Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

---

RFC: Benzinga

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.

---

Is Benzinga [1]:

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

Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Benzinga)

• Option 3 Benzinga is a DBA of Accretive Capital LLC. The site presents itself as a market intel firm a la Bloomberg; it appears to be a combination of original content about U.S. business produced by India-based staff writers [2], press release distribution, sponsored content, syndicated articles, and "contributors" (a la WP:FORBESCON).
  
  • The site says it sells sponsored content but I can't find any examples of such content, leading me to suspect it's unlabeled.
  • At least one of the "contributors" is also a public relations practitioner (see: [3] and [4]) and the column in question gives very strong sponsored content vibes, though there's no disclaimer.
  • When I run "according to Benzinga" and "Benzinga reported" through Google News, I can find nothing other than articles on Benzinga itself.
  • At the bottom of the website it carries the disclaimer "Opinions expressed here are solely the author’s and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by reviewers." which seems to indicate there's no gatekeeping process.
  • I can find no ethics statement or corrections policy.
    

In 2020 [5], Benzinga was sued by GEICO who alleged misappropriation of the GEICO trademark on Benzinga. The case was resolved with a consent decree by which Benzinga agreed not to make "false statements of fact, orally or in writing, about GEICO". (Government Employees Insurance Company v. Accretive Capital LLC, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). This appeared to relate to a sponsored content or advertising block, as opposed to editorial content. In October [6], it settled a lawsuit alleging it was mass sending spammy text messages (Nichols v. Accretive Capital LLC, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan). Chetsford (talk) Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 as per Chetsford and the 2019 RS discussion mentioned below. Coeusin (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 as per Chetsford. Doesn’t seem too dissimilar to FORBESCON. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. As a website, you can't disclaim responsibility for what you publish and still be utilized as a source on Wikipedia. The comparison with WP:FORBESCON is accurate. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any general conclusion -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and of the two shown, one of them was stating "reliable for financial/business news" and another that it depends on if it is an article they wrote, a press release, or is a guest contribution. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 - From my observations, it's more commonly used for regurgitating corporate hype and PR rather than as a legitimate source of news or expert analysis. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 as per Chetsford. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3: a solid GUNREL. I've always considered it generally unreliable at best. I asked on RSN in 2019 and nobody was very impressed with it. Beware of it running promo blogs too. It would be appropriate to nail it down as generally not to be used - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as what Chetsford said. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 21:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Benzinga)

• Benzinga has twice been discussed at RSN ([7] and [8]) and is now the locus of a question (by me) at Philip S. Low (Canadian). It's used frequently as a source in company articles across the project, typically (it seems) to support extraordinary claims and incredible achievements of the companies. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 9 February 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.

Added to RSP at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Benzinga - the RFC link will need updating when this is archived, of course - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Beebom

This source has been discussed here twice: 338, 463. The source is used in several articles, most notably List of Roblox games. Not sure if it is reliable or not...

There are four options:

1. Reliable
2. Situational
3. Unreliable
4. Deprecate

brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Beebom)

Has there been some new disagreement, discussion, or usage that requires a RFC? The prior discussions seem to suggest this is a marginal source, but possibly usable in it's area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

not sure. however, one thing i noticed is that the source highlighting thing that i am using used to mark beebom yellow, butit suddenly changed from red. it has been recognised by forbes, which is unreliable if im not wrong, but ngl i think it has a strong editorial, so its more of a little confusifying and not only will i know if its reliable or not, but other people can refer to the RSP when they see beebom as a source. just saying brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The RSP is meant to be a log of sources that have been regularly discussed here, so starting a RFC just so a source can be added to the RSP is back to front. The source highlighters aren't control by this noticeboard, you would need to discuss any changes with whichever editor created the one you are using. I don't think either of the popular ones just read the RSP.
If you believe the quality of the source has changed then the first thing to do would be to just start a new discussion on it presenting your case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

ok… well i can say that it has been used extensively in several wikipedia articles (you can search for Beebom and you should get a list) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This is their editorial policy. It isn't the NYTs, but they aren't trying to be either. CarroGil (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

uhh what is the NYTs brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

nvm (im assuming it’s the new york times) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

RFC: RoutesOnline.com

There was a previous discussion of this source here.

Use of source: This source is mostly used on "List of <airline> destinations" articles to justify inclusion of a current or previous airline/airport route. e.g. List_of_Air_Caraïbes_destinations (3 citations), List_of_British_Airways_destinations (12 citations), and so on. The previous discussion found that it is used in over 807 articles.

Why is it relevant? There was consensus in a Village Pump RfC that any airline destinations included in Wikipedia must have a WP:RS citation.

RFC: What should RoutesOnline.com [9] be designated as?

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

TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment.

• Here is their media centre overview, I can't find any editorial guidelines.
• The company describes itself as:

The Routes business is focused entirely on aviation route development and the company's portfolio includes events, media and online businesses. The company organises and operates world-renowned airline and airport networking events through its regional and World Route Development Forums. They are held in key markets throughout the year in Asia, Europe and the Americas. These events are supported by the online platform for air service development, Routes 360, which provides airports, tourism authorities and aviation suppliers with the ability to promote their market opportunities and acts as the airline industry's central source of market data and route development information. Register with us today, create your free personal profile and start connecting with the route development community online. Visit our events listing for a full list of upcoming events, find out all the latest route development news and analysis in our news area, listen to our latest podcasts and sign-up to Routes 360 for more opportunities to expand your network and join a global community of air service development professionals. Routes is part of the Aviation Week Network and is an Informa business.

Pings: @FOARP, @Jayron32, @BilledMammal, @Oknazevad since you participated in the previous discussion. I also notified WP:Airlines and WP:Airports. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. The references used on wikipedia seem to contain very few or no significant errors. We should remember that the world is not perfect - perfect sources do not exist. We have already decided that neither an airline website nor airport website can be used because they are considered non-independent - but people who want to buy air tickets are happy to rely on airline websites when paying (substantial) money. If we ask too much of a source, we will likely end up with nothing at all - we have to work with the real world, not a theoretical one. Pmbma (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• It looks related to Aviation Week, which appears to be a generally reliable source. SportingFlyer T·C 12:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Not an independent source (option 3 if an option is needed) - This is basically a blog run by a firm whose main income comes from arranging events for airlines. Coverage is always information that comes direct from airline announcements. FOARP (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way, or at least all the references I checked were simple announcements. These wouldn't be independent, but that doesn't make them unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 - It always depends on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and without having a specific edits/cite in view, you really cannot tell. I will say it’s a rather niche topic, so one cannot expect much, and that googling does turn up at least some third-party mentions that look good, in sources such as aviation week or askpot which seem to show that others think it is reasonable to use. (Though I could also say the same about Daily Mail 8-) ) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Gut feeling of option 3. Just from looking through their About Us and Meet the Team links, it seems painfully generic and slightly unprofessional. This source just doesn't quite feel like a Legitimate Source (TM). (Hello from WP:RFCA!) guninvalid (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 for routes. Reliable trade publication that is part of Aviation Week can be trusted to know where airlines fly. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

When RS make false claims, we do not treat them as true.

The following discussion will be of interest here. Feel free to join us and explain how the RS policy works in this case:

Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation#When RS make false claims, we do not treat them as true.

The RS policy does not imply that all content from RS is accurate. We know that there are situations where RS make mistakes. In such cases, we are supposed to use our common sense. In this case, many RS make false claims about what Mueller said his investigation found.

We are dealing with the contrast between Mueller's clear finding and false claims by Barr and Trump (and many RS) about what Mueller found:

1. Mueller: the "investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
2. Others: Mueller found "no collusion" with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

My position is that we should not use the false aspects of what those RS say. We should ignore the false part. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTRUTH. It touches on what your mentioned. We do not determine what is true, but RS do that. Not sure who the source for "Others" is. When multiple interpretations exist among RS, then attribution seems appropriate. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

If we choose to use the sources, then we would attribute the false words to them and state that those words are false. We do not leave readers in doubt. That is one option, and since many RS make this mistake, we should document the issue. We have a whole section (currently misleading by lack of mention) dealing with this (Mueller special counsel investigation#Conspiracy vs collusion), and we need to make examples of some of those RS getting it wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

see WP:SOURCEWRONG. sometimes even reliable sources are wrong. Briefly perusing talk page discussion, maybe approach 4 could be best. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a good resource. Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is your have done a lot of personal research on a topic and determined what you think the truth is, to back that up you found a lot of sources from right around the incident that you feel support that POV. The issue is the majority of sources disagree with you and more specifically more contemporary sources are much more likely to disagree with your view on the subject. I think it would be best if you just follow current RS consensus on it. PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEWRONG. When myriad RS get it wrong, they get it wrong, and we may need to explain the contradiction between Mueller and those sources which mistakenly claim he found "no collusion". He did no such thing, and he pushed back against that error. He only evaluated "conspiracy" and "coordination", not "collusion".

The claim there was "no collusion" was a lie told by Barr and Trump, and still repeated by myriad RS. It's okay to say that Mueller could not prove "conspiracy" and "coordination", but it is very misleading to claim Mueller found "no collusion". It's also okay to use RS that explain the contradiction between Mueller and those sources. That's what NPOV tells us to do when there is a significant difference of opinion. In this case, it's a difference between an unchanged factual statement by Mueller and erroneous descriptions of that statement by many RS. They get it wrong, and we should explain it using the RS that explain it, including Mueller himself when he pushed back against that error. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The entire "NOTTRUTH"/"SOURCEWRONG" response to this is TL;DR. It's really quite simple, the people trying to make it complicated seemingly have an agenda.

The reliable source for what Mueller said is Mueller himself. He is the primary source. A source which does not accurately report what Mueller said is not reliable for purposes of reporting what Mueller said, and when Mueller's statements are published by Mueller himself, it should be easy to check the primary source, Mueller, to confirm what the secondary sources said, he actually said. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a BIG difference between Mueller found "no collusion" (meaning there could have been collusion, but he just didn't find any) and "Mueller found that there was no collusion" – which is false. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Bingo on both points. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors should follow sources not what they believe to be the truth, but that only includes reliable sources. If a source is obviously misquoting or misstating something then it's not reliable for that detail, no matter how high quality and reliable the source is in general. Sources are only every generally reliable not absolutely reliable, editors need to use their good judgement in handling the specifics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• The error here is Mueller is a primary source and all the RS saying no collusion are secondary sources interpreting the primary. As you note Mueller said they were not looking for collusion which he notes is similar but legally different. So what is happening here is most RS look at the Mueller report (a primary source) and make interpretations from that, which is what a secondary source should do. What YOU are doing is making that interpretation for them because you think they are wrong, which we should not be doing. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's a bit strong to say it's just their opinion that it's wrong. There's a Times Magazine article[10] on myths about the Mueller investigation that points out that this is wrong, and a Politico article[11] about the same issue. It may be worthwhile discussing the issue in the article. So have the article talk about how papers reported the point, and how it's not quite right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  "Mueller said they were not looking for collusion which he notes is similar but legally different"

  No, Mueller didn't say that they're similar. He said

  In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. (emphasis added)

  "most RS look at the Mueller report (a primary source) and make interpretations from that, which is what a secondary source should do"

  And they frequently made the same mistake because they weren't paying attention to the difference between collusion and conspiracy and, equally important, because they weren't paying attention to the legal difference between "found no evidence of" and "did not establish". As noted above and also on the talk page, that a source is GREL does not imply that it is reliable for all details. We can certainly note that many in the media reported that there was "no collusion," but we also note that better sources reported it correctly. ActivelyDisinterested already noted an article written by two law professors noting that "no collusion" is a "myth." Here's another written by a lawyer with significant expertise (a former General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) pointing out the "no colllusion" problem. I'm sure that I can find other discussions by legal scholars / lawyers with significant expertise. It's also easy to find non-experts in GREL sources pointing out the same problem: such as here, here, here, here and here. Per WP:BESTSOURCES, we should "bas[e] content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources," and those are going to be written by legal scholars who understand why "no collusion" misrepresents the actual findings. But we can also say that plenty of GREL sources written by non-scholars made this error and others noted that it's an error. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sure there are sources that make that claim they are just in the minority and generally older, from right around the time of the event. Its basicslly cherry picking sources to say what you agree with and why largely WP:RGW. Again, the majority of current strong RS disagree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  That reliable sources disagree about something is a thing that is usually discussed in an artcile, the issue here appears to be the common usage of collusion rather than it's legal term. Discussing that in the article would appear appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Again: WP:NPOV says to go with the strongest sources. I invite you to present a source written by legal scholars that thinks "no collusion" is accurate. Here's another article about it written by a law professor, again demonstrating that such a claim is false. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• This is why we work with verifiability not truth, thats just too high a standard for us to meet at the end of the day. When sources conflict we generally defer to sources which are stronger and/or more recently published... But that isn't the same thing as assigning values of true and false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  The idea that newer sources are somehow better in this case ignores the fact that the Mueller report has not been revised and no newer information has proven that Mueller's "I DELIBERATELY did NOT evaluate collusion" (paraphrase) was a misstatement justifying later secondary RS to claim that Mueller concluded there actually was "no collusion". Mueller treated "conspiracy" differently than "collusion", so it's not okay to just switch them. We don't get to use careless reporting in RS to engage in historical revisionism.

The sources that are getting it wrong are putting words in Mueller's mouth that he never uttered or implied, not just asserting their own opinion that there was "no collusion". They are also repeating Barr's and Trump's lies.

The idea that newer sources are often better applies to changing situations where newer revelations cause us to revise our understandings and update our content. This is not such a case. No matter how many RS were to say it, they don't get to place words in Mueller's mouth that clearly contradict what he actually said.

Interestingly, the longer we get from the Mueller report and the 2016 election interference, the more RS describe evidence of many forms of collusion and even conspiracy. (That is not at issue in this discussion, but that is a situation where newer information does cause us to change our previous views. Mueller did not examine everything in depth. Later research and documents are incriminating.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC

I would still weight newer sources higher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We often work with truth. Truth is a key factor in determining whether a source is/isn't a reliable, as fact-checking and accuracy involve attention to the truth. Truth is what determines whether a quote is accurate (did the source actually say this, or did the editor pretend that it's a quote when it isn't?). When we encounter something that's false in an article, truth often motivates us to search for a source that allows us to correct it. We don't go around inserting what we believe to be true if we don't have an RS to verify it, but when we do have several RSs verifying the truth, it's absolutely appropriate to say "these other sources are GREL, but they've gotten this claim wrong; it's not true, so they're not reliable for this particular claim." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

No... Truth is what determines whether a quote is true, verifiability is what determines whether a given representation of a quote is accurate. "Cheese causes AIDS" can be a verifiably accurate quote, but it wouldn't be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about whether the quoted claim is itself true. I was talking about whether the ostensible quote is an accurate quote. We attend to the truth in deciding whether [claim that appears in a WP article in quotation marks] = [text that appears in the source]. Either the purported equality is true (it's an accurate quote), or it's false (it's a misquote). More generally, we attend to truth in assessing whether WP text is verifiable: is it true that the source supports the WP text? (WP:V says "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." How do you assess that the source does indeed support the material without attending to the truth-value of "the cited source supports this material"?) Again, we don't go around inserting what we believe to be true if we don't have an RS to verify it, but that in no way implies that "we work with verifiability not truth." We work with both. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Sir you have fully jumped the shark. Step away from the hard philosophy slowly and nobody gets hurt lol. Should have guessed from the name that this was something you would have a strongly held heterodox opinion on. I will desist, but I ask you to respect WP:V regardless of what you believe to be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I do respect WP:V (and other relevant PAGs, like WP:RS). I quoted from that policy to help you understand how WP:V requires us to attend to truth. Here's another relevant excerpt: "Avoid stating opinions as facts," where "facts" links to "A fact is a true datum." I have not in any way jumped the shark. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

You've mistaken a fact for an opinion, it is my opinion that you have jumped the shark. It is a fact that this will be my last comment on the matter. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be in classic WP:WSAW territory.

