village or city. This is one of those cases where I feel WP:BLUE applies, as it is easily verifiable to the reader that the municipality is an XXX. -- Floydian τ ¢ 21:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I would say Google Maps is generally reliable although there can sometimes be errors. However, I would use caution in using Google Maps alone as a source in an article due to these possible errors. Google Maps is generally fine to use as a reference for the physical surroundings of a road when using the satellite imagery and road map together. However, since there can sometimes be errors in the maps, a good idea would be to use Google Maps in conjunction with another map issued by a DOT or in conjunction with a route log in order to reference where a route goes since the DOT maps/route logs are less likely to have errors and are an official government source. Dough4872 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I would say it depends. Google maps is reasonably reliable for very basic information (such as citing which towns a road goes through), but there are limits. It is not as reliable when the information grows more complex. It should not be used for calculating precise distances, for example. Case by case judgement is needed, and if there is any question, find a better source. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd say it's not reliable for much. The labels for businesses, parks, roads, addresses, and so on are sometimes incorrect. A surprising amount of material on Google Maps is user-generated content. I've even noticed cases where the course of roads is incorrect, or at least out of date. (This problem seems to be more severe for minor roads than major roads, and more severe outside the US than in the US.) We certainly shouldn't have an article sourced only to Google Maps. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Officially declaring reliable per my comments above, with the proviso that certain features that are more heavily reliant on primary source data i.e. Google Street View and the satellite layer are probably not. All sources will have an error at one point or another, even the "gold standard" of newspapers and books. --Rschen7754 00:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I am concerned that some of the comments are trending towards anecdotal experiences which are not attempted to be elaborated upon here. --Rschen7754 16:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Since people want to make this about notability: not a basis for notability only because every road is listed. I think some maps that are more selective about what is included can show notability, but Google Maps is not one of them. --Rschen7754 20:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable in general for coarse information, maybe not for fine detail like buildings. To respond to some comments above: Google Maps is not entirely computer generated, nor is it true that there is no author. The Geo team at Google employs hundreds of humans (thousands, according to this article) and they jointly are the authors. Of course computers are used; that's true of all modern cartography and has considerably enhanced its accuracy. The argument over whether it is a primary or secondary source just shows how useless that distinction is. The argument that we can't use it because we know of errors would also eliminate most newspapers, most books, and most academic journals. A few things that can be done with a map such as measuring the road distance between two points are probably on the wrong side of the OR boundary, but coarse information like "Brussels is 300km northeast of Paris" is fine. Maps are not really different from books; one is allowed to read them and report what they say. And always remember that there are plenty of independent maps where challenged data can be checked. Zerotalk 01:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable—Zero0000 sums up the situation very intelligently. Jayron32 also sums up the situation quite well. Maps can be read and the information on them digested and put into prose just as our editors would read journal articles, books and news reports to digest and output prose in our articles. An advantage of Google Maps over paper maps is that the scale is variable, and when writing the route description for a highway, a good editor can link to the driving directions on Google (thus giving the starting and ending points for a line on the map they've followed, akin to giving the page range in a book) and have both the overview and some fine details to buttress the detail from a fixed-scale paper map. The satellite view is also appropriate for general landscape details. Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable to confirm up-to-date routing and landmark information that would otherwise take years for a paper map to properly convey. Preferable to have a government-produced map paired with Google Maps to confirm accuracy, but generally Google is accurate enough for its use in U.S. road articles. SounderBruce 07:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per concerns raised by numerous editors above and per own observations. Note that until 2015, anyone could edit roads and junctions on Google Maps, there was no proper editorial oversight – edits carried out by an established Google account were usually approved (it's still the case re. editing certain features Google Maps!). — kashmīrī TALK 08:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Occasionally reliable, but does not show notability. I suppose it could be used absent anything else if the content is important, but it is not at all a great source. Useful perhaps to buttress other sources with something quite accessible to the reader, but otherwise quite a poor source choice. Appearing on google maps does not add credence towards either WP:Notability (for articles) or WP:DUE weight (for content), and that's before the questions of user-generated content arise. CMD (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. I've noticed various issues that are off within my neighborhood and apart from coordinates, I would not say Google Maps is a reliable source. Apart from my terrible experience with GMaps in Arizona before, Google Maps' verification process is slow at best, and unreliable at worst. A lot of erroneous "edits" to Google Maps end up making it past the radar because someone was lazy and didn't verify the edit. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • unreliable/primary source GMaps is useful in streetview/aerial mode in verifying articles, but that requires interpretation and thus cannot be used to source articles. The labels are a mixture of mechanical copying and crowdsourcing and aren't reliable. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
A quibble - Being a primary source does not make it unreliable… it just limits HOW we use it.
The errors and crowdsourcing are a different matter, and might make it unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
My opinions are split over different aspects of it. The aerial views and Streetview are primary sources; the labels are not, but they are unreliable. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Blueboar. All sources are primary for something, and so being primary does not inherently mean unreliable. As @Mangoe has pointed out, all secondary sources have primary aspects, and reliability is a separate issue. Huggums537 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I personally think it depends on where you are going to use it. As for what editors have said in their previous comments, I get the feeling that Google Maps is not reliable in the United States, however when looking at Google Maps on satellite view in the United Kingdom, it is relatively reliable. Roads4117 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable as any other map, and notability is not only irrelevant to discussions on this page, but also mostly irrelevant to discussions about sources themselves. We should limit discussion about notability to actual topics, not any individual sources. The question about notability is: Do we have a notable topic worthy of an article? The question here is: Do we have a reliable source worthy to verify factual statements? Very different subjects. When we start asking weird ass questions like: Could a source like this ever possibly contribute to the notability of an article? Then we've really gone off the rails and lost sight of what our objectives are because this amounts to the same thing as asking esoteric questions like; "Do all sources contribute to notability?" or any other number of philosophic ideas and questions that really do nothing but confuse things. Huggums537 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thats not an esoteric question, its a very basic one and the answer (as every single wikipedian should know) is no. See WP:NOTABILITY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It isn't a real question, but a rhetorical statement just like the question about whether a source contributes to notability should not be a real question if what we are trying to determine is the reliability of a source. Asking the question about if a source can support a whole article has no bearing on if that source can support stated facts within an article. See WP:NNC Huggums537 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone asked that question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The question of notability has been wrongly asked several times in this venue since what we want to know for the purpose of this discussion is if the source is reliable or not. If we are bogging the discussion down with worries about whether primary sources can support the notability of articles when everybody already knows the answer anyway, then we are just wasting time, energy, and most importantly, my patience... Huggums537 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Not the question of notability... The question of if a source can support a whole article. I don't see a single person asking that question but you clearly said they did, were you speaking in the hypothetical about something that had not actually occurred? Also note that based on this discussion there does not appear to be agreement on whether google earth is a primary or secondary source, most of the roads editors appear to be arguing that its secondary and they're the ones using it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me if we phrase it as I did earlier in my comments as "contributes to notability", or as I did later as "supports a whole article", or as Floydian stated it below as "indicating notability of a subject". It all means essentially the same thing, and saying nobody asked it in a certain specific way is just being a nit picker, and splitting hairs so please just get all the way off my back and leave my hairs alone. Also, It doesn't really matter to me which side of the fence anyone falls on about the source being primary or secondary either because that also has nothing to do with the source being reliable or not, but I choose to refer to it as primary in the discussion just for the sake of easement because it is an inescapable fact that all sources are primary for something so the source will for sure be primary no matter if it can also be used as secondary or not.
There's like 4 separate discussions occurring here, and I pity the closing admin that has to determine which one.
  1. The reliability of Gmaps for discussing the route of a road, including the places and intersections and terms like "numerous"
  2. The ability of Gmaps to indicate the notability of the subject
  3. The use of Gmaps as the sole source for an article (or Route description)
  4. The use of Gmaps solely within the context of U.S. Route 19 in West Virginia
Floydian τ ¢ 14:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
You've been making an assertion that no one has had the good sense until now to challenge, Horse Eye's Back. At the time you started this whole discussion, the three paragraphs of the Route description section were not cited to anything. Ergo, it's not correct for you to have claimed that the entire article was cited to GMaps. That has since changed with a little work to cite the paragraph to Rand McNally, another paragraph on Corridor L to a source on the Appalachian Development Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I assume they haven't been challenged because everyone here except you knows what putatively means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I know what "putatively" means, and yet it didn't apply because you can't claim that uncited information is "generally considered or reputed to be" cited to something else. You just can't make that assumption without reading the mind of the editor who added the content without adding a citation to know where he or she actually got the information cited. Maybe it was GMaps used, and maybe it wasn't.
It only took a few minutes of work to pull out a paper atlas, confirm information and craft a citation plus a few more minutes to find an online source for the ADHS Corridor L information and craft that citation, thus providing actual citation for previously uncited content. Imzadi 1979 → 21:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I still don't think you understand reliability, that "online source" is a fansite[10]. Thats a hard no, you can't do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
And I would like to point out at this time that I mentioned "corridor L" on September 30 (ish). Your challenge was refuted with a simple Google search, defeating the intended purpose of WP:CITE to make an attempt before bitching. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable for general information but does not show notability. I agree with Jayron32's sentiment thatDescribing routes and calculating distances and the like are basic map reading skills, no different from paper atlases etc. It does not require extraordinary knowledge nor complex interpretation, it's just reading a map.
    I say that Google Maps is reliable for general information because it collects data from a variety of sources such as United States Census Bureau's TIGER datasets, so it's fine for describing the general routing of features such as highways. However, more granular details may not be as accurate, and it sometimes contains outdated info for more rural locales, sometimes with unfortunate results. In addition, due to restrictions on geographic data in China, Google Maps is not reliable in that country at all. For that reason, I also agree with Imzadi1979 that, in many cases, Google Maps reference should be supplemented by a route log or by a government map.
    There is no policy that prohibits primary sources in articles. If you can analyze a map, you can use it to verify information in the article - for example, there is no original research involved in verifying that a certain highway runs through two specific locales, because the highway's existence is a simple fact. However, Google Maps is a primary source, as with other maps, and it merely depicts landscape and engineering features that already exist. It cannot be used as a source for more specific details, such as which species of grass grows next to a certain road. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. What shall we do? Bring all the primary sources here, and claim they are not reliable because they are unable to support the notability of an article? It's a totally absurd notion that the Wikipedified notability fanatics have pushed, and we need to start pushing back. Huggums537 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I am not arguing that it's a primary source and therefore cannot be used at all; I'm saying as a primary source it cannot be the basis of an article. We should not have articles that are only sourceable to GMaps, and we should not be using it for anything beyond the most basic details. It certainly should not be used to claim something is DUE. I think those are what the major issues are with the page in question. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    I actually agree that a primary source does not contribute to notability, which is why I commented as much. It's similar to how one would not use WP:FILMPLOT to create an article about a film that consists solely of synopses. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    I would be surprised to find articles only sourced to GMaps. They should be referencing a variety of source from various publishers, and in the article that kicked off this discussion, it was easy to add a few sources to what was really uncited content. Imzadi 1979 → 05:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Unreliable A key thing to keep in mind is that Google Maps use a lot of data automation to create their maps. While some of this is coming from human-oversighted sources, it makes far better sense to use those directly rather than assume Google's automatic hasn't made errors. --Masem (t) 01:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    Since when is "never makes errors" a requirement for reliability? Huggums537 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Per Masem, and let me add from personal experience that Google allows and encourages the putative owners of physical locations to "take control" of those locations and make edits. I can also state, from the same experience, that the Google-generated data for those locations is often wildly, hilariously wrong. I think Google Maps is a tremendously useful resource, but I don't think it should be cited in actual articles. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    The text in a decent highway article wouldn't be mentioning specific businesses because we're not a travel guide, and because we wouldn't want to seem unduly promotional or commercial. That said, there'd be exceptions like mentioning South of the Border in the articles on I-95 where there would be newspapers/books/etc. to cite and include the context of the inclusion instead of relying on a map for its mere existence. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Google is generally pretty good. Like any map, it will have some minor errors in it on occasion. Ideally it should be paired with a more official source like government GIS data or a DOT route log for verification, but I see no reason to wholesale ban its use. Also, the discussion about notability above is nonsense and way off-topic - I don't think anybody is trying to use Google to establish any kind of notability for articles like this.Highway 89 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Google Maps are reliable for general use especially at a macro level. Sure, there are importing errors here and there (things here in Iowa are mislabeled Lowa occasionally), but those types of errors tend to be at a micro level. It's not enough of a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Also, as other editors have mentioned, Huggums537 especially, all of the primary/secondary sourcing talk is irrelevant to this discussion. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Alzheimer's News Today

