Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives is user-generated content. There is long-standing consensus since 2007, and affirmed in 2015, that Encyclopaedia Metallum/Metal Archives is thus unreliable. It nonetheless constantly gets added as a source, including for highly contentions BLP statements (such as this edit to - redundantly - verify a band playing National Socialist black metal). It is sometimes used as an external link, which generally, as far as I understand, possibly acceptable, although other databases - Spirit of Metal, Discogs, etc. - often contain similar information. Also, if you run a search for uses of the site, it also is listed on numerous album cover images as the source for fair use. That is incorrect copyright attribution and technically a copyright violation (the original publisher or media itself should be listed). Essentially, nearly every single instance of this source across thousands of pages is in violation of either consensus against user-generated content or else technically commits a copy-right violation. I've tried to clean this up on some articles, but there's thousands. Over at the spam blacklist proposals page, one editor said that that venue isn't sufficient to blacklist a source used on that many pages, while another editor pointed out the copyright violation issue and said that would be a reason for blacklisting. I'm hoping a stronger consensus can emerge here as to whether or not the source should be deprecated, or even blacklisted.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference it's currently used in a little under 3,000 articles[1]. Blacklisting requires that all links are cleared before the blacklisting, as otherwise anyone editing an affected article will be stopped from saving their edit (until the link is removed). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this new? That is not how I thought this worked. mftp dan ^oops 18:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was my takeaway from the 'instruction for admins' in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly was referring to the latter portion of your statement. From my previous experience - though it has not happened to me in a while - if a link is blacklisted and remains on the page after listing, it is still possible to edit the page, but never possible to introduce new blacklisted links. This happened to me on Ice Nine Kills last year. An editor made several edits in a row - most of which were inappropriate - but they removed a blacklisted link in the process, so I couldn't revert them with my gadget. Maybe it works differently if you're saving edits in a subsection that doesn't contain the problem link. Or maybe something really has changed. mftp dan ^oops 19:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange my past experience has been to run into the red warning message, it hasn't happened in a while though so maybe something was changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible your edit appeared to MW as though you were removing the link in one place and adding it in another? There are ways for something to look as though it was being added in the diff when it was really just being “moved” because you changed something upstream. — HTGS (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a neutrally or briefly worded RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. Your opening statement should be something like "Should the Encyclopedia Metallum be deprecated?" You are not allowed to have a long section supporting your opinion as the RfC lead. This is what your response section should be. As such I've removed the RfC tag until this properly formatted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the formatting. I hadn't originally composed this as an RfC, and didn't manage to correct the wording and formatting completely.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think the source ought to be deprecated. I'm actually surprised we hadn't done it already, it's grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia trying to be serious. There is nothing I could imagine that it could provide of any value. mftp dan ^oops 19:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is obviously UGC and should be washed off of WP ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already did this but yeah deprecate it. It's user generated and definitely should be deprecated without any question. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deprecated, but it can be used with certain restrictions. It's not a good source for events or actions of people because of its user-submitted nature. I think it can be used for a band's member list or to determine a band's music genre. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any living people in the band, it CANNOT be used even to confirm band membership. But, even aside that, it's still user generated and so even if it's used for a band of now all dead people or being used for music genres, it's not a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Encyclopaedia Metallum (also known as Metal Archives) be deprecated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. (heavily copied from above) I think the source ought to be deprecated. I'm actually surprised we hadn't done it already, it's grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia trying to be serious. There is nothing I could imagine that it could provide of any value; whatever it could, something else virtually always could do better. mftp dan ^oops 20:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. This is an easy one. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. The source is unreliable as it's WP:UGC, as per previous discussions. If it's still getting regularly readded, as shown by a search for its usage, then something needs to be done so editor don't have to waste their time constantly cleaning it up. It's become a nail as the deprecation hammer is the only solution available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes while I agree with others that in an ideal world we wouldn't have to deprecate UGC that this keeps coming up doesn't seem to leave us with much choice... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes if editors keep inserting UGC into articles we should deprecate the source. Simonm223 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. It's always going to keep coming back and deprecation helps.—Alalch E. 23:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, obviously. User generated, unreliable. I'm surprised this hasn't been done but now is better than never. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 05:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes as the proposer of the discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - the fact it's still in use as a source despite being blatant UGC is absurd. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Source falls under WP:UGC, and is unreliable. There have been multiple articles that I have had to remove this source for being UGC, so yes, I agree with having it deprecated. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The example provided is a shocking use of such a source. It is clear that nothing short of blacklisting will stop people from adding it as a source. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. At the risk of repeating everyone else, it is WP:USERGEN, and if it's being widely used when it shouldn't be it's probably for the best to deprecate it. --Emm90 (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No. It can be used with restrictions as I think it is a good source of information that cannot be found elsewhere. Yes. I changed my vote because I realised that if the information isn't found anywhere else then it isn't notable. My bad. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TurboSuperA+ The content is user-generated. It can't be used, anywhere, on Wikipedia. With that in mind, what kind of usage, and restrictions, are you envisioning for the site on Wikipedia?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It has been used way too much for an unreliable source. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 04:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a strong opinion, but I thought it was best to have a properly formatted RfC on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up my mess.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This again shows the need for some process other than deprecation. It shouldn't be required to deprecate a user generated source just so a warning is displayed to editors to not use it as a reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, one could always go to WP:EFR, but the implementers there generally want to see that the proposed restriction is necessary/has consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I first went to the spam blacklist with this, but they said they need more consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with ActivelyDisinterested Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is blacklisted, I think maybe an exception should be made for the main page url specifically, so it can be linked to from the relevant Wikipedia article. I also think it's fine if that main url continues to be linked to as an external link on the Heavy metal music page. Those are the only acceptable uses that I've encountered.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up deprecation and blacklisting. Only blacklisting stops you from adding a url, deprecation just causes a warning message. So any registered editor can still add the homepage url if it's appropriate, a link on its article page would be covered by WP:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. External links have their own guidance (WP:EL) and noticeboard (WP:ELN). WP:Reliable sources only covers sources used for WP:Verifiability. External links from deprecated sources are allowed but somewhat discouraged -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Blacklisting has been mentioned (by myself and others) as a possibility in addition to deprecation, which is why I thought I'd mention it.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Benzinga [2]:

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

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

• 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 [3], 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: [4] and [5]) 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 [6], 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 [7], 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)[reply]

• Option 3 as per Chetsford and the 2019 RS discussion mentioned below. Coeusin (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 as per Chetsford. Doesn’t seem too dissimilar to FORBESCON. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Benzinga has twice been discussed at RSN ([8] and [9]) 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)[reply]

Given that the Trump admin has now implemented Project 2025 and is in the process of rolling it out, are US government sources still reliable after January 20, 2025? I would like to suggest that they are not. Trump just banned the Associated Press from the White House, and removed factual information from all US government websites that goes against the beliefs of his right wing donors. Furthermore, there is an ongoing attempt to gut all US agencies and destroy their data collecting processes and best practices. I would therefore like to submit the controversial proposal that all US government sources dated after January 20, 2025, that are used in Wikipedia articles be deprecated and that a perennial listing be entered. I realize this is a controversial proposal, but it is best to get on top of things with the AP being banned from the White House. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is way too soon to know whether politics has changed the reliability of US Government sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would your recommended time frame be to determine this? My take, based on what I've read over the last month, is that we already know that the reliability has changed for the worse. Full deprecation is obviously not called for, but I am calling for an entry over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with at least a yellow-coded warning. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About 10 years. By then actual historians will be able to assess the reliability of these primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of metric might have been true, let's say, in 1974, when the world moved a lot slower. But we no longer live in that world. Ten years in modern time is almost 100 years of compressed data and information, if you compare it to 1900, maybe more. It's cute that you're using an old way to gauge today, but I would like to suggest that no longer works. Also, as we've seen in the Ronald Reagan topic area, "historians" can be compromised, as they spent decades rewriting the history around Reagan and his legacy at the behest of right wing donors. I think the best way to gauge whether US government sources are reliable is to see how academic researchers, disciplines, fields, topics, and data sources are being systemically eliminated in favor of non-academic versions of all of those things. And we already have evidence this has happened, so I argue that deprecation should occur now, not ten years from now. And frankly, there's no field I can think of today that would say "wait ten years" for a similar evaluation. That's a perfectly fine view to have, but as you can see, buggies and horses are no longer on the streets, and the world is a different place than the one you once you knew. Your thinking has to change along those lines as well to accommodate the new world. Nobody should have to wait ten years for anything, and I find the suggestion deeply insulting. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very concerned about future reliability but we cannot rule out preemptively until significant evidence proves otherwise

