Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 487

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.

Archive 480

←

Archive 485

Archive 486

Archive 487

Pinkvilla 2025

Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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 is the reliability of Pinkvilla?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

While most of the Hindi films rely on Bollywood Hungama for box-office figures, the Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada films lack such regular box-office reporting websites. Then came Pinkvilla, which used to report the numbers regularly. I can barely find reliable sources for the above mentioned language films. Almost every major media house is directly reporting Sacnilk's numbers. Recently, I have added Pinkvilla's final box-office figure source to Hari Hara Veera Mallu, but then it was removed citing it as unreliable. After searching, I have hardly found "one" source that too it reports only the final box office figure not the entire breakdown. I literally couldn't find an English-language source that doesn't use Sacnilk or producer's figure. If this is the case with a big-budget films, how else can we report box office numbers or shall we stop reporting box-office numbers for the above mentioned language films. I know there is no compromise or reliability of sources, but Pinkvilla is still atleast reporting the figures individually with / without third-party support and also giving a breakdown of these figures. Other than Pinkvilla, which website is regularly reporting box-office numbers for Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada films? Another example is the first day collection of War 2, Bollywood Hungama reported ₹43.85 crore, whereas Pinkvilla reported ₹79 crore. There is a huge difference between the two numbers, this is because Bollywood Hungama reported only Hindi version, whereas Pinkvilla reported Hindi, Telugu and Tamil versions. I here request others opinion on this. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I voted for Option 2 in the previous RfC, but the committee preferred 3, much to the disgust of me and other Indian cinema editors. Thankfully it didn't go to Option 4. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2025 (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.

Mission Local

Latest comment: 10 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

How are we feeling about this site?

• https://missionlocal.org
• https://missionlocal.org/about-mission-local
• https://missionlocal.org/san-francisco-mission-local-donors

Seems to come up about 250ish times in articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=https://missionlocal.org/

• I was considering this one: https://missionlocal.org/2025/08/ice-arrests-san-francisco-protesters-legality/
• That I found here (News Break is deprecated): https://www.newsbreak.com/mission-local-317599203/4171333564031-for-first-time-in-recent-memory-ice-officers-detained-u-s-citizens-in-s-f

For this article: Detention and deportation of American citizens in the second Trump administration

I can't find any relevant prior discussion. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, NBC News have also reported on the same incident [1]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Mission Local looks to be reliable and has a fair bit of use by others, but being locally focused and relatively new I would be hesitant if they are the only reliable source for a national or international event. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I started branching into their modest set of articles around this for the local/per person level of things to cite into that larger article we have.

I thought about the national angle, but their stuff is focused just on the local level, so it should be fine. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Wp:rs:

Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

[{If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.}] Remove Aswani kumar citation Because of poor Anachronism [identified and verified by sitush too!]. 103.88.57.45 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you want to provide any context of what article you are talking about on this site? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

More conetxt is needed. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Channel One (Russia)

Latest comment: 10 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Russian state media, widely accused of pro-Putin bias. Despite this, has over 1,000 citations on en.wiki. Not currently listed at WP:RS/P. Numberguy6 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there some current disagreement about the source? Biased doesn't mean unreliable, per WP:RSBIAS. A lot of pro-Putin / Russian state media is considered unreliable, but that's because of issues with their content not their bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Is someone suggesting tat Russian media may be state influened? Who would have thought? Next they will say that Siberia is cold. But seriously, if you value your heath in Russia you will be "pro state". Everyone knows that. So 90% of these are unreliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Reliability depends on the context, where do you want to use this source? I definitely wouldn't use them for anything controversial such as the war in Ukraine (except perhaps for official statements). Alaexis_¿question? 16:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable, as Reporters Without Borders note[2]:

Channel One Russia is an important part of the state’s disinformation arsenal in Russia, where TV continues to be a very influential medium. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russian TV has increased propagandistic, misleading, homophobic and hate-filled content, as RSF and the Diderot Committee demonstrated when they persuaded the French broadcasting regulator ARCOM to order the satellite operator Eutelsat to stop broadcasting three Russian propaganda channels including Channel One Russia to several European countries.

On the second anniversary of the start war, Channel One Russia falsely claimed that the growth of Ukraine's agricultural exports was behind clashes between farmers and police at an agricultural show in Paris during of a visit by French President Emmanuel Macron. A protest about the impact of inflation in Belgium was similarly misrepresented as a massive protest movement against the aid provided to Ukraine.--Staberinde (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Nordvision members

Latest comment: 9 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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.