In a situation where we have:

• A primary source that says A.
• Secondary sources that say the primary source said B.
• Other secondary sources that say "it's a myth the primary source said B, it actually said A.

This strikes me as a 3 (footnote) or 4a (explain notable error in prose) situation, though I could be convinced by 4b (explain conflict in prose).

I definitely don't think it's a 5 (say nothing) or 6 (get it wrong) situation. We do have the sources that say it's A. We have a primary source saying A and multiple secondary sources backing up that interpretation and explicitly calling "the primary source says B" a myth. Loki (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

For those who'd like to study this deeper, as I have done:

When the Mueller report was finished, Trump and Barr claimed that the report exonerated Trump and that there was "no collusion", but Philip Bump explained why that wording was false:

As Mueller made clear in the public statement he offered Wednesday — his first of substance since being appointed as special counsel — Trump's summary was not an accurate one. The special counsel's report explicitly rejected analysis of "collusion," a vague term that lacks a legal meaning. Instead of a lack of "collusion" between Trump's campaign and Russia, Mueller said that "there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

Laura McGann cites Barr and explains the problem (bold added):

In another case, Barr misrepresented Mueller’s approach to the question of collusion. During his press conference on Thursday, Barr said that Mueller found "no collusion," "no underlying collusion," and "no evidence" of "collusion."

"There was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking," Barr said, later adding, "There was, in fact, no collusion."
But the very beginning of Mueller's report makes it clear the special counsel did not evaluate whether there was collusion, because "collusion" is not a federal crime or a commonly used legal term.

Instead, the report evaluates whether there was "conspiracy" — a criminal act — or "coordination," which it defined as an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia on Russian interference in the elections. (The report did state that the investigation did not establish coordination.)

Mueller refuted the claims of Trump and Barr and explained why his investigation focused on whether the 2016 Trump campaign criminally "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia, and he also explained why he made no finding on whether they "colluded" with the Russians.

Although Mueller "never used the 'no collusion' phrase", some otherwise reliable sources began to repeat the false claim that his report had done so, and many sources continue to misleadingly use those words.

(That nice list of RS "getting it wrong" was provided by PackMecEng as examples of sources to use and to believe. PME believes they trump Mueller's own words.)

Former CIA Director John Brennan stated that Trump's claims of "no collusion" with Russia were "hogwash":

The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.

David A. Graham of The Atlantic has noted that in spite of Trump's "mantra that 'there was no collusion' ... it is clear that the Trump campaign and later transition were eager to work with Russia, and to keep that secret."

Source dump

These sources explain the issues quite well. The editors at Just Security and Lawfare are subject matter experts on this stuff. They often do extensive scholarly analysis.

This is chronological. The Mueller report was first released to the public on April 18, 2019, so take note of when sources are writing.

• February 21, 2019: Stop Using the Word "Collusion"—How to Frame the Critical Question at the Heart of Trump-Russia
• March 23, 2019 (before release): How to Understand the End of the Mueller Investigation (Hint: You Can’t Yet)
• March 25, 2019: What Does the Barr Letter Actually Say About Collusion?
• April 18, 2019: What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis
• April 18, 2019: Robert Mueller's report shows William Barr's statements were incomplete at best
• April 19, 2019: Notes on the Mueller Report: A Reading Diary
• April 29, 2019: Guide to the Mueller Report's Findings on "Collusion"
• April 29, 2019: 'Cooperation' and 'Corrupt Intent' in Barr's Obstruction Analysis
• June 12, 2019: How Collusion Confusion Helps Trump
• August 21, 2020: A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find?
• November 2, 2020: Did Mueller Fail?

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

References

It's pretty simple: we should not deliberately say things that are false. WP:V says that we must ensure that the things we write can be verified to be true. It does not say, anywhere, nor does it even slightly imply, nor does any policy imply (regardless of how much you disagree with somebody's political opinions) that we are required to PURPOSELY SAY THINGS WE KNOW TO BE FALSE: that is absurd. jp×g🗯️ 01:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This. While there is rightly a WP:VNT culture at Wikipedia it doesn't mean sources are sanctified to the extent Wikipedia would relay obvious falsehoods. That would be bad for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit of a side issue, but I must point out what I believe is a misstatement by JPxG, who wrote, just above: "WP:V says that we must ensure that the things we write can be verified to be true." That is not what V means. The policy says: "verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source." The next sentence begins: "Even if you are sure something is true...." Ability to check that information is from RS does not automatically mean the information is true. That second sentence in the opening paragraph of the Verifiability policy should be revised to say: "Even if you are sure about something..."

My own summation of the Muller issue is simply that Mueller did not find collusion because he was not looking for it. I'm not sure if any single RS puts it so plainly, but if one does, we should use it and make that point, that clearly, while we also summarize that Mueller could not establish conspiracy or coordination. DonFB (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What causes a source to be "reliable" or "unreliable"? We do not just flip a coin. jp×g🗯️ 08:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe you altered the meaning of the policy by implying that Wikipedia is a source of truth. DonFB (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The statement I made was "we should not deliberately say things that are false". I do not understand how this could possibly be misinterpreted. Do you think we should deliberately say things that are false? jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

We should not use Wikivoice to make false statements. We can use Wikivoice (backed by refs) to describe misstatements by RS if those statements are relevant to the topic. Your comment, "WP:V says that we must ensure that the things we write can be verified to be true", goes beyond the intent of the policy. "Verifiability, not truth" is no longer policy, but neither does current policy mandate truth as a baseline requirement. Instead, the policy means that things we write must be available in published RS. Better, and more faithful to the policy, if you had said: "WP:V says that we must ensure that the things we write can be verified as published in Reliable Sources."

On the actual matter that Mueller and his team did not find collusion: that statement by RS, on its face, is not false, but it is incomplete. As I wrote above, the article can (should) clearly explain that the investigators did not find collusion, because they were not looking for it, due to its lack of legal recognition. They looked for conspiracy/coordination, but concluded they could not establish it. DonFB (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Re: "the article can (should) clearly explain that the investigators did not find collusion, because they were not looking for it, due to its lack of legal recognition," I agree that they weren't looking for collusion per se, but that doesn't mean they didn't find it. The Report identified several pieces of evidence that can be characterized as collusion (e.g., the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, Manafort providing polling data to Kilimnik, Roger Stone's interactions with Guccifer 2 re: data stolen from the DNC by Russia, Flynn's discussions with Kislyak to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting president). WP's article should note that the Report found these things, also noting that it wasn't called "collusion" by the Special Counsel because collusion is not a term of law, but that expert RSs have said it's reasonable to describe them as collusion (e.g., here).

"They looked for conspiracy/coordination, but concluded they could not establish it." Agreed. But that doesn't mean that they didn't find evidence of it; it only means that they didn't think they could prove it beyond reasonable doubt in court. The investigation was sometimes obstructed. As Mueller noted, "[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Agreed that "current policy [doesn't] mandate truth as a baseline requirement," but I think there's an expectation that we don't knowingly include false information without identifying it as false, citing its falsity to RSs. I also agree that "the policy means that things we write must be available in published RS," but truth matters in assessing whether a source is/isn't an RS for specific WP content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, you make a number of excellent points. According to several expert and scholarly sources, Mueller found evidence of conspiracy, coordination, and collusion, but chose to only address the first two, and, because it could not stand up in court, he made a ruling that he was unable to prove them, and also listed some obstruction reasons that may have prevented him from getting the evidence needed to stand up in court. Note that this is not relevant to this discussion, which is only about what some RS claim Mueller said in his report. It's still a very relevant and tangential matter that could be discussed in a thread somewhere else. This is a good new article topic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

We can describe that some RS report or opine that collusion was found, but we must make clear when giving such description that the official report contains no finding of "collusion" and that the investigators worked with the explicit intent that "collusion" was not a subject of their investigation. The sub-section "Conspiracy vs collusion" already explains this situation, although it could be tweaked to clearly point out that some RS reported collusion was found, while the official report disclaims such a finding. Our job is to describe what happened (in the investigation and the reporting), not to decide the "truth" about what happened. DonFB (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle difference between "did not find collusion" and "contains no finding of collusion," as the first phrase is using "find" in its everyday sense and the second is using "finding" in its legal sense. I agree that the report contains no such finding, but my point is that some of its findings with respect to conspiracy have been interpreted as evidence of collusion by expert RSs.

I'm not saying that it's our job to "decide the truth" when its not known, or that we can go around inserting what we believe (or even know) to be true if we don't have an RS to verify it. I'm saying that in writing WP content, we often have to attend the truth/falsity/uncertainty, and we sometimes make determinations that X is true and Y is false. For example, WP:V says "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Sometimes we come across text that someone else introduced, and we decide "the source supports this text" is false, and we either delete the text or go in search of a source that does support it. Conversely, when we summarize something from an RS, we're implicitly saying to ourselves "it's true that this source supports this content." WP:V also says "Avoid stating opinions as facts," where "facts" links to "A fact is a true datum." I agree with your earlier comment that "Ability to check that information is from RS does not automatically mean the information is true," but assessing whether a source is/isn't reliable involves attending to truth to some extent. Could a source that we believe to be reliable get something wrong? Absolutely. But we don't knowingly present something false in wikivoice. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree, we don't knowingly say false things in Wikivoice. As is so often the case in a discussion like this, I see (essentially futile) arguments in which editors try to prove a point that (in this saga) collusion was found, because an xyz group of RS's said so, or collusion was not found, because an abc group of RS's said it was not found. My recommendation, especially in such a sensitive and controversial topic, is that we should clearly summarize and attribute the various RS reports-analyses-interpretations and completely avoid trying to argue against each other that [collusion/gravity/flying spaghetti monster, etc, etc] was found to exist or not exist. Unless I'm mistaken, we have a situation in which some RS report "no collusion"; some RS report "yes collusion"; other RS report statements about collusion by figures like the AG and POTUS. Our job is to describe what secondary RS report in their role in interpreting the primary content of the Mueller report, and in reporting what figures like the AG and POTUS say about the report. We also can (and do) quote relevant parts of the Report in which it describes the investigating team's approach to "collusion", but we should not do so in an argumentative fashion. Let the Report speak for itself. Let the secondary RS's speak for themselves. Let RS's that criticize other RS's speak for themselves. Let Wikipedia make no effort to steer readers toward our interpretation of the "truth" about "collusion". That is not our job.

And yes, we should appropriately apply Due Weight. I'm not aware, though, that any RS has conducted and published some kind of scientific statistical survey to determine if reports of "yes collusion" outnumber reports of "no collusion", or vice-versa. In the absence of any such reliably-sourced evidence, we'll have to muddle through, but for my money, I'd be happy to see the article just accurately describe the contending reports from RS without endlessly sweating over which is more Due than another. DonFB (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This comes back to the question of how we decide in the first place that a source is an RS for the specific content in question (per WP:RSCONTEXT, regardless of whether it's GREL or GUNREL for content more generally) and how we decide what the WP:BESTSOURCES are for this content. In this case I think the best sources are the ones written by law professors, as they have the most relevant expertise. Yes, note that many in the MSM reported "no collusion," but also state that expert sources say that that's incorrect. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that you are interpreting this as some attempt by me to play 4D-chess and make a claim about some guy named Roger Mueller, so you are raising a bunch of minor objections, in the fear that if you don't, it will cause Roger Mueller to be right, or wrong, or whatever.

I do not give a damn about Roger Mueller. I do give a damn about the basic policies of the project.

Here is an example of a false claim:

The Empire State Building is located on top of the Golden Gate Bridge.

This simply isn't true. I (and likely hundreds of other editors) have been to both of these places. We have thousands of photographs of them. They are nowhere near each other.

If a "reliable" source made this claim, what do you think would happen?

We would conclude the source was not reliable for this statement.

The claim's falseness would be the basis for the conclusion.

There is no circumstance under which it would ever be policy-compliant to write this sentence, knowing it to be false, because "reliable source". jp×g🗯️ 16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Before someone writes the comment of vague aspersions: yes, yes, I already know "false things are not true" is a highly complicated and deeply political statement that once and for all proves I'm a secret agent of the Democrats or Republicans or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 16:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And this is why I think it's a mistake that some editors say things like "This is why we work with verifiability not truth, thats just too high a standard for us to meet at the end of the day". Sometimes it's too high a standard, whether because those with expertise don't actually know whether a T/F statement is true vs. false (e.g., "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe"), or because it's an opinion, or because an editor doesn't know whether a statement in a source is T vs. F and hasn't found an expert commenting on it, even though an expert would know whether it's T vs. F. But other times, it's a totally reasonable standard: there are things that are known to be true (e.g., "2+2+4"), and things that are known to be false (e.g., "The Empire State Building is located on top of the Golden Gate Bridge"). We shouldn't be adding content we know to be false, and if expert sources are saying that statement X is false even though lots of GREL sources say that X is true, then those sources actually aren't RSs for X, even if they're GREL for lots of other things. There's a reason for the G in GREL; it's not AREL (A=always). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And now you get the issue at play. The content is not a fact issue its an opinion issue. This is the is there life out there question. Especially since it has not been proven either way. Thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"The content is not a fact issue its an opinion issue." You're absolutely wrong about that. And it's astounding that you then follow that sentence by saying that "This is the is there life out there question," when I very clearly identified that not as an opinion but as a T/F matter where experts do not yet know whether it's true vs. false. Reread "those with expertise don't actually know whether a T/F statement is true vs. false (e.g., "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe")." T/F statements are not matters of opinion. They're either true, or they're false. We may not know which truth-value it has, but that doesn't turn it from a T/F matter into an opinion. And this case is nothing like "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe". Experts do, in fact, know whether Mueller said that there was "no collusion." He didn't. You clearly do not "get the issue at play." Don't thank me for something I didn't say, pretending that I said it. That's disingenuous, and it's another instance of your counterproductive behavior here. Stop already. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

But that is the core of the issue, so please WP:AGF. Also, to clarify, this has nothing to do with Mueller's statement, this is about how RS interpret the report itself. The RS making the no collusion claim repeat Mueller's statement that they did not explicitly examine it. The issue with you take on the situation is the content issue at play is NOT a fact vs opinion issue and you keep trying to frame the issue around that and specifically a statement that is not relevant to prove a point and create a truth that doesnt exist. Yes Mueller said he didnt look at it and that its not a legal term. Great, that is not the issue at play here, the issue is RS interpretation of the report and assigning them as wrong based on your throughts on the subject. That is WP:TRUTH OR WP:RGW standpoint that holds not water. Its just a red herring and a worthless distraction from the actual content issue at hand. Get back in track please, and drop the surface level interpretation while letting RS guide you. This is not like one or two sources in the pocket of Trump or whatever BS is said to discredit them. Its multiple high quality sources from experts that have been deeply investigated over years. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. When RS keep repeating a false claim refuted by Mueller and many other and better RS, then no matter how recent they are, they are still repeating a falsehood. We should not use such sources for exactly that content. You have chosen the reliable sources which back your beliefs (an accusation you have made against me and others, so wear that shoe, because it fits), but in doing so you are taking a side that is contrary to what Mueller said. How convenient. We are refusing to use those sources because their interpretation is false and contrary to what Mueller said, and they are false when they put "no collusion" in his mouth. Stop your push to include sources that repeat Trump's lies as if they were true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

My guy, if you are going to link to a section of an article that interprets the report even through Mueller said he didnt investigate it but in the same sentence say people that come to a different conclusion doing the same thing is wrong that is just hypocritical. That is why our polices go againt that kind of POV pushing. PackMecEng (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't repeatedly make false claims about me and then tell me to AGF. If you were actually operating in good faith, you wouldn't be making false claims about me. You did it yet again below, where you wrote "As factsoropinions points out above, its like proving aliens." That claim is absolute BS. I not say that, and I explicitly told you that you were wrong when you interpreted it that way.