need either exposes suggesting significant hollowing out of all institutions to suggest us gov is unreliable immediately (worse case) or evaluation by historians in 10yrs User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

more specifically exposes suggesting systematic printing of misinformation by an agency. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have evidence of all of those things and experts detailing the evidence. I can name dozens of experts. You can start with Steven G. Brint. We already know about the "systematic printing of misinformation" as its been covered extensively over the last several weeks.[10][11][12] Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest: I think Wikipedia has been too trusting of US government sources for a long time. I would be interested to review the evidence Viriditas provided above. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've read them. The Reuters piece is particularly damning. Normally when I grumble about US sources I mean intelligence agencies and congressional publications; the idea that the CDC is being subjected to these overtly political censorship measures is deeply alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA too [13]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And OSHA. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You better believe NOAA is under that bold text too. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is grim. NOAA is the main pillar holding up every single article about Atlantic hurricanes / Atlantic hurricane seasons. I've been dreading the thought of them being under threat since I first learned that Project 2025 aims to shutter the agency entirely, and it seems like attacks on the organization have already started. Atlantic hurricane articles used to be among the easiest to write — all the meteorological information you could ever need is already provided for you courtesy of NOAA; all it took was enough news articles to demonstrate notability and you could easily turn a section about a storm into a standalone page. If they're censored heavily enough, forced to spread misinformation (not hard to imagine since it's happened before), or worse, subjected to enough attacks from DOGE or executive orders that they're unable to operate as effectively as they used to, coverage of weather events that's as in-depth as we're used to will simply not be possible. I wouldn't downgrade NOAA's reliability just yet, but I worry for the future.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

those are deletions. we can't rule a publisher unreliable (yet) because it tried to unpublish trustworthy info.

If the CDC starts printing verifiably false info about trans topics, about ivermectin, etc. then we need to reevaluate, but preemptive action is too much.

I think we can see the start of evidence there is malfeasance though... but smoke doesn't always mean forestfire. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those primary sources anyway? What would you reference with them, other than "according to the US goverment..." and variants? Cambalachero (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For one, almost all of Wikiproject Weather references NOAA and their sub-branches very frequently, far beyond the light attributed use mentioned here. This is a development I can't say I didn't see coming but one I am still not exactly enthusiastic about. Departure– (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the event there are people here who have been asleep like Merrick Garland for the last five years, this happened. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many instances where primary sources from US political institutions are used to make statements in wikivoice. This has always been something a bit wrong, but until recently it hasn't been a contentious issues (outside of highly politicised house or congress reports).
I don't think there's anything to be done at this moment, rather it's a wait and see issue that editors should be aware of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it as generally reliable (including for government articles) per the status quo unless info comes out that directly contradicts the reliability. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised we are making wide use of state sources, outside of things like population stats and political delimitations defined by the state itself. What kind of thing are we talking about?Boynamedsue (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tornado surveys. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  also USGS stuff for earthquakes Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose stuff from USG would also be used for weather etc? In the UK our main weather service is state run.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USGS is for geology, NOAA is for weather. They are both state run. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not deprecate sources for lack of information; we deprecate them for misinformation. We are not there yet, that I've seen.... and even when we are, archive sources of pre-2025 government websites are legitimate (the majority are in the public domain, so no conflicts on archives) should still be reasonable for existing references. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making US government sources deprecated purely because they disagree with your opnions is against wikipedia policies. I don't believe that it has become less reliable(hell, i think it's more reliable considering there is less left wing misinfo on stuff like LGBT topics) solely because there is a new government which is right wing; on the same topic, nearly any right-wing, pro-chinese and pro-russian sources have been called "Misinformation" "propanganda" and have been deprecated(which is causing some issues as russian-ukrainian war related articles are extremely biased towards ukraine and many sources which can improve wikipedia's coverage of the chinese military cannot be used). Now, i'm not saying that some of them don't have misinfo or propanganda, however I believe that maybe we should allow sources of other political viewpoints while staying as neutral as possible, and that sources with different opinions should NOT be deprecated(or at least, allow use of them in some contexts). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way we can make a blanket designation of the reliability of US gov sources. Reliability is always going to vary widely among the many federal agencies. There are some that have never been good sources for on-wiki use, and some that are probably still permissible to use at least for now. This conversation needs to be more specific to be productive. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing presented here contains even the allegation, much less evidence, that even a single shred of false information was published by a USG source. If a state distorting and restricting access to information means Wikipedia should list them as deprecated on the Perennial Sources page, then maybe we should start with the People's Republic of China who are by several orders of magnitude a more egregious source of disinformation and censorship.[14] Manuductive (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the voices on here that reliability questions cannot be resolved preemptively, if any RS had announced its intention to sack a massive proportion of its staff and underwent the kind of politicised changes that the USG is right now, we would probably be having this discussion. As for China, we are exceptionally careful how we use data generated by states anyway, and we should really only be using any state, including the US, for attributed information on its own opinion and possibly completely apolitical geographical data.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like they have removed information which they perceive to not be aligned to their interests - as opposed to publishing false information. This is how bias works in practice: publish what makes you look good, ignore what make you look bad. It happens without telling a single lie. Thus, this is an issue of bias, not of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconding Barnards and Bluethricecreamman. While everything this regime's doing is deeply concerning, there's no surefire proof that they've published outright falsehoods quite yet; rather, they've removed certain information that defies their narrative, which is moreso severe bias than misinformation. The 10-year timeline is a bit extreme imo, but for the moment this feels slightly preemptive, though worth keeping a close eye on.

