Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 474

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

Al-Ahed is a Hezbollah-owned newspaper. It is currently being used to source WP:PIA-relevant factual claims in various articles. Would that be problematic?

• alahednews.com.lb: 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 .

- Amigao (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

If it’s Hezbollah-owned I assume it should be classified the same as Al-Manar (see RSP just below WP:ALMAYADEEN), which is additional considerations/no consensus for non-controversial material (ex. sports, culture, etc) and GUNREL for contentious/controversial material (ex. the ARBPIA area). If someone’s attempting to use it to back claims in Wikivoice, those claims should be removed/properly attributed and the editor should probably be warned. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, there are contexts in which the source could be used but I would still be darn careful about it and provide clear attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there any particular articles/claims you would point to where the source is being used detrimentally? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that this source, for a variety of reasons, is WP:GUNREL.Iljhgtn (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to have a second opinion on the sources cited regarding Rasheed Ayobami Aranmolate. Most of these sources were published in 2025 within a short span, and I feel that this is a case where the WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA advice holds true (mixing of paid media with regular coverage in Nigerian sources). It has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between earned media and paid media in Nigerian publications these days. Gheus (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a recreation of Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed, although only an admin could confirm if that's true. WP:G4 could be appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Great find (it is almost similar, see everybodywiki entry copied from Wikipedia by its bot after WP:AFD started). I was very suspicious of this article right from the start when it was submitted on WP:AFC. This is really helpful. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I was sure I had read the lead before, it came up here the last time it was created. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Here's another example (I'm sure there are plenty of them): Temitope Okeseeyin - it is full of paid media, but passed WP:NPP review with ease. I think we need further discussion on this issue and to expand guidance on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. I know we cannot mass-deprecate these sources, but at least we can make them ineligible when used on business topics. Maybe this reduces mass-spamming of Wikipedia? Gheus (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  For example, this author on BusinessDay is publishing a lot of paid media and one of their article is cited on Naomi Nwokolo. Kemi Ajumobi is actually a journalist, not a guest post writer which is concerning ([5]). Gheus (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Incidentally, the original creator of that article is CU blocked. I feel like even before looking at that or any of the sources it's blatantly obvious it's the product of UPE though, not sure how it got through NPP twice without any tagging. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Alpha3031 Thanks, we are on the same page. What you think of this article? Again got through NPP with ease. Should I bring this to WT:NPP instead? Gheus (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say it's worth raising there as well, and when there's time to write a nom probably chuck it at AFD as well. The discussion doesn't necessarily need to be instead of what happens here, it could be additional as long as there's care taken to avoid excessive forking (i.e. people are all aware of both). Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

i found this source while searching for sources for dandys world but im not sure if it is reliable or not [1] brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 09:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Not a chance. There's no editorial guidelines and their editor is listed as "Antonio", that's it. There's no author information, and I'm unable to find any evidence of journalism education or experience for anyone writing there. That makes sense because they had previously used a writer/contributor program. Every page/article is filled with sketchy ads for in-game currency and items. This all makes sense as the site is described as a "gaming ecommerce platform" and "marketplace for in-game currencies, items, and services", which suggests the gaming articles are just a front to get people there to buy stuff. Woodroar (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

They are advertising that they sell Roblox currency in an article about Roblox, websites that have financial interest in what they are reporting make poor sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I was directed to this page, so I'll just copy what I said in the teahouse.

Pop Journal (https://popjournalofficial.com/) is an online magazine dedicated to P-pop and Filipino pop culture in general. They write their stuff news-style and have a lot of original photography of these artists, like this: https://www.instagram.com/abcpopjournal/p/DHibULVyei7/?img_index=1

However, I realized that their site is hosted by Wordpress because they use a WP Moose theme for the site design. I know that Filipinos in general (both fans and artists) struggle with a lack of budget, though, so that probably explains their reliance on Wordpress as a host. They've built a pretty solid name and reputation among P-pop fans and offer lots of legit exclusive, original news and media (like pics and videos). Would they be considered an acceptable source or not? (I did read the "reliable source" article, but I thought to ask here for verification. The article said that blogs are a gray area.)

Another editor said it looks OK because the content isn't blog-like (although they are hosted on WP) and they have an editorial team, but also noticed that there are no existing uses of Pop Journal on Wikipedia articles at the moment. I believe it's because P-pop simply lacks dedicated news sites and coverage, though, and Pop Journal is a novelty (hence the lack of usage on WP so far). P-pop, as a whole, lacks recognition and dedicated fans compared to say, K-pop. But yeah, wondering if this site would be an acceptable source for articles. Bloomagiliw (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I skimmed through https://popjournalofficial.com/pop-journal-team/, and my impression is "group blog". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Damn. If I use it as a source on a lower-importance sort of article, would that be acceptable? It's not ideal, but P-pop really lacks that sort of dedicated coverage. Bloomagiliw (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bloomagiliw Context matters. You can always be WP:BOLD and see what happens. It could be acceptable for uncontroversial stuff, but probably not for serious WP:BLP-stuff or WP:N, that's my guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the two key parts to ascertain is 1) is there meaningful editorial oversight, and 2) does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, in an advert for more writers [6], they do mention that the writers are expected to review and edit their work. But does that mean that the editors check it, too?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Some of its writers have journalism degrees and/or have experience contributing to RS, but it's pop culture focused so it's very likely one can find better sources out there. I would not use this in a WP:BLP for sure. It seems to be largely dedicated to hosting press releases and/or rewriting them, eg. here here here, which are the most recent pieces in its Western Pop section. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