As for "the issue is RS interpretation of the report," no, the issue is that you assert that sources are reliable (you are calling it "RS interpretation") despite the fact that they're making a false claim. As I've noted more than once here, that a source is GREL does not make it reliable for every single thing that it says. In this case, those sources are wrong. They are not RSs for this content. They are only GREL sources making a false statement. Moreover, as I've already pointed out, these are not the WP:BESTSOURCES, which are the analyses written by law professors.

I don't see any point to responding further. I've already made these points before, and you are clearly in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• I haven't dug massively deeply into this issue, but my reading, from glancing over the sources, is that this is a case where WP:BREAKING sources and news reporting have often been wrong, or cursory, or quoted / relied on what Barr said without checking it; but that more in-depth sources by legal scholars have contradicted it. In that case it's those in-depth sources by legal scholars that are the WP:BESTSOURCES which we should rely on; it's hard to miss that one side in this debate is posting in-depth analysis from legal experts and the other is basing their position on often brief reflections in the news. Mainstream news reporting is reliable, sure - but legal experts are the best sources here, and when the two contradict, the news reporting loses out and gets reduced to eg. at best an attributed position that shouldn't be given too much focus and which should be clearly positioned as something experts have described as wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Collusion is not a crime, why would we give top billing to legal experts on something that is not a legal matter? Did he collude with Russia and God knows who else? Probably, but most RS interpret the Mueller report as coming to the conclusion that the gist of it was no collusion. Even after Mueller clarified that theh did not specifically look for it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  [Collusion is not a crime per se] does not imply [collusion is not a legal matter].

  If you think legal matters are limited to crimes, you are very mistaken. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously legal matters are not limited to crimes. But per Mueller collusion is not a legal term. We did not address 'collusion,' which is not a legal term.[12] So which is it? We need to go by facts, not your opinions on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which is what? (Make sure that you don't invoke a false dichotomy in your answer.) I have no problem at all going by facts, including the fact that WP:BESTSOURCES is policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  You say we should use legal experts for a non-legal issue. That makes no sense, and is not in line with our best sources policy. Best sources, in this situation, would be going with what the majorty of RS say on the subject and how they interpret it. If you want to make the argument that they should be discounted in favor of legal scholars/experts, I would expect the subject to be in their field of expertise, which this is not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  You asked me a question, "So which is it?" I pointed out to you that the referent of your question wasn't clear, asking you "Which is what?" You haven't answered. Are you afraid that answering the question will undermine your argument?

  As for "You say we should use legal experts for a non-legal issue," that's total BS. I did not say or imply that it's a "non-legal issue." It very clearly is a legal issue / a legal matter, as I've already indicated. If it weren't a legal issue/matter, then legal scholars wouldn't be commenting on it, and the Acting Attorney General wouldn't have commented on it, and the Attorney General wouldn't have commented on it, and the MSM wouldn't be discussing it as a legal issue/matter. Your claim that "this is not [in legal scholars/experts' field of expertise]" is BS as well, for the same reason. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ah so if someone comments on something it must be because its related to that field even if the people actually involved say its not. Weird argument to make and does not hold up to policy or even the slightest amount of critical thinking. But looks like we are at an impass. You want to make things up and I want to go by our policies, reliable sources, and common sense. Take care! PackMecEng (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  So you still haven't answered the question I asked you.

  Re: "the people actually involved say its not", as you note, there are "people" (plural) involved. List them, and then you can quote what they've said that you believe substantiates your assertion that all of these people are saying that it's not a legal issue/matter. In choosing quotes, make absolutely sure that you are not conflating "legal issue/matter" with "legal term," since those phrases aren't synonyms. Three of people involved are: Mueller, Acting AG Rosenstein, and AG Barr.

  "Weird argument to make" Good thing that I'm not making that argument. Stop attributing things to me that I haven't said. Straw man arguments are both fallacious and WP:DISRUPTIVE. "does not hold up to ... even the slightest amount of critical thinking ... You want to make things up" Don't insult your fellow editors; that, too, is WP:DISRUPTIVE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  The point of WP:V is that readers can verify the content to a reliable source. If an editor can show that the source is wrong then it's not reliable.
  If you argue that a source has misstated a person, and that person is reported (in reliable sources) as saying they have been misstated, then the original sources are not reliable for the persons statements.
  "Verification not truth" requires verification from reliable sources. Although discussions are usually about the general nature of a source ultimately the real assessment of a sources reliability is in WP:RSCONTEXT. If in context the source is not reliable, as is the case here, then they can not be used for verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I would focus more on the relative quality of sources and what sort of question this is, since the fact that higher-quality sources say XYZ is a way that we can know that other sources are wrong. Usually "find higher-quality sources that say as much" would be my advice to anyone who thinks that the sources are wrong - we do have some options if the sources are glaringly wrong, sure, but it's much much easier if we can point to higher-quality ones (that is to say, in this context, more relevant ones) that actually say as much. --Aquillion (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Because here we're talking about it in the context of the conclusions of a special counsel investigation, which obviously is a legal matter; the underlying question is about the precise meanings and implications of words in that legal context. A general-purpose staff writer for the NYT is not as qualified to weigh in on that as a legal scholar, and even a random legal scholar wouldn't be as good of a source as one with experience with the specific laws surrounding the investigation. --Aquillion (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

which obviously is a legal matter I mean Mueller disagrees with that so I think I am going to trust him on it rather than your assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Mueller doesn't disagree. You assert that he disagrees, conflating "legal term" and "legal matter" (or "legal issue"), even though the former phrase is not synonymous with the latter. This has been pointed out to you more than once. If you actually trust Mueller, then pay close attention to what he is/isn't saying. Do you understand the difference between "legal term" and "legal matter"? If not, just say. But if you do understand the difference, then don't treat them as if they mean the same thing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this is going over your head. Maybe re-read what everyone has said here and the sources if you are having trouble understanding basic concepts like this. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Your ad hominem response is counterproductive. You can choose to work with me to try to find a consensus solution, or you can continue being WP:DISRUPTIVE. I hope you'll choose the former. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

PME, that's below you. Just respond to FactOrOpinion without such uncivil responses. It makes no difference, as far as this discussion goes, whether "collusion" is a legal "term" or "matter". That's a red herring. It's about the topic of "collusion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the distinction between "legal term" and "legal matter" does make a difference. Collusion is not a term that appears in any laws; in that sense, it is not a legal term, and that's why Mueller said "We did not address 'collusion,' which is not a legal term." But what you're calling the topic of collusion, and what Aquillion and I have called the legal matter of collusion, is not limited to whether collusion is a legal term. PackMecEng consistently focuses on Mueller's statement that collusion isn't a legal term, pretending that it means there was no collusion, when it doesn't mean that at all. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

In this thread, it's a red herring we should avoid. It has relevance for Mueller's motivation for addressing or not addressing certain matters. It has no relevance to the conflicting issue of Mueller's clear statements that he did not address "collusion" and then Trump and some RS saying he did address it. He did not. PME, Trump, and those sources are wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

What specific WP text is this debate about? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, this is about the deletion of the words Mueller's investigation did not focus on "collusion" and the start of an edit war. To avoid that, I started a talk page thread here: Talk:Mueller special counsel investigation#When RS make false claims, we do not treat them as true.

At stake is the deletion by Yodabyte of wording about "collusion" (Mueller's investigation did not focus on "collusion") and PackMecEng's support of that removal. PME's edit summaries are important, as they wanted to put more weight on many RS that say "no collusion", rather than the proper weight on Mueller's own statements that he did not make any conclusion on "collusion".

This goes even further back to November 2024, when Politrukki made a long series of edits that introduced misleading wording that was not corrected immediately, thus introducing this false statement made by many RS: "Mueller did not find collusion between Trump campaign and Russia."

In my later edits, I corrected that error, but PackMecEng does not agree and continues to argue that later sources should be emphasized, especially those that make statements that Mueller found "no collusion", which is just a repetition of Trump's lie about Mueller's findings. I believe we need to clearly state that Mueller made no finding of "no collusion". No amount of RS of any age can change what he actually did not say. PME's blind application of RS, as if they can never be wrong, is disruptive.

I would restore the words Mueller's investigation did not focus on "collusion" myself if it might not be considered edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

"Collusion is not a term that appears in any laws"?? A quick look at the Federal code finds it appears in dozens of laws. It might not appear for the specific things Mueller was investigating. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I assumed that Mueller's statement, "We did not address 'collusion,' which is not a legal term" and the statement in the report that "collusion is not ... a term of art in federal criminal law" were accurate. I hadn't checked their accuracy before I made my statement, clearly a mistake on my end. I'll assume that he meant something narrower than what he / the report actually said. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Bad form. I suggest striking that. DN (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, Mueller distanced his investigation from making a conclusion about "collusion" and instead focused on "conspiracy" and "coordination". The investigation made clear statements and conclusions on those matters. Why do you dispute that? Why put words in his mouth? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  This discussion is about Mueller's use of the term collusion and how RS tear/interpret that. Nothing to do with conspiracy or coordination. Mueller said, and I quote, “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,”[13] Now if you want to say well he said legal term but that's not the same as a legal matter. That is BS, and if your argument is that thin then you don't have one. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you just answer my question? You have introduced a red herring. It makes no difference, as far as this discussion goes, whether "collusion" is a legal "term" or "matter". That's a red herring. It's about the topic/concept of "collusion" (and any other forms of the word "collude").

You provide the right answer in your quote (“We did not address ‘collusion,’) and the source (mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion), yet you try to push the opposite POV, that Mueller did address collusion by making a "no collusion" statement/conclusion. Just listen to those words and the source you just used. They are telling the truth. Mueller "refuted" Trump's "no collusion" claim. Mueller never said or implied it, yet there are many RS which say the opposite, and they are wrong. Mueller's “We did not address ‘collusion,’ is pretty clear. Just believe it, not sources that misquote him and put the opposite words in his mouth. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Mueller's statement explicitly indicates in as many words that he only considered the question from a legal perspective; it makes it totally unequivocal that his conclusions are solely limited to legal implications and, therefore, establishes decisively that the highest-quality sources for interpreting those conclusions will be experts on the law. I understand that you disagree, but this is clearly a WP:1AM situation at this point; you've got the answer to your question and it's pretty clear that that answer is that when discussing the precise meaning of the special counsel report, we need to prioritize legal experts over general news stories from non-experts, even from high-quality publications, at least in the sense of giving most of the weight to legal experts in situations where their conclusions contradict each other. If you strenuously disagree, you could start an WP:RFC on it, but otherwise it's well past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Aquillion (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Aquillion, whom are you addressing? It obviously isn't me. As I have stated above, the "legal" or not aspect of the word "collusion" is a red herring in this thread. I wish it had never been brought up. Regardless of how it is described, Mueller deliberately refused to evaluate whether or not there was "collusion" (“We did not address ‘collusion,’), yet PME insists on favoring sources that falsely assert Mueller found "no collusion". THAT is the issue here. We need the wording Mueller's investigation did not focus on "collusion" restored. I would restore the words myself if it might not be considered edit warring. Maybe you can help. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Weird choice to selectively cite Mueller but exclude that he explicitly said the topic of this dispute was not a legal term. PackMecEng (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You may be responding to Aquillion, but you should stay on the topic of this thread, which has nothing to do with the legal status of the "collusion" topic. That doesn't mean that collusion's legal status isn't also an important topic, it's just not relevant to this thread which is about your insistence on using RS that claim Mueller found "no collusion" when he did no such thing. The record is clearly against you, as explained in WaPo:

Robert Mueller kneecaps President Trump's no collusion, no obstruction mantra

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wasted no time during his House Judiciary Committee testimony Wednesday in undercutting President Trump’s ongoing insistence that Mueller’s probe cleared him of all wrongdoing.

In fact, it was only about an hour after Trump’s most recent claim that there was “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION” that Mueller slowly read into the record an opening statement that made obvious how wrong Trump was.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said. But: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

That’s an important distinction, between a colloquial term, collusion, and what Mueller’s team sought to determine, which was whether there was enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. Mueller is pointed: There was no determination on “collusion” — and there may have been at least some evidence pointing to possible conspiracy.

The factual wording you deleted, Mueller's investigation did not focus on "collusion", should be restored, accompanied with "We did not address 'collusion,' which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."

RS that lend backing to Trump's false claim should NOT be used in this case. They are still RS for other things, but not about "collusion". You should stop pushing Trump's false "no collusion mantra". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support As Valjean has pointed out, the issue being raised seems like a red herring.

DN (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Darknipples:, to be clear, the issue of the "legal" status of "collusion" is the red herring. We should stop all mention of that in this thread.

The issue of this thread is NOT the red herring. Mueller did NOT find "no collusion", even though PackMecEng insists he did. We should not use the RS that mistakenly and carelessly repeat Trump's lie which has been debunked by other RS and Mueller himself. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you write that “most RS interpret the Mueller report as coming to the conclusion that the gist of it was no collusion”, but this is NOT about an "interpretation" made by RS of what Mueller said. It’s about what he expressly denied saying. Your poor sources are putting words in Mueller’s mouth. They may be GREL, but for this matter they are simply wrong.

Either he said “no collusion” or he did not. There are two sides to this question, and he explained very deliberately that he did NOT evaluate whether there "was collusion" or was “no collusion”, yet your sources take Barr’s and Trump’s side (and we know they are both liars and extremely unreliable), thus exonerating Trump. Even worse, they claim that Mueller actually said there was “no collusion”. That’s BS. You still haven’t provided a single example of Mueller saying or implying such a thing. If your sources are right, it should be easy to verify their accuracy and produce a quote from the Mueller report.

Mueller explained that he did not exonerate Trump and that he made no judgment about “collusion”, only about “conspiracy” and “coordination”. Neither you nor RS that get it wrong get to put words in Mueller’s mouth. You cannot “verify”, using those sources or the Mueller report, that he ever said or implied there was “no collusion”. You would need RS that actually quote the report, and such quotes do not exist.

If he later said there “was collusion” or there “was no collusion”, it would be a different matter, but it would not be the Mueller report speaking. It would be Mueller speaking his own personal opinion and not be relevant to this discussion about what he said in the Mueller report. What the report says is like the engraving on a gravestone. No amount of time or number of RS that get it wrong can rightly claim that stone says something it doesn’t say or ever said. (There is no “newer” version of the report.)