---

SVT, DR, Yle, NRK, RÚV, SR, UR, KNR, KVF, ÅRTV: all Nordic state-owned broadcasters. Collectively cited more than 28,000 times on en.wiki, and are all very widely cited in their own language wikis. Previous discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4; all discussions list these sources as generally reliable.

svt.se    
dr.dk    
yle.fi    
nrk.no    
ruv.is    
sverigesradio.se    
ur.se    
knr.gl    
kvf.fo    
alandsradio.ax    

• 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.

Numberguy6 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Nordvision members)

Discussion (Nordvision members)

So what is the reason for bringing these sources here - where is their status being challenged? Nigel Ish (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They currently aren't listed at all on RS/P. I am trying to determine (not challenge) their status. Numberguy6 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Where are these being challenged? These are broadacasting networks, not particular claims or statements on an article. Discussions on sources here do not automatically make it to RSP either. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

No one is challenging anything. It's just that per WP:RSPCRITERIA, a source must have "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard" to be added to RS/P. I'm not sure whether the previous discussions on these count as "significant", since Nordvision was only a side topic instead of the main topic, and so doing an RfC seems like the best way to add these sources to RS/P. Numberguy6 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Unchallenged sources don't need to be listed at RS/P. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reliability of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Very similar situation to this one: no challenge to reliability, did RfC as formality to list source at RS/P. No consensus on whether RfC and listing were needed. Numberguy6 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2025 (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.

Reliability of Ars Technica and DVICE removals regarding Teitel plagiarism

Latest comment: 9 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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.

---

Context:

I am requesting input on the reliability and use of coverage documenting instances where Ars Technica and DVICE removed articles by journalist Amy Shira Teitel after plagiarism concerns were raised.

Sources:

• Day, Dwayne A. (20 May 2013). "Don’t tell my mother I work on the bomb: the return of Soviet nuclear weapons in orbit." The Space Review. Archived 22 May 2013 at Wayback Machine.
• Day, Dwayne A. (14 March 2016). "Goodbye, Sputnik (again)." The Space Review. Archived 8 March 2016 at Wayback Machine.

Description:

Both of these articles explicitly state that Ars Technica (2013) and DVICE (2016) removed Teitel’s articles after similarities with prior work were identified. The original links to Ars Technica and DVICE now return errors, confirming the removals. The Space Review articles are still online and are archived with Wayback.

Question:

Given that:

• The removals were confirmed by the publications themselves (Ars Technica and DVICE) through action (article takedowns).
• The information is presented by a reliable, independent outlet (The Space Review, which has an editorial process).
• The claims are backed by archived versions showing the removals.

Can these sources be considered reliable for the limited factual statement that Ars Technica and DVICE retracted Teitel’s articles following plagiarism concerns? Abgek19.19 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Your first bullet point is an inference, not a positive statement by the publications. There are many reasons for articles to be unavailable at their original URLs. The question is whether The Space Review is a reliable source, and whether the content is WP:DUE (best handled on the article talk page). Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. To clarify:

The question is not about whether the removals were explicitly stated as “plagiarism,” but whether *The Space Review* can be considered a reliable source when reporting factual events—specifically, the takedown of Teitel’s articles.

• The Space Review* is widely used on Wikipedia: it has its own article describing it as a reputable, weekly-edited outlet (The Space Review).

It’s cited in key pages such as Politics of outer space, Space sustainability, and the Timeline of space exploration—demonstrating that it’s accepted for factual, policy-relevant content elsewhere.

Given that, using *TSR* to state that *Ars Technica* and *DVICE* removed Teitel’s articles (as a verifiable event) falls within its normal scope of reliability—not as subjective commentary, but factual documentation.

Would you agree that *TSR*’s established use supports its acceptability here? If not, what concrete criteria do you apply to determine that it fails in this context, given the broader precedent? Abgek19.19 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you add links to all of the above sources? I didn't have much luck searching. Woodroar (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Abgek19.19's initial and subsequent comments have the whiff (or stench if you prefer) of being AI/LLM generated, which would explain why they appear to be a bit nonsensical. "Don’t tell my mother I work on the bomb: the return of Soviet nuclear weapons in orbit" appears to be completely hallucinated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I would expect to find that source in the June 2013 crawl of The Space Review, and I do not: [3]. Ditto the 2016 article: [4]. @Abgek19.19 your next post here needs to be a clear and convincing explanation of why we can't find these sources. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue here isn’t whether the original URL still resolves — link rot happens everywhere. The question is whether The Space Review itself meets the criteria at WP:RS. TSR has a long publication history, is cited by mainstream outlets (e.g., The Atlantic, The New York Times), and is run by subject-matter experts in aerospace policy. That satisfies both reliability and editorial control.