At the college basketball WikiProject talk page, there is a concern raised positing that the reliability of For The Win may be less than that of USA Today proper. The claim in question refers to whether Olivier Rioux can be called a "national champion" using the quoteStill, he's a national champion like the rest of his team… from this source. How does the reliability of For The Win compare to that of the main RSP listing for USA Today? Left guide (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that this case is more about the specific statement made regarding Rioux being considered a champion. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:It's straightforward if FTW is not considered generally reliable. Otherwise, in this team sport, it's not objectively clear if a player that never played is considered a champion. So the statement could be an error, or it could be an opinion, in which case WP:INTEXT attribution might be needed for inclusion, assuming WP:ONUS is met. —Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Partial WP:REDACT, per Rikster2 below and my own subsequent research.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much WP:USEBYOTHERS by high-quality sources. According to their press release, they launched asthe first mainstream sports media property focused exclusively on 'social news,' with a steady stream of stories that fans are, or will be, talking about right now.[7] I looked at its recent article on Michael Malone's firing. It seems the site style might be to incite readers with a partisan tone. Examples such as "this duo's petty infighting" and "he didn't throw him under the bus outright". While fun for recreational reading, there's probably better reliable sources to use that would be more impartial in their tone. They don't seem like an original source for any deep, insightful reporting. If they say they're about "social news", believe them.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not just about the Olivier Rioux discussion, though that is what led me to investigate further. Why is USA Today considered a reliable source? It is because over time, this newspaper (which like all papers has a ton of online-only readers) has proven to be a journalistic enterprise with all that this entails. “For The Win” is a sub-brand owned by USA Today that is meant to create viral social media posts to drive traffic (like the images of a 7’9 player cutting basketball nets without a ladder). That’s marketing, not journalism. In my opinion, it’s a decent source for the fact that (in this case) this event happened, but hardly should be given the same weight that an actual article in the paper would. To me this is similar to blog sites housed within reputable on-line news sites or editorial pages within newspapers - entertainment not news. Rikster2 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we're generally in agreement. FTW isn't going to have anything factual that wouldn't be on a more reliable site, but it will blend in some opinionated POV for "social news" fodder. —Bagumba (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Did you try searching "ftw.usatoday.com" in Google Books? Doing so shows promising WP:USEBYOTHERS from reputable mainstream book publishers. Left guide (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I was searching "For the Win" on news sites. My NPOV concern with their self-professed mission of "social news" still stands. They don't seem to do original reporting. For example, this recent piece on Russell Westbrook is just repackaging content from The Athletic, with a POV slant. Now I don't think they slander, and the events they report—at a high level—did in fact happen, but I think we're better off sourcing the original content from mainstream sources, worded by the original reporters that are more reliable, less likely to make the story even racier or more click-worthy. —Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Those points may be valid in their own right, but the response as a whole deflects away from the WP:USEBYOTHERS in reputable mainstream book publishers; that aspect has not been meaningfully addressed or rebutted. Left guide (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The WP:REPUTABLE guideline saysUSEBYOTHERS is necessary but not sufficient to accept a source as reliable. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt this veteran sportswriter and managing editor of a USA Today property's extremely benign quote that an eligible freshman on the active roster of the national championship-winning team, who is currently personally cutting down the nets to celebrate the national championship, is indeed a national champion.

It's not as if we're weighing this USA Today social media property against a better source that says the opposite. No reliable sources have been presented that even hint at Rioux not being a national champion along with the other 16 players on the active roster. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue that specific issue, that discussion (as you are aware) is at the college basketball project talk page. This board is to specifically discuss if “For The Win” is a credible reliable source, as distinct from USA Today. Rikster2 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you thatit’s a decent source for the fact that (in this case) this event happened. The neutral event that happened was that a freshman on the national championship team cut down the nets to celebrate winning the national championship. That's paired with a sportswriter employed by USA Today naturally remarking that he is a national champion. That context seems entirely appropriate. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are doing it again. Please stop Rikster2 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

He just bludgeons everything, apparently. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That specific issue is currently the sole argument for FTW not being reliable. If you don't want to argue that, there's nothing to argue at all, unless you can come up with further reasons why FTW shouldn't be considered reliable. Cortador (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong. Check out this article about the founding of FTW. It’s modeled after WP:BUZZFEED, which is decidedly “it depends” as a source on Wikipedia. There certainly is more of a discussion that can be had about FTW as a reliable source in its own right. And btw, I didn’t bring this discussion here, I just made a good faith comment in a discussion at a WikiProject talk page and someone else wanted to flesh out the discussion more. I just gave my reasoning. Rikster2 (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Buzzfeed, this article cites The Atlantic Wire (an offshoot of The Atlantic that had been folded back in to its parent by the time of publication), Quartz, and Upworthy as inspirations. Worth noting that The Atlantic is Generally Reliable via RSP and the couple specific discussions of Quartz in the archives were positive. Upworthy is decidedly not. Twochutes (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Just cite the original source That Digiday source saysAs often stated at WP:RSP, just directly cite the original sources that FTW repurposed, and avoid FTW's questionable, intentionally inciting, "social news" content. —Bagumba (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Outside of any specific context, For The Win appears to be a textbook newsblog - a purpose it has explicitly served since founding . It states its writers adhere to the USA TODAY NETWORK Principles of Ethical Conduct For Newsrooms, and its stories have been used by USATODAY's factcheckers. As Left Guide notes, WP:USEBYOTHERS appears to be fulfilled as well.

Within the specific context, the journalist's assertion that Rioux is a national champion disagrees with a user's interpretation of the NCAA manual. It is worth noting (primarily for the archives) that at this point the only two users disputing reliability also disagree with the journalist on the subject. Twochutes (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

the only two users disputing reliability also disagree with the journalist on the subject @Twochutes: I haven't kept score here. I am disputing FTW's reliability, but don't see where I have said that Idisagree with the journalist on the subject. Can you please clarify? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That was how I interpreted this post and your subsequent explanations in the same thread that consensus and policy support an article that contradicts the FTW piece. My apologies if I misread your stance in the context. Twochutes (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That post was a plain factual observation, ending with an openAre there other sources that call them champions? I don't mind disagreements over arguments, but please assume good faith. FWIW, I have edited WP:NBARS regarding basketball sourcing. FTW would be of interest there. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The sentence is something of a rhetorical flourish at the beginning of an article; the writer doesn't purport to consider whether (according to the record books) Rioux is actually a national champion. For The Win is published by USA Today. Absent demonstrable factual inaccuracy--which this is not--I'd consider it reliable. Mackensen (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• FWIW, at the bottom of the source's web page, For the Win's "About" —> "Our Ethical Principles" button links to USA Today Network Principles of Ethical Conduct For Newsrooms. Doesn't this mean For the Win is governed by the same editorial oversight and policies as USA Today proper? Left guide (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: Notification has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association regarding this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Quillette is currently listed as "generally unreliable" [8], however Ad Fontes Media ranks them as factually reliable as The Atlantic or Wired [9]. Additionally its reception section on the Wiki article doesnt seem overly negative. I think a reassessment of this source is in order. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media is not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have another widely agreed upon metric? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use one external source to ascertain reliability of a source. Rather we adjudicate things such as their tendency to issue corrections when they publish inaccuracies, independence of the editorial team, reputation for fact checking and the extent to which opinion and news are clearly delineated. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and are generally derived from many data points. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not what the consensus was about. Some editors feel the information wasn't reliable but the consensus was it's assessments aren't due for inclusion in articles. There were editors who would use the assessments of MBFC, Ad Fontes and others to state a source was left, right, etc within articles. There was not a consensus that the sources were not useful when evaluating other sources at RSN etc. As for Quillette, it's going to have the same problem as last time. It's lately a collection of opinion articles. Sometimes the opinions are very well reasoned, other times not so much. Net result is the source rating probably is good where it's at. What could really move the needle is if the source had clear editorial control and fact checking. Evidence of that, ie evidence that we shouldn't treat the source as basically a collection of opinion articles, would help move the needle. Springee (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ad fontes Media remains basically just Vanessa Otero's blog. I don't personally think that a random patent attorney from the United States has any qualifications to decide whether media counts as left, right or center. Regardless using it for determining reliability would be even more suspect as reliability isn't about political orientation. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The last time a discussion like this came up I did some searching on Google scholar and found several reviewed papers that used and even evaluated these rating sites. They found good correlation between the sites, and thus the various methods. They certainly are used by others for research purposes. For this reason I do see it as reasonable to present as one piece of information when evaluating a source. However, it alone is not sufficient and I 100% agree that their assessments shouldn't be used in a wiki article without an independent RS reporting on it. Basically the same treatment we might expect with views published by a think tank etc. Springee (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Its whole stick is to post deliberately contrarian opinion stuff. It's simply not usable for factual purposes, and for opinion it's almost always undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ad Fontes, and other such sites, don't evaluate sources based on Wikipedie's policies and guidelines, have their own biases and tend to be very US centric, so they have little use in discussion about reliability. They can be useful as a starting point for investigating a source, in the same way that Wikipedia can, to find issues to look into and evaluate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a substantive reason to think Quillette has improved any? Last RFC was clear it was highly untrustworthy, with a significant minority for full deprecation. As far as I know, it's still a deliberately contrarian opinion site and any fact there couldn't be trusted without a better source as well, in which case just use the better source. You would need to make this case - David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion of the last RfC strikes me as quite balanced. Yes, there are instances where the opinions expressed in Quillette may be WP:DUE, but that it should be used solely for opinion, not for factual references. CFCF (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the actual text of the RFC you linked to, while most participants were in favor of unreliability or deprecation, there was not a strong rationale as to why. Most of the option 3/4 responses focused mainly on personally disliking Quillette rather than any objective criterion of unreliability. I personally think we should reconsider this decision, given that Quilette has published highly respected scientists such as James Flynn and Jerry Coyne. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The very first response is:Option 4 they publish falsehoods. First they are most widely known for publishing racist pseudoscience - Human Biodiversity - where they claim Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites. Second - they have fallen for multiple hoaxes and even expanded on one of them they also participated in another. Third their staff have been involved with extremist groups, one of which (disgraced journalist Andy Ngo) was caught out colluding with neo-nazis attempting to stage a violent news story - it was a pure partisan farce. Third they are hyper-partisan. Fourth they publish nothing but opinion...and the occasional hoax and staged news stories etc (as already mentioned). Quillette is the very definition of a unreliable source. I'd accept a Youtube video as a citation before I'd accept Quillette. They're a better dressed version of a right-wing conspiracy outlet. If you don't think that counts as a strong rationale, it's not clear what would be - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind is the best way to describe Ad Fontes recommending Quillette. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless OP can demonstrate that Quillette has changed notably since the last RfC, this discussion is moot. Cortador (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not wiki policy, but I do like mediabiasfactcheck.