Your “majority of sources” claim (if it were even true) is irrelevant, because we will choose one accurate source that is truthful over 99 that are telling an easily provable lie. RS can get it wrong, and in this case, many of them are doing that, yet you favor them. We will document what your sources say, and explain why they are wrong, and then we will say, in wikivoice, what the one accurate source (the Mueller report) says. We will back that up with a number of excellent RS that explain why your favored sources are wrong. That’s what NPOV tells us to do with conflicting narratives found in RS. We describe both sides and give more due weight to the accurate and truthful side. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah I think I see the problem here. You dont know the difference and purpose of a primary or secondary source. So Mueller is a primary source and we rely on secondary sources to interpret and diguest what he says. I think that is where you went wrong. He specifically said he did not investigate collusion but you want to use his report to support the claim of collusion. While other secondary sources say it shows no collusion. Pehaprs read Wp:RSPRIMARY and WP:PSTS. PackMecEng (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2019 sources say "no collusion", July 2019 sources clarify this with Mueller's testimony to note that Trump was not exonerated, and "collusion", which is not a legal term, was not evaluated. We should be using the July sources over the March sources. Mueller said there was not enough evidence to charge. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you write: "So Mueller is a primary source and we rely on secondary sources to interpret and diguest what he says. I'm no newbie and am well aware of the ways we can use primary and secondary sources, but when secondary sources lie about what the primary source says, we should not depend on the secondary sources. If they are just interpreting wrongly, that’s one problem, but when they manufacture a falsehood or impute meanings to Mueller that are contrary to his words or intents, that’s more serious. That’s what your sources are doing.

What did Mueller say? He said something so clearly about the investigation’s approach to the question of “collusion” that any secondary source that still dares to say he said there “was collusion” or said there was “no collusion” is a source we cannot trust, yet you trust them. Not only are they interpreting wrongly, they are citing wrongly. He said something that can loosely be termed “no conspiracy”. He did NOT say anything that can even loosely be termed “no collusion”. Your secondary sources are being misleadingly careless with their words, and they are twisting Mueller’s words. He made a judgment about “conspiracy”, not about “collusion”. Your sources claim he made a judgment about “collusion” when he clearly said he did not.

Again, you are not showing evidence that you are reading what others here are telling you. When I say “reading”, I mean understanding and ingesting so you change your opinions accordingly. You are not showing a positive learning curve. You are defending the indefensible. How many editors have to keep telling you that you are wrong before you will finally admit it? Nobody is defending you. This is one big IDHT “Failure or refusal to "get the point" and tendentious pushing of a fringe POV. This is another example of how defending Trump is nearly always the wrong thing to do. Our best default approach for Trump is descibed here: David Zurawik says we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" because that's "how to cover a habitual liar". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same flawed logic and not understanding how our sourcing policy works and just replacing it with your person opinions on the matter. I don't think you have anything productive to add to this conversation at this point other than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so until you do I think you should just take a break. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to point out that contemporary reporting on an event is generally WP:PRIMARY, unless it goes into analysis of the event rather than just reporting them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

To get the article back to a correct description of the Mueller report's findings, I have added a hatnote pointing to much broader and deeper coverage of this topic.

See also: Mueller report § Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion, and Mueller report § False "no collusion" claims

I also made this edit that added this wording:

"The investigation did not establish that members of the 2016 Trump campaign "conspired" or "coordinated" with Russia and did not evaluate whether or not "collusion" occurred.

I trust that other editors will defend, and improve if necessary, that edit. Also resist anymore attempts by PackMecEng to insert false content and any RS that make the false claim that Mueller found "no collusion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, you are the one saying they are wrong by framing it in a way they didnt say. Again the sources acknowledge muller's statment that he did not investigateit, they say it explicitly. What they do is interpret the report, which is fine and what you want. RS on both sides did that, some finding collusion and others not finding it. As factsoropinions points out above, its like proving aliens. I just wish you understood policy better. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the policies relevant to this matter just fine. As others have pointed out, that is your problem, not mine. When RS get it wrong, we do not use those faulty sources for that specific matter. You are choosing to use such faulty sources.

There is the real-life matter of "whether or not there was collusion", but that is not what this discussion is about. You claim your sources have later found there was "no collusion", but they are attributing that opinion to Mueller. He never said it, and no later information has come to light that even remotely supports Trump's claim that there was "no collusion". To the contrary, but that is not part of this discussion. (There are excellent sources that find myriad forms of collusion.)

Unlike you, with your specific choice of sources that are getting it wrong, I am not trying to RGW here about the question of "whether or not there was collusion". Just stick to what Mueller said and use RS that accurately document what he said. I have now fixed the content and linked to even better coverage in the Mueller report article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The solution here seems (to me) easy: Mueller said X, a bunch of sources and the Trump admin said that what Mueller said was Y, other sources said that the interpretation of him as saying Y was false or misleading because Z (examination of the legal language that Mueller used). Perhaps the large number of sources saying that Mueller said Y was demonstrably false - but it's still notable that they said this, and it had a lot of cultural and political impact. They shouldn't be excluded. The counter-claims that Mueller more accurately said X likewise are verifiable and notable and should be included as well. That's the neutral approach, and all of it is verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Why is Know Your Meme listed as unreliable

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 largely run-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)

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)

• Being just 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 the reputation 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 like According 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. or According 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 state Our expert staff and global research community chronicle the internet’s most significant trends and moments. and Know 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 that We 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 is properly 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 statement According 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?

Know Your Meme (KYM) is a website dedicated to documenting internet memes and viral phenomena. According to their About page, Know Your Meme's research is handled by an independent professional editorial and research staff and community members. The site features different categories of entries, including those marked as "Confirmed," which according to KYM have been carefully researched and verified by the research staff.

Currently, KYM is listed among user-generated content sources considered generally unreliable per WP:UGC. This RFC seeks to determine whether "Confirmed" articles on KYM, which have undergone editorial review and fact-checking by staff, should be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture.

Proposal

Little discussion has been had about KYM articles marked as "Confirmed" in the past. The last time this was discussed was 5 years ago, though this was when there was no information about KYM's editorial process or staff, and the result of the discussion was still unclear. Since then, KYM has developed a more robust editorial process with clear guidelines for verification and fact-checking, as outlined on their Editorial Rules page. The site now has an established team of professional editors with specific roles and responsibilities, and their "Confirmed" status has become a meaningful indicator of editorial review rather than merely user-generated content.

I propose that KYM articles clearly marked as "Confirmed" or written by staff (e.g. [14]) may be used as reliable sources for limited purposes in Wikipedia, specifically:

• For articles about internet memes and web culture
• When properly attributed (e.g., "According to Know Your Meme...")
• For factual information about the origin, spread, and evolution of memes
• Not for use in biographies of living persons
• Not to be used in Wikipedia's voice (WP:WIKIVOICE)

KYM's editorial process for "Confirmed" articles involves fact-checking and verification by professional staff. Their guidelines state that Know Your Meme staff review and fact-check content thoroughly and that they are careful to cite only reliable sources and strive to provide an impartial and balanced variety of perspectives. Their editorial guidelines clearly state the dos-and-dont's before a submission is properly researched and eventually confirmed.

This RFC does not propose any changes to the status of KYM articles marked as "Submission" or "Deadpool", which would remain unreliable per WP:UGC. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) No. Just because their content is "fact checked" by "staff" does not make them a reliable source. It's still user-generated content, at the end of the day. Besides that, I don't really know what exactly we need Know Your Meme for that we can't get from anywhere else. All they really "cite" are social media posts; if something is notable enough to have an article, we can do much better than Know Your Meme. And if they're our only source for something, I wouldn't think it belongs on here. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 22:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Just because their content is "fact checked" by "staff" does not make them a reliable source. Yet, being user-generated content doesn't necessarily not make them a reliable source, e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS. And if they're our only source for something, I wouldn't think it belongs on here. Yes, agreed; it should not count toward notability. But there are plenty of KYM articles that would be sufficient to supplement Wikipedia pages, e.g. [15], [16], which never reached "mainstream" notability but are still being used for List of emoticons. Perhaps I should clarify in the RfC that such usage of KYM should not count towards notability. Abayomi2003 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  e.g. WP:EXPERTSPS also states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Are they subject-matter experts? What qualifications do they have? And have they been published by other reliable and independent sources?

  there are plenty of KYM articles that would be sufficient to supplement Wikipedia pages. Sure, but why include them specifically? If it's notable, surely it's been covered in actually reliable and not self-published outlets. Also within EXPERTSPS is if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If the argument is "we already have sources, but we can also use Know Your Meme", why do we need to supplement already referenced information with an unreliable source? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• No per SmittenGalaxy. And we should generally follow this rule, no amount of "confirmation" can guarantee accuracy when the original author is an amateur. I would apply exactly the same principle, for example, to the recent spate of online Encyclopedia Britannica articles, which are written by random bloggers and "checked" by subject's editorial team. Unsurprisingly the quality is usually several notches below the standard set by the old print Britannica. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  no amount of "confirmation" can guarantee accuracy when the original author is an amateur. without commenting on KYM specifically (I don't have enough knowledge of the site to have a reliable opinion), I very strongly dispute the statement I quote. Just because the original author is an amateur does not mean something is incorrect. If someone who is a subject matter expert with no relevant conflict of interest confirms an amateur's work as accurate then we should treat the reviewed work as accurate - they are the experts not us. Consider also that we would unhesitatingly endorse the expert's findings if they came to the opposite conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• No per SmittenGalaxy. Know Your Meme is pretty much no different from websites like IMDB and Famous Birthdays -- it's user-generated content constructed by anonymous contributors, so we have little (if any) chance of establishing whether or not most content on the site passes WP:EXPERTSPS. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Your comment does not answer the question asked. This RFC is explicitly not about most content on the site, but about the subset of that content that is explicitly marked as having been confirmed as accurate by editorial staff. I don't know whether the editorial staff are considered experts, nor what the quality of the review is like, but content written by person A and reviewed and endorsed by independent editorial staff is almost by definition not self-published. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• No per my comments in the above section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify, that concern is that only a few of their editorial staff have any sort of credentials for writing for other RS's. I don't believe there's enough to provide full editorial control and quality with that, particularly considering how much they'd need to be reviewing of non-credentialed staff submitting content. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  Could you clarify what you mean by particularly considering how much they'd need to be reviewing of non-credentialed staff submitting content. As far as I can tell they don't attempt to review the vast majority of submitted content, and unreviewed content is explicitly irrelevant to this request. What matters is only whether the content they do review is reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, I got off topic into a more general assessment of the website. The first sentence is the one relevant to this proposal in particular. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• No Just because the staff or 'confirmed' post aren't purely user generated doesn't mean they are reliable sources. Even without the user generation issue is a rubbish source. Looking at a couple of the past discussions there's this article[17], which reads like an advertorial, or this one[18] containing allegations that a living person is a pedophile. Outside of what may, or may not be user generated KYM is still a highly questionable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• No per much of the above. This is basically just like Urban Dictionary. It may (sometimes, not always) be informative to a general reader, as what "randos on the Internet" think something means and what its origin in (and even linguists and modern-folklorist might make some use of it for research purpose to get at usage and ideas of folk etymology that are circulating), is is clearly UGC even if some reviewing is sometimes happening, and is not a reliable source under WP's definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• No That even with the editorial control over staff articles, many of their sources are still primary or not appropriate. Its fine to work from usable referencs cited in thse articles to develop content on WP, but not the KYM articles themselves. Masem (t) 04:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• No, although I think most of the people voting "no" so far have not read the RfC statement -- this is not about entries written by random people! -- it is about entries that have subsequently been edited and approved by staff members of the site. The relevant question, then, is whether there is a reason for us to believe that these staff members are qualified to judge whether memes are real, or whether they function as a coherent unit of editorial will. My answer to this question would be a resounding "no": the website is mostly an attempt to provide viral entertainment and in the last decade I cannot recall ever seeing any evidence of more scholarship than a cursory Google search. jp×g🗯️ 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• No. Just as featured articles on Wikipedia are not reliable. It's user-generated content. I've had a college prof state that featured articles go through as rigorous a process as peer-reviewed academic journal articles. But, they still are unreliable for Wikipedia purposes because they're user-generated. KYM is reliable for research, but it's not reliable for Wikipedia because it's user-generated. Even the confirmed articles are still user-generated.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• No per all above, and recommend WP:SNOW close. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• No. If a meme is deserving of coverage here, good sources that describe important aspects of the subject should be in adequate supply, without concern for a site like KYM. BarntToust 02:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  This proposal is about reliability, not notability. Your comment has nothing to do with reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  hey Serge, I don't particularly want MEMECRUFT eveywhere on Wikipedia, and I'll use whatever rationale for refuting it I see fit. I think literally most of the discussion has established that there is NO reliability for KYM, and I would feel like an idiot for just repeating that in my vote. Now, it's been a nice couple of days/week-ish replying to you, but I'm busy with building content and would appreciate it if you would take after Paul McCartney and Let it Be. BarntToust 11:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  n.b. I think you mean Let It Be (song) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't want "memecruft" either, but it doesn't change the fact that that "want" is irrelevant to reliability of this website. Luckily, as you say, the consensus has clearly developed regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  IMO, deciding whether content is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia needs to come before deciding that poor sources indexing said content should not be used. Whatever. I'm not interested in propagating this conversation for much longer; I have something going on at GARC and ought to focus on that rather than running circles around my point and your counterpoint. BarntToust 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Everyone's free to their personal opinions. Feel free to think that. But that doesn't make it a valid argument in the scope of how Wikipedia defines and identifies source reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  yes, reliability has been described perfectly well in this discussion. I don't believe that KYM, something that has implications for introducing memecruft here, warrants being discussed as if it is something that ought to be included—as if we need to consider and possibly accept sources from a site full of WP:INDISCRIMINATE content. Whether the site is reliable for its subject matter falls ahead of discerning whether the subject matter (the most, vast majority of it anyhow) even belongs here. BarntToust 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  INDISCRIMINATE is not a source reliability criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  hey, I'm just thinking different, applying different concepts and principles to other sscenarios. With all our bickering, we're beginning to sound worse than most old married couples, so maybe we oughta just forget we met one another and just move on with our respective WikiBusiness, that sound good? BarntToust 17:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  sheesh, all I want to say is that the vast majority content that KYM presents is not encyclopedic information, so we shouldn't even be going so far as to determine if they fulfill WP:RSPCRITERIA. BarntToust 17:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Simply stop giving opinions that aren't rooted in policy in public forum and I'll stop correcting you. Simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll continue to offer unconventional, perspective-subverting insights just as I see fit. Simple as that. BarntToust 18:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And discussion closers will continue to disregard it if its not rooted in a valid policy. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I hope they don't care about our tangent-arguments here, this is awkward. KYM is unusable for several reasons, from the nature/substance of what they cover to the fact it is all user-generated, and citing "staff picks" equivocates to trying to consider a FA on Wikipedia as a reliable source. I will always think that first, rejecting a source because of what it covers being material unfit for encyclopedic coverage comes before discussing whether it satisfies WP:RSPCRITERIA. I really have enjoyed this extended back-and forth with ya, Serge. See ya around. BarntToust 21:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  If something is indiscriminate in it's inclusion criteria then it will include content about subjects that are notable as well as subjects that are not notable. That means it's not useful for determining whether any entry is or is not notable. However, if we have determined, without reference to KYM (or other indiscriminate site) that a topic is notable then the site's inclusion criteria are completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the content they have about the topic is reliable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  turns out that the 98% or more of random memes whose coverage goes without encyclopedic merit or value are in the same reliability boat as the 2% or less "verified entries" and whatnot. Nobody seems to be voting further and I really wish a passerby could invoke WP:SNOW any day now.