Adding to that, being a primary/government source they should be attributed in 99% of cases anyways, so it's not like their newfound issues should affect anything in Wikivoice. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can gauge reliability on government sources this broadly. China, Russia, and other coutnries have disputable sources and those have not been censored broaly either. An adminstration is not the basis of reliability either. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't so much reliability, but how they editors tend to use such reports. They are at times (although rarely) used without attribution, and are often given a lot of prominence. This hasn't been such an issue, as most times their use has been uncontroversial. However if the current US administration continues to politicise it's civil service then the use of it as a source will have to be handled as we do with Russia, China or other governments. That is only used for their attributed opinion, and then only rarely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you mentioned. Attribution should be used either way with any governemnt source. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Government sources always needed to be taken with a grain of salt, this adds a bit of nuance in the context of the US but is not materially different than the challenges we face with government sources in most other countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• US government sources are reliable sources for the opinion of whoever has database access. They may be used with proper attribution, e.g., "according to BasedBalls42088". XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The crackdown on science reminds me of Lysenkoism under Communism. Today it is just everything they don't like being removed so they can still be considered reliable even if biased like quality newspapers tend to be, but I think we've got to face the very real likelihood of quite bad falsehoods being put out soon. NadVolum (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LGBTQ+ [15][16]
• Climate [17][18]
• Women rights [19]
• Health [20][21]
• Diversity [22]
• Spanish [23]