  1. Source - Alzheimer’s News Today is a digital platform intended to provide the Alzheimer’s disease community with the most recent news and information on the disease, as well as first-hand community perspectives from our patient and caregiver columnists. All articles on Alzheimer’s News Today are original content produced by in-house writers and editors https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/
  2. Cassava Sciences and Simufilam - Biotechnology company and their primary drug for the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease
  3. This is a project wide request from others to verify the website is okay to use as a secondary source on Simufilam related content. Simufilam content is also covered on the Cassava Sciences wiki page. Alzeimers News today has written many articles written about the various stages Simufilam has gone through from pre-clinical to phase 3 trials. The articles are well researched. They do not simply regurgitate press releases. They are fact checked by the editors of the site. The editors and authors are PHDs in the with relative experience in Alzheimer's disease and caretakers. It is a great independent source of information about the Simulifam clinical trial process. The following are links to the main simufilam page on Alzheimer's news today:

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/pti-125/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/phase-1-trial-shows-pain-therapeutics-alzheimers-therapy-pti-125-is-safe/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/pti-125-reduces-inflammation-neurodegeneration-in-alzheimers/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/pti-125-fails-lower-csf-protein-levels-alzheimers-patients-phase-2-trial/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/sumifilam-lowers-levels-multiple-biomarkers-of-alzheimers-disease-activity-phase-2b-trial-shows/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/cassava-pivotal-phase-3-trials-simufilam-mild-moderate-alzheimers/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/1st-simufilam-trial-alzheimers-enrolling-patients-2nd-by-years-end/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/simufilam-improves-cognition-behavior-alzheimers-disease-after-6-months-use-early-clinical-trial-analysis/

https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/news/top-10-alzheimers-disease-stories-of-2021/

Thank you,

Matt

Mnachtrab (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Given more recent news (from July 2022) about alleged research fraud by Cassava Sciences related to Simufilam, I wouldn't accord any weight to older articles on the drug published by a for-profit trade-press site such as alzheimersnewstoday.com. Further, afaict, that site has not written anything about this latest development while covering the previous "research" extensively, which would make me further question its independence and reliability. PS: Mnachtrab, you really should have been upfront in declaring your financial COI with respect to the company and the drug when posing this question at the RSN board. Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Mnachtrab You say the authors are PhD's, you don't regurgitate press releases, and you have editors fact-checking. However, I see a couple PhD writers, but I also see freelance journalists who are not PhDs. Every article I read was a rewritten press release with a link to the press release. Your staff page is blank. I see no editors listed among the parent company's staff page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Statista

Is Statista a reliable source? I want to use this source to improve List of best-selling Xbox One video games, the website said Red Dead Redemption 2 has sold more than 5.77 million copies on Xbox One ([11]), but sources information are only viewable for logged in users. I don't want to pay of it, but I can't fing the sales data in anywhere else. I wonder is it a reliable source? BlackShadowG (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This explains it the best. The whole business model of Statista is about aggregating data (sometimes without much context) without enabling you to find the source, because then they have no revenue from the stats they show. In other words, they don't do research, they republish the research and ask for a fee before you can actually see its source.
I won't say unreliable but I will not recommend it for use unless you have access to the source (maybe WP:RX can help?). It is always better to say "Y published research which said" than "X says that Y published research which said..." or "Y published research which, as summarized by X, said" Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I consider it unreliable for the reasons given above, their source of data is not given and they have not shown how they are experts in data aggregation to allow us to leave their choice to omit the source as acceptable. --Masem (t) 12:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Unreliable IMO No indication that they have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. I can't find any mention of a corrections policy on their site. Their statistics don't even have authors. Not aware of any WP:USEBYOTHERS either. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Unreliable. They come up with anything that looks like a number, based on dubious sources they won't tell you unless you pay. I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Unreliable, they're a low grade commercial service which prioritized quantity over quality to an extreme extent. Their core business isn't making private or obscure data available its taking open source data and then repackaging it as a product in much the same way that scraper sited do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Orthodox Wiki

How would you evaluate the reliability of OrthodoxWiki.org?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Orthodox Wiki