On WP:DUE: the material is not fringe speculation, it is factual reporting, and the overlap with other sources is already quoted side-by-side in the article. That means either both sources are due, or neither is. We can’t dismiss one simply because it makes the plagiarism more obvious. Abgek19.19 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop spamming LLM comments that don't make any god-damn sense. If you can't speak English good enought to write a sentence in your own words, you have no buisness being here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a need, @Hemiauchenia for such prejudicial AGF failures. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

We're done here. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2025 (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.

The National News Desk

Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The National News Desk does not have an entry at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Seems to me that it should.

I found one thread discussing it in the archives, but I'm not sure one discussion is enough to prompt an RfC as per the guidelines above.

I'm not very familiar with either The National News Desk or the process for creating an entry at the Perennial Sources page, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling. I'm seeing some of their material being proposed as a WP:RS, although I don't know how widespread it is or even it there are any cites to their material.

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The RSP isn't a list of all sources, it's just a log of discussions that have happened on this noticeboard. Unless there is active disagreement about the source there's not even a reason to discuss it here, let alone add it to the RSP. So there is no process for getting entries added to the RSP, as that's not it's purpose. See for instance the close of this recent RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Twitter photo of a newspaper article

Latest comment: 7 days ago24 comments9 people in discussion

This photo of a newspaper article has been cited in the article David Gillow for a couple of biographical details. It was apparently tweeted by a relative of the subject; the twimg.com ___domain indicates it is hosted to Twitter's (X's) image hosting server. The newspaper is assumed to be The Herald (Zimbabwe) based on context clues. The citation is formatted like this in the article:

"A pleasure for Gillow" (jpg). The Herald. Harare, Zimbabwe. 26 June 1980. p. 14. Archived from the original on 13 August 2025. Retrieved 13 August 2025.

Is this appropriate? This question has arisen in the month-long AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gillow. The overall question there is one of notability, which turns in part on the availability of reliable sources. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Is that image literally the only surviving online reference to that article? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep. At least, it is the only one anybody has been able to find. Editors have also argued that the image here 'proves' SIGCOV but none of these publications are identifiable at all and none have the same headline as the article in the Twitter photo. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Its worth noting that there are zero online archives of Zimbabwean news from the time, so it makes sense that a picture would be the only way of finding it (unless one is able to look through physical archives in Zimbabwe). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't true @BeanieFan11 - 1978 and on is in LexisNexis. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

For a crisp 700 dollars a month! PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

And no one has verified that this article appears in LexisNexis. It probably does—the photo looks authentic—but the sourcing and the conclusion that it exists in archives accessible to someone somewhere are based on a series of assumptions that seem reasonable but are not definitive. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

We're in a kinda weird place, because even if someone does get access, they probably can't share it here anyway, so there isn't much of a way to prove it. Also, it clearly existed accessibly at some point. If no one can get print access, does this fall into the same guidelines as dead-linked sources? Ike Lek (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone being able to access it via LexisNexis or the physical archives would be able to prove that it exists and is accessible. The citation could indicate that it was accessed via LexisNexis or a similar service, permitting other editors with access to verify the existence of the source and any statements for which it is cited. Wikipedia:Published states (emphasis included in the original):

All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

WP:PUBLISHED, part of the Reliable sources guideline, contains a similar definition and points to Wikipedia:Published. It goes on to say that the source must be available to the public in some form and that an accessible copy of the media must exist. A source need not be accessible to everyone. Hypothetically, if an article once existed but all copies have been lost or destroyed, it cannot be cited. If the only remaining copies are in the private collection of a relative of the subject that also presents problems. I don't want to beat a dead horse. I realize that a number of editors think the Twitter pic is sufficient and I've expressed my reservations. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 06:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

My question is then, what if an source is published and accessible, gets cited in a Wikipedia article, and then has all of its known copies become lost or destroyed? And what would that mean if the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines without the source, especially in relation to WP:NTEMP? I know this is getting into the hypothetical, so maybe this isn't the right forum, but the question is now nagging at me. Ike Lek (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting question and I'm not sure where to take it. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll just note that NTEMP says the topic must have "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline. WP:GNG includes sources that are "reliable", and links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Published in the definition. Philosophically, notability is not temporary but practically, demonstrating notability may be. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm kinda liberal with this versus others and even that's pushing it for me.