They describe Quillete as "mixed" (aka sometimes) factual reporting and a right leaning bias. According to them it fails fact checks, has poor sourcing, and engages in pseudoscience.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ Bob drobbs (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I originally posted this topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography, but I did not get any responses, so I thought I would post here. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliability of AVN profiles)

On 23 October 2008, Epbr123 (who is no longer active) added AVN to the "Sources" section of the project page and stated, in part: "However, their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable." (diff: [10]). The current wording remains very similar and states: "In addition, their performer profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable."

There was some discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Use of AVN (profile pages) being used as a RS in porn related articles/lists on the topic of AVN profiles from 2014, but it does not appear that a consensus was reached either way.

I am curious if there is any actual evidence or sources to support this claim that the profiles are being copied from non-RS. I have conducted a text search on several profiles and have not discovered any evidence of the profiles being copied. Unless there is an RS confirming that the current AVN profiles are indeed being copied from non-WP:RS, I do not see why AVN profiles should be treated differently from other content from AVN. Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

ty 2601:44:201:11B0:B089:EF54:318F:FC74 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Jones, Jel D. Lewis (2005). Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: The Big Picture: The Music! The Man! The Legend! The Interviews: An Anthology. Amber Books Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9749779-0-4.

Would this book count as a reliable source for concert tours and such? HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Has it been challenged? Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

It's from a fairly small publisher and I can't find much about the author, but I can't see a reason it wouldn't be reliable for details about tours. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason why it wouldn't be reliable for concert tours either. So I guess, maybe it is passable? HorrorLover555 (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It should be fine for uncontroversial information, and the interviews are usable for WP:ABOUTSELF information. I would not use it for anything controversial. John M Baker (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a ok source to use unless it is significantly challenged. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where to ask, please tell me if I am in the wrong place
I read the article Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In it is the sentence: "According to literature, 50-70% of people with autism also have ADHD." This seems very high to me.
I check the source, which is an article in Frontiers: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8918663/#B1. Yes, it says "The prevalence of ADHD in people with ASD ranges from 50 to 70%, according to the literature (1)."
I click on link 1 in Frontiers, which leads to an article in Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946721000349?via%3Dihub. Here it says, in Highlights:
The pooled estimate of the current prevalence of ADHD in ASD was 38.5 %.
The pooled estimate of the lifetime prevalence of ADHD in ASD was 40.2 %.
To me, the "50-70%" in Frontiers seems misleading, or maybe just a mistake. I would like to change the sentence in the article to "an average of 38-40% of people with autism also have ADHD, sourced by the second article.
Or, am I missing something, am I wrong? Lova Falk (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

See wp:or, we do not analyse or judge RS, RS do. As such unless RS has questioned the accuracy, we cannot. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." I don't do any analysis or synthesis, I just looked at the source of the first source. The numbers I found in the second source, are, by definition, sourced. Lova Falk (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You are using source A to prove source B is wrong based upon your reading of source A, that is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you if Source A didn't mention source B. But source A explicitly says: "According to source B this percentage". I read source B. Source B does not say "this percentage" but it says "that percentage".

It also says "Also, another study suggested there was a 50 %–72 % genetic overlap between ASD and ADHD, which is the most likely explanation for their frequent co-occurrence within the same patient or family". Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the percentage of genetic overlap doesn't tell you the percentage of co-occurrence of the disorders. Lova Falk is talking about the latter, not the former. As for "You are using source A to prove source B is wrong based upon your reading of source A, that is OR," no, that doesn't make it OR. We frequently make assessments about the reliability of a source based on what we find in other sources (e.g., how could we conclude that Breitbart publishes falsehoods unless we had a way of establishing that something they published is wrong?).