  • Option 4, its a fringe wiki and we just can't trust it, thats kind of the end of the story. Like a few of these other ones I'm kind of shocked that we actually have to have this discussion but it is widely used [12] so we must have editors who think it is a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is completely unnecessary: WP:USERGENERATED already excludes such sources, regardless of whether they are 'fabricated' or not. If people are citing it, they need policy explained to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I really wish it was unnecessary... I really wish RSN in its entirety was unnecessary... Part of the problem is that its not always long term editors, for example FVWHAlpha[13]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Andy. There are currently over 1 billion websites out there. We cannot hold RfCs for all of them. TFD (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This isn't just a randomly selected website. It is one that is being highly used on Wikipedia, hence why it was brought here. I think highly used and likely unreliable websites in Wikipedia articles are exactly the sort of thing that's supposed to be brought to RSN. SilverserenC 17:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Currently, you can remove it from an article or challenge its inclusion citing WP:USERGENERATED. Assuming this RfC is successful, you can then remove or challenge it citing this RfC. How does that help anything? TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
And then someone else (likely one of the people who's been adding the source everywhere) will challenge the removal, thus forcing it to be brought here anyways. What's wrong with having a consensus on removal of the source here first beforehand? SilverserenC 17:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
We already have consensus: WP:USERGENERATED. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI if you go around nuking obviously unreliable sources people will still take issue with it... Been there done that... Even been taken to ANI a few times over it (never with the results the filer wanted, but thats a secondary point)... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not immediately clear to editors why Counterpunch is generally unreliable and Jacobin is rs, when they are at first glance similar publications. That's why it's useful to have a central location that tells us the results of previous discussions, so we don't have to repeat them. TFD (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC - this source is prima facie unreliable due to being user generated. Therefore calling editors to debate an RFC is a waste of our valuable time and an insult to our intelligence. I would nonetheless contend that OrthodoxWiki has a reputation for being well-curated and accurately moderated over a long period of time by mainstream Eastern Orthodox authorities, and so any facts drawn from it should be verifiable from other sources. Also it may be possible to extract footnotes or citations from the site and transfer them here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    So you're basically trying to both sides this. Sorry, but it's either unreliable or not. And user generated mean unreliable, so all usage of it should be removed. SilverserenC 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but it's useful for finding those that are. Manannan67 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 User generated content is not reliable or can even be considered factual. All usage of the Orthodox Wiki as a source in our articles should be removed. SilverserenC 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC / Option 3 (Summoned by bot) – As a policy matter, this RFC technically should not be held, because as TFD said, "you cannot hold an RFC" for the billions of WP:USERG websites out there. Even without this RFC, anyone should feel free to remove citations to the website, linking USERG in the edit summary, and that should be the end of it. As a practical matter, even if that is both correct and sufficient per our policies and guidelines, the fact is that if it is being cited anyway in large numbers, having an 'option 3' resolution here, while supererogatory, gives us another nail to apply to the coffin and should forestall any edit warring if the source is removed, especially if removed en masse. So, I can also go along with an 'option 3' consensus, even if it's invalid and shouldn't have to be held in the first place. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I've found a lot of useful information there. But I have also come across some stuff that was either flatly wrong or promoting fringe views as representative of the Orthodox Church. All of which said, it fails the basic criteria in WP:RS. Frankly, I don't really see the need for this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for the obvious reason of being user-generated. While I 100% support editors going there to seek out additional Easter Orthodox sources on a topic, it was never a strictly reliable source. This has been made worse as the OW project seems to have suffered from brain-drain of late, so many articles have lapsed in their reflection of new developments. No citation should ever come directly from OW, though material presented there from reliable sources should be expected to eventually migrate to Wikipedia; it's not so much fringe as niche. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per WP:USERGENERATED. --Aquillion (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per WP:USERGENERATED. Note that I explicitly endorse this RFC as APPROPRIATE. I am horrified to find approximately 1344 search hits[14] for this on Wikipedia. I endorse and thank anyone who wants to clean this up. Given the number of pages involved it is clearly productive and worthwhile for anyone doing cleanup to have an RFC result in hand, to efficiently deal with any opposition. In fact I'd suggest linking the RFC result in the edit summary when removing these refs. It should significantly reduce the number of people who might be inclined to object. Alsee (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2: I was going to !vote Invalid RFC because open wikis are an obvious application of WP:USERGENERATED making and RFC just a generator of a totally unnecessary clutter for RSP. However this wiki 1) is not open access (you have to request an account), 2) appears to have a substantial number of experts running and working on it (e.g. Orthodox Priests, etc) [15] and therefore may be an authoritative source for facts about that religion (from its own perspective). GretLomborg (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Professional =/= subject matter expert. A random priest is no more a subject matter expert on religion than a random baker is on bread or a random barista is on coffee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not a good comparison in the slightest, priests have to go to graduate school in their faith and are expected to be experts in their religion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 02:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Grad school and "experts in their religion" =/= subject matter expert. It has a very specific meaning in the context of wikipedia. Also note that not all priests go to grad school and not all bakers and baristas don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible unreliable sources in Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I recently came across this article while reading about the current war in Ukraine, and, upon stumbling upon that article, i found several strange and sketchy sources, some examples are:
-inf.news
-afr.com
-cornucopia.se
-province.ru
among others.

i would like if someone could pass by the page and check wheter or not the sources on it are reliable, thanks. 2804:14D:4482:46D:8819:76A0:46F9:4751 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

AFR is the Australian Financial Review, a solid RS. Please list the precise claims and cites for them that you consider "sketchy" - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I recently saw a user basically say AFR (well at least I think it was AFR) should not be used because it was a source from "Down Under". Do not agree with them but it easy to see why an IP could fall into thinking that is how WP operates, so I am taking them in good faith. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
oh, sorry, i didnt know, i never read this source so i didnt knew it was reliable, although these other sources, per below, do seem suspicious. 2804:14D:4482:46D:79F4:98A3:8102:99D6 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
As noted, afr.com is clearly fine. Cornucopia.se is a blog (hence not a reliable source), and inf.news appears to be a blog too, or perhaps something even less reliable. Province.ru looks like just another unreliable Russian source. John M Baker (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

there are other sources that i need checked:
-np.pl.ua
-shotam.info
-novynarnia.com
-spokesman-recorder.com
-censor.net
-news.am
-au.topnews.media
-oopstop
-mlyn.by
-navyrecognition.com
-ent.siteintelgroup.com
-sprotyv.info
-goloskarpat.info
-navalnews.com
-iz.com.ua
-5.UA
-milmag.pl

these seem reliable, but im unsure:
-nv.ua
-iranpress.com
-the maritime executive

by the way, these are only from the ukrainian section of the order of battle, in the russian section there are way more, but, for now, we can at least keep the ukrainian section clean, so, could someone please take a look at these sources? 2804:14D:4482:46D:D98B:C189:EAA0:CF81 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

One-by-one, but of course every article source should be assessed on its own merits:
  • np.pl.ua is "Novyny Poltavshchyny", a regional news outlet which is administered by the Poltava Oblast regional council. Seems OK for govt info.
  • shotam.info is unclear for me, and I'd avoid it because basically I can't say anything about its quality.
  • Novynarnia - I've no idea as well. There was a rather positive portrayal in Detector.media, which seems to be doing quite a good job as a watchdog, but little beyond that. No obvious signs that it is not OK, but probably that's just too fresh an entrant.
  • Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder has its own article, it's a local outlet for Minnesota Blacks. I don't see any obvious signs of unreliability, but I need the specific article for evaluation
  • censor.net is a popular Ukrainian news website, seems generally fine to use, although I do remember it as somewhat Western-biased news coverage at least in pre-2014 times.
  • I can't read Armenian.
  • My antivirus blocks topnews.media, and anyway why would you need it anyway?
  • Oopstop is an English-language outlet that seems to be run by the Russians and tows the official govt policy line. I wouldn't use it all.
  • Minskaya Pravda is a Belarusian newspaper owned and run by Minsk Oblast regional council serving said region. Basically, a government-controlled Belarusian outlet.
  • Xrecognition.com (X=army,air,navy) does not seem to be liked by the community, but the discussion was too short. 1 Ask WP:MILHIST if in doubt, but I wouldn't rely on it without consensus.
  • Site intelligence group seems to be quite often used in scholarly research for Islamic terrorism topics: 2 3 4; but otherwise not my domain of expertise. Seems to be OK though.
  • sprotyv.info - no, that one is too edgy to use - for me it about something Ukraine would publish routinely if the media and political environment was the same as in Russia.
  • goloskarpat.info is a regional information outlet for Zakarpattia Oblast, no particular reason to be suspicious of it but please show me the article you ask about
  • navalnews.com - there was a discussion here but IDK what to make of it. Ask WP:MILHIST.
  • 5 Kanal is a Ukrainian TV station, basically acceptable but caution should be made for political subjects related to Petro Poroshenko, at least before December 2021. Now that he sold it, I've no idea how it works now.
  • milmag.pl is a Polish news outlet about the military, I see several citations in Google Scholar to milmag in Polish scholarly articles, so while it seems OK to use, I would like the specific article as well.
  • Novoye Vremya is a generally reliable Ukrainian news outlet.
  • Can't comment on iranpress.com
  • Maritime Executive seems OK, but that's not my domain of expertise, so don't take my word for it.
Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
i found all of those sources at the article mentioned in the title, seems like several ips and newly-registered users added some unreliable sources some time ago to the page, it even has a thing about unreliable sources. also, i think you forgot to check iz.com.ua. 2804:14D:4482:46D:1DE9:ECB6:A224:F506 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Industrialne Zaporizhzhia is just another regional outlet, this time for Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Seems OK for me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Know Your Meme interviews

Hello, I'm aware that Know Your Meme pages are generally unreliable because they are generated by users. However, KYM also has interviews with certain Internet celebrities, which are done by their editorial team and are not edited by users. Are these reliable? For example, I wonder if it is ok to use this interview as a source in a draft I am writing on the subject, Draft:Gregory "Jreg" Guevara. Thanks, Di (they-them) (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

All interviews are reliable as essentially SPS' on the opinion of the interviewee. Always need to be used with proper attribution toward the information being the statement or opinion of the interviewee, but there's basically never reliability issues with interviews unless there's reason to believe the site publishing the interview is editing or lying about what was said by the interviewee. SilverserenC 22:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The thing about interviews is that, unless they're being done in major publications like the New York Times or otherwise have significant additional information about the subject beyond what the interviewee is saying, they don't contribute much to notability. SilverserenC 23:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a caveat to automatic SPS reliability of an interview… we do need to explore the reputation of the outlet conducting the interview. Does it have a reputation for accurately presenting what an interviewee says? Or does it have a reputation for omitting statements, or presenting what was said out of context? Or worse yet, does it have a reputation for outright fabrication? Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org

Discussion (globalsecurity.org)

--Not to be confused with globalresearch.ca, an unrelated site.--

Globalsecurity has been mentioned on this board several times, and is listed as "no consensus" at RSP, but it is currently being removed en masse, along with the "fansites" listed just above at "#Military fansites" (by the same editor), though the site is not part of that list. Looking among the previous discussions regarding this site, it has been noted that it is cited here over 8000 times. Several editors have noted that despite some issues with other subjects, this site should be considered reliable for military-related subjects, as the content is written by subject matter experts and military historians. Several times when this site was brought up here, is was grouped with other sites and the focus ended up on those other sites instead. As noted above, this site has been confused for globalreseaech.ca.