Sometimes it's websites being taken down (not a real issue from our POV for existing articles), sometimes it's information being changed (much more problematic). Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now they're slapping a banner full of disinformation atop a website they were ordered by a court to restore [24]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False information has now been confirmed. [25] 73.206.161.228 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yellow-tag, permanently: It certainly isn't reliable under Trump. But it probably wasn't the utmost reliable before either. _pbp 21:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's fractal ugliness in US government information systems: historic (but no longer extant) Native American settlements such as Buldam, California appear to have been removed from the US GNIS online gazetteer of the USGS (should be at https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1724161); this is not the only one I tried. Non-Native-American former settlements such as the nearby Rockport, California have not been erased (https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1659534). Unfortunately although the missing page is indexed by archive.org it does not seem to have made a good capture. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing a record in Populated Places delimited text files:1724161|Buldam (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0but not in the downloadable database (which i assume National Map uses). Last modified time showing on both the files is "2025-01-10T19:48:45.000Z", so ugly but maybe not the ugly you are implying. fiveby(zero) 20:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, although I haven't found anything to help with your specific query, I saw that a variety of places have been attempting to archive government data, some going back before Trump's inauguration; several are listed here and there are more if you click on "Data Rescue Efforts," which takes you to a Google doc. I may share this at the VPM as well. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know a few years ago they removed certain feature classes, including "post office" and I remember several of the GNIS entries for post offices disappearing around that time. I don't know that this would have affected the former Native American settlements, though, but it isn't unprecendented for GNIS to make big drops out of its data system. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried more non Native American former settlements? From the two examples shown, it's strikes me they could simply be removing all historical settlements. The presence of Rockport might simply be because, at least from what I see, it's not clear it's historical from the data they publicly show. (I.E. if they were doing a simple search of their database, they might not find it.) Were any of the other historic Native American settlements similarly unclear that they're historic settlements? Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried all of the places listed as "Former settlements" in Template:Mendocino County, California for which GNIS links were included. All of the ones that were former Native American settlements now are deadlinks. All of the ones that are not former Native American settlements are still live. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was able to find [26] for Signal Port, California which is described as historical but still extant, so it's clearly not that. However something else struck me which I'll investigate further. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm fairly sure I've worked out what's going on. Going by the examples I looked at of Native American settlements from the above template which had disappeared, many of them said the precise location of the place is unknown in our articles. The extant examples I looked at in the US GNIS Map database had geographical coordinates. Going by what fiveby(zero) found, it seemed likely those unknown and/or 0.0 were about the geographical location or coordinates. Sure enough when I downloaded the file I found prim_lat_dms|prim_long_dms|prim_lat_dec|prim_long_dec is the end confirming that Buldam had no coordinates listed as would likely be the case for the other historic settlements where the precise location was unknown.

Looking in the file I found these consecutive entries:

42818|Olive City (historical)|Populated Place|Arizona|04|La Paz|012|Blythe|06/27/1984|06/07/2022||||333640N|1143133W|33.6111356|-114.5257879
42834|Horse Thief|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Yavapai|025|Chino Valley South|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
42835|Branding Iron|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Pima|019|Sells East|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
42837|Crane|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Yuma|027|Roll|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
42842|Tusayan|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Coconino|005|Tusayan West|02/08/1980|06/07/2022|Official|Board Decision|01/01/1915|355825N|1120736W|35.9735954|-112.1265569

If we check these, they are what we expect 42818, 42842 which have coordinates still work. 42834, 42835 and 42837 which don't have coordinates, are gone. Tusayan, Arizona is apparently not historical but Olive City, Arizona apparently is, as we might guess from the name. True, neither of these are Native American settlements and I have no idea if the other 3 are, but I'm also not sure if USGS easily knows.

Another example:

62589|Green Plains|Populated Place|Arkansas|05|Howard|061|Newhope|05/01/1992|06/07/2022||||340750N|0935709W|34.1306664|-93.952413
62593|Harper Springs (historical)|Populated Place|Arkansas|05|Howard|061|Dierks|05/01/1992|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
62595|Henry|Populated Place|Arkansas|05|Howard|061|Athens|05/01/1992|06/07/2022||||341710N|0935638W|34.2862189|-93.9438049

62589 and 62595 with coordinates still work but 62593 which doesn't have coordinates does not. Again no idea if Harper Springs is Native American.

But I suspect at least one of these isn't a Native America settlement going solely by the names, otherwise chosen at semi random from places which have unknown locations:

591687|Amberly of Kings Court|Populated Place|Maryland|24|Baltimore|005|Cockeysville|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
598329|Hills Landing (historical)|Populated Place|Maryland|24|Prince George's|033|Washington East|08/01/1992|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
730572|Albany (historical)|Populated Place|Missouri|29|Franklin|071|Union|02/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
730582|Bavaria (historical)|Populated Place|Missouri|29|Franklin|071|Union|02/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
855224|Williamsville (historical)|Populated Place|Nevada|32|Clark|003|Henderson|07/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
863842|Canyon Station (historical)|Populated Place|Nevada|32|White Pine|033|Lusetti Canyon|07/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1384127|Tri-Cities|Populated Place|Texas|48|Henderson|213|Athens|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1384129|Camelot|Populated Place|Texas|48|Bexar|029|San Antonio East|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1435494|East Wellington|Populated Place|Utah|49|Carbon|007|Pine Canyon|02/25/1989|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1448445|Greenfield Village|Populated Place|Utah|49|Salt Lake|035|Salt Lake City South|02/25/1989|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0

But all have disappeared consistent with the pattern of places without coordinates in the database disappearing. 591687, 598329, 730572 730582, 855224, 863842, 1384127, 1384129, 1435494, 1448445.