Who's the most invested !keeper there? You should direct them toward the Order page on that archive URL -- it has contact info for the person who created the site (granted, that's 2007 data). But if anyone knows the details on the articles, presumably it's whomever that is. Seems like a solid reason to reach out to and find that person. Probably userfy it meanwhile. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I tried contacting Gillow but those details are outdated (the email no longer exists). I called the Australian Olympic Committee a few days ago and told them about the situation – they said they'd ask Gillow about it, but they haven't gotten back to me since then... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 has made significant, laudable efforts and at least one or two other editors have scoured the web for sources and potential contacts. Other suggestions have included posting queries to WikiProjects tagged on the talk page and to Wikipedia:Reference desk; it does not appear this has been done. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I tried the email and all versions of the phone number and got nothing. I did find Gillow's personal Instagram if anybody is interested [5], although he doesn't post, and I'm starting to feel weird about knowing this much about his family, even if it is all from publicly available information. Ike Lek (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it's me who found the newspaper image on twitter. I wanted to clarify that I am not endorsing citing the twitter image in the article (nor am I condoning it). I don't really have a position on that issue as of now. The claim I made after sharing the image is that the picture proves the existence of a print SIGCOV source, to contribute to WP:NEXIST for subject notability. To me, whether the reliable print source exists and whether the twitter picture can be cited are two different issues. Just wanted to clarify. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

If the paper is WP:RS in context it can be used per WP:OFFLINE. There being a photo of the paper article on Twitter is sort of unrelated to that, it's just interesting to editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

To add to that the URL in most cites is just a courtesy to aid in verification. The cite could exist without the URL, offline archives do appear to exist under the name of the Rhodesian Herald. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Additionally, the image on Twitter/X should not be linked to, as we do not have evidence that it was uploaded with the copyright holder's permission, and linking to copyright-infringing content is a violation of the WP:COPYLINK policy. It is fine to cite The Herald without including an external link to the source in the citation. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger I'm not super familiar with how this works. Is it wrong for me to have put the link to the image in the AfD discussion? Ike Lek (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Ike Lek, yes, but it's not a huge problem because your posting of the link to the image is fair use in the context of the discussion, so your comment does not violate US copyright law. WP:COPYLINK only covers fair use links of copyright-infringing content because Wikipedia, per WP:F, has a goal of being a free content encyclopedia and our copyright policies are stricter than what the fair use doctrine would normally allow on most US-based websites. To bring your comment into compliance with WP:COPYLINK, simply wrap the link URL in nowiki tags. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the link from the citation in the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, @Newslinger - the copyright aspect is something I'd failed to consider. So yes, we must remove the link. As this should be in an online archive, I'll see if I can get access (it would be better really if someone with access just did it then all the debating of whether we can even reference it at all!). Zimbabwean copyright is only 50 years - so I assume there's no issue in restoring the link to the image relatively soon - in 2031? I'll go delink it on another cyclist who is mentioned in the same article. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Asa Harmon McCoy

Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The reason this discussion is title this way is because this discussion is actually about multiple sources.

I have been researching the Hatfield-McCoy feud, and while reading through the sources cited in the article, I noticed something interesting. Some sources connected to Draft:Asa Harmon McCoy claim that he owned slaves, despite being on the side of the Union during the American Civil War.

If this claim is accurate, it could make Asa Harmon McCoy notable for more than a single event and potentially justify his having a standalone article.

However, I am mainly here to get other perspectives. One reason for my concern is that many sources acknowledge that, in the case of the Hatfields and the McCoys, it can be difficult to separate history from folklore. Obviously, the feud and the people involved in it were real—no one disputes that—but the challenge lies in determining which events actually happened and which were exaggerations. Historians and scholars have pointed out that numerous newspapers reporting on the feud were filled with sensationalism and yellow journalism.

My concern is that the claim about Asa Harmon McCoy being a slave owner might be some Lost Cause legend that historians didn’t know was so without realizing it. CycoMa2 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it really that notable that he joined the Union side in the American civil war? Especially as he joined before the Emancipation Proclamation and even then that only ended slavery in the Confederate states. There were still a lot of slave owners in the states that didn't secede, four whole slave states fought for the Union. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested My mistake I have failed to give further context.