Lova Falk, re: changing the sentence to "an average of 38-40% of people with autism also have ADHD," sourced to the second article, that would be misinterpreting the second article. The two percentages are for current co-occurrence vs. lifetime co-occurrence, so it's incorrect to put them in a range together. By "pooled," they're talking about a weighted average, not a range. Elsewhere, they note that for a 95% confidence interval, the pooled value for current co-occurrence ranges from 34.0–43.2% and the pooled value for lifetime co-occurrence ranges from 34.9–45.7%. They also note that if you look at individual studies, there are huge ranges: "The current prevalence rates of ADHD in individuals with ASD range from 0 % to over 90 % (Melville et al., 2008; Witwer & Lecavalier, 2010), while the lifetime prevalence rates vary between 13.8 % and 66.7 % (Joshi et al., 2013; Rubenstein et al., 2018)." Bottom line: although the 2022 article cites the 2021 article as the source of its 50-70% range, that doesn't appear in the 2021 article, so I wouldn't consider the 2022 article reliable for that piece of information. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But its does show that the issue is rather more complex than an assertion by two sources, when we do not know what methodology they used. Source A could well have been talking about this over all figure, or making shit up (or doing what we sometimes do, cite one source for a claim made by muliple sources). As such we need a source saying they are wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "we do not know what methodology they used." Source A is a meta-analysis, and we do know their methodology. Source B simply presented a range, citing source A; source B is not using a methodology in citing previous literature. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:No original research:This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. It is entirely normal procedure to evaluate specific content in a source, for ourselves. And to reject its citation if there are good enough grounds to consider it unreliable for such specific content. We can't leave that to WP:RS, since such sources are extremely unlikely to evaluate a source, and offer an opinion as to whether it is appropriate to cite under Wikipedia policies. Editorial judgement is a thing - an absolutely necessary thing - and the purpose of WP:OR policy is to prevent citation of material not supported by proper sourcing. It isn't a bludgeon to force us to use material we consider suspect. Even the best sources can be in error sometimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a talk page, it is the RSN page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't be so obtuse:other pages which evaluate article content and sources clearly include WP:RSN, since that is its exact purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Meh… I’m not going to comment on this specific situation, but when one RS analyzes another, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask for corroboration from a third RS before we mention the analysis in an article… especially if we are presenting the information as fact. If nothing else, to see if the analysis is WP:DUE. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The solution to conflicting sources is usually more sources. Are there any other sources that estimate the prevalence of ADHD in those with Autism? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Frontiers Media is not the most reliable of publishers (just refer to the article's "controversy" section). Since it conflicts with the source it is citing, I would remove unless a better source corroborates this claim, per WP:DUE. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I would do what Lova Falk suggests, namely cite the original source directly and ignore the intermediate source. Zero^talk 05:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Due to ignorance of the issues, this thread was prematurely closed. I have now provided the background and sources to make this more understandable for those who have not been following Trump's attacks on freedom of the press. Hop down to my bolded explanation beginning with BACKGROUND: It appears that some editors were caught by surprise with this thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a website that considers itself as a "film, book, and television review site", though it claimed it was originally a "small political blog", which makes me uncertain in citing this website in an article. This is the post I intended to use for Neil Patrick Harris' article. Inpops (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. My question is this: Is this book credible? Apparently, it has also been peer-reviewed. I'm not sure about the author, but I guess it was written by Robert Graham, a professor of economics at Hanover College in the United States, where he teaches managerial economics, microeconomics, and statistics. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, he published several articles on a wide range of topics such as the mechanization of agriculture and the usefulness of economic theory. His recent research focuses on institutions related to the market economy. Hulu2024 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's the book in full

Why do you need it? What article do you want to improve with it? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Hi. Part of this book deals with the economic crisis during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Another part focuses on the behavior of SAVAK. I wanted to use this book for both of my articles. Since the author seemed to be an academic, I also wanted to get confirmation from the English Wikipedia users. Thanks. Hulu2024 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, he does seem to be a subject-matter expert.

On the otger, I think that there should be better sources (more up-to-date), as we are speaking of the book that literally was published in the same year as the revolution. So I don't think that's a particularly good choice for the Iranian Revolution. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki "This person dedicated two chapters to two main themes that other authors have rarely addressed... The first theme is the crimes of SAVAK, and the second is the economic scandals of the Shah of Iran, which at the time had become known as the 'Dutch disease' (specific to Iran). He focused heavily on these two subjects. Hulu2024 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

For SAVAK, for so long as at least there is some time that allowed for some cooldown and thorough analysis, I think it's OK. He seems to write with a scholarly attitude and he cites his sources, so I guess why not. Particularly if the reviews praise him for his work in the field Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking of pre-ordering the book "Algospeak: How Social Media Is Transforming the Future of Language" by Adam Aleksic (better known as Etymologynerd) for the article I started on Algospeak to bring it to GA quality. But before I do so, I want to see if it would be considered reliable. Since its publisher Knopf seem to be a big-name, but non-academic publisher, I would imagine WP:EXPERTSPS would apply.

Aleksic is a popular pop-linguistics figure on social media, and has been interviewed and quoted by newsorgs multiple times [17]. His website Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

He does seem to be qualified for that topic, so yes, I think you can easily apply WP:EXPERTSPS to what he writes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's published by Knopf, it's not self-published, and he doesn't need to meet the EXPERTSPS qualification. The question is only whether it's a reliable source for what you want to source to it (and I cannot answer that). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The book will likely be a backbone to the article algospeak. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As it's to be published by Knopf, it doesn't need to meet the relatively stringent requirements of WP:EXPERTSPS. A book published by a major publishing house, by an author with some relevant credentials (according to his website his degree is in linguistics, although this is presumably only an undergraduate degree) and who has contributed to the Washington Post and NPR on the subject is usually presumed generally reliable. It's not a top-tier source (it's not published by an academic press, or peer-reviewed; Aleksic doesn't seem to have post-graduate qualifications in linguistics), but GA only asks for "reliable sources", which is substantially weaker than WP:FA?'sa thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ... high-quality reliable sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Sadly enough he seems like an expert. He is a young geek in the middle of the time wasting endeavor called social media. He knows it 1,000 times better than those with PhDs in physics. That makes him an expert of some type. An expert in trivia, yet an expert. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I partially implemented a COI edit request. I noticed "bizjournals.com" (Business Journals) and "fastcompany.com" and it seemed like they might be vehicles for advertising under the guise of journalism? The suspicion wasn't enough to make me exclude them but I am curious if this has been looked into in depth. I found a few mentions of Business Journals in the archive here (particularly Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#Business Journals / bizjournals.com and not much at all on fastcompany.com. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

American City Business Journals and Fast Company are generally reliable as established WP:NEWSORGs. I poked around. bizjournals.com does do native advertising under "Partner Content" and "Branded Content". Fast Company has "FastCo Works" and also "Fast Company Executive Board", which looks similar to WP:FORBESCON. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am looking at this article in particular which cites this use of artnet.com, but the question holds the same for any other. Does artnet.com work for notability and is it a reliable source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Both prior discussions at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_348#Artnet_news, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Artnet_News_+_artist's_estates suggest that it is a reliable source. I would also concur that it is a reliable source that is editorially independent from the art market website it is a part of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes artnet and artnet news is a generally reliable source but in this context a distiction must be made between news articles which would count towards notability and auction results or other database style listings which would not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been kinda meh under G/O but appears to have been sold yet again. SeeDupré, Maggie Harrison (8 April 2025). "Quartz Fires All Writers After Move to AI Slop". Futurism., under Redbrick I expect we would consider it entirely unusable as a source. Figured I'd raise it here so that it shows up in the archives, given there were a couple of previous times it was mentioned. (Jul 2020 / Arc301, Nov 2020 / Arc316, Dec 2024 / Arc460) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If it's not a WP:GUNREL source yet, it is probably fast on its way to becoming one. Might be worth an RfC on it. - Amigao (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfiltered content from a large-language model is generally unreliable. Is there any evidence that's what Quartz is doing? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I would typically consider firing most of their editors to be fairly strong, if still indirect, evidence for the "unfiltered" part, I don't know if it would be feasible to obtain any direct evidence. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like an opinion on: http://www.nisanyanyeradlari.com known as Nişanyan Yeradları (formerly Index Anatolicus).