Meanwhile I think these are likely Native America historic settlements:

42921|Old Shongopavi (historical)|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Navajo|017|Shungopavi|06/27/1984|06/07/2022||||354816N|1103113W|35.8044496|-110.5204121
1669334|Deertail Indian Village (historical)|Populated Place|Montana|30|Roosevelt|085|Sprole|11/07/1995|06/07/2022||||480511N|1050355W|48.0864078|-105.065254

But as you might guess since they have coordinates, they're still in that map database 42921 (see [27]) & 1669334. I'm sure there are plenty more, but trying to find historical Native American settlements by name is difficult since even when you find candidates it's often difficult to find anything about them and plenty of non-Native American settlements have names that come from Native American languages in some way.

About my earlier point, USGS clearly has more info on many of these than shown in the populated places text file you can download, e.g. if you compare the extant entries to their database there's more details. They might very well have more than is shown even there. But one thing which strikes me is it's unclear whether they even really have any info in their database marking which ones are Native American settlements. In other words, I'm not sure selective removing Native American settlements would actually be that easy especially done in such a short time since Trump took over.

What they seem to have done i.e. remove places without geographical coordinates in their database is obviously fairly trivial, I mean anyone with a basic understanding of how to work with their database should be able to do it. Heck I'm fairly sure I could do it with the populated places text files imported into Excel or similar.

As for why they did this I don't know. It likely disproportionately affected historic Native American settlements compared to others since I suspect it's more likely these will be in the database but with no geographical coordinates. However IMO it would be a mistake to assume this is the reason, it seems to me there are legitimate reasons why they'd want to remove such entries especially from the database used for their maps. Ideally they would keep them in some other publicly accessible database including all the information not in the populated places text file. Ideally also they'd spend further time investigating these and see if they can add geographical coordinates. Unfortunately while there's a reasonable chance these might have been part of the original plan, these might not happen now. (My guess is this is something planned and perhaps even implemented before Trump's second term.)

P.S. I'm not that used to formatting code so anyone else is free to reformat this without asking if they feel there's a better way.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the first thing I investigated was the entries around Buldam, and these are consistent with the pattern. These ones are dead, all lack coordinates in the populated places text file. 1723913, 1723914, 1723964, 1723966, 1723969, 1723970, 1723979, 1723987, 1723988, 1724006, 1724010, 1724011, 1724013, 1724015, 1724018, 1724155, 1724161, 1724169, 1724175, 1724196, 1724208, 1724212, 1724233, 1724252 & 1724261.

Meanwhile these have coordinates and all still work 1723910, 1723939, 1723943, 1723973, 1723976, 1723996, 1724007, 1724019, 1724035, 1724141, 1724158, 1724247, 1724277, 1724314 & 1724366.

From the extant entries, I've now noticed during this write up that Eskini, California, Michopdo, California, Yuman, California all have info in the extant entries indicating these came from the Smithsonian Institution and are historic Native American settlements, something our articles seem to confirm. So more examples of historical Native American settlements with coordinates which still exist in the database. (I think most or all of the dead entries are all historic Native American settlements.)

For completeness, here's the populated places text database entries. Note that some of these seem to come from the same source originally but whether they are removed depends solely on whether they have coordinates, although it looks like these also have other stuff which make them different. Again, I'm sure that there's more than we see here, but I'm not sure it will always be that simple to identify programmatically which are historic Native American settlements.