Lastly, I would of course encourage anyone responding here to read those previous discussions for yourself, and also review the site, to help determine if it should be considered reliable. Thanks - wolf 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to comment on this unattributed and apparently original unhinged rant about the United States waging "WWIV" on the world[17]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
LOL. Can it be for real? Reads like Sino-Russian hacktivists at work. But the fact that the lack of attribution is typical of the site says it all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC (globalsecurity.org)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What best describes globalsecurity.org's reliability?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "As has been noted in the previous discussions[20] they also hawk conspiracy theories about 9/11, HARP, and chemtrails." ([21]) - that was globalresearch.ca. - wolf 21:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  • DeprecateBanks Irk (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as the site's material is full of unattributed WP:COPYVIO. Typical scraping operation. - Amigao (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3, by their own admission (my emphasis): "This website is compiled by human beings, mostly by compiling or summarizing what other human beings have written. Therefore, it most likely contains some mistakes and/or potential misinterpretations and should be used primarily as a way to search quickly for basic information and information sources. It should not be viewed as an exhaustive, "last-word" source for critical applications (such as those requiring legally defensible information)."[22]. Note that WP:DEPSOURCES currently only lists 46 sites. I think we'd need to find a better case for adding a relatively narrowly-focused source to the automated deprecation system. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) [Updated 16:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)]
  • Option 3 - No evidence of reliability. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the distant past I have used globalsecurity.org as an External link for articles like 5-ton 6x6 (I got carried away) with pages like M939. I felt that it was accurate and I had plenty of other good sources to compare it to. It has no sources and I wouldn't use it as RS (edit add: I apparently did here, sorry) but in my specific example it isn't false or fabricated. I don't care if it goes myself, just pointing out that at my level it isn't Option 4. Sammy D III (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Baby with the bathwater? Sammy D III (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Leaning Option 3. There aren't any real good reasons to use it. I sometimes resort to using it as a placeholder until I can get to the library and verify with Janes. Schierbecker (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Leaning 3 as well; if you look at the staff page, it's sort of a mixed bag between people who are established experts in their field and those who aren't. If the individual articles told you who wrote them, there'd be a case to put this in option 2, but as far as I've seen, they don't credit authors. And I can't imagine a situation where they would have information on a topic in the area I edit where a better source isn't readily available. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I spot checked a name I knew (Joseph Trevithick) to be more broadly a reliable writer in this space and their linkedin suggests that their listed position is only honorary and was only retained as a form of compensation: "Conducted independent research to update sections of the website and led the internship program as an interviewer and first point of contact. Was furloughed due to a funding crisis between January and May 2010. Left the organization in 2013, again due to funding issues, but retained the unpaid title of Fellow." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Publisher

An annon over at Talk:Atlantis‎ is claiming that [[23]] is not a self-publishing outfit.

What do people know about it.

Ancillary to this is

Is Djonis, Christos. Atlantis: The Find of a Lifetime. Conneaut Lake, PA: Page Publishing, Inc., 2021. ISBN 978-1-66244259-9 an RS for any factual claims? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Page Publishing is a Vanity Press. Wikipedia considers that self-published. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Now the Anon has accepted its vanity press, but still insists the book is an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Atlantis is an utter waste of time, since nobody has given the slightest indication of what the book is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The whole point is that Atlantis is not fictional [[24]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
That isn't a 'point' as far as Wikipedia is concerned until we are given a proper citation, along with proposed new text. Vague claims that some random book proves Atlantis is real don't need to be discussed here. We aren't going to rewrite the entire article on the basis of a single book, even if it is RS (and even if it claims 'Atlantis is real', which from what I can see from online excerpts, it may only be claiming to the extent that it suggests that Plato may have drawn inspiration from real events - which isn't a particularly controversial claim). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
True, but as they were not listening so I wanted to get other opinions and then point to this. And they still refuse to accept it (and indeed they) is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Military-Today.com

How would you evaluate the reliability of Military-Today.com?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree that it is clearly unreliable, and would be in favor of deprecating. But I also understand the perspective that a RFC should be unnecessary. Go ahead and strip out the references in the hundreds of articles which cite it and give the explanation, in detail, that the source has been definitely deemed unreliable at RSN. Yes, somebody may complain at ANI regardless; I've seen many examples of exactly what you apprehend. And some editors will undoubtedly back up the complainers for various specious reasons. Don't worry about it. Banks Irk (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Newadvent.org

How would you evaluate the reliability of Newadvent.org?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Newadvent.org