I came across it when reverting a series of additions by an unregistered user: example (see IP's contribs for more). I am somewhat aware of ethnic tensions in this region and the website says it is just a place name database. There are 199 links on enwp and 358 links on trwp that can be evaluated. I did ask @Aintabli: about it, so this ping may lead them to drop by and add their view. Commander Keane (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This site lists two major pieces of information on each settlement in Turkey, some of its neighbors and parts of the Balkans: First, it traces place names used in various time periods. Second, it contains the ethnic, tribal, and/or religious, and sometimes socioeconomic, makeup of some of the settlements.

The place names often come from cited publications (maps, books, etc.) but not always.

The ethnic information, unlike the place names, are not paired with cited publications, so it’s impossible to trace where the info comes from unless explicitly stated.

This site heavily relies on user comments for ethnic information, and the info for many settlements do frequently change because of that. In fact, you can create an account right now and post anything you want about each settlement.

This site is therefore on par with Wikipedia, but the latter has clear policies on original research although imperfectly implemented, and this site instead relies on original research. Allowing this site to be used as referenece thus leaves an open door for original research in this topic area.

As I have already mentioned, place names generally include citations, but not always and sometimes rely on user comments. Hence, for place names, the sources cited on this site would better be used as reference on Wikipedia after appropriate verification, because this website also contains many spelling errors and lacks any serious academic review but just by the admin. Aintabli (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"In fact, you can create an account right now and post anything you want about each settlement" this would make it WP:User generated content, and so not a reliable source. If some of the entries have proper citations then I would suggest checking and using those sources, but in general the site shouldn't be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Who says there can not be some overlap between NPOV and RSN relevance? Writing a "persuasive" piece would be a POV issue even if all the sources fully pass RS criteria. A source that can reliably show that this and that company was established in 1985, but can be a non-RS for "to produce high quality widget" Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls: was your comment about this Turkey database? You may have misplaced it, or else I am confused. Commander Keane (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I did misplace it. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

In an Articles for Deletion discussion for the article Life of Luxury, it was pointed out the article used a GBTimes article ("Are Life of luxury videos real?") as a source: https://gbtimes.com/are-life-of-luxury-videos-real/

It seemed quite obvious to me that this was AI-generated and therefore not a reliable source, since it was describing a channel that was completely different from the one the article was about, and didn't even seem to exist. The overall writing style also seemed very much like AI (very short "paragraphs", generic section titles, extremely vague language, etc.) The entire article was blatantly hallucinated info.

It was also pointed out that according to Special:LinkSearch (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=gbtimes.com), GBTimes has apparently been used as a source OVER 200 OTHER TIMES on Wikipedia. I am pretty concerned about this website that seems to AI-generate articles being used as a source so much. Is it possible that it used to be more reliable in the past? ApexParagon (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is pretty obviously AI slop and looking at the rest of the site, probably ought to be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I will also add that most articles in the Special: list return 404 errors; but when I accessed an archived page of the first article, it looked markedly different, so there definitely has to be a time split. The article topics on their front page don't give me much feeling of confidence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that too. My best guess is that the GBTimes website from a few years ago died and was replaced by another website of the same name. Using the web archive, one can see that the "old" GBTimes has content mostly linked to China and dates back to pre-ChatGPT years. Its layout is different from the layout of the "new" GBTimes. It might be time to deprecate new GBTimes links, but the ones returning a 404 should perhaps be saved one-by-one using archive links. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Blacklist. Non-notable websites that consist solely of AI-generated blog content, such as GBTimes/GB Times (gbtimes.com  ), have no valid use case on Wikipedia and should be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 20:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  The previous incarnation of GBTimes was a Chinese state-controlled publication based in Finland that was majority (60%) owned by the Chinese state-owned broadcaster China Radio International (CRI), until CRI withdrew funding in December 2018 following a tax scandal involving GBTimes. This site was covered in the Reuters (RSP entry) article "Beijing’s covert radio network airs China-friendly news across Washington, and the world" and the Yle article "Police suspect tax fraud by China-linked Tampere media firm".

  If there is consensus for excluding the former GBTimes site from blacklisting, the spam blacklist entry can be constructed to specifically target links starting with the gbtimes.com domain, which would exclude any archived versions of the gbtimes.com  domain from blacklisting. — Newslinger talk 16:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  Even the former incarnation seems pretty sus from what I read. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with blacklisting. Just looking over their about page makes it clear that this is low-quality AI nonsense - there's no actual substance there, no indication of any degree of editorial control or fact-checking. Normally this would just render it unreliable, but the fact that it's clearly trying to pass itself off as a news source and has fooled editors enough to receive citations means that we ought to blacklist it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Blacklist definitely AI generated and probably part of a larger network of low quality AI sites given that the listed contact is a Gmail address instead of one linked to the domain name. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting for same reasons as above. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• If it isn't blacklist its deprecate, not seeing any significant redeeming aspects to this source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Blacklist AI Cruft is inherently unreliable and spammy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I keep using this source on Siege of Panhala (1692–1694)? Shakakarta (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

His work has been cited by many scholars. Shakakarta (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

But has that particular thesis been cited? I can't find it on Google scholar. He seems to have written this"Dr. Jaisingrao Pawar is one of the most authoritative senior historian." about himself. It looks like his books were "published" through Mehta Publishing House, a self-publishing company.

Therefore no, neither the thesis nor the author is a reliable source. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Turbo, you have quoted the exact policy. But I was very surprised that the policy does not mention the quality of the university. That university scores in the lowest 1500 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. I would not use anything that scores below 1,000. To the effect I have made a proposal to tighten the policy. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Quality of the university really isn't relevant... The only really relevant measure would be the rigour of a given department and specific thesis board... Anything less granular than that really isn't useful, even at the best universities in the world you will still have rubber stamp theses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see my response on the proposal page, and let us leave it at that. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/03/17/a-costly-gamble

Is Meduza an RS for content about the Russo-ukrainian war, as it is bineg used to claim Russia won in trhe Kursk offensive? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that Meduza is not Kremlin-aligned. If it isn't a reliable source then we should probably have a WP:NEWSORGRUSSIA policy that makes it clear that Wikipedia treats all Russian news as unreliable. I'm kind of neutral to that. Everyone knows I want to see fewer newspapers as sources on Wikipedia but I also do have worries about anglosphere-centric bias in Wikipedia.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying I am leaning very slightly toward yes, reliable, with attribution for opinions where due. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with that outlet. However, they also have this story linked at the bottom, which portraits the Ukrainian army in a fairly positive light. It's just one article, but the outlet at least doesn't seem to have some pro-Russia (or pro-Ukraine) bias extreme enough that makes them generally unreliable. Cortador (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Meduza is not based in Russia. Mellk (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Why didn't you check the archives? Two years ago three editors said it was reliable. Here's two more editors calling it reliable a year and a half ago.