  Literally, we're asking about the equivalent of a Fandom.com subsite here. I could say the same thing, 98% of entries on Fandom are stuff we reject for many reasons; other stuff fails for many more reasons. BarntToust 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment. While I don't disagree that KYM isn't a good source to use (and if an article insists on heavily relying on KYM, it could suggest that it does not meet WP:GNG), most of the answers above are not actually answering the RfC. The RfC proposes that the source be used for limited purposes, specifically for information about the origin, spread, and evolution of memes when properly attributed and not for notability purposes. Many above responses seem to focus on KYM's general reliability rather than addressing whether it could be useful in this limited context. The question is not whether KYM should be considered generally reliable, but whether its Confirmed articles could serve a specific, limited purpose in articles where notability has already been established through other reliable sources. To this, I am leaning towards Yes. Madeleine (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?

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

An RfCbefore can be found here. The source is used 89 times. FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Euro-Med)

• Option 2 per my previous votes on most other advocacy groups (though I did vote to deprecate the Heritage Foundation, iirc). Like others, most of their content is gonna be op-eds or similar, and those that have hard data are going to frame that data in a way that suits their cause(s). Usable with attribution, considering they seem to be fairly high-profile, but shouldn't be put in Wikivoice unless more "neutral" GRELs back up what they're saying (in which case it'd generally be better to just cite the GREL). The training program mentioned below is questionable, but I'd need to see harder evidence of potential or confirmed disruption to drop my vote any lower. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) This is the answer for every source...context-specific. For wp:ver uses, expertise and objectivity with regards to the item which cited it. For wp:weight uses, generally unreliable because it's an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Every single time I have seen them say something unique, which was not also available in RS, the claim was extremely unlikely. Euro-Med is a blog maintained entirely from Europe with limited-at-best access to real Middle East data or witnesses. When they make a radical claim they never provide a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it. They never retract or correct. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for general content, Option 4 for ARBPIA if technically feasible The EMHRM is mostly cited by news sources who themselves have a strong bias or issues with reliability, such as PressTV, WSWS, the Palestine Chronicle, etc. Among the (significantly rarer) high-quality citations such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung often use them with some sort of attribution, such as clarifying an unclear image origin. As such, the case for WP:USEBYOTHERS is mixed at best.

The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[19] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.

On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: claims regarding organ harvesting, considered by the ADL to be reminiscent of blood libel (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still claim that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[20]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[21] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[22]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).

For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes. Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[23], Wafa[24], New Arab[25], Palestine Chronicle[26], Middle East Eye[27] who have covered allegations of missing organs.

Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent the ADL described it as Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?

For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.

Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Responded here. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by Al-Jazeera and Forensic Architecture. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including historical alleged use), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were factually incorrect). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the surgery section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per The_Kip above (and my own comments in this section).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is a biased blog Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per finding raised by multiple editors
  • False statements or WP:EXTRAORDINARY statements without strong support from high-quality, independent sources
    • Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians [28]
    • Organ harvesting topic (debunked by BobFromBrockley see below)
  • Link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization (see the photo in [29]) Michael Boutboul (talk)

  bias isn't enough to deem a source as unreliable — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  If argument given by FortunateSons are correct, IMO it is sufficient for Option 3 Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  In addition to @FortunateSons arguments, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees. Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. The more I am looking for this site, I found significant evidence that the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor acts as a pro-Palestinian advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as ABC, Amnesty International, AP News, BBC, CNN, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, The Hill, The Independent, The Intercept, MSNBC, National Post, NBC News, PBS, Reuters, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Times of Israel, just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the UN. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Here Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been covered by other outlets - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.

  Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.

  A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."

  And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[30] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.

  This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

  Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like the UN and European parliament, is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[31], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([32], [33], [34], [35]).

I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "fact sheet" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about Richard Falk who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being appointed in 2008 by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.

This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [36][37][38][39] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of spreading misinformation and having a politically motivated agenda. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" section, and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. (link). The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

The organ harvesting article cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.

Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by B’Tselem (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or Middle East Eye (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [59] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  See here [60]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a delegation visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.

  Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I did some digging and found this summary of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: per Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet. It's cited by the following (among others):

https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524

https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/

Furthermore, they also work with the UN and the EU parliament and are cited by Amnesty International:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf

https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx

https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions

Their extensive use and citations means they are a RS and no one has shown or linked any point where they were wrong about something or anything that would indicate that they are unreliable. Just because they are critcial of Israel where there is evidence Israel has committed abuses, doesn't mean they should be listed as unreliable. Genabab (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per the sources mentioned by Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet, but acknowledging it as an advocacy group (so not option 1), Huldra (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Euro-Med)

• It's important to note that Euro-Med runs Wiki-Rights, which "trains" Wikipedians with what appears to be a desire to change the coverage of certain topics to allign with their values. I believe that any participant is at minimum obligated to disclose their COI if they choose to participate in this discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  @FortunateSons while I see your reasoning, I think WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAP might be better targets than WP:BATTLEGROUND there. ADVOCACY covers trying to shape Wiki articles to fit certain beliefs or narratives in violation of WP:NPOV, while BATTLEGROUND moreso constitutes general aggressiveness and incivility (sometimes in pursuit of advocacy, but not always). The Kip ^(contribs) 18:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Jesus fucking christ... — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Wow, they've been running this program since 2015! Considering that I've never seen anyone disclosing this, there are definitely WP:COI/WP:CANVASSING issues here, however they should probably be discussed elsewhere. It's definitely a biased source, with their founder and chairman being really happy about the October 7 attack. Alaexis_¿question? 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  The political views of Jeff Bezos have zero impact on the reliability of Washington Post, so long as he doesn't interfere in the newspaper in a way that would undermine its accuracy. Same applies here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Vice regent If I recall correctly, though, statements made by Jonathan Greenblatt outside of his role as head of the ADL were partly used as rationale to rate the ADL as GUNREL; there's also been other instances where the views/statements of a publication's main or sole owner/editor/etc were similarly used as points of unreliability, such as The Grayzone and Max Blumenthal's other outlets. That's not to say Abdu's had direct effects on EMHRM's reliability/lack thereof, but from a hypotheticals standpoint I don't think the argument that his views have impacted their publications is that out there.

  WaPo's a bit of a poor comparison as well, considering it's a large newspaper with an editorial process and (at least formerly?) fairly robust fact-checking; EMHRM, like the ADL, is an advocacy group, which aren't usually run to those same standards. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Of course, newspaper owners have influence over their publications! That’s true for Jeff Bezos and many others. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  The views of a proprietor have no bearing on the reliability of the publication they own, correct. But the false statements of an editor do, I think, have bearing on the reliability of the publication they own. It’s not comparable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Did the proposer of this just think there wasn't enough happening in the world? They should not be wasting people's time dragging up again without some good reason. None was provided. NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  The original discussion wasn’t an RfC, this is. The source comes up in discussions regularly, and is cited within many contentious articles, so a clear consensus on reliability is beneficial. FortunateSons (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding the lack of reliability, here is a good example [61]

“ After failing to find any evidence of a military presence in the medical facility, the Israeli soldiers went crazy and deliberately carried out a series of executions, eliminating and directly shooting a number of the wounded in cold blood. ”

They published it in November 2023. It's hard to prove that this didn't take place but we can check whether anyone else has reported on this ever since. Amnesty International said nothing about summary executions of the wounded in their piece about the Al-Shifa raid, which is otherwise quite critical of Israel's actions. I searched for other reports and found none.

It's possible that their reliability varies and sometimes their bias doesn't prevent them from publishing valuable information that is then re-published by reliable sources, as demonstrated by some editors. In that case we should use those reliable sources. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

"It's hard to prove that this didn't take place" - then this is in no way "a good example of their lack of reliability". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Article by Miesel and Poem of the Man-God

Is the article by Miesel [62] a reliable source for the Poem of the Man-God criticism section?

For previous discussion leading up to this RfC, please see the linked talk page.[63]. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Miesel)

• No. The article contains multiple factual historical errors concerning the actions of the Catholic Church in relation to Valtorta's work. See discussion below for details. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. Sandra Miesel (literary critic specializing in religious literature) is a reliable source for the critical opinion of Sandra Miesel. I would in general attribute any claims made as we do with most book reviews (reviews are largely the authors own opinion after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. But the RfC concerns a specific article, not the author per se. The article contains important and easily verifiable factual errors. By citing this article, are we not validating and encouraging disinformation? Arkenstrone (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Furthermore, her article is not being cited for her specialty in literary criticism, but rather for her Catholic doctrinal assertions, which she is wholly unqualified to do. She is not a theologian. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes Sandra Miesel is clearly an expert in this domain. As such the source is reliable for an expert opinion on this material. Agree with HEB above that we should attribute statements made by her. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC concerns a specific article, not the author per se. The article contains important and easily verifiable factual errors. By citing this article, are we not validating and encouraging disinformation? Arkenstrone (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  If we have a source that makes claims and another source that makes claims that suggest the first source is wrong and if both sources are reliable we should describe the dispute. As I said below, your argument would better serve including both Miesel and Pillari as sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  There isn't parity of sources here. The first source (Pillari) is a theologian and expert on Catholic religious history and canon law. The second source (Miesel) is a literary critic, and by her own admission is not a theologian but a layperson. She may be a reliable source for her own opinion, generally speaking, but not in an article in which she makes glaring religious historical errors contradicting a true expert in the field. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  The Poem of the Man-God is a work of literature and, as a literary critic (I literally do this professionally), I can assure you that literary criticism usually requires more reading on theology and philosophy than is normal among the laity even if she is humble in her discussion of her theological background. Anyway the opinion of a famous literary critic about a work of literature is very likely due and she is reliable for her own opinion. As I said before, if she has made claims that various clergy have objected to then we should report that dispute rather than removing her work. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Anyway the opinion of a famous literary critic about a work of literature is very likely due and she is reliable for her own opinion.

  I don't disagree. The question is, for this article, because she includes glaring factual historical errors that contradict established experts in the field of religious history (which she is clearly not), is this article still a reliable source? By citing this article, are we not validating and encouraging obvious disinformation that is mixed in with her literary critique and opinion? Arkenstrone (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  I read her review quite carefully and I'm not seeing glaring factual historical errors in it. She mentions Ratzinger three times but those mentions are all in separate paragraphs altogether from on April 17, 1993, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed the Italian Bishops’ Conference to order this disclaimer placed in future re-issues of the Poem: “…the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.” So I don't see any evidence she was trying to pass Ratzinger's opinions off as the decree of an official body. She was giving significant priority to Ratzinger's opinions but, considering he was eventually Pope and considering he was still alive when she, a very devout Catholic, wrote this article, I'm not entirely surprised she gave heavy priority to what he said. I'm sorry but you haven't established any reason why we should treat this source as unreliable beyond what will feel, to any non-Catholics reading this discussion, minutiae that, in turn, seem to depend on reading between the lines of this review. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  May I suggest that you are not seeing glaring factual errors because, like Miesel, you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about Church history and the organization of the Church? Plain and simple, she gets the facts wrong. There is no sugar-coating it. Furthermore, her article is not being cited for her specialty in literary criticism, but rather for her Catholic doctrinal assertions, which she is wholly unqualified to do, as she is not a theologian. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  And you are such a theologian? You have no problem sharing your own interpretation of the Poem of the Man-God and in fact insisting on it over available sourcing. You've been incredibly prolific on the topic, I see 438 at The Poem of the Man-God, 98 at Maria Valtorta, 94 at Talk:Maria Valtorta, 65 at Talk:The Poem of the Man-God, and that all out of 1,630 total edit. You have repeatedly made Catholic doctrinal assertions, what qualifies you to do so if Miesel is unqualified? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  None of what you just wrote is relevant to this RfC. The question for this RfC is very simple: is Miesel's article a reliable source as per WP:RS given all the historical errors that have been documented, as well as theological/doctrinal assertions? NB: she is not being cited for her expertise in literary criticism but for her non-expertise and doctrinal/theological assertions. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thats why its relevant... We don't have any historical errors or issues documented by reliable sources. We only have two amateur wikipedia editors making that assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Goodness gracious. What you said couldn't be more untrue for anyone that is able to read the sources cited which are indeed reliable. Plus Yesterday's comment concerning the errors in the article are easily verifiable. I'm going to leave this comment for Yesterday, all my dreams... to rebut if he feels at all inclined. I've got better things to do. Suffice it to say, your comment couldn't be more untrue and inappropriate. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  If its untrue then you can present the reliable sources which document these historical errors or issues by Miesel. If its inappropriate then explain how, but lay off the personal attacks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Already done in the discussion below. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  If its already been done then it should be childsplay to link to these reliable sources about Meisel... Unless none of them actually mention Meisel... In which case we're back to the opinion of two amateur wikipedians who are borderline SPAs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Simon, as you can see below I think we must include a link to Meisel's article. So I am not attempting to suppress a link to it. But, with due apologies, I think we must do more research before calling someone an expert. I asked myself: "How would I shut up the Valtorta freaks about the views of Pius XII about her book?" I would tell them that the book's publisher directly stated that Pius XII had only read about half the book. The papal postman (Msg Norese) stated that he left the pages on the desk of Pius XII and after Pius XII had turned over about half teh pages, he suggested a meeting with the three priests. So the book's publisher, and the papal postmen admit that Pius XII never read the book. That was the very best arrow in the quiver of Ms Meisel, but she never used it. Instead she wrote that it was "impossible" to determine how much of the book Pius XII had read. I think you know what that means in terms of being an expert. We can not just quote what she wrote. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"impossible" to determine how much of the book Pius XII had read" appears to be right given the circumstances, you can't assume that he had read half of the book based on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye, that may seem right to you, but not to me. Have you really researched the subject yourself? Have you read half the book? My whole point is that Meisel had a number of very effective ways to attack the various unsubstantiated claims of Valtorta supporters, but she did not use those arrows at all. What she could have said to the Valtorta crowd was: "Look, even the publisher has directly stated that after the pope had read about half the book Norese suggested a meeting, and the pope took the meeting a few days later. So you Valtorta people should stop harping about the pope because the chance that he had read the whole book is beyond remote." That is what an expert would have said against the Valtorta crowd. And there were a number of other effective arrows that she did not use. I think she probably did not know who Norese was because she said that the confessor (Bea) was involved in the delivery of the book. That was not so. Anyway, I should stop now. As I have said, there is no way, just no way that any one who has researched the subject can detect "expertise" in that article.

Look, we all know that the chance that this rfc will go Arkenstrone's way is almost none. So if we all calm down, someone with common sense will invoke WP:SNOW sooner or later and end the silly discussions. To that effect this will be my lst comment here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

See my points below in the discussion section in response to Horse Eye. Remember, the question for this RfC is very simple: is Miesel's article a reliable source as per WP:RS given all the historical errors that have been documented, as well as theological/doctrinal assertions? NB: she is not being cited for her expertise in literary criticism but for her non-expertise and doctrinal/theological assertions. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, WP:SNOW is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Include a link to her article, but do not accept everything she wrote

Needless to say, Valtorta's work is highly controversial, and there are people (including clergymen) who support and oppose her book.

Sandra Meisel represents the "angry crowd" who oppose the book, and her article is popular among them. Not having a link to it would be strange.

And I think she did NOT deliberately set out to misrepresent anything. The main issue is that much of the information about the book is in Italian and it is obvious that she does not speak Italian, as indicated below. So she used English sources, and often not very carefully.