  • Option 3, once again I'm a little surprised that we have to have this discussion but there are thousands of cites to it... Newadvent.org is a fansite published by Kevin Knight[25], it primarily contains links to catholic sites (links currently on the homepage [26][27][28][29][30][31]), material scraped from other sources and original translations or transliterations of public domain texts. Clear fringe non-expert WP:SPS with almost no uses as a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Framing a journal of a well-respected institute of the University of Notre Dame as being amongFringe catholic sites is frankly nowhere close to reality. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    My apologies, you are correct that they are not all fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Newadvent.org is a primary source repository that is generally reliable for the sources that it lists. As I and others noted in the previous botched RfC that Horse Eye also started, this is a website that peer-reviewed academic review says is reliable for those sources. Are those transcriptions faithful to the original text? Yes;the articles are straightforward, word-for-word transcriptions of the originals, per that review, though there are occasional transcription errors. The primary content on the website is as accurate as the original sources themselves and, much like how we can link to Wikisource, it's perfectly acceptable to link to New Advent in citations as a courtesy link for people who are unable to access the original print source themselves. The statement that New Adventprimarily contains links to fringe catholic sites is plainly false; it's a reputable repository of primary sources that's commented on positively in an academic review for its fidelity to the original source material.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I will also note that the way that the academic source describes the site being built is that there was a large volunteer project to faithfully transcribe the content. Volunteers would perform the transcriptions and then email them to Kevin Knight, who would review the emails and publish the transcriptions. There's evidence of the basic level of editorial controls in the project, which is no surprise given the accuracy of the site's transcriptions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    So the source says that it exists and has user generated content as its most usable feature? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have previously offered to email you the source so that you can review it yourself; your question comes off as confused. The source says that the content on the website is a faithful transcription of several public domain works and states that the source ishighly recommended as a scholarly reference material, which seems like a ringing endorsement of its reliability for the purpose of representing the the text of public domain sources online. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Lots of things are 100% usable as scholarly reference material which are not WP:RS... They're not the same standard. We don't need to use a SPS for public domain content, we can just cite the public domain content (when its WP:DUE that is). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    We could, and we could avoid providing any sort of digital link to the content, but we are more than free to add convenience links to our citations so that people can view the content for themselves. The guideline notes that[w]hen offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary. And, based upon that academic source's review of the website, I'm more than reasonably certain that the convenience copy is faithful to the text of the original copies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    We already established that it wasn't a true copy "there are occasional transcription errors" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    The way that the academic source describes this, verbatim, is thata few minor typographical errors were found in several articles. If you think that the presence of a few minor typos is enough to make links to the website verboten, I think that we're just going to have to agree to disagree. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Either something is a true copy or it isn't, thats a binary... Something can't be "kind of" a true copy it either is or it isn't and if it has even one minor error it isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    That is silly. Considering that the transcribed sources were on paper and pre-electronic, an OCR or hand-transcription of a source is naturally going to contain some slight variance from the original writing, whether in orthography or typesetting or a regional spelling. That is something that is a natural side-effect of recopying, no matter what the method. If I photocopy a document and it has a little bit of gray cast to it, is that an imperfect copy? Did it somehow corrupt the semantic meaning of the text? Does the gray cast or a minor error prevent it from being a "true copy" If it didn't, why protest about it? Elizium23 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thats what "true copy" means, and no a gray cast would not necessarily prevent one text from being a true copy of the other unless if destroyed the legibility in some way. This is why we use experts/mainstream academia not some guys on the internet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    Is your position that a scan of a document, where a single word is illegible, should never be linked to as a convenience link? I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I was not involved in crafting our current standards, those who did clearly do mean "true copy" in that every word can be verified because thats the wider wikipedia standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to fix a generic problem - the use of poor sources in Wikipedia articles on religion - by selecting particular examples. This looks like a poor source to be using, for the examples given, but would deprecating it actually solve the problem? As noted above, people are citing Wiki's (already excluded by policy) and the like. What is needed is a better appreciation of what sources should be used, rather than a list of ones that shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I did/am doing the same with military history/aviation, those two areas seem to have the biggest issue with this problem. I doubt deprecating it would solve the problem, part of why I am not advocating for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of exactly how the source ends up characterised, I remain unconvinced that this type of 'evaluate the general reliability of...' RfC is an effective way to deal with endemic poor sourcing. How exactly are those who have been using such sources supposed to learn about the outcome of this RfC? And more to the point, how are they going to be persuaded to assess sources better for themselves? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are trying to fix a generic problem - the use of this particular RFC question format - by selecting particular examples. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC. This is a dumb question, as New Advent is a library which has transcribed and republished Public Domain sources. We cannot pronounce on its "generally (un)reliability" for any purpose because that depends on the purpose and context. New Advent hosts ECF writings, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and other really solid sources which are reliable for their scholarship on Sacred Scripture, Catholic Tradition, and historical Canon Law. In context, these writings can be quite reliable, but this RFC strips the citations of their contexts and requests that the community pass judgement in the form of a number 1-4. That is a wholly invalid question, and this sort of nonsense should be nipped in the bud, rather than wasting a lot of our time on trivial pursuits. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    So, once again, it is rehosting other sources. Those other sources may be reliable, but there's no reason to use this website that is rehosting them. We should have references aimed at the original sources. SilverserenC 18:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 We shouldn't be using rehosting sites as references in the first place. We should be citing the original material. Just because someone decided to put a bunch of public domain religious content into their website doesn't then make them a source we should be using because of it. SilverserenC 18:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    How do you feel about using the website as a convenience link in citations? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think only an actual official hosting source should be used, such as Newspapers.com or ProQuest for news articles or official journal depositories such as JSTOR. This source is not one of those, as they deal in material that literally anyone could host. So it's basically just a random person's website, which isn't the sort of thing we should be using for convenience links. SilverserenC 18:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC per Elizium23. While I understand Silver seren's concerns about hosting cites, especially ones that do not have the same academic filters as JSTOR etc., NewAdvent contains a mixture of materials that vary from strictly RS to non-RS. Of course, if these non-RS contents were being cited with with great frequency, it would be an issue. But as far as I can tell, NewAdvent is used almost exclusively for RS and appropriate primary-source material. The website provides a service that neither citing WikiSource nor Wikipedia can provide with regards to Catholic Encyclopedia and other critical resources to Christianity-related topics in its sorting, and using it as an alternative to linking WikiSource for certain things is entirely appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC (Summoned by bot) – Per Elizium23. The discussion about rehosting services and whether they should be allowed is a reasonable and worthwhile one, but this is the wrong venue for it. (Sneak preview: it's like Wikisource in that way, which has similar transcription procedures and proofing, and which we don't allow in a citation, but we do allow as a convenience link.) This is about one website. Option 3 as a second choice. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Knight does more than rehost, see the notice "Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight."[32] which appears on many of the pages of historical content. So we aren't talking public domain content in general, we're talking about specific amateur revisions of public domain content published by Kevin Knight on his blog newadvent.org. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Right, which is why this is only a speck in a much larger discussion. This larger question cannot be answered here. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The larger question hasn't been asked in this RfC so the point is moot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC Agree with Elizium23 and Pbritti. "This is a dumb question", also silly. Wikisource CE is largely taken from New Advent. If it's so unreliable, what's it doing in wikisource in the first place? Perhaps OP would care to review all the sources in wikisource. If wikisource is not to be used then a lot of contributors have wasted a lot of time. Manannan67 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
If editors added something to Wikipedia just because it was on wikisource and not because it was WP:DUE then yes they have wasted a lot of time, see Wikipedia:Wikisource#Using Wikisource as reference "Inclusion of text in Wikisource does not automatically justify mentioning of it in Wikipedia, because of potential differences between what Wikisource includes and what Wikipedia includes." None of that makes the RFC invalid BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
You miss the point, which is if it's reliable in the first place, not whether or not it's DUE. Please don't change the subject. UC Santa Barbara hosts NA as part of thier research databases.[33]; One can access NA and cite it through the LOC Researcher and Reference Services Division [34]; Oxford University: "A treasure trove of information on the Roman Catholic tradition. The encyclopaedia and documents sections are especially helpful."[35] to name a few. Manannan67 (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Please assess the source based on wikipedia's standards, see WP:RS and more specifically WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." See WP:UBO. Manannan67 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an WP:SPS, so those rules apply. You also have not presented widespread and consistent use so your evidence is incredibly weak, high-quality reliable sources do not appear to use New Advent (note that none of the cases presented so far are uses, they're reviews or entries in directories). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not my evidence that "is incredibly weak". "High-quality reliable sources" in fact host a link to provide their researchers with access New Advent. "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Knight publishes articles by Kirsch, Maas, Thurston and others. We're not talking "vanity press" here. "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable... While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved....Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:USESPS Manannan67 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hosting a link =/= using in an article or similar. SPS can be reliable, when published by an expert... Which Knight is not, he is a self-professed amateur. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Also if "Knight publishes articles by Kirsch, Maas, Thurston and others." then how is this an invalid RfC? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
How is it self-published, when he's not the author of any of the CE articles or an Ante-Nicean Father? Manannan67 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Every single page says "Copyright © 2021 by Kevin Knight" or a variation thereof. Their "Contact Us" page says "New Advent is maintained by a Catholic layman named Kevin Knight."[36] Not really sure how you can argue its isn't a personal website, blog, or group blog. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
CE is in the public domain. In the US no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. I seriously doubt Knight pretends to a copyright of either CE or Schaff and Wace; and nobody cares about the rest of the site's content. Therefore, it can be selectively used. Manannan67 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
We aren't discussing the reliability of a hundred year old encyclopedia we're discussing the reliability of Kevin Knight's personal website Newadvent.org. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a reason to suspect that Mr. Knight is changing or amending the original documents hosted on his sight? Does he provide his own commentary or analysis? Or does he merely host transcriptions and scans? Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the attribution "Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight."[37] is attached to many of the texts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blueboar: As I noted above, the academic review posted above characterizes the website's transcriptions asstraightforward, word-for-word transcriptions of the originals, with important keywords hyperlinked to other referenced articles within the work. My understanding of the extent of "revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight" is the insertion of hyperlinks within the text. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3/4. I don't understand the people saying this is an invalid RFC - we can, of course, use a non-WP:RS as the link to a host for something that is otherwise reliable, provided they generally respect copyright, but it is necessary to establish that each link is individually reliable and accurate, since a non-RS host provides none. This is basic WP:RS. The site itself is clearly not a reliable source and therefore cannot confer any reliability itself, which is an important thing to establish - republishers and churnalist sites and the like are not and have never been RSes themselves. Furthermore, at a glance there are possible copyright issues, which could put it under WP:ELNEVER (in which case we have no option but to bar citations to it - of course, people can still find something there, and, if they think it is accurate and an RS, cite that document, but they shouldn't link to a potential copyvio as part of that, in the same way that I might look up an academic paper on sci-hub but could never link to it or cite it there.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 per Red-tailed hawk. It seems like it's mainly a large collection of public domain texts, and all the examples I checked appear to be translations by experts (e.g. [38] appears to be Knox Bible, [39] "Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province", [40] by some professor who has other project compiling ancient primary sources [41]). I see no evidence presented that the content is corrupted or distorted. There also doesn't seem to be anything else besides those public domain texts, except a very Web 1.0 homepage with external links. The submitter's !vote dwells quite a bit on those external links, but they seem completely irrelevant to me. Who could ever cite this website for an external link? I'm also open to just closing this RFC with no action or as an Invalid RFC, because it might not make sense to evaluate a compilation like this as a single source. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Reliable as a hosting cite for otherwise reliable material, unreliable for self-written material. --Jayron32 13:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Jayron32 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Invalid RFC as per above and oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I checked some of its articles and couldn't verify this elsewhere. This isn't a reliable source, not if you ask me. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • option 1 as a source repository, option 3 otherwise Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would say that the issue here is likely mal-formed citations. Except for rare occasions, we should not cite Newadvent.org as a source, but rather we should cite the original document … and then link to Newadvent as a courtesy link. This may require amending the citations, but the material will then be properly cited. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment transcription errors do no make the repository unreliable. Transcription typos in the hosted copy do not materially affect the reliability of the underlying source. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
However… if a hosted copy contains transcription errors, then it is not the best copy to link to. We should (if possible) amend the citation so it links to a non-erroneous copy, hosted elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
If errors don't make a transcriber unreliable what does? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant… since what we should be citing is the original document (which does not contain the transcription error). Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily true; the original could easily have typos and equivalent errors that do not meaningfully impact the reliability of the source. Textbooks and technical manuals have errata sections. Newspapers have editorial comments noting corrections. Even online archives for the New York Times has a link in its archives where readers can report transcription errors (do we exclude the NYT online archives due to transcription errors?). –Zfish118⋉talk 20:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Military fansites

I need help mowing the weeds of military fansites, currently identified are:

  • navysite.de [42] with 300+ uses [43]
  • navsource.org [44] with 500+ uses
  • maritimequest.com [45]] with 100+ uses
  • helis.com [46]] with 500+ uses
  • gonavy.jp [47]] with dozens of uses
  • uscarriers.net [48] with dozens of uses
  • Weaponsystems.net [49] with dozens of uses
  • designation-systems.net [50]] with 500+ uses
  • joebaugher.com [51] with 100+ uses
  • f-16.net [52]] with dozens of uses
  • aerialvisuals.ca [53] with 100+ uses

Any help is much obliged, feel free to name more as well. Also wondering whether blacklisting these wouldn't keep the weeds down once mown. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Blacklisting is generally limited to spam, but it would be appropriate to have these sites deprecated, like the many self-published peerage sites. In addition to those you've listed, here are dozens, if not hundreds of other military-related fansites that are used as sources, each with their own focus; ships, aircraft, weapons, this or that war or combatants, medals...etc. It's a nearly inexhaustible list. But,your list is a start I propose that they all be deprecated.Banks Irk (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I think in some cases they are spam as well, people make a fansite and then add it to wikipedia to drive traffic to their site or to steal legitimacy. In any case we need a RFC to deprecate so I will open one below. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
That makes it worse not better... No reliable sources means we don't cover it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
We've already started the RFC so I'm not sure if its kosher to just add more, we can make a second list though. I would add www.hdekker.info which for some bizarre reason was actually added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources as a preferred source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The OP wrote, "feel free to name more as well." I'm not sure it's kosher to open an RFC while that process is still live. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 01:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the cheek but that is actually how it works RFC wise. I apologize for the sloppiness of the whole thing, I was not originally intending to open an RFC but a request was made for deprecation to be on the table and thats not possible without opening one. Do you think it would be helpful to make a dedicated page for cataloguing such fan sites? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
A dedicated list of fan sites? Not in general, there are far too many of them and few have established any notability in themselves. However, as I mention somewhere, the Aviation Wiki project maintains a short list of the most persistently cited offenders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources. Other projects might wish to do the same. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC (Military fansites)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result - Option 3 (Generally unreliable), but with subject-matter exemptions applying as always.