You see the most notable thing about Asa Harmon McCoy is his death. His death is notable is because many sources consider it the first death in the Hatfield-McCoy feud or it caused the feud itself.

Many sources directly say that the feud was caused by the American civil war. Most of the Hatfields and the McCoys fought on the side of the confederates.

However, one of the sources I have read said that most of them were against slavery this is why Asa Harmon McCoy being a slave owner is significant. CycoMa2 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If it's noted by modern historians I would follow what they write, interpretation of primary historical sources like contemporary news papers is based left to them. If the sources think it was true, and that it's noteworthy enough for them to comment on, then it should be included.
I don't have access to the works, so don't know exactly how the details are phrased. That will likely be the crucial point. Similar to the issue with modern reporting, compare "It has been report that Smith was responsible" and "Smith was responsible". Does the source state something or say that it was said by someone else. Also does it say it in passing or is it a central point of discussion, does it note that Asa owning slaves was an important detail. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Youtube reuploads

Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

should youtube reuploads of series or especially news be trusted to not be edited? Wikiguyamir (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless the reupload are by the copyright holder, the original news channel for instance, then they shouldn't be linked at all due to potential copyright infringement per WP:ELNEVER.
If the video is a news organisation uploading part of their own broadcast then the video should be as reliable as the original broadcast. Generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable though, if other reliable sources comment that the upload is potentially misleading then maybe it shouldn't be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

DeviantArt - Closed by OP

Latest comment: 6 days ago20 comments5 people in discussion

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.

---

Hello. By mistake, I added a reference here from DeviantArt to confirm a death. Thankfully it was quickly reverted. I realised then that DA was not actually listed on WP:RS/PS. I have now added it, however there have only ever been 2 discussions on this noticeboard (1, 2), both are from 2011 and only have a couple of comments each. It is quite clear that DA is a WP:SPS and should not be used, but I like to be as thorough as possible, so I thought it best to get an established consensus here. I have created the redirect WP:RSPDA, so if ever somebody does use DA as a reference in the future by mistake, it can at least be linked to show it is in fact not considered a reliable source.

I would consider DeviantArt fairly well known, mostly among artists. However, I wasn't aware until recently that video and text (and other content) can be uploaded to the site. This is used as a source on Komodo dragon, which surprised me. A comment in regards to the source from DA used on the Komodo dragon article mentions this. It seems the article was an older FA and lost it through WP:URFA here, which is a shame. Whilst the DA source wasn't the primary reason, it was mentioned. If anyone is able to upload legitimate looking text to DA and pass it off as an WP:RS for use on Wikipedia, that presents to me a problem that is worth looking into. Especially on articles about species that need actual legitimate reliable sources.

Another example to add to the above: this is used as a source on Great white shark. Another source which looks fine, but it's on DA.

I have also been able to locate talk page discussions (one of which is an article WP:GA review) that focus on whether DA is an RS based on whether a specific individual relevant to the article makes that source reliable: 1, 2. They are from 2011-12 however. Definitely a good opportunity to review the potential misuse problem on those species articles and establish a proper consensus for WP:RSP! Better late than never! 11WB (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The P in WP:RSP refers to perennial sources I.e. those that are regularly discussed or debated. Generally RSP and this noticeboard are for sources that show up multiple times or for which editors are disputing.

thanks for making this, but generally don’t worry about sites like deviantart unless it truly is unclear or if there is an active dispute on an article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can see above that other editors have had their RfCs closed due to the sources being uncontroversial and RSP not being comprehensive. However, I believe with the evidence I've provided above, even if it is only minimal at present, shows that there has been misuse of DA as an RS, unintentionally or not. I feel this warrants DA being listed and a consensus formed - and those two articles I linked above (where DA is still used as a reference) reviewed to determine whether DA is appropriate to have as a source. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Its more that RSP covers sources that come frequently in terms of questions related to their reliability. One misuse is not really sufficient to qualify for the frequency we're looking for. Its right that DA falls under USERG for all purposes, but its rarely come up as a question so doesn't make sense to include on RSP. Masem (t) 12:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It was two misuses I tracked and potentially others as there were over 500 entries on the list. I added DA to the list before starting this discussion, so I have no issue with its removal by another editor. Based on what has been said here it is clear the issues I've presented are covered by existing policy. I therefore consider this matter closed, and will now redirect my attention elsewhere. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

RSP has inclusion criteria I don't think this sources is due for inclusion in the list, see WP:RSPCRITERIA. Starting discussions for the sole purpose of adding sources to the list is back to front, see WP:RSPNOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:RFC so I've changed the section header. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

So you have no comment on DA being used as a source on multiple articles related to species, even though it is a known SPS? (and was highlighted as a reason for FA demotion for an article) 11WB (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A user generated site being used as a source is unfortunately not that surprising. The first and really only defence is editors removing such sources using their own good judgement. Adding DA to the RSP will in no way stop such links being added, or help to remove them. It will at best turn the link red for editors who have one of the appropriate scripts installed.