1723910|Mount Hope House (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Yuba|115|Clipper Mills|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393101N|1211304W|39.5168329|-121.2177382
1723913|Bauka (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723914|Bayu (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723939|Dodgeland|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Llano Seco|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393241N|1215428W|39.5446068|-121.9077539
1723943|Eskini (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Chico|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393840N|1214804W|39.6443289|-121.8010878
1723964|Holhoto (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723966|Hokomo (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723969|Kalkalya (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723970|Kulaiapto (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723973|Lava Beds (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Palermo|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||392827N|1213413W|39.4740536|-121.570248
1723976|Michopdo (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Chico|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||394355N|1215114W|39.7318277|-121.8538668
1723979|Ololopa (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723987|Otaki (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723988|Paki (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1723996|Roble|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Chico|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393952N|1214822W|39.6643286|-121.8060879
1724006|Sunusi (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724007|Swedes Flat (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Rackerby|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||392648N|1212229W|39.446555|-121.3746865
1724010|Tadoiko (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724011|Taikus (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724013|Totoma (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724015|Tsuka (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724018|Yauko (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724019|Yuman (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Oroville|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393045N|1213329W|39.5123863|-121.5580257
1724035|Hardin (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Asti|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||385222N|1225339W|38.8726804|-122.8941625
1724141|Twin Rocks|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Tan Oak Park|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||394922N|1233355W|39.822653|-123.5652976
1724155|Bokea (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724158|Brooktrails|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|01/18/2011||||392638N|1232307W|39.4437736|-123.3852887
1724161|Buldam (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724169|Chomchadila (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724175|Dapishul (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724196|Hopitsewah (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724208|Lema (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724212|Masut (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724233|Moiya (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724247|Ridgewood Park|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Laughlin Range|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||391951N|1232029W|39.3307219|-123.3413978
1724252|Shiegho (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724261|Ubakhea (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
1724277|Wanhala|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Northspur|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||392815N|1233242W|39.4707187|-123.5450129
1724314|Avocado Heights|Populated Place|California|06|Los Angeles|037|Baldwin Park|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||340210N|1175928W|34.0361217|-117.9911765
1724366|Woodside Village|Populated Place|California|06|Los Angeles|037|Baldwin Park|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||340115N|1175358W|34.0208448|-117.8995066

Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem. NHTSA just awarded the Tesla Cybertruck a safety rating. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone else is interested in getting some context, like myself.

1. Time How Elon Musk’s Anti-Government Crusade Could Benefit Tesla and His Other Businesses

2. AP News Key things to know about how Tesla could benefit from Elon Musk’s assault on government

3. cleantechnica.com Trump & Musk Will Quash NHTSA Investigation Of Tesla Full Self Driving System