This was a tough one, but one I think we genuinely do need consensus on, for the future of the project. I'll be summarizing this discussion in three ways, as always: 1) By the numbers, though this is !NOTAVOTE, 2) by the arguments, which and in what ways were these persuasive to discussion participants, and 3) by the policies, as any good Wikipedian should.

By the numbers:
Option — !Votes

Opt 1 — 00
Opt 2 — 08
Opt 3 — 11
Opt 4 — 04
Badrfc – 02

Option 3 holds a plurality, with option 2 close behind. But of course, RFCs and consensus on Wikipedia are not a popularity contest.

By the arguments: Several option 2 participants cite WP:SPS as in support of option 2. SPS details quite plainly that such self-published sites are generally not reliable for use on wikipedia, except where published by subject-matter experts. Some discussion participants who may have initially favored option 2 were swayed to support option 3 by this argument. Those in favor of option 2 also cited that such sites are used widely in the project, and often cite their own sources. It is worth noting that multiple option 2 participants intended for their option 2 to read as "generally unreliable" except where A) used as an external link or B) written by an authentic expert. This weighs in favor of option 3 overall, with the always present caveat that subject-matter expertise is still a clue-in for reliability.

By the policies: This is an easier call, as WP:SPS weighs in favor of "generally unreliable". These sites are also largely tertiary sources citing multiple secondary sources. WP:RS details quite plainly that secondary sources are the gold standard, with tertiary sources less preferred.

In conclusion:

Option 3 is what consensus by compromise has shown is the preferred label for these sites, with the caveat that WP:SPS applies and thus subject-matter experts on such sites can still be considered reliable.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)



What best describes the 11 listed military fansite's reliability?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 These are typically self published or user generated sources and are typically considered not reliable. However, a SPS exception could be made for acknowledged experts on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 [changed]. All are self-published and are not peer reviewed. Therefore, by default they fail the policy on WP:Reliable sources. But WP:DEPRECATE lists only 46 sites, so these are clearly not on that scale of problem. The Aviation wiki project maintains a shortlist of the worst offenders it comes across at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources, but frankly there are so many such sites everywhere that military fandom is nothing unusual and, for most of them, simple recognition of WP:RS should be enough to police the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [Vote changed 16:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)]
  • Option 3 for the main body of an article but exceptions might be made for the external links section per WP:ELMAYBE. Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - I've only encountered the naval-themed sites, and I wouldn't ever use them as references. But maritimequest and navsource are generally good repositories of images, so those at least are fine for external link sections (which is where I generally see them used in any event). Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    FYI the editor that opened this RfC has already removed links to the listed sites, including navsource, from the external links sections of hundreds of articles so that's exactly what we're talking about here. Raitchison (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    FYI I've also left it in the external links where it appears helpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    Using one specific example, the one that made me aware of this discussion/issue you edited the article for USS Paul F. Foster to remove 3 of the 4 entries under external links. Just by removing the links to navsource and navysite you removed access for interested Wikipedia users to hundreds of images as well as other documents relevant for that particular ship. I am having a hard time understanding how those links were not helpful. Raitchison (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    None of those images are unique, a google image search for "USS Paul F. Foster" returns all that and more so its not really helpful in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously self-published and/or user-generated sources should not be used. Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
  • Option 2 - I can't comment on this particular site list as I am not familiar with all the sites in question. However, my understanding has been that there is a long-established consensus that sites of this type are acceptable as sources so long as they themselves include a list of reliable sources from which their information was derived. Perhaps the foremost example would be uboat.net, which is used on literally hundreds of U-boat articles on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of others. I might add that generally speaking, I have found such "fansites" to be considerably better than many supposedly reliable sources, which are in fact often riddled with errors in my experience. Well maintained fansites which list their sources are not only typically highly accurate, but also usually reflect the most up-to-date scholarship, which reliable sources frequently do not. In short, I think it would be a mistake to reflexively purge such sources if that's what is being proposed; rather they should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Gatoclass (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: a review of this noticeboard's history suggests that either we have no consensus on uboat.net or we have a consensus that it is unreliable, there is not way to interpret those prior discussions as resulting in a consensus that uboat.net is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but then there is no clear consensus that they are unreliable either. In practice, however, they clearly have been widely accepted as reliable - there are 23 uboat GAs, for example, that appear to rely on uboat.net as their primary source, and there are probably also numerous GAs for merchant ships and other surface vessels that reference the site. But I think the bottom line here is that the website clearly is a highly reliable resource for information about uboats and the vessels they interacted with. If the information on a website is demonstrably reliable, what purpose is served by excluding it? If better sources can be found, by all means substitute them, but failing that, there seems no compelling reason to me to remove such references and the information derived from them. Gatoclass (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
That would be an issue with the competence of those GA evaluators. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It is still a factor to be considered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC Sources should be evaluated individually, without prejudicial framing. And if they truly are "fansites," RSP doesn't need to be populated with them unless they've been especially problematic. GretLomborg (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - My opinions largely mirror those of Gatoclass. Absent examples of these 'fansites' providing inaccurate, unreliable or otherwise problematic information they should not be assumed to be unreliable. The sites listed that I am familiar with are certainly well maintained with editorial control by the operators. I can't tell you how many times a listed reliable source has made an error that one of these sites would never have made. Moreover a wholesale purge of references to these sites (that has already been undertaken) will unquestionably result in the removal of a massive amount of both useful and overwhelmingly factual information being removed from these articles. Raitchison (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Raitchison: so you are explicitly arguing that we should disregard WP:SPS? They are still SPS absent any of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: SPS isn't completely blacklisted (except in the case of WP:BLP which doesn't apply here) we're supposed to 'exercise caution'. I did not suggest that these sites should always be considered reliable either. Raitchison (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody has proposed adding these sources to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Are you of the understanding that "largely not acceptable as sources" falls under option 2 not 3? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm under the understanding that 'additional considerations apply' under Option 2 clearly applies in this situation. Also I don't see the point of not calling them blacklisted sources when you've already purged links to these sites from hundreds of articles and have asked for assistance in finishing the job. In any case I certainly don't agree with option 2 because it's absurd to suggest that the information on these sites is not overwhelmingly reliable or factual. I'd certainly trust information on these sites more than information from a non-military focused generally reliable source (example of Newsweek or the New York Times). Raitchison (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
you don't see the point of not calling things that haven't been added to our wp:blacklist blacklisted? Removing poor quality sources (which includes all amateur SPS) in contexts that require reliable sources is all of our responsibility, that will be the same if the result is additional considerations apply or deprecate+blacklist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if a site hasn't been added to WP:BLACKLIST if it's lack of inclusion/approval on WP:RSP and the mere fact that the sites are SPS will be used to justify a wholesale purge of useful and overwhelmingly factual information from the site. Moreover I flatly reject the notion that these sites are automatically 'poor quality' just because they are SPS. In the case of at least the first two listed sites this is clearly not the case. Raitchison (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait, the first one? What about navysite.de isn't poor quality? Its a single person (Thoralf Doehring) amateur blog which is scraped from half of the internet and hosted on an ad-heavy yet childishly constructed site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Debatable whether that site could be considered ad heavy considering it has a small fraction of the ads that most commercial RSP sites do. In any case that site is overwhelmingly encyclopedic in nature as is navsource. Raitchison (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"encyclopedic in nature" is not part of our reliability standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Which again brings us back to 'additional considerations apply'. I don't disagree that SPS sites should be used with caution per WP:SPS but I do not agree that SPS automatically equates to 'poor quality' and used to justify a wholesale purge of useful and factual information. Also I don't even know what would make a site 'childishly constructed'. Raitchison (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Amateur SPS are automatically poor quality sources, expert SPS are a completely different kettle of fish but none of the sources under consideration here qualify. Also just FYI unless there are BLP or copyright concerns "useful and factual information" generally won't be removed, just the source. That "wholesale purge" only exists in your imagination. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest that your edit history for this month effectively illustrates the 'wholesale purge' I am referring to. In any case I am confident that I have adequately explained my position and reasoning for the benefit of other editors as well as the closing administrator so I bid you good day. Raitchison (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, look at my edit history... I'm not removing "useful and factual information." You don't get to make a personal attack and walk away, you have to provide diffs at the bare minimum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - falls under SPS and only if there is some way to verify that the person who wrote it is who they say they are (eg a verified twitter account of an expert saying I wrote this on this site). Generally option 3/4 though, but for the rare instance in which an acknowledged subject matter expert says publicly that such and such account on such and such forum is theirs, the usable for attributed views of experts. nableezy - 17:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy: note that to the best of my knowledge none of these sites contain an "instance in which an acknowledged subject matter expert says publicly that such and such account on such and such forum is theirs" rare or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, doesnt change my answer as such a rare possibility remains possible. nableezy - 17:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Now worries, I was just a little confused because people normally use "generally unreliable" when only a rare possibility remains possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I mean I did say generally 3/4, but Ive long been on record that SMEs are citeable if they write their thoughts in yellow in the snow. So that view remains in place for this. nableezy - 17:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 4 this is a topic covered by academics extensively in a vast variety of publications including online. Should be no reason to use fansites at all.....this is not pop culture but an academic topic.Moxy-18:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
FYI we're not talking about OPED type articles here, many of the pages linked are simply lists of facts about what the article along with images and other documents. Here are a couple examples of what we are talking about: [54]http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/964.htm [55]https://www.navysite.de/bb/bb61.htm. Most of the time these sources are linked it is in the External Links section of the article.
There is no indication that the sites are posting false or fabricated information as Option 4 would suggest. Raitchison (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct, we are talking about sources which are literally less reliable than many op-eds. Op-eds are often published by subject matter experts, none of these here are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you want us to have an RfC for uboat.net? You keep bringing it up a lot for a source that isn't under consideration here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Well according to your criteria, it wouldn't be any more eligible than any of the other sites listed, would it? But you haven't responded to the question I tacitly put, which is, if a website is considered reliable enough to cite by literally hundreds of scholarly works, why should it be considered unreliable here? Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This Wikipedia is cited by hundreds of scholarly works, but we do not regard ourselves as a reliable source. Some purportedly scholarly journals have been outright blacklisted as quackery. So it is more correct to challenge any supposedly scholarly claim, that is supported by reference to Wikipedia or dubious fansites such as the ones under discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that a source can be used by others and not WP:RS. It should be considered unreliable because it is a non-expert SPS and nothing you have said has countered that core point. Steelpillow has a good point that you appear to be working backwards, you're starting from the position that these fansites are reliable and then arguing from there which is how you end up with deadend arguments like GA and used by others. You need to put aside your COI and objectively evaluate the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
What, all 1000 sources citing these websites on Scholar are unreliable? Does that sound likely to you?
Other than that, something that bothers me about this discussion is that there is no clear definition in the guideline of what constitutes a WP:SPS, but it appears to be concerned mainly with books or websites published by a particular individual and that include original research. But websites like navsource and uboat.net fit neither description. Both are the result of collaboration by multiple individuals. And neither publish any original research, rather they just make available and readily accessible the latest research from reliable sources. And judging by the number of Scholar cites, they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is surely the most important criterion. Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Common sense says that uboats.com is unreliable, you're being unreasonable. What you're describing is a group blog which is very common and also explicitly included under our definition of SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Do I have your permission to make this section an actual discussion for uboats.com given thats what you want to talk about and it isn't included in the RfC here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what it is you are proposing. However, after my previous post, I took a quick look through some of the citations in Google Scholar for uboat.net, and on the first two pages alone, found cites in works by Naval Institute Press, the U.S. Navy's official publishing arm, and in Conway Maritime Press, arguably the world's most prestigious publisher of maritime books. I also found the following quote from the reputable maritime magazine Northern Mariner: "Clay Blair (Hitler’s U-Boat War) and Guðmundur Helgason (Uboat.net) bring the highest standards of data dissemination to the field."[56] Helgason is the owner of uboat.net. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm proposing that you either stay on topic (uboats.net is not under consideration at all) or we open an RfC on this topic. If their field is internet fansites thats true, but the highest standards for internet fansites are still below what we can use here on wikipedia. Note that we can't use raw data no matter how well disseminated because original analysis is forbidden to us. WP:USEBYOTHERS can not establish reliability on its own, you know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. The point I have been trying to make here is that sites of this type fall into a kind of grey area with regard to policy. They do not appear to be self-published in the sense implied by policy, they do not include original research but only republish content found in reliable sources, and they often have editorial oversight, but do not necessarily include input from an "expert in the field" (though that is another term not clearly defined in policy). However, some clearly meet WP:UBO and that is the most important criterion in my view. I would add that in the last discussion on uboat.net, most participants appear to agree that it is acceptable as a source, though perhaps not ideal, a position which concurs with my own.
Having said that, as I said at the outset I am not familiar with all the sites listed above and therefore cannot vouch for all of them, but I do believe that navsource for one is a highly reliable website, on a par with uboat.net, in which case I should probably change my !vote from Option 2 to Bad RFC as I think these sites need to be assessed on an individual basis - but perhaps it's a little late to do that now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI the Naval Institute Press is not the U.S. Navy's official publishing arm, you could call it the U.S. Navy's unofficial publishing arm and be at least a quarter right but the US Naval Institute is a private organization, I know because I am a member. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 We should use such sites with caution there is probably always better sources --Shrike (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 2/3 Not sure whether this falls under option 2 or option 3, but I'd like to see these treated as WP:SPS, with onus on those referencing the fansites to demonstrate why that specific subpage/snippet is reliable. For fulfilling said onus, I'd accept "this specific page/paragraph was written by this specific established SME" (with the citation including the author's name, and not just a generic "fansite.com" attribution), but not "others have cited other information from this website" or "I haven't seen anything wrong with it so far". -Ljleppan (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 to 4 Fansites are no more reliable than various sites with user generated content. There touch is usuallu quite afar from scientific research which is the only way to learn about things. So, I am for exclusion as a rule. There maybe some exceptions, should be discussed seperately.Cinadon36 13:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as per above. We cannot apply a blanket ruling to them all, but this is not the worst RfC in the fact that it is an issue that needed to be addressed. Also I oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 to 4: self-published, user-generated sources with no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Hobbyist sources do not belong in the topics well studied by historians. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Mostly Option 3 - These websites have lots of cool info, but there's usually no way to determine their reliability. I cannot just create a blog and declare it reliable unless proven otherwise. Military history is intensively studied and better sources almost always exist. The only caveat consideration is if there is a contribution by an established expert. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