Sometimes such sources can be reliable, the discussions you highlighted show why that can be the case (WP:EXPERTSPS). I don't think that would apply to Paleonerd01, as there's nothing to show they have previously been published in the relevant field by other reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It would seem that already established procedure negates the need for an RfC in that case. I saw you edited the title, for future reference how is a RfC started on a noticeboard such as this? I've been editing for about half a year, but this is my first time in an area of the project like this. 11WB (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There are comments about not opening a RFC in both the noticeboard header and edit notice, the edit notice appears when you create a new section. But if there have been unresolvable recent discussions (see WP:RFCBEFORE about what you should try before starting a RFC) then the you should follow WP:RFCOPEN (making sure to include {{rfc}}) and WP:RFCNEUTRAL.
RFCs about reliability tend to have a standard set of four options, as you can see in this example. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

RFCs are much more than just normal discussions, inclusion of the {{rfc}} template causes the discussion to me listed in a central ___location and notifications are automatically sent out to editors who may be interested. They can result in a lot of time being spent on the process, which is why there's notices about not opening them unless necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that. I opened this discussion in good faith for what I still believe is a legitimate issue. Those who are unaware will see sources like that from DA and be misled into thinking they are legitimate when, as you said above, they probably aren't. DA doesn't show on any scripts at the moment, CiteUnseen for example. My adding it to RSP will hopefully have sorted that. 11WB (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The RSP is not for raising awareness of an issue, nor for making sure a script marks a link a certain colour. It's solely a log of RSN discussions. What your looking for is a listing of all reliable and unreliable sources, which you can make if you want but the RSP isn't it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is the correct place to determine if a source is an WP:RS. Editors have used DA as such on two articles, one of which is a GA currently and the other a former FA. I understand and acknowledge what you have said here. I also understand how RSP works in that it isn't exhaustive. Nor should it be. You have made sure this isn't an RfC, which is fine. However, I don't think it is fair for one editor to unilaterally end a discussion. If other editors come to a consensus that this discussion doesn't need to continue, I will walk away. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, this is incorrect: 'What your looking for is a listing of all reliable and unreliable sources'. As I said above, my actual reason for posting here is: 'It is quite clear that DA is a WP:SPS and should not be used, but I like to be as thorough as possible, so I thought it best to get an established consensus here.' Also, 'I feel this warrants DA being listed and a consensus formed - and those two articles I linked above (where DA is still used as a reference) reviewed to determine whether DA is appropriate to have as a source.' I am trying to establish whether DA is an acceptable source in the way it has been used on articles like Komodo dragon and Great white shark. 11WB (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

No, unless someone can show that Paleonerd01 has been previously published in the relevant field by other reliable sources. The RSP isn't needed for that as it's covered by policy, WP:EXPERTSPS, so the answer is always the same regardless of the website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

See my reply to Masem above. This issue is covered by existing policy, so this discussion is now considered resolved. Thank you for your participation! 11WB (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

11wallisb For what its worth, as no one has mentioned it yet, WP:WIKIPROJECTs often maintain their own master lists of reliable/unreliable sources. WP:VG has WP:VG/S, the music projects have WP:RSMUSIC, etc. They can be a good reference point for this sort of thing, though, generally speaking, they only list off sources related to the subject at hand, so they probably wouldn't list Deviant Art either. (For example, WP:VG/S lists GameSpot, since its a video-game centric website, but wouldn't list The Washington Post since its not a gaming website, even though they would allow for its use on related articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 19 August 2025 (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.