2 editors in this topic, 5 previously, that is 7 editors who have said that Meduza.io is reliable in the last two years. Unless something significant has changed regarding Meduza's reporting, I don't see the point of this thread. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I did, but found no real discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

By the way, in your first link there are two responses, one asking. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This is getting very tiresome. Even if what you say is true (and it isn't, the link links to a topic where three editors call Meduza reliable), it wouldn't change anything. So far, no editor has said Meduza is unreliable. It was cited 8 times at the Kursk offensive (2024-2025) article before I cited it in the infobox. You never seemed to have problems with it before, why do you think it is unreliable now all of a sudden? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Because I have not viewed every soruce in the article. But let others have their say, Im came here to ask people's opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn’t an isolated statement that one side “won” an offensive be a statement of opinion anyway? John M Baker (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has an article on the source Meduza that suggests that while the source is independent of Russian/Ukrainian regimes, it is clearly an activist website run by Russian journalists effectively in exile. See too the note inset within the the article being cited that says:

  Meduza has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from the very start, and we are committed to reporting objectively on a war we firmly oppose. Join Meduza in its mission to challenge the Kremlin’s censorship with the truth. Donate today.

Therefore, while it would be okay to cite Meduza's analysis of the state of the Kursk offensive with attribution, as John M Baker also opines, it would be wrong to cite their take as a fact in wiki-voice. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Meduza is used as a source hundreds of times across dozens of articles. There was never an issue before. The issue arose the moment they published something editors don't like.

How can we do a Wikipedia search to see exactly how many times and on which articles a source is used? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

See Special:LinkSearch/meduza.io. If you have the time, it could be worthwhile reviewing whether Meduza has been cited appropriately elsewhere on wikipedia keeping in mind WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. But as far as the particular use of the source at Kursk offensive (2024–2025) is concerned, an WP:OTHERCONTENT-type argument is not of much value. Abecedare (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what context you're looking for, but here's what I found (not an exhaustive list):

• Here it is used as a source for when the battle of Shusha started and here it is used as a source for when the battle in the Liakhvi Gorge started.
• Here it is used to confirm the presence of an army formation, also here.
• Here it is used as a source for the start of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
• It is used a lot in Wagner Group–Russian Ministry of Defence conflict and quite a few times at the battle of Shusha (2020).
• Here it is used as a source for the end and outcome of a battle.

Meduza is used as a source in military conflicts, mainly RUSUKR conflicts but also others. It is used as a source for when battles began as well as when they ended, it is also used to confirm the presence and movement of military formations. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven What is the claim it is being used for? This one? Yes, it's fine.

I read Meduza sometimes in Russian, they are generally pretty good. They have a robust code of conduct, they identify their editorial team, and have a lot of helpful footnotes in the articles that define potentially foreign concepts. They are identified as in opposition to the Kremlin (which is why they write from Latvia), so there may be a sound argument that they are biased. However, biased doesn't mean unreliable. Also, I don't think that it somehow weighs on their lack of impartiality particularly strongly because you can't really criticise the Russian government in Russia without being arrested or at least having a stern talk with the FSB. And even if we assume that they are cheerleading for Ukraine (and so presumably are biased in coverage in their favour), they just wrote about a thing that the Ukrainian govt would not like to admit, so they should be reliable for statements that are not favourable to their preferred side, right?

I also searched through ru.wiki discussions on their RSN, here's some of the results:

March 2017 March 2022, April 2022, January 2023

Of these results, the first three basically came to the conclusion that Meduza was reliable as no evidence of fake or inaccurate factual reporting were detected, but the source itself is polarising due to being against the Kremlin and sometimes pretty strongly so. The fourth source is based on an analysis of Meduza's "anonymous sources close to the Kremlin" reports, and it found that 90% of them proved false. That said, we already warn people to stay away from anonymous sources, and this is not the case for which we want to cite the source.

So I'd say it's generally reliable, and it's reliable for the assessment that Ukraine lost in Kursk oblast. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement that Meduza is a highly regarded reliable source. If other good sources disagree with an interpretation about who “won” a specific battle/campaign, we should report both with attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Nerdeen Kiswani has tweeted about Ukraine and Palestine not being the same many, many times, but the only source that has reported on this is Algemeiner. [31] Nonetheless, she has tweeted about it many times, so would this count as reliable, given how she has made her views on Ukraine very public? The people on that talk page don't think her tweets are enough, so I added this Algemeiner article, which includes some of her tweets verbatim. [32][33][34][35] [36][37] Brobbz (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not really a question of reliability - she is always a reliable source for her own opinions. It's more about whether her opinions are suitable for inclusion anywhere (unlikely from what you describe). What articles do you want to use them in? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see what's happening. This text is in dispute, and the article history suggests that OP wants to add this statement.

Your argument that "if A is reliable, so should be B" has no footing in the reliable sources guideline.

Definitely do not cite tweets if you have news sources reporting on them.

There is one discussion I saw in RSN archives with any participation, here, but the only editors who commented there are either now banned or are strongly on the pro-Israel side. There was an unsigned comment that brought up a story describing how the Algemeiner invented a personality for media purposes. Which is bad.

However, I would have no problems using this particular source for these statements only. Her tweets are quoted accurately, and she is reliable for her own opinions, and it's a relatively short mention, so it's OK by me.

The motives that the Algemeiner's journalists have for publishing such statements are irrelevant. I am not, however, speaking about The Algemeiner in general. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe Algemeiner is due for a discussion, at least on the reliability of their coverage of Israel-Palestine related topics. They seem to have similar biased tendencies exhibited by sources already deemed generally unreliable as it pertains to the topic. Mason7512 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