cseligman.com

This (wikidata) seems like a personal website of some astronomy scholar, and it is quite widely used. But what makes it reliable? Wepage artist. one Courtney Seligman, describes herself as "Professor of Astronomy", but which university is/was she associated with? In fact, her about page at https://cseligman.com/about.htm states "Once I discovered how much I preferred teaching to research I abandoned my doctoral research, so although it might be appropriate to call me "Professor Seligman", "Doctor Seligman" is incorrect". So... we are using an old-style homepage/website maintained by scholar who is not really doing research and never got a doctorate? I think we have a problem here, Houston. PS. Example of material from her site: [57]. It looks to me like old style course notes for her students that she kindly shared online, very poorly referenced if at all. And I recall few years ago we decided that such stuff is not reliable. Google Scholar suggests she has a few academic articles published, but with little impact. We could discuss whether her website falls under WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Thoughts? In general, per SELFPUB "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" we should be trying to replace any citations to her website to something more reliable, I'd think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, Courtney Seligman is, to all appearances, male. The name Courtney is unisex; like Stacy or Tracy, it has trended female in recent decades, it is borne by people of both genders. The website itself seems to be mostly used as a convenient compendium of otherwise public-domain sources for astronomy, as here. It is not original research, and Seligman's work doesn't appear to be being used as a source for Seligman's work, but merely as a convenience link for information otherwise available also at disparate other sites; he cites his sources as well. As a source of fairly well-established, otherwise published elsewhere information, which cites its own sources, I am not particularly bothered by its use. --Jayron32 12:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Someone's personal organization of catalog sources does not seem like a reliable source to me: we should be using those catalog sources directly, for statements of fact (size of objects, dates of discovery, etc.). I admit I'm somewhat biased by the ~1990s layout of the website. Given the single-page layout, uninformative changelog, and lack of specificity in citations (e.g. "Physical Information" sections have a lot of text and numbers, but don't say where those came from), I definitely don't think this is what we should be citing for e.g. NED-available numbers. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It does appear that Courtney E. Seligman has contributed to some published research papers, particularly with regards to the peculiar star 112 Herculis. I'd say as a source he's as reliable as James B. Kaler, who also maintains an independent astronomy web site (STARS). Most of CE Seligmnan's comments on NGC objects come from other, reliable sources that would otherwise be more difficult to access. Some of those sources also use a notation that takes some effort to convert into English, which makes CE Seligman's site a convenience for article editors. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Is nobody else here concerned that the major source of references to his name in Google, is Wikipedia articles? This is a guy who describes himself as an "emeritus professor" but still lists his college summer school program in his resume. We disallowed the website of one of the most famous authorities on quackery, Stephen Barrett, as a SPS, despite him having collaborators and subsequently handing over control to a nonprofit. That site is referenced by governments as a source of information on fake medical claims. This? It's one guy's website with inflated and unsubstantiated claims of expertise. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikileaks

If we applied the standart used for wikileaks then not a single source would be reliable, so why it is really deemed "unreliable"?