Reliabilty of Comic Book Resources (CBR)

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is Comic Book Resources a reliable website? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. — Newslinger talk 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It's listed on WP:VG/S as reliable prior to 2016 when it was purchased by Valnet (see WP:VALNET). That appears to be a similar sentiment to the discussion of the source here in 2022. There was a smaller discussion earlier this year with much the same content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

LSE blogs/WP:BLOGS

Latest comment: 6 days ago22 comments12 people in discussion

Hi, what are people's opinion on the blog at lse.ac.uk? https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ Does this fall under WP:BLOGS?Halbared (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, but there might be some "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." in there. For example, [7] is partly written by Richard Disney (economist). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

(For the issue that prompted this discussion, see Talk:Reform UK#Blog removal.) This is not a conventional blog, it is a "multidisciplinary academic blog run by the London School of Economics and Political Science. Our central aim is to increase the public understanding of British politics and policy by providing accessible academic commentary and research."[8] It is therefore not self-publication in the sense that personal blogs are, but rather a semi-formal publication by that institution, a well respected university. I suspect the term "blog" is clouding this issue - they are traditionally personal outlets and therefore prone to personal opinions - this "blog" however has a managing editor, Alexis Papazoglou. It seems a reliable source on politics and policy - it is a semi-formal institutional publication of a respected university, it has an editor and is unlikely to be a personal mouthpiece of individual academics or other staff members. --Jabbi (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that this is the highest quality blog I have ever seen. It is higher quality than most of the flimsy RS sources Wikipedia uses. People like Bodo Stern, Sara Mehryar and Richard Disney are at the top of their fields. I did not know it existed before this, but from now I will read it. I read no other blogs at the moment. This will be the only one. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The content removal was based on WP:BLPSPS grounds rather than reliability. The source is usable for everything other than "and its leaders Nigel Farage and Richard Tice", the subject matter expert expert can be used to make statements about the party but not named people. Otherwise the source seems to be very reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Blogs site is split into 42 blogs. The article under question is posted on the LSE British Politics and Policy blog (blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy), which has a editorial policy that involves at least three editors (a "Managing Editor or an Assistant Blog Editor", as well as "at least two members of the Blog Team"), and contentious articles are sent to the "General Editor" for further review. Based on this, I do not consider the LSE British Politics and Policy blog to be self-published. A website describing itself as a blog does not necessarily imply that it is self-published, and there are many blogs, such as   Engadget (RSP entry) and   SCOTUSblog (RSP entry), that are generally reliable. Articles on the LSE British Politics and Policy blog are mostly written by subject-matter experts and have an academic focus that is similar to that of   The Conversation (RSP entry). I also consider the LSE British Politics and Policy blog to be generally reliable, and note that its published opinions should be attributed. On the other hand, other LSE blogs have different editorial policies that should be examined to determine whether their articles are reliable. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Can we show, per WP:BLOGS, that both of the authors of the source in question are established subject-matter experts, whose work in the relevant field (climate change science) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

That is not necessary, because the article is not self-published. (And because the article is not self-published, WP:BLPSPS also does not apply.) Author Bob Ward's research in the field of climate science has been published in multiple reliable independent academic journals, which is a nice bonus, but this is not needed for the same reason that Engadget and SCOTUSblog authors do not need to be subject-matter experts for their articles there to be cited on Wikipedia, as articles published these sources undergo adequate editorial oversight. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It is necessary as we don't have a consensus based rooted in policy yet that this isn't a self-published blog, all we have is someone's assertion that it isn't.

As for whether the authors are established subject-matter experts, looking at the 'About' in that link you provided for one of the authors his background is more in geology and PR than climate change science. It gives his qualifications as he:

• Joined the LSE from Risk Management Solutions, where he was Director of Public Policy
• Worked at the Royal Society where his responsibilities included leading the media relations team
• Worked as a freelance science writer and journalist
• Has a first degree in geology
• Has an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry (the measurement of something in geology)
• Is a fellow of the Geological Society
• Is a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society
• Is a fellow of the Energy Institute
• Is a member of the American Geophysical Union
• Is a member of the board of the Association of British Science Writers
• Is a member of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Public Relations Association

And there are two authors cited, we haven't heard about the other one yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Ward as a subject-matter expert in climate science because his research in climate science has been published in multiple reputable academic journals. An individual is not required to have a degree in the specific field to be considered a subject-matter expert in that field. And, as I said before, this line of argument misses the point because the article in question is not self-published, as it passed a thorough editorial process. Based on the discussion in Talk:Reform UK § Blog removal, the current consensus is against your view that the article cannot be used; I have just added a summary of my comments here into that discussion. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Newslinger, and suggest that this discussion should conclude. Let us move on. Now, permit me to diverge for a moment and tell you people on this noticeboard about why I knew the blog would be high quality even before reading it. This is a personal secret, so please do not tell any one. I think we can determine the quality of research in any university by the quality of the food in their cafeteria. And LSE is one of the best I have even seen. Stanford is good too, but LSE is better, and much better than Berkley. In London Quenn Mary college was the lowest I tasted. Anyway, LSE is atop class place. leave it at that. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

A group blog with high quality contributors is still an SPS. I'd say it easily passes WP:EXPERTSPS, and is a solid source for many things, but shouldn't be used for WP:BLPs. Void if removed (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It appears to have contribution guidelines, and editors who look over the work. Defitionally, newer pieces probably aren't SPS anymore and could be used in BLP. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, they do seem to have submission guidelines and editorial oversight etc - so it's not as straightforward as I had thought.