no threat 222..54 2601:44:201:11B0:B089:EF54:318F:FC74 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Although clearly in this particular case Algemeiner is accurately reporting Kiswani’s views on Ukraine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Kiswani is a reliable source for themself, so their tweets are reliable for their words in the tweet, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Algemeiner is a WP:NEWSORG, so standard WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION apply. There been little discussion of it in the archives, so it would be on anyone saying it's unreliable to prove so. Obviously news sources are not the best in the world, but intext attribution can help. Whether something should be included goes beyond reliability, though a secondary source reporting on them does add to the case for inclusion. However that's a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It was discussed on the article's discussion page, but they told me to take it here Brobbz (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If they were questioning the reliability then this was the correct place. But what can be reliably sourced and what should be included in an article are not the same, see WP:VNOT. What should be included in an article is a matter of WP:Neutral Point Of View, which decides what should or shouldn't be in an article.
As I said WP:ABOUTSELF says that posts by the subject of the article can be used for quoting what they say or simple details. While Algemeiner appears to have a bias, but bias doesn't make a source unreliable (see WP:RSBIAS).
This board is for advice about the reliability of sources, it doesn't decide what is in, or should be in, any particular article. If you where told to ask about Algemeiner then you have, it's now up to anyone saying it's unreliable to make a case. As I said a source being biased isn't enough to say it's unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I was too quick to make the edit on International recognition of Israel. Here is: Talk:International_recognition_of_Israel#Kuwait_state_of_war_against_Israel. I have tried to find confirmation for Kuwait's state of war against Israel in other sources, but I couldn't find anything. On the other hand, if something has been permanent for more than 50 years, newspapers may not write about this. How reliable is Times of Kuwait? Lova Falk (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lova Falk: is this the same as Kuwait Times? Left guide (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide: Not an easy question! But according to the List of newspapers in Kuwait, Times Kuwait is not the same as Kuwait Times. Here is their "About us": https://timeskuwait.com/news/about-us/ Lova Falk (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a source with analyses wod be better. I can find other (if not great) sources stating that Kuwait have reconfirmed there support of the 1967 Amiri Decree that Kuwait is in a defensive war against the "Zionist gangs" in Palestine. But to reduce that to a single word stating that Kuwait is at war with Israel seems simplistic. Kuwait has never declared war on Israel, as it doesn't recognise Israel's existence. That could be solvable by modifying the wording of the legend.
As to Times Kuwait it appears to be an established news organisation and has some WP:USEBYOTHERS. So WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSBIAS, and WP:RSOPINION would all seem to be applicable. The only point I would make is that the only other sources I could find picking up this story have been considered only marginally reliable in past discussions, whether that's relevant not not I'm not sure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t°, food for thought! Good to get confirmation that my reluctance to write "war" has some ground.Lova Falk (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is wording. Kuwait has not declared war on Israel but it's status is different than say Afghanistan. Afghanistan just doesn't recognise Israel, while the situation with Kuwait (and the others in that set) is more complicated. This also doesn't mean that there aren't good sources out there that would allow a more plain interpretation, just not the ones I've looked at. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

LADbible has categories for articles about popular porn stars Riley Reid and Mia Khalifa (and possibly others). Many of these articles are authored by the site's "SEO Lead" and are essentially repackaged content from various podcasts and social media with no apparent original reporting or fact-checking. To me this looks like spammy, clickbait churnalism that especially shouldn't be used for any biographical material.

Although the site lists several reporters and editors among its staff, it's unclear how much actual editorial oversight exists. Previous discussion in 2020 suggested the site was merelylowest common denominator clickbait content, but I'd like to hear other users' opinions before removing the citations. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

LADbible is in general low quality to the point of being generally unreliable, there is occasionally something marginally useful from professional writers but like OP notes there is no real way to sort wheat from chaff... At best editorial controls are unclear. In the case of the articles in question I would say no... Especially as they are likely to be BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

LADbible is mostly reposted clickbait content with little editorial oversight. Some of the things they post are misleading, inaccurate, or mislabeled, and some of the things they post are Fringe or Fabrication. Not a reliable source, and within sensitive topic areas I would consider relying on their content to be unsubstantial and undo any edits made citing them. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a generally low quality website; I don't think that it is an established news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There is something called EIN Presswire, and they publish press releases. Nothing wrong with that. They are sometimes re-published like here [38] at fox40.com, and so to Google it's "news". It has some presence on WP [39]. Some of these cites may be fine per WP:ABOUTSELF etc. Some may not be. For one thing, it's probably never relevant in the WP:N context. Disclaimer from the fox40 article: "EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable for ABOUTSELF statements, with obvious care for unduly self-serving details, and definitely not independent for notability. Republished press releases are still pressing releases, but I'd bet most of the problematic uses are naive good faith additions. Using 'insource' highlights some more uses in articles.[40], and searching for 'fox40.com/business/press-releases/' shows press releases from other agencies as well.[41] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

AP, and probably others, re-publish them too:[42] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Can be marginaly used based on WP:ABOUTSELF but only briefly about purely claimed facts - skip all adjectives. Else we will get long advertising items. And I would avoid reprints. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

These are more or less just standard press releases, and should be handled accordingly. Sometimes these get reposted by legitimate news sources and are labeled as such (Reuters and Bloomberg, for example, do carry a bunch of business press releases; this is something that can be helpful for readers of business publications/investors checking in on their held companies/etc). But just because Google decides to put it in the "news" filter on its search tool when they get reposted like this doesn't change them from being labeled press releases. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a follow-up to previous discussions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#riverfronttimes.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#h-Sophie_Rain-20250324185100.

I'd like to know if anyone would support an RfC to see what can be done about what WIRED magazine has called "zombie alt-weeklies," or former alternative publications that have been sold and now focus on largely promotional, spam-like content, especially about OnlyFans creators.

The main one to focus on is the Riverfront Times, which was sold in May 2024 to a Dallas-based company that focuses on OnlyFans marketing (source). There's a decent amount of archival material from when it was a real newspaper, so not exactly fit for the spam blacklist (as I learned), but good enough for a possible RfC.

There are some other alt-weeklies mentioned in the WIRED article, but they don't seem obvious enough at first glance to get the spam boot. Curious to hear thoughts. wizzito | say hello! 23:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

We'll probably need to establish specific timeline requirements for the use of each of them, based around when they became zombified. I've used the Riverfront Times myself for the article Jessica Lussenhop, who was a journalist there back when they were an actual paper. So I definitely don't think they belong on the spam blacklist, but we do need to add them to the perennial list and vigilantly kill any usage of them after the zombification period. Make sure to double-tap! Silverseren^C 23:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I fear that these likely have to be addressed on a case by case basis. In this case yes, unreliable after sale but marginally reliable before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any automated method that can deal with this, but the references to the so before it was sold can be marked as usurped so readers are directed to the current site. This can be done for all links bby making a request at WP:JUDI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Know Your Meme being listed as unreliable with the reason that it's user-generated is senseless. There are admins that control and overview everything to make sure there is nothing fake going around, just like on Wikipedia. And KYM is one of the best and most reliable sites to look at when the topic is about memes, which is why it's user-generated. I'd understand a website being unreliable if it's e.g. about politics and user-generated but you cannot compare politics with internet memes and trends. I don't know who decides what's reliable and what isn't, but I'd suggest making KYM a reliable source or atleast the unclear level. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue simply is that just like Wikipedia all user generated sources are unreliable for the purposes of referencing, see WP:USERGENERATED. Know Your Meme is even listed as an example of the kind of websites that the guidance of USERGENERATED covers. So it's not so much that KYM alone is unreliable, but that it's part of a whole category of sites that are not used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't KYM have staff articles though? Has anyone done WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis on those? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