So I think it would be a mistake to declare her work "totally reliable" and quote from it at will, due to the many errors it has, some of which I will outline below, and a number of them were pointed out in the comment section of her article. Four examples of obvious errors that anyone who reads Italian can easily check are:

• She wrote that the book was published by Emilio Pisani. The book was published in 1956, when Emilio was at school. Her father published the book. We can not use that statement from her.

• She wrote that Valtorta made a mistake and used the words Yahweh and Geova confusingly. It was impossible for Valtorta to have written Yahweh, because the Italian language does not include the letters Y and W. The Italians write Geova for Yahweh. The book had 2 translators and they used different words.

• She wrote that a bound copy of the book was sent to the pope via the confessor. In 1948 when the book was sent to the pope, it had no publisher and no bound copy. They sent a set of pages, but not via the confessor. It was delivered by the pope's postman. The confessor did not see the book until after publication.

• She "questioned" if Pius XII had issued an imprimatur, and said she did not think so. It is certain that Pius XII did not issue an imprimatur himself, because he asked his assistant to go and get one from someone else. But that never happened. So even her criticism is based on lack of research, mostly due to language issues.

I mentioned a fifth error and a "key indicator" (how much did the pope read) in my responses to Simon and Arkenstrone, which shows Meisel could have attacked Valtorta much better with more research. if you are not attacking your opponent at the most vulnerable point, you have not studied the issues.

So I think we need to include a link in the article to her work, but should not declare it totally reliable and just quote from it. We will end up with a lot of errors that way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, as to the limited question of reliability for this specific purpose. (Summoned by bot.) As stated by Horse Eye's Back above, Miesel is a reliable source as to her own opinions. As to those opinions, the Miesel article is a primary source, and WP:PRIMARY puts it, a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents. That said, just speaking as an outsider to the subject matter, the Criticism section in its current state seems vulnerable to both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH concerns. If there are any scholarly reviews of criticism of this work, we should allow those to shape our coverage rather than just presenting a list of things different notable figures have said. -- Visviva (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  She is not being cited for her opinions as a literary critic, but for her doctrinal/theological assertions, which she is unqualified to do. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Not reliable, but relevant: Sandra Miesel is a marginably notable figure in a certain corner of Catholic literary criticism, one generally considered broaching the fringes of the mainstream. Catholic World Report is not a generally reliable source, Miesel is not a credentialed academic or critic, and there appear to be some accuracy issues with the particular piece in question. However, I think we could reasonably include her perspective in the criticism section as an attributed statement noting the place of publication, allowing readers to evaluate the commentary's merits for themselves. Nothing more than a sentence or two, though. I was notified of this discussion through a non-neutral notice on the WikiProject Christianity noticeboard, so please evaluate my statement here with that in mind. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Miesel)

Miesel admits in her article that she is a laywoman and not a theologian. She then states:

"Furthermore, on April 17, 1993, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed the Italian Bishops’ Conference to order this disclaimer placed in future re-issues of the Poem: “…the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin."

That is incorrect. Catholic scholar and theologian Fr. Anthony Pillari clearly states that this was Ratzinger's personal opinion and not that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which had not held formal discussions on the issue, and hence had no juridic value.[64]

In addition, the text to which Miesel is confusedly referring to was a letter from Cardinal Tettamanzi who wrote to Emilio Pisani, the publisher of the Poem, requesting that a disclaimer be placed on the work. Once again, Fr. Anthony Pillari states that was the personal opinion of Tettamanzi, not of the Catholic Conference of Bishops, since no formal meeting was recorded as having taken place on the subject, which therefore caused Tettamanzi's position to have no juridic value.[65]

With such basic errors in reporting multiple important historical facts, I do not believe Miesel's article adheres to WP:RS. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This would indicate that both Pillari and Miesel are due more than anything else. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered that the difference between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the personal opinion of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and one who went on to be Pope at that) acting in official capacity is in context more or less a quibbling difference? I know that seems massive to you, and in terms of canon law may matter a great deal, but in general terms thats a very slight distinction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not. One person doesn't make all the decisions. What's the point of having a Congregation if one person decides everything? Thus the personal opinion of one member (or head) of the Congregation is very very different than a formal decree by the Congregation. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Arkenstrone, I agree with Horse Eye that the point you picked to critiicize Meisel is not a big deal. It is a somewhat minor issue. But that tells us something about your research on the subject. Please see my response to Simon and you will see that you did not use the best arrow in your quiver to criticize her. So you will be signing a longly tune here, I think. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's an important factual error because it wrongly leads people to believe that the Church made a formal decree regarding the work, when in fact it did not. It was only the personal opinion of Ratzinger with no juridic value. As you know, the Church never had formal discussions about this at that time. This is important because there are many Christians who will choose whether or not to read a work, based on whether the Church issues a formal decree regarding the work. Somewhat akin to the Index of Forbidden Books.

To address your second point about not using the best arrow, I will say that Miesel's article is not being cited for her specialty in literary criticism (where her opinion as a literary critic may be pertinent), but instead for her Catholic doctrinal assertions involving the Poem’s fundamental flaw claiming to compensate for the inadequacies of the Gospels, which she is wholly unqualified to do as she is not a theologian. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The Poem of the Man-God is not a work of theology and its author was not a theologian. Likewise wikipedia is a secular organization, Church juridic value has no value here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The Poem of the Man-God is not a work of theology and its author was not a theologian.

That's not relevant. The Wikipedia article is presenting the work of Valtorta and the Church's historical relationship to the work, as well as the opinions of experts in the field regarding the work, who are theologians.

Likewise wikipedia is a secular organization, Church juridic value has no value here.

Categorically false. The Wikipedia article attempts to present Valtorta's work and the Church's historical relationship to the work factually. It is the purpose of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, to present knowledge and information on any topic as truthfully and accurately as possible. Juridic value is extremely important in this article when discussing pronouncements of the Church relating to the work. That is an important piece of historical information. To ignore that and intentionally allow factual errors is to contravene Wikipedia's entire raison d'etre. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"the work of Valtorta and the Church's historical relationship to the work" is literary and historical, not theological. Juridic value is extremely important to you, it carries no weight on wikipedia. We care about what is verifiable, not what is true (and especially not when it comes to mystical or supernatural truths, which are to us WP:FRINGE, as are handled by Holy Law). You are suggesting that it may be factually true that the author was a mystic who actually witnessed the life of the historical Jesus, but that does not fall within the bounds of accepted science and medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"the work of Valtorta and the Church's historical relationship to the work" is literary and historical, not theological.

This is simply not correct. The relationship is a complex one that involves literature vs. revelation, historical (facts) and theological (doctrine). The work itself presented as a literary work is what a literary critic may opine about. However, the non-literary historical components (facts) involving the Church's historical relationship to the work must be reproduced accurately. Miesel did not do this, and instead twisted, contorted, and confused these historical facts. And not just one of them, but several, as pointed out by Yesterday above. The theological component requires domain experts, namely theologians, to provide their expert views on the doctrinal content of the work, which may involve juridic pronouncements of the Church. Miesel opining on the theological/doctrinal aspects of the work is wholly out of her domain as she is, admittedly, not an expert.

So you have a situation where a literary critic is criticizing the work as a piece of literature (the only thing she is qualified to do), presenting many historical events erroneously, and making theological/doctrinal assertions for which she is wholly unqualified to do. To top it all off, she is being cited in the Wikipedia article for her theological/doctrinal assertions! A chaotic mess of a citation!

If you are so adamant that this article by Miesel be accepted as a reliable source, then you should contact her, get her to clean up her mess of an article, fix or remove the many historical errors, as well as her doctrinal/theological assertions, and you may now cite her article as the opinion of a literary critic criticizing a piece of religious literature.

We care about what is verifiable, not what is true (and especially not when it comes to mystical or supernatural truths, which are to us WP:FRINGE, as are handled by Holy Law)

What you are saying is not relevant here. This RfC has nothing to do with verifiability vs. mystical or supernatural truth concerning the work itself. We are talking about the reliability of Miesel's article as a source of information relating to the clearly documented history of the Church's relationship and decrees involving the work, as well as any expert theological/doctrinal assertions concerning the work. What is verifiable is Miesel's article is full of historical errors.

You are suggesting that it may be factually true that the author was a mystic who actually witnessed the life of the historical Jesus, but that does not fall within the bounds of accepted science and medicine.

I have suggested no such thing. This RfC is concerned with one thing only: is the article by Miesel a reliable source as per WP:RS? I contend that it could have been a reliable source had she limited her efforts to the field of her expertise involving literary criticism. However she didn't do that. She went out on a limb to falsely summarize the historical relationship of the Church and its pronouncement concerning the work (with several other notable blunders presented by Yesterday above), and then went out further on a limb to make theological/doctrinal assertions for which she is wholly unqualified to do. These are the reasons that Miesel's article is an unreliable source as per WP:RS.

Any Wikipedian that considers Miesel's article a reliable source as per WP:RS is rushing to judgement without properly comprehending the situation, and are therefore not exercising due diligence. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Tomorrow said that "And I think she did NOT deliberately set out to misrepresent anything." which seems to be very different from you assertion that she "twisted, contorted" things and your overall really aggressively negative approach to her which doesn't seem to be supported by any reliable sources... I think you need to take a step back and remember that Miesel is a living person and this discussion is covered by WP:BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Whether you wish to accept Yesterday's explanation for the reasons why all those errors exist, or mine, is irrelevant. Ultimately, this RfC is concerned with the reliability of that article and its claims. It should be clear to anyone that takes the time to look carefully and compare with the sources cited, that the article is a terrible mess of factual errors and inconsistencies. They have already been outlined. The reliability of the article per WP:RS is not in question in my view. But it seems some think that even though it is unreliable in several respects, it should still be given brief mention. More than anything, that shows me that people here consider WP:RS context-dependent. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I might remind Arkenstrone that replying to every single comment that disagrees with the framer of an RfC generally doesn't serve that framer well in the final assessment. I'm also a bit concerned about what @Pbritti said. I do hope that nobody is canvassing this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

RS is always context dependent. Its relevent because Miesel is a living person which means that if you're going to accuse her of something beyond making mistakes you need to have a reliable source which explicitly states that... That is how BLP works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody here is doing a biography of Miesel. I'm simply arguing that her article is not reliable due to the notable errors which have been listed in this RfC, and which are reliably sourced in the Wikipedia article itself. I've included direct sources and links in the discussion section for a couple of important historical errors concerning the Church's relationship to the work, and sources for other factual errors mentioned by Yesterday can be found in the Wikipedia article itself. Specifically, Emilio Pisani did not publish the work. There appear to be others brought up by Yesterday, but I'll leave him to discuss them if he chooses. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats all fine, you can say that in your opinion or in another editor's opinion there is an error but its when you go into a person who "twisted, contorted" etc that you get in trouble. Talk about the source, don't just denigrate the living author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

spears500.com

What's the consensus on the reliability of Spears 500, specifically its information on schools? It's a commercial review / ranking site. There is some information about their processes here and here. The first link says:

The profiles on spears500.com have various different elements. All profiles have a section with the heading ‘Spear’s Review’. This is written by the Spear’s editorial team. Enhanced profiles have an additional section with the heading ‘Adviser Profile’. The content under this heading is provided by the adviser and/or their firm.

Would you think then that anything under "Spear's Review" might be ok, whilst "Adviser Profile" is potentially self-pubbed and not ok? I'm looking particularly at this diff, where it is used to evidence the statement in the lead, The Spear’s Schools Index 2025 recognises Michaelhouse as one of the world’s 100 leading private schools (Rest of the World category), for demonstrating excellence in academics, innovation and student development. This is from text headed "Spear's Review" rather than "Adviser's Review". Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Its not like editors review every possible source that exists. What specific claim is this source being used for? Ramos1990 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Correction, I saw the diff you cited. No discussion on this website is in the archive, but the The Schools Index article has refernces. Seems ot be WP:USEDBYOTHERS to some extent. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Marathi and English Books as Sources on Wikipedia

I am listing below the names of some books, and I want to discuss whether these books—written in Marathi or English—are considered reliable sources on English Wikipedia or any local Wikipedia. The reason for raising this discussion is that on a local Wikipedia, I have observed that a single source has been used more than 50 times on a single page, and that too by a single individual. I am bringing this discussion here so that the outcome can be presented on the local Wikipedia, and editors or admins there would have to accept it. The books are as follows:

• Riya Prakashan: Mahamanav Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (Author: Dr. Gyanraj Kashinath Gaikwad 'Rajvansh', 2016) [Link: https://www.flipkart.com/mahamanav-dr-bhimrao-ramaji-ambedkar/p/itmeqz8gndghuczh]
• Parijat Prakashan: Dr. Ambedkari Hitashatrunchya Jaaniva (Author: Bhau Lokhande, 2012) [I tried searching for a source for this book but couldn’t find one]
• Gyan Ganga & Co. Publication: Yugapravartak Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar (Author: Dinesh Rane) [Link: https://www.pustakvaani.com/challenge-page/dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-charitra]
• Kaushalya Prakashan: Majhi Atmakatha (Author: Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, 2014) [Link: https://www.amazon.in/Majhi-Atmakatha-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9D%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE-Autobiography/dp/9352203410]

I would like this discussion to evaluate whether these books, whether in Marathi or English, meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable sources. AShiv1212 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the place for discussion of the English language Wikipedia. Other localized Wikipedia sites have their own guidelines and procedures, and do not have to accept our judgment of their reliability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this mean that the rules of English Wikipedia do not apply to local Wikipedia? AShiv1212 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To a degree, yes. As each wiki has its own admins. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it written anywhere that the rules of each local Wikipedia are different? If so, can I get a link? After reading it, I won’t come back with such crazy questions. AShiv1212 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Not as such, but there is also no rule saying English Wikipedia has primacy, so what we decide here has no impact on what another Wikipedia does, they can say no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that there’s no rule giving English Wikipedia primacy, and local Wikipedias can reject decisions made here. However, shouldn’t every Wikipedia, regardless of language, aim to maintain consistent standards for facts, transparency, and reliable sourcing? If a local Wikipedia heavily relies on a single source—say, over 50 times on one page—doesn’t that undermine the spirit of Wikipedia’s core principles, like verifiability and neutrality, which are supposed to be universal? I’d appreciate any insight on how this balance is maintained across editions. AShiv1212 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That is not a discussion for here, this is a wider issue about Wikipedia in general. somewhere like wp:villagepump might be better. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair point—it’s not just for here. I’ll try discussing it on the local Wikipedia first using English Wikipedia’s rules. If that doesn’t work out, I’ll head to wp:villagepump as you suggested. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! AShiv1212 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of the intro to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages of the English Wikipedia. It does not cover other editions of Wikipedia." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• What is stated above is true, we have no primacy here over other wikis. However, I would also say that there are many pages on this wikipedia based almost entirely on a single source. It's not great practice, and we have a tag for it, but overuse is a different question to reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  All the sources from English Wikipedia were removed from Marathi Wikipedia with the reason that "they cannot be added to Marathi Wikipedia" [66]. And this was done by someone who is blocked as a sockpuppet on English Wikipedia but is currently an administrator on Marathi Wikipedia. Because of such actions, editors are hesitant to contribute to Marathi Wikipedia. Anyway, I agree with all your points and will avoid contributing there so that there’s no question of bringing those issues here. It seems you also have no interest in improving the local Wikipedia. If I’ve said anything wrong, I apologize. AShiv1212 (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  If there is a cross-wiki issue with a particular user, then I would check to see if they're in violation of the Universal Code of Conduct, and if you think that's the case, you can file a request at the case page for the Coordinating Committee. This seems to be a potential conduct issue as well as a dispute over the Marathi Wikipedia guidelines. That's not something that this sources Noticeboard for the English Wikipedia can or should handle.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just a passing comment that the language a source is written in does not affect reliability at all: we judge reliability based on the publisher and author's credentials, and a source can meet or fail our requirements in any language. We cite sources on the English Wikipedia written in a number of languages, including Marathi. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