What is unclear though is the "LSE Comment" tag on many articles. Does that mean this is OPINION? Void if removed (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Since the publisher is LSE, and the submissions are subject to editorial control, no it does not fall under BLOGS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Despite its shortcut name, WP:BLOGS is NOT about blogs. It’s about self-published sources. Not all self published material takes a blog format; not all blog format publishing is self published. In this case, the publisher is one of the most respected universities in the world., There is a very very professional professional editorial team, and all of the contribute subject matter experts. This can be used for BLPs and I’d maybe even say it should be treated as a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with bfb here. See also [9], and [10], but they clearly have contribution guides. This site is definitely not SPS anymore. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I typed my comment on mobile and garbled it. This is what I meant to say: In this case, the publisher is one of the most respected universities in the world, there is a very professional editorial team, and all of the contributors are subject matter experts. This can be used for BLPs and I’d maybe even say it should be treated as a gold standard reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this a primary or secondary source on Reform UK and its stance on climate issues?

Related to the above discussion: is this source (specifically this article) a primary or secondary source regarding the UK Reform party and its stance on climate issues? There's a disagreement regarding this on the article talk page. Cortador (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. The question is whether this is a primary or secondary source for the personal views of this source's authors, particularly their views on members of Reform. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

It is a secondary source. Per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [...] They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The article analyzes primary sources, including a political platform, opinion surveys, and statements made by other individuals, rather than reporting brand new information. — Newslinger talk 15:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree this would be a secondary source for Wikipedie's purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

mygameday.app

Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks. Is https://mygameday.app a reliable source? It has appearance statistics for association footballers, like here for player in the National Premier Leagues: https://websites.mygameday.app/team_info.cgi?action=PSTATS&pID=207411119&client=0-10178-151188-634000-20439453 Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

They are a business to business company offering technological solutions to third parties, they would only be reliable for their services and products. On website they are hosting it's not entirely clear who is producing the statistics, it could be the NPL (which would make them reliable but not independent) but there's nothing to show that for certain. If the NPL link to this from their own website it would clarify the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

If the NPL link to this from their own website it would clarify the situation. Good point. Of the eight links at the bottom of the https://www.nationalpremierleagues.com.au website under "member federations", seven link to mygameday.app. I guess that settles it and makes the website reliable? Robby.is.on (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The link for Football Victoria goes to this page[11], which is the parent of the link you provided in your original post. So it should be reliable, maybe include that these are the official statistics in the reference as the actual site doesn't make it very clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Old books

Latest comment: 5 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

A book that was written in the 1890s, can it be used as a source on Wikipedia, and are there guidelines and rules on whether or not to use it on Wikipedia? اکانزانا (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

In addition, the subject of the book is about political geography and anthropologyاکانزانا (talk)

With that additional context I think we're much more clearly in the realm of "no" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Without any more context the answer is "it depends" but in general is almost certainly no... A source that old would have very limited uses if any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Some guidelines at WP:OLDSOURCES. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If in an historical context, almost certainly so. For instance, Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf is generally pretty much academically considered as sovereign for the historical information it gives up to its date of publication, even if its tone is at times disputed. But as HEB points out, context is everything here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

It really does depend on context. For sourcing when a railway line was built and why, that's probably fine, unless contradicted by a newer source. For a discussion of the politics of the era, probably not. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all the friends who commented in this section and guided me, I will open the issue further to reach a better result A seven-volume book titled historical and geographical words by Ahmad Rifat Efendi Yaghluqchizadeh, which was written more than a hundred years ago, but a user on Wikipedia wants to comment on geographical areas by citing this book and publish a map that is contrary to other modern maps and even other historical maps

 

This map introduces Kurdistan, one of Iran's provinces, West Azerbaijan, with reference to the mentioned book, which is contrary to today's political geography and even historical books. Is it possible to comment on today's political geography only by citing this bookاکانزانا (talk)