They do but those always nearly include reliable sources as references which are far better suited for WP to use. — Masem (t) 23:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

literally all of what they document is just WP:SOCIALMEDIA chatter and goofy stuff that will be irrelevant in 10 years — I see no good reason why they need the time of day with WP:ROUTINE coverage. BarntToust 00:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, All Your Base has passed not only the 10-year test, but also the 20-year test, and is now coming up on a quarter century (even its Wikipedia article is from 2002) -- but who's counting? jp×g🗯️ 06:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

yeah, yeah. for every "grumpy cat" there's literal millions of 2-seconds-in-the-spotlight random memes that become a shroud in lost memory in no time flat. BarntToust 11:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What they report on is irrelevant. They're not a reliable source because they don't have professional, credentialed writers, editorial oversight/policy, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we established that. I'm talking about how the content of the sources is WP:ROUTINE. It's not like IMDB where something of a goal for factual content exists; this site is just random internet chatter. BarntToust 03:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Wrong again. ROUTINE has to do with notability, not reliability. Routine coverage can still be reliable. Regardless, at lease we already have a pretty strong consensus against KYM for the right reasons, so this isn't really derailing things. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, the proposal is clearly failing in a way concerning both aspects of why KYM is not fit for Wikipedia: they of course are looking at questioning reliability, and that is one way to knock it out; they believe that the content within should be cleared for use in Wikipedia articles, and their coverage is largelyrun-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out. The poster seems to be proposing the concept that Wikipedia should be adding a bunch of dogbitesman stuff (regardless of the editorial capacities being nyet); I could be wrong, but I'm just doing my best to read into OP's motive and thought process. BarntToust 13:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You're perfectly right that WP has consensus against KYM for the right reasons, but I'm observing that the OP is wanting to clear a source known for routine coverage of miscellaneous memes that happen to trend for a day or two; I'm concerned about their understanding of what encyclopedic content is defined as. BarntToust 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the discussion starter doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards for source reliability. But neither do you if you're citing things like WP:ROUTINE (a subsection of WP:NEVENTS.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

In order for a meme to catch the notice of a user-contributor, does it not have to become popular to a point? Assessing that a meme becoming popular enough (say, a hundred thousand views or around a million) to spread, is that not a routine event to note that a meme got really popular, enough so to catch the interest of some rando? I typically note that contributors write about the amount of views a meme got. Whatever, you'll have one way of appraising the significance of memes, I have another. Don't insinuate I have no idea how policies work, Serge. BarntToust 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the other half of the problem - we're not here to "appraise memes". We're here to outline the reliability of a source. In case you've forgotten, we're on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and the question was "Why isn't this source reliable". Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I was attempting to bring up the implication of the OP wanting to bring in content cited to a source that publishes coverage of memes, that happen to get popular randomly. I was looking to assert that what KYM publishes is systematically wrong, and beyond them being of questionable editorial practice—WP:USERGENERATED—that Wikipedia doesn't cover much of their offerings. What does the OP's want to use a source that publishes a bunch of content with all the issues I attempted to raise above, say about what the OP believes is content fit for an encyclopedia? Whatever. Clearly my line of thinking hasn't gotten through. Toodle-pip, cheerio. BarntToust 02:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, great, we're on a noticeboard for reliable sources. I'm pretty sure it isn't written in the tablets that God gave Moses, much less anywhere else, that it is the supreme law we mustn't discuss other aspects of sources presented here. BarntToust 02:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Because WP never deletes articles, right?

If something suddenly appears unnotable to a future editor, he knows what to do. Arguing to not create the article at all in anticipation of this is obviously misguided. 174.246.128.118 (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

On one hand, on basic principle I'd be inclined to agree that otherwise low-quality sites are a usable source for very limited types of information about memes and web culture. However, KnowYourMeme, specifically, is very frequently incorrect, and people who write entries there often make shit up (e.g. the year of a meme's origin being confidently asserted several years late because the website it came from died many years ago and didn't show up on a quick Google search). Most of the time, I would literally rather cite Encyclopedia Dramatica than KYM. jp×g🗯️ 06:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Beingjust like on Wikipedia isn't an argument that helps your case here; Wikipedia itself is considered WP:USERGENERATED under our policies and cannot be used as a source here. That degree of admin-ing is simply not sufficient to qualify them for thereputation for fact-checking and accuracy that Wikipedia requires. While RSP isn't absolute, in practice the only real sign that a particular KYM article is an exception and therefore reliable would be secondary coverage, and in that case we could just use the secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. TarnishedPath^talk 09:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

three words. self published source brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 02:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• At the very least, KYM articles that are marked as "Confirmed" may be stated as such (as that specifically requires editorial oversight from KYM staff and is valid per WP:V, since it is describing what KYM says), but the content in a non-Confirmed KYM article should not normally be used as a source per WP:UGC, and it especially should not be used in WP:BLP. Content from KYM should certainly should not be used in WP:WIKIVOICE. But something likeAccording to its entry on Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" holds a "Confirmed" status, meaning it has undergone the site's official editorial review process and verification by KYM staff. orAccording to Know Your Meme, "Grumpy Cat" originally spawned from a 2012 post on /r/pics., referencing verifiable content with attribution, is acceptable for articles on Internet memes and web culture, provided that the KYM article on the subject is marked as Confirmed. 31.214.141.76 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Simply having "staff" is not enough though. Who are they? What are their credentials? What is their editorial policy/oversight? Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm the IP, which was blocked for being an open proxy. The Know Your Meme guidelines stateOur expert staff and global research community chronicle the internet’s most significant trends and moments. andKnow Your Meme staff review and fact-check content thoroughly. We are careful to cite only reliable sources and strive to provide an impartial and balanced variety of perspectives. We are committed to updating content as new information appears, particularly for evolving stories or trends.. Their editorial staff is verifiable on their website. Further, they assert thatWe take errors very seriously and are quick to correct them when they occur. Major inaccuracies, not including minor typos or grammatical errors, are corrected promptly upon discovery and noted at the top of the article.

  As for how their articles are marked as Confirmed, their Editorial Rules (under "Entry Submission Guidelines") provides a set of concrete do-and-don't rules before the article isproperly researched and eventually confirmed. KYM confirmation is an editorial process that involves rigorous fact-checking and verification, and that isn't inherently less reliable than any other source. That others in this RSN attest to the fact that KYM is one of the best and most reliable sites for Internet culture suggests that an RfC be opened for confirmed (staff) articles on KYM specifically.

  As a final aside, whether or not the RfC passes or not, the statementAccording to its entry on Know Your Meme, "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" holds a "Confirmed" status is still valid per WP:V as it is what KYM is saying, as long as it is used with attribution. Whether that statement is ultimately appropriate for the page (e.g. if the subject is not most strictly known for an Internet phenomenon per WP:UNDUE) should be determined on a case-by-case basis though. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't actually disagree that KYM is "one of the best and most reliable sites to look at when the topic is about memes" but thats says much more about the sites that only cover memes than anything else... Important memes will get coverage from mainstream sources. While KYM's quality has been improving I don't think its to the point where it justifies actually changing their status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I made an RFC below for certain articles marked as "Confirmed" for use in a limited manner. I think it's not fair to group "Deadpool" and "Submission" level articles as the same as articles officially verified by KYM's editorial staff, so some consideration should be made there. Abayomi2003 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should Know Your Meme articles marked as "Confirmed" (i.e. verified by the editorial staff) be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture, when properly attributed?