Edit: I don't really care anymore, even if the editors admit that wikileaks is 100% reliable they would still claim it as a primary source and using them is banned here in favour of uncritically using secondary sources, I studied the list further and it's allways completely arbitrary reasoning and seems just a cover for political bias to me. This side could adopt an unbiased standart of scientific journalism were articles refrenced have to refrence primary sources for every claim but that's a pipedream seeing the state of the side. Timmtell (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you back up the assertion in your first sentence with evidence? Or is this just a rant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikileaks never published anything false but it is still deemed unriable for "some editors believing that the documets fail the veriability" or "concerns that documents were tempered" which is completely arbitrary and nonsensical reasoning. Timmtell (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? If not, I suggest you do. And then provide evidence that Wikileaks has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you show me one examble of Wikileaks publishing false documents? I doubt you can considering not even the institutions those were leaked from contest their authenticity. Timmtell (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
That's not the point. When Wikileaks released an important document that was judged to be authentic, the mainstream media reported on it. Those mainstream media reports are reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition, and of course can be used as references. Wikipedia editors do not make their own independent judgment about the validity of whistle-blowers' revelations, but rather must rely on the judgment of reliable sources, such as the mainstream media. NightHeron (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There was a well-attended RfC regarding Wikileaks last year. Please take a look at it and if you believe the circumstances have changed you can initiate a new RfC. Alaexis¿question? 10:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Archontology.org

archontology.org: 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

We have several hundred links to this website, but a cursory glance doesn't indicate that it qualifies as a RS. It claims to have an editorial board but there's no indication of qualifications, affiliations or expertise, and Google is unhelpful in finding any. Some of those cited (e.g. Dr. Gillian MacIntosh) are subject matter experts, but it's unclear what their contribution is or how it's reviewed, I saw no detailed attribution on a dozen or more pages reviewed. There are lists of sources but they are disjoined from the content, so it's hard to know if it's good scholarship or not. Most of it looks superficially plausible, but I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it briefly about a year ago here. As the editors listed on their about page do not appear to be relevant experts (Schaffer was a mathematician; I can't find out anything about who Oleg Schulze or Alexander Kunde might be), and I can't find any evidence that the site has a reputation for accuracy or the backing of any organisation with such a reputation, I can't see that it should be considered reliable. Some of the individuals credited as contributors might count as subject matter experts, but as no articles I have checked appear to credit their contributors it is unclear what any individual might actually have worked on, so I don't see how we can rely on that as a source of reliability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the sources used, I would not want to base a wikipedia off of them either. The fact that e.g. they cite the Everyman Library's 1953 translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in their articles on Anglo-Saxon kings gives me pause – I would expect an expert to cite a more scholarly edition! Similarly, the only source cited on Elizabeth I (surely one of the most written about monarchs in English history!) is the Handbook of British Chronology. Even if the site were reliable, there's just not much there on some of the most discussed monarchs in the history of the world. Possibly for more obscure figures it's a useful pointer to sources, but that's about all I would use it for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

greydynamics.com/

Looking for feedback on whether this site should be considered reliable. Thanks - wolf 04:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable for what? I would stay away from this site generally as it doesn't actually explain what they and how they do it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
It was just added to a page on my watchlist. I've never heard of this site, and in general do not recall a "private intelligence" firm ever being used as a source, hence the reason I posted here seeking addtional opinions. Thanks - wolf 19:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the part where you post a link or a diff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The link is in the heading. What else do you need? - wolf 01:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
In what article is the source being used? What's the context? Reliability can depend on the claim that's being made. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 03:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It was added here. - wolf 13:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I guess the link wasn't in the heading after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Erm, what do you see in the heading, other than the link? - wolf 16:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

taketonews.com: Machine generated translations as standalone WP:RS ?

The website taketonews.com appears in a substantial number of source citations, e.g. here [58]. Upon inspection this web-site appears to provide machine translated content based on non-English sources, the example source [59] is quite obviously a translation of this source [60]. It appears in fact to be a Google translation of the original article. This practice has at least a few issues: 1) The accuracy of the translation, 2) No credit to the original source (not website nor author), 3) No clear indication how or by whom the content is actually created, with the website's own 'about' page [61] not being helpful. Java-script imported from [wp.com] could be an indication that this site has been created to simply generate traffic to its domain, for financial gain with no editorial effort being spent.

While a non-English source in itself is problematic, I have to ask: Is this an acceptable approach to dealing with non-English source citations?

I would argue no: If a machine generated translation would indeed be acceptable, then we could just as well present the machine generated translation along with the original, non-English one, to at least keep a link between the two. Lklundin (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hell no. Translation algorithms aren't remotely reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
If this site does not have permission from the sources of the texts it's publishing, or even properly credit them, it fails Wikipedia policites on several levels, like basic verifiability and WP:COPYLINK. The machine translation part is almost a sidenote as the site does not appear to be usable at all. (Looking up WP:NOENG I'm surprised to see that machine translation is apparently acceptable in some circumstances per Wikipedia policy.) Siawase (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Vox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Black Hebrew Israelites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this Vox piece a reliable source for listing Kanye West (Ye) as Hebrew Israelite at List of Black Hebrew Israelites? Politrukki (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Vox is normally reliable, but I see nothing in this piece to suggest that we could even classify West as a Hebrew Israelite. Someone may be reading between the lines on that article to presume that which is OR. Masem (t) 14:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is really a reliability question, but I don't think the source verifies West being a Hebrew Israelite. Belief in the Hebrew ancestry of Black Americans is not enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
"Black Hebrew Israelites (also called Hebrew Israelites, Black Hebrews, Black Israelites, and African Hebrew Israelites) are groups of African Americans who believe that they are the descendants of the ancient Israelites"
If belief in Hebrew ancestry of Black Americans is not enough, what is? 675930s (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
A reliable source that states the person belongs to one of the subgroups and denominations listed in the infobox in Black Hebrew Israelites, or to another named group that is shown by reliable sources to share the beliefs of such groups, would work. Donald Albury 14:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
We need the source to be 100% explicit about it, and because this is also a BLP, we need that to be in the words of the person themselves since it relates to their personal identification. Can't have tiptoeing around that. Masem (t) 14:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
So if Vox said that Kanye was seen drinking water, it wouldn't be Wikipedia policy to put him under the List of water drinkers, as Vox failed to specifically identify him as an agent therein? 675930s (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
We are talking about someone's personal ethnicity which is something they only can claim as a BLP (long after death, researchers may work to verify the truth ethnicity). Watching someone drink water is not a personal belief or the like, so yes, that would be a case we can use observation, but we're talking here about a facet only the person themselves can express. Masem (t) 18:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
And what beliefs is he proclaiming? That black people are the Ten Lost Tribes lol. What is the point of having the Black Hebrew Israelites article if it can only be documented through abstract references? 675930s (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
For comparison, Björn Höcke is categorised as a fascist without describing himself as such. 675930s (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)\
Why? (if you can answer that question it will answer your question here as well) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
My answer is that Wikipedia has an article about the Analytic–synthetic distinction, and it seems to me that "Black Hebrew Israelites (also called Hebrew Israelites, Black Hebrews, Black Israelites, and African Hebrew Israelites) are groups of African Americans who believe that they are the descendants of the ancient Israelites" is an analytic sentence (i.e. it means what it means in its own right – it is self evident that belief in Hebrew descent of Africans means one is a Black Hebrew Israelite). If not, I would like to hear the word to describe somebody with these two characteristics:
  1. Is an African American who believes he is a descendant of the ancient Israelites
  2. Is simultaneously not a Black Hebrew Israelite
675930s (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The reliability or not of Vox changes with the season. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. If you actually have evidence of Vox's unreliability, then present it. Otherwise, this is disruptive, and serves no purpose. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Vox is reliable, but they do not make that claim. This is a pure BLP question not a reliability one and we absolutely can not make claims which do not appear in WP:RS. Thats not negotiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Vox is generally reliable, but I agree with the others that the source does not say West is a Black Hebrew Israelite. Andre🚐 18:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Either Shibbolethink is being unclear or less than completely truthful. If "OP" refers to me or my original post, then"the article in question" did list Kanye West as Hebrew Israelite before I removed the content, because I didn't believe the source supports the claim. I explained the reasoning on the talk page before posting here. Moreover, on October 24, i.e. during this discussion, an IP editor readded West to the list using a different source. This time JTA (via Times of Israel). The listing was removed again a couple of hours ago while I was verifying the JTA source, reading about Kendrick Lamar's beliefs (Lamar was listed yesterday), and writing this message.

Generally speaking, Vox may be a reliable source for attributed opinions or analysis (in the spirit of WP:NEWSORG, even though Vox is not strictly a news source, it's closer to a news organisation than advocacy group). Nothing in this discussion has convinced me that Vox is a reliable source for the claim it was used. JTA is a news organisation with a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, but the cited source doesn't support the claim, and hence is not a reliable source for listing. Thanks for all the help on this forum and thank you Jjipop for removing the listing today, but I hope there would more of us"working on improving the encyclopedia" in the list article. Politrukki (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on samurai terminology

Comments needed concerning the historical figure Yasuke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology natemup (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Animeuknews.net (Anime UK News)

I recently found an advertisement cited as a critical review in the article for Your Lie in April, refer to the edit I made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Your_Lie_in_April&action=history

In the process of investigating the advertisement, I discovered a pattern of Anime UK News and it's writers engaging in this practice without clearly disclosing it in the articles. Is something like this worth reporting? If so, what kind of evidence should I gather and what kind of report should I file? Cheers.

Here is the content in the article that the source is supporting:

And here is the source: https://animeuknews.net/2016/11/your-lie-in-april-part-1-review/ 216.164.249.213 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the source and I don't see anything about it being a paid advertisement. In the article you mention the author's Twitter, could you add a link here? Aside from that, reading the website's "about us" at the bottom of the main page does not feel me with confidence about their reliability. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 19:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure thing - I had to obscure the link because of WP restrictions on links in edit summaries. Here is the unobscured one: [removed]. Good point about the about us, I didn't even think of that. Cheers.
...Turns out I can't post it here either. Just make appropriate changes to the partial URL in the edit summary. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_388&oldid=1138436458"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.