That is certainly the consensus here on the English language Wikipedia… and at many of the other language versions as well. However, it is quite possible that there are exceptions. Each version of WP has its own set of policies and guidelines (as well as “unwritten rules” that editors follow but have not yet codified), and it is quite possible that some of them limit the language of their sources. In this case, you would need to see what the policies and guidelines for the Marathi version say. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Namaste Vanamonde93,

  I agree with everything regarding English Wikipedia, but my concern about sources relates to the local Marathi Wikipedia. After thoroughly researching the books, publishers, and authors as you suggested and reading up on it, I brought this topic here for discussion. However, from some of the replies above, it appears that the local Wikipedia doesn’t accept discussions held here. This suggests that discussing it here might be futile. As a result, I’ll refrain from contributing to Marathi Wikipedia. There’s no point in arguing there, and I’ve added a reference above about an incident that happened today. An admin there stated, "This isn’t English Wikipedia; your sources won’t work here," and removed them. Per policy, they should have at least discussed it on the talk page. Anyway, this admin has done this to me at least three times so far. AShiv1212 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Namaste 3family6,

  I’m not currently considering filing a complaint on the Coordinating Committee’s page. For now, let things continue as they are on Marathi Wikipedia. There are admins like Abhay Sir and Santosh Gore who are good and cooperative, but there are very few contributors on Marathi Wikipedia. Because of this, they seem to avoid taking action against an admin named Sandesh. As some people have said, if English Wikipedia’s rules don’t apply there, then let it run according to that admin’s rules. I don’t want to get into any disputes there. It was a mistake on my part to bring this issue here. Apologies for that. AShiv1212 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  @AShiv1212, you could try posting at the m:Wikimedia Forum. You might also be able to find advice from someone in the m:Marathi Wikimedians user group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  @AShiv1212: Well, it appeared from your first post that you had several general questions, and this one hadn't been answered yet. My colleagues are right as to the rest - we have no authority over the Marathi Wikipedia, and cannot compel them to accept a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  Namaste 3family6,

  I had thought of ignoring this issue. Two years ago, I had a dispute with that administrator. Recently, I started a discussion on a wiki page regarding references, strictly following Wikipedia’s rules. However, this administrator has once again brought up the discussion from the talk page related to the dispute that happened two years ago[67]. Over the past two years, I have avoided disputes, and for eight months, I was away from Wikipedia. Therefore, I feel that this administrator is misusing their authority. As per your suggestion, I will definitely file a case under the Universal Code of Conduct within the next 3-4 days. AShiv1212 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Decrypt

Hello,

Recently I used Decrypt as a source but my edit was reverted as the website is linked to cryptocurrency, and thus seen as controversial inside Wikipedia. I would like to open the discussion to determine if it is a valid source or not. As I understand, it's not like the website is unbiased (all news outlets are), but I'm worried about the factuality of the information presented. The website is recognized as a news outlet by News Wire, Adweek, Forbes and Axios, and from what I've seen it's at least reasonably trustable. In my case, I used Decrypt as a source about the cryptocurrency elements in Snaky Cat gameplay, so, in my perspective, this kind of use should be fine. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The larger problem here is you state you wrote the article that was being linked to, and then used it as a source in this article. That's a huge no no. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I wrote it afterwards. I got enough sources to created it and I did. Also, my edit was reversed even before I said anything. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• As it says at the top of this page: "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports". This looks like a very weak source, but maybe the context would make a difference. Bon courage (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:SELFCITE, and WP:COI as you created the Decrypt (website) article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, I created Decrypt article after creating Snaky Cat, as I got interested in the subject and found enough sources. I do not represent Decrypt, I just like to write about companies and fulfill "empty spaces" on Wikipedia. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

If you write for Decrypt, or your writing is published on Decrypt, then you have a conflict of interest with their Wikipedia article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood what you had written, I've struck my comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"Recognized as a news outlet" does not mean "reliable"; many of the sites we forbid are "news outlets". All of your sites you point to are discussing Decrypt's own business dealings, not relying on Decrypt as a source for good information. (And that first one is a press release distribution site. Yes, Decrypt recognizes itself in its own press releases.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, if we are going there, it doesn't mean its unreliable either. Also, in my case, I'm using it to dig a very specific piece of information. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to clarify something… when user:Notsonotoriousbig says he “created the decrypt article”, I think he means he created the Wikipedia article about Decrypt (ie: Decrypt (website)) … not that he is Andrew Hayward (the journalist who wrote the article appearing in Decrypt that Notsonotoriousbig wants to cite at the Snaky Cat article).

Assuming this is the case, then WP:SELFCITE and WP:COI are not an issue here. Notsonotoriousbig is not trying to cite himself.

As to whether Decrypt is a reliable source or not… I can not opine, as I know nothing about that website or it’s reputation. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. Notsonotoriousbig (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would be very concerned about treating Decrypt as a reliable source seeing as they are not independent of the company Dastan which appears to offer novel cryptocurrency products. [68] furthermore the website's manifesto claims their day-to-day operations are powered by AI and so I'd be concerned about AI cruft in articles. They openly state they use AI editorial assistants. Frankly this source should probably be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Pretty much all cryptocurrency focused news sources have very serious conflicts of interest that are generally not properly disclosed. @David Gerard can elaborate Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I chatted with Notsonotoriousbig on my user talk about this and referred them to the 2021 RSN on the matter. The objections there still apply, or are even worse in 2025 than they were in 2021:

• they look like trade papers but are actually promotional media
• all shill for their owners or refrain from reporting against them
• all allow writers to write about cryptos they own without disclosure
• CoinDesk in particular encourages writers to have "skin in the game", which in real journalism is called "massive COI"
• there are individual excellent writers I have a great deal of respect for, but the outlets are still terrible
• heck, I've written for pay for Decrypt and the Block and I wouldn't use my articles as a ref either, I have enough pubs in RSes, you can use those

See also the advisory essay (NOT A POLICY) Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies), which outlines common practices.

I know a pile of Decrypt people, Josh Quittner is an excellent editor, etc. But also it's a crypto blog like the rest and IMO not something we would use in Wikipedia in the normal course of anything.

Also, the vast majority of crypto site references are straight up spam, and IMO allowing them will only encourage the sort of issues that first caused the general sanctions hammer to come down.

I tend to remove crypto sources. Anything that can be replaced by an RS should, and anything that can't isn't sourced. Every RSN discussion of them since about 2017?18? has been consistent that they're trash.

tl;dr all crypto publications are generally unreliable IMO, and I would include any "fintech" site with a crypto category. Not sure how I'd phrase that for a formal RFC condemning them all to the low-rent part of RSP, but if anyone thinks they can I'll give that a hearty Option 3.

- David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Wiley (2017) Markov Chains by Gagniuc a reliable academic source for definitions/history?

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.

---

I'm requesting input on whether the following source qualifies as reliable under WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

Gagniuc, P.A. (2017). Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-38755-8

Context:

• Peer-reviewed book, published by Wiley, one of the top academic publishers
• Cited over 1,000 times in scholarly literature (Google Scholar)
• Used to support a general overview and definitions of Markov chains in the Markov chain article

Dispute:

• Some editors (notably User:Malparti and User:XOR’easter) claim the book is “poorly written,” “lacks theory,” and is “not suitable” — but provide no secondary academic sources to support this view
• Removal of the source has continued despite no WP:RS-based rationale
• One example of earlier opposition: WikiProject Mathematics Archive, June 2024 and this edit quoting Malparti and repeating the same subjective criticisms.
• It is also worth noting that the most persistent opponent of the source, User:Malparti, appears to be from the same country as the book's author, yet has repeatedly attacked the work using subjective and emotionally charged language, including speculation about IP addresses and “spamming campaigns.” While this is not a direct accusation, the pattern does raise concerns of possible personal bias that may be affecting neutrality.

The book includes formal mathematical definitions, a historical background of Markov chains, and code-based implementations — all verifiable and in line with standard academic expectations.

Question:

Does this source meet the criteria under WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

Is there any policy-based reason to disqualify it?

Thank you. EricoLivingstone (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

For reference see Talk:Markov chain#Proposal to reintroduce peer-reviewed source (Wiley, 2017) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Jun#Advice on dealing with questionable citations in lead.
I suggest the discussion continue on the articles talk page rather than splitting it across different locations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 31 March 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.

Koener et al

Source: Koener, B., Ledrait, A., & Masson, C. Managing Gender Dysphoria in Minors—What Insights Does Evidence-Based Medicine Offer in 2024?. Disease Biology, Genetics, and Socioecology. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.53941/dbgs.2025.100003 (Full text: [69] relevant text on pp. 2-3)

Article: Cass review

Claim: "Koener et al situate the Cass Review within a trend of systematic reviews conducted in multiple countries finding a lack of evidence for the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat minors with gender dysphoria. Koener et al describe the stricter regulation of these treatments implemented by the UK government in response to the Cass Review as in line with similar evidence-based policies in Sweden and Finland."

Objections raised against it:

1. The article is published in the journal's inaugural issue, so there is no history of publishing peer-reviewed research. The publisher itself has only been in business for a few years [70], and since then has started a large number of journals under its imprint.
2. The authors include the founder and a member of a French activist group Observatoire de la petite sirène which is strongly opposed to the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat minors with gender dysphoria, so far from unbiased about the subject on which they write. Also, opponents of the group have accused the group of spreading misinformation, although I can't find a source directly accusing any of the three authors of this.
3. The article refers to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria as a phenomenon without making explicitly clear that its existence is not widely accepted by researchers.
4. Some of the references the article cites would not comply with WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS in a WP article, for example citations to SEGM and citations to Letters to the Editor in academic journals.
5. Some of the sources the article cites (both peer-reviewed and otherwise) are authored by researchers accused of promoting conversion therapy, according to one editor.

OTOH:

1. The publisher has a detailed peer review policy [71]. I can't find any negative information about the publisher online.
2. The claim being supported is also supported by other RS e.g. [72] [73], so we are not taking the authors on trust. The reason I want to use this source instead of those is that this source addresses both aspects (systematic reviews and policy changes) together. Other RS focus on one or the other.
3. The authors all hold professional academic positions and have published extensive academic work, in English and French.
4. I haven't before come across the idea that a source which does not itself apply WP:MEDRS or other wikipedia policies to all its references cannot be considered an RS. (We certainly have not followed this in the rest of the Cass Review article).

Previous discussion: Talk:Cass_Review#Masson_et_al. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

1) The authors of this include the founder of the org... Here's an article noting their (as in the group and the authors) misinformation, deception, complete lack of expertise in trans healthcare (re The authors all hold professional academic positions and have published extensive academic work, in English and French., multiple board members opposed to gay marriage, claiming trans kids are mostly not trans but think they are because of trauma, fighting to oppose bans on conversion therapy against trans people, etc, etc etc[74] So ridiculously WP:FRINGE it's laughable

2) The article claims that ROGD exists this new clinical population of trans-identified adolescents, i.e., those with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).

3) The conversion therapist they cite, repeatedly, is Kenneth Zucker.

4) It makes claims like several researchers have come to question the relevance of the “gender dysphoria” diagnosis and its causal connection to “trans-identification” [63–65]. Could the recent increase in reports of ‘trans-identity’ be better understood as a cultural idiom of distress [65], perhaps reflecting a collective way of expressing the challenges associated with puberty and adolescence? - citing their own op-eds...

Just because some WP:QUACKS known for pushing WP:FRINGE claims published something (which made numerous FRINGE claims) in the inaguaral edition of a journal with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, doesn't mean we have to include it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to mention in my point 4: Citation 63 is an actually reliable source, which does not support the claim they use it whatsoever[75]. Citations 64 is an interview with the primary author / founder of the pro-conversion lobby group[76] while 65 is the org members / authors of this paper summarizing a SEGM (anti-trans hate group) conference they attended as members of the Petit Siren.[77]

This is probably one of the most god-awfully poor sources I have ever come across...

What's next, we cite NARTH and the American College of Pediatricians? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• It would seem to be a partisan source written by qualified people, similar to the critique published by the Yale Law Group, which is given significant attention on the page. I would suggest Koener et al is reliable for the attributed claim in the first paragraph.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  1) RS have pointed out none of these authors are remotely qualified in trans healthcare and repeatedly make FRINGE claims.

  2) The Yale Report has extensive secondary coverage making it due. This has no secondary coverage whatsoever.

  They are completely incomparable. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of "misinformation", it isn't accurate to say the authors have complete lack of expertise in trans healthcare. Some of their publications can be found here: Masson: [78] Ledrait: [79] Koener: [80]. I'm not sure if these are complete lists though. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that less coverage is due, along the lines that are proposed in the first paragraph. The authors are published psychologists working in reputable universities. As yet, no fringe claims have been demonstrated. I do not feel the view that the increase in trans identification is in part a cultural phenomenon is in any way fringe, especially not to someone with "sociologist" in their name.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This source notes none have worked with trans minors, or done empirical research with trans minors.[81]

• Koener has written 3 articles on trans people, including this. One is the aforementioned summary of a SEGM conference.[82] And the other was written with conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker, head of conversion therapy organization Genspect Stella O'Malley[83], and many other quacks
• The other 2 consistently co-write opinion pieces where they rail against medical orgs and claim they've been captured by trans people, their co-authors also include the aforementioned Zucker and Malley.

And claiming ROGD exists is absolutely a fringe claim. MEDORGS are clear there's no evidence it's real and to say it is is misinformation. We've even had RFC's agreeing there's no evidence it's real.

I do not feel the view that the increase in trans identification is in part a cultural phenomenon is in any way fringe, especially not to someone with "sociologist" in their name - heard of acquired homosexuality? There's been an increase in homosexual identification in the past few decades, is it due to kids catching gay from the internet or the sociologically BLUESKY fact that when you stop pathologizing and demonizing LGBT people, they come out more often? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You've steered this a little off topic here, but in any case. The way same-sex sexual desire is expressed and formalised in society is very much a cultural effect. The idea that the current system in western English-speaking countries is the "correct" and "scientific" one is not really supported either in terms of queer studies or anthropology. In addition, ideas such as "born this way", which are near hegemonic in Western society, are not supported by science or, again, queer studies. I wouldn't say that the correlation of the increase in people's identification as gay with liberalisation of society is a great argument for the idea of an innate trans identity that has no social vector.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

These are people who have openly advocated for conversion therapy, published in a journal with no history of editorial oversight. It might be suitable as a primary source about the views of the authors, but as a source about the Cass Review it is wholly unsuitable. HenrikHolen (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

HenrikHolen can you provide a source that the authors have openly advocated for conversion therapy? Even the highly partisan source given by YFNS doesn't claim that. According to the French WP article Observatoire Petite Sirenne opposed inclusion of gender identity in the 2022 conversion therapy ban, is that what you are referring to? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Babi theologian Noor al-Din Modarresi Chardehi as a source for picture of Subh-i-Azal

We're having an interesting discussion about the reliability of Noor al-Din Modarresi Chardehi () and his book, the book "Who is the Bab and what are his teachings?" (Persian: باب کیست و سخن او چیست), as a source for a photograph of the Babi leader, Subh-i-Azal. Version with the photograph in question here: Old revision of Subh-i-Azal.

The opinion is currently split two-on-two (Talk:Subh-i-Azal#Photographs_of_Subh-i-Azal, with one person doubting first the authenticity, then the relevance of the photograph, and another one doubting the reliability of the source, after the source was clarified.

I have quite a strong opinion that for a photograph, produced some tens of years ago before the publishing of a book, it is not relevant whether the author is biased against the subject of the article. On the other hand, my fellow Wikipedian, @Cuñado, has expressed strong doubt against the photograph, for multiple different reasons after one another.

We have already gone through several edit-and-revert cycles, and would like other opinions on this matter. If you have any arguments for or against using the source, we would appreciate them. Mineemod (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Two-on-two?? Who besides you is advocating to include the image? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@AimanAbir18plus was the one who put it into the infobox. Mineemod (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Besides, I really do believe I have a strong case for inclusion of the image. There isn't any other photograph of Subh-i-Azal from this time period, besides the other shot, for which I don't have a citable source. It is common for Wikipedia articles going over the life of a person to include multiple pictures of them at different ages.

You are using very strange arguments: first, you said the photo is obviously fake. I asked several people privately, no one thought that. Then, you invoke policy that is used for facts, not for photographs. Mineemod (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

To me, the image appears to be edited or not a photograph. Check out c:Category:1860s photographs. Here are a few examples of contemporary photographs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There are many more. Then compare to File:Subh-i-Azal photo, from book Bab kyst va skhn ou chist.png. I also pointed out that the subject is covered pretty extensively in reliable sources in English, and none of them use or mention this image. You found it in an obscure, non-English, polemic, sectarian source. I asked for better sourcing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, I don't believe that the language, or polemic, sectarian nature of a source, is a reason to deem it unreliable for the purpose of the inclusion of an image. The source is not obscure, that is your claim. The fact English-language sources do not have the image is not an argument against including it in the article. Mineemod (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion about the photograph, your standards seem very strange to me. Yes, the photograph has some noise, that does not make it less of a photograph. Also, the fact that it might not be a photograph is not a reason to remove it. Mineemod (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, you made literally zero effort to check the source of the photograph, and straight went to removing it. I included everything needed to verify. Mineemod (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and there doesn't seem to by any mention of the Wikipedia policies for verifiability also applying to images. On the contrary, users are encouraged to create their own images to upload on Wikipedia. Does this sound right to you?

Furthermore, I have found that the photograph in question also appears, in a colored and edited form, in the shrine of Subh-i-Azal in Famagusta, where a picture of it was taken by a Wikipedian and uploaded to the Persian Wikipedia, see fa:پرونده:صبح ازل.jpeg. Mineemod (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The same depiction (colored, edited version of original one) also appeared on the Bahai Pazhuhi website. But I assume Bahai Pazhuhi takes it from Wikipedia though, not vice versa. Mineemod (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The reliability of the source matters, because anyone can publish anything. I could very easily go publish a book with this photo and say that it is Subh-i-Azal, and then I could add it to Wikipedia. That's why you need the primary sources (the photo) reviewed and published in reliable secondary sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just to note I've raised a question about copyright at WP:MCQ#Question at RSN about an image. I'm not sure that copying the image from the book is quite right, even if the original picture is out of copyright. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Answered[84] it isn't a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Yes, unmodified use does not add copyright. Mineemod (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Right. But reliability in the context of photographs is something else than reliability in the terms of content. If the author said, for example, that Subh-i-Azal ate babies alive, that would not be a good source for that.

But for a photograph, even a hostile source seems permissible. Mineemod (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless the "photograph" looks edited. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen the other take of the photograph? It seems like there is some uneven lighting in the take I used. The other one has more even lighting. That doesn't seem to be the result of editing of the photograph. The upper part looks like it might have been retouched compared to the other take. But nothing that would dispute the authenticity. Mineemod (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on sources without any common sense. Anyone knows that is not Subh-i-Azal, that alone makes it inappropriate for the article. But in the case of this picture, it clearly is Subh-i-Azal.

Theoretically, if I painted a new depiction of Subh-i-Azal and included it in the article, e.g. based on other depictions that I couldn't use because they were copyrighted, it would be also acceptable. Mineemod (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You really missed the point. I could publish any picture and claim it is anybody. The source should be reliable. If you paint somebody and publish it on Wikipedia, it would probably be rejected on their bio, but I don't know the answer. I'm sure that has come up in the bowels of Wikipedia. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't need a citation for obvious facts, like to show whether a picture depicts a person about whom we know how he looked like, since we have other photographs of him. Mineemod (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Is BrooklynVegan a reliable source for albums?

I've used it multiple times in articles after seeing it used in Featured Articles (Pearl Jam, A Crow Looked at Me, Tell All Your Friends, John Oliver, 4, U2, Paint It Black, Illinois, Wilco, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins) and endorsed by other editors: @(CA)Giacobbe [85], @ChrisTheDude [86], @Hobbes Goodyear [87], @Fezmar9 [88], @BD2412 [89], @Ceoil [90], @Myxomatosis57 [91], Nosebagbear [92], and @MarioSoulTruthFan [93]

If it is (or isn't) a reliable source, I propose adding it to the list of perennial sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Frost 11:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

For me is a yes to add it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to note, at [88] I actually replaced it after doubt was cast over whether it was reliable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say that it's generally reliable for all the things it is used for: statements of fact, journalistic opinion, establishing notability.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have used BrooklynVegan on several GA's I have made myself (two examples being Profound Morality and Devoured by the Mouth of Hell), and have ran into no issues both times.

As far as (loosely speaking) credibility and rep, it is worth noting that, according to their Muckrack pages, both lead editors Andrew Sacher and Bill Pearis have experience working for Alternative Press and WRKR-FM (Kalamazoo, MI). Ig if one wants to invest in a muckrack deep dive, they can go here.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I use Brooklyn Vegan all the time to bolster sources. I think it should be included since it is historically incredibly reliable on the subject matter it covers. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It's good for cultural coverage IME - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly. We are not talking about hard-hitting investigative journalism here. I have seen nothing to call into question reliability in terms of album information. BD2412 T 14:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been discussed at WT:ALBUMS a few times, but it never really got much participation, so there was never really a consensus to include at their source list. That said, there wasn't really hard opposition either. I think I've used it sparingly in the past, without any issue. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought I recalled seeing it discussed there.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• The perennial source list has a set of criteria, WP:RSPCRITERIA. Either the source meets the requirements or it doesn't, but inclusion isn't determined this way.
  The source looks reliable for album information and sundry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that they were referring to the Albums WikiProject list, not the main one.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  The original comment referred to RSP (without saying it by name.) I missed it the first time too, and almost said the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ah. I see it. I think I read the "and" as an "at".--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Like it was mentioned by ActivelyDisinterested, we don't just post discussions on sources onto RSP. It does not look like this discussion is about the relaibility of the source for a claim, but about putting in RSP. clarification would be good. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Medium blog post on org channel

DoItFastDoItUrgent has added this source:

• Mesa, Alicia (2021-09-09). "Our Moral Duty to Prevent Autism". Medium.

to National Council on Severe Autism. The source is a blog post on WP:MEDIUM ("generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions").

The blog post was posted in the organization's channel but AFAICT it was written by an ordinary person rather than an employee or board member. Her "expertise" is that she has a son with who is extremely disabled.

Their local website also hosts a blog that is open to supporters, which says "The National Council on Severe Autism welcomes blog submissions relating to the following topics, among others: Personal stories of living with severe autism; financial impacts of autism; perspectives of siblings..." I assume this is true for their Medium blog, though https://ncsa-admin.medium.com/about is blank. The same woman has also submitted two blog posts in the non-Medium website.[94][95] The non-Medium website says "With the exception of official letters and statements written by the NCSA and reproduced herein, the opinions and assertions stated in our blog are solely those of the individual authors, and may not reflect the opinions or beliefs of NCSA or any of its officers, directors, or advisors."[96] I don't have an account at Medium, so I can't see whether there is a similar disclaimer on the Medium blog posts written by non-staff.

The blog post is used to support two statements in the Wikipedia article:

• The NCSA (i.e., the subject of the article) "considers the prevention of autistic births a "moral duty"."
• The NCSA believes it is the moral duty of the human race to prevent anyone from being born autistic or with any other neurological disability and supports genetic research to that end. Although it acknowledges that some critics ("neurodiversity proponents") label such research efforts eugenic, it dismisses such criticism as "anti-preventionist."

Is this Medium.com blog post a reliable source for these two statements? I am doubtful that a guest post counts as "self-description", and I don't think that any mention of eugenics is "uncontroversial". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is an archive of the medium post[97]. I don't know the NCSA so can't say whether the additions are true, but they are unsupported by the source provided. Reading the blog it's clear that this is the author opinion, they are no time state that it's the opinion of the NCSA.
For something as controversial as saying a group is a proponent of eugenics you need a source that directly supports that statement. That the NCSA allowed a post that supports eugenics to be posted doesn't directly show that the NCSA supports eugenics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I have found a FAQ on the org's official website about eugenics:[98]

By supporting research into causes and prevention, is NCSA promoting eugenics?

Eugenics refers to the practice of a government or other authority limiting or otherwise directing reproductive rights to fulfill an ideological agenda. We stand firm in opposition to any such practices. Promotion of public health is obviously not equivalent to eugenics, and we support efforts to identify risks to the public health, including neurodevelopmental health. This is the norm across societies, to which end considerable resources are invested, for example, by educating pregnant women to refrain from drinking during pregnancy, by adding iodine to salt to prevent thyroid malfunction-associated cretinism, by prescribing prenatal folate to prevent neural tube defects, by regulating lead in paint, air, and water, by regulating medications that can cause harm to developing brains, by raising awareness of acts that cause brain damage such as shaken baby syndrome, and by monitoring and preventing dangerous infectious such as rubella and Zika. If other avenues for prevention of neurodevelopmental impairment are available, those should be identified and put into practice.

Their definition may be a bit narrow compared to some: I don't know what the word is for "self-eugenics", but there are plenty of people who choose not to have children for fear of passing along a genetic disease or who use Preimplantation genetic diagnosis to avoid having affected children, and this could be construed as improving society's genetics.

But I think that's sufficient to say that being pro-eugenics isn't part of their "self-description", and, as you say, the guest blog post doesn't even mention the org's name, much less claim to be speaking for them. I'll go remove that blog and anything supported by it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The FAQ section of the NCSA's website you cited has a false definition of eugenics (not merely a "narrow" one). Eugenics need not be an official government policy. It's merely the belief that certain groups of people (usually due to whatever real or imagined biological traits the eugenicist arbitrarily deems undesirable or imperfect) should be eliminated from the gene pool in order to "improve" the human race, and it can be formally or informally put into practice by anyone. See this article.

It is abundantly clear, based on both the FAQ page and the group's frequent platforming of one of their members who explicitly states that preventing Autistic people from being born is everyone's "moral duty," that the NCSA supports eugenics. For example, if one or more Autistic parents decided to procreate, even knowing there would be a high likelihood of their child also being Autistic, the NCSA would classify that as an "immoral" choice, rather than a morally positive or neutral one. That's eugenics, any way you slice it.

Also, please refrain from comparing the autistic neurotype to a "genetic disease." It is not even medically classified as a disease, and I shouldn't need to explain the extreme harm casually equating neurodivergence with disease does, regardless of the intensity of an individual's support needs. Just as an example that highlights said harm, it wouldn't be eugenics to cure diabetes (an actual disease) or take active measures to prevent it. It would, however, be eugenics to "cure" Autistic people or take active measures to prevent autistic births. (Standard prenatal care measures meant to improve overall health, like avoiding exposure to lead or taking prenatal vitamins, are not eugenic, and it's disingenuous for the NCSA or anyone else to compare such measures to the only two possible successful outcomes of the genetic research they champion: a "cure" or a genetic/prenatal test that would aid in either a voluntary or forcible elimination of Autistic people from the gene pool.)

It's also worth pointing out that there's a large difference between maintaining encyclopedic neutrality and just accepting any claim an organization makes as unassailable fact. The vast majority of organizations that claim to "support" or "advocate for" the Autistic community mostly or completely reject the perspectives of those they claim to operate on behalf of, and the NCSA is particularly sinister in this regard, as they stamp a specific subset of the Autistic community with intensive daily support needs as wholly incapable of autonomy (which they also misdefine) and weaponize such a position further by claiming that the very slowly growing acceptance of Autistic people by society (including self-acceptance) is inherently harmful to that subset (while at no time placing blame on the governments and private organizations that fail to provide such individuals and their caregivers with sufficient resources or prioritize tangible support over eugenic research and pseudoscience).

If you think citing the Medium post runs afoul of Wikipedia's citational standards (which I am not conceding), I'd be happy to reword my edit and cite the FAQ page directly. If even the NCSA, itself, feels that the perception of their organization as eugenicist is widespread enough to be worthy of inclusion on their own FAQ page, then it's certainly worthy of inclusion in their Wikipedia article. Otherwise, the article serves as little more than a promotional outlet for the NCSA, where anything they claim will just be repeated uncritically. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that a guest blog post from a non-expert, posted on WP:MEDIUM, that doesn't even mention the National Council on Severe Autism, can't be used at all in National Council on Severe Autism.

If you want to write anything about eugenics and the NCSA, then I suggest that you post your source(s) and your proposed text here at RSN, so that other editors can offer an opinion about whether the source(s) are reliable and your proposed text a fair representation of those sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not going against the consensus here as far as the use of the blog post as a citation, but also have no intention of running every cited edit I make on this or any other subject through committee. If I make an alternative edit that you disagree with, you're welcome to bring it up on the article talk page (which is perhaps where this conversation should have begun). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That article is significantly under-watched, so I think a discussion here is better.

I'm not suggesting "running every cited edit [you] make on this or any other subject through committee". I'm suggesting that since your first attempt to get the word eugenics into that article cited a WP:MEDIUM blog post, then if you want to have another go at getting the word eugenics into the article during the next week or so (i.e., between now and when this section is auto-archived), you should post the new source and the new text here first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

What you need is the NCSA saying they support eugenics, or a reliable secondary source saying they do. The source must directly support the content. You can't use a source that says "We don't support eugenics" to say they do support eugenics based on your opinion that their use of 'eugenics' is to narrow. You have to find a reliable source to back that up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested has it right. I think piece itself is that weird gray area of SPS, where supposedly it was edited by a nonprofit advocacy group, so it has some editorial control. At best, we could say NCSA hosted an opinion writer who said that, but would be wrong to attribute it to an official position NCSA.

I would probably argue it should be removed for WP:DUEness concerns. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Database (IBDB)

This website is unreliable for anything other than stage credits. The IBDB often gets cited here on Wiki as a source for birthdates, when all they've done is copy the information from IMDb. And unlike IMDb, IBDB refuses to correct existing errors even when presented with ample evidence. Yours6700 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

if it's an IMDb mirror, then it's unreliable as it's user-generated content.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

thirded. BarntToust 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

How do we know they're copying information from imdb? I see that ibdb provides a form to request error correction (although they caveat that with "may require documentation"), so how do we know they refuse to correct errors? Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

More context is needed. Any source saying IBDB is mirroring IMDB? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is AskMen reliable?

It's been 5 years and we really should come to a consensus on whether or not it is a reliable source! 97.91.34.184 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like it is unreliable. Angrythewikipedian (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there some current disagreement about the source, or some use you were thinking of, that could give your question some context? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

What claim is this source being used on? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)