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the NHTSA fabricated data to make Tesla look better? Because there's absolutely no evidence of that. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk is, in my opinion, a POS. However, their cars have a long history of doing well in government crash tests. While I would be very concerned for the driver of a Civic who is crushed by a Cybertruck driver using autopilot, this is basic crash testing. If evidence comes out that Musk actually manipulated things (like, in my opinion, he did with Tesla stock) then report it. However, let's not cry about the wolves until they are clearly about. Springee (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: the Cybertruck is 17 times more likely to cause a fire fatality than the infamous Ford Pinto. [28] That indicates that someone is putting their thumb on the safety ratings scale and that NHTSA's ratings can no longer be trusted for reliability under the new administration. 73.206.161.228 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "was" deal with coatrack sources, or is there a reliable source connecting Musk in government to the cybertruck's poor safety record? For all we know, new iterations of the vehicle are safe. Departure– (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalopnik's coverage [29] raises some longstanding concerns about NTHSA tests not evaluating impact that the car has on whatever it crashes into, but does not suggest that there is anything underhanded or out of the ordinary about its performance in the tests that the NTHSA has administered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the long standing concerns are just that, long standing. Thus they don't support the idea that the Cybertruck was given a good score for political reasons. I'm not sure if the cyber truck is much worse than many large trucks/SUVs (but those corners do look sharp). If the investigation into the fraud (IMHO) that is full self driving (both in terms of safety and accounting) gets quashed, then I would be inclined to assume pressure from above. To be clear, I think Tesla has a lot of skeletons in the closet and the Trump admin isn't going to be interested in finding them. Springee (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked into this and the cybertruck has a smaller front crumple zone than other equivalently sized pickup trucks. It is also heavier than equivalently sized pickup trucks due to the weight requirements of EVs. The sharp edges increase danger to pedestrians during collisions but are not, themselves, likely to increase the damage to vehicles. But being heavier and having less give in its design certainly will. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my reading as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute currently being discussed at NPOV/N regarding the use of contemporary US maps in geography articles. While the locus of the discussion is around neutrality I do believe there is a reliability component to this problem too. Simply put the Trump administration has been redrawing a lot of maps. This doesn't just include renaming of international geographical features but also putting fingers on the scales of international disputes. The locus of the NPOV/N discussion involves Western Sahara - which currently show up on US maps as part of Morocco. The United States agreed to recognize Morocco's claim in exchange for a normalization of relations with Israel. Between this, the Gulf of Mexico debacle, and some (admittedly personal) concerns regarding what American maps might start saying about Canada, Panama and Greenland in coming years I'm concerned that maps made by US agencies may not be reliable representations of national borders and international naming schema. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in this discussion, a few editors raised questions about when we would ever write articles which relied on primary sources to a great extent. Iron Alps Complex Fire is currently a DYK candidate, and relies primarily on government sources. There are a few secondary sources here and there, but I wanted to provide an example of new-ish article that meets the requirements discussed above. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read at WP:CNET, CNet is no longer a reliable source it once was. Does this apply to YouTube videos (and other videos) made by CNet? George Ho (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is just a host that organisation can publish on, the reliability of any YouTube video is the same as anything else published by that organisation. So the reliability of CNET's YouTube videos are no different from their website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNET has been sold by Red Ventures (the whole reason it was declared unreliable in the first place) and is now owned by Ziff Davis, who owns generally reliable publications like IGN. I therefore think its reliability should be reassessed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reassessed. Also C|NET goes back to the 1990s, before problems noted existed. -- GreenC 07:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I was reading the RSP entry that thought crossed my mind. Given the changes over the years the entry should be updated. I think there was some AI concerns but their AI use policy[30] looks good now. I'd support changing it to "Additional considerations" and noting the period that caused concern. Interestingly the close[31] of the prior RFC details the different periods, but they weren't noted on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's adjusted, before someone finds the hammer and sees nails everywhere causing a lot of damage. -- GreenC 22:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any interested editors can edit it, it's nothing special - normal editing rules apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that crosses my mind is that the reason their recent stuff (after their acquisition by Red Ventures in 2020) is considered unreliable is because of the use of AI to generate articles. Does this extend to video? --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See the link in my comment, they seems to have curtailed their use of AI to generate content. I wouldn't trust that they didn't generate video scripts with AI under Red Ventures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a timeline of CNET's ownership:

• 1992 to June 2008: CNET Networks (formerly known as CNET, Inc.)
• June 2008 to October 2020: CBS Interactive
• October 2020 to October 2024: Red Ventures
• October 2024 to present: Ziff Davis

The March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures determined that "the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable", building upon a highly-attended February 2023 discussion. which is the sole basis of These discussions are why CNET is currently being listed as generally unreliable in its perennial sources list entry. Because CNET has ceased being an online property of Red Ventures as of 1 October 2024, the "generally unreliable" designation from that RfC should not apply to any CNET articles published since that date, but the February 2023 discussion still currently applies.

In its current incarnation, CNET's highest-quality content is its Cover Stories, which are originally reported feature stories with in-depth research (e.g. "Inside the Rise of 7,000 Starlink Satellites – and Their Inevitable Downfall"). CNET's full-length technology reviews (e.g. pre–October 2024 link removed) and technology reporting (e.g. "This Company Got a Copyright for an Image Made Entirely With AI. Here's How") seem to be of similar quality to other mainstream tech news sites, and I consider this content on CNET generally reliable. I do not see any evidence of LLMs being used to generate these articles.

On the other hand, CNET's Deals are sponsored content and should be considered generally unreliable just like sponsored content from other online publications. CNET also publishes a large number of product comparison pages in the style of Wirecutter, such as "Best Electric Toothbrushes of 2025" and "Best Home Equity Loan Rates for February 2025", with affiliate links to each listed product. I consider these product comparison pages sponsored content (and therefore generally unreliable), and I believe there should be a broader discussion about affiliate-sponsored product review sites, whether they are part of a larger publication (e.g. The New York Times's Wirecutter) or not (e.g. Nexstar Media Group's BestReviews).

A visit of CNET's home page shows that at least half of the content linked from CNET's home page is unacceptable sponsored content, or articles that are otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. "Today's NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Sunday, Feb. 16"). Despite CNET having some high-quality articles, with such a high proportion of unusable content, I believe CNET (October 2024 – present) should be designated as "additional considerations apply".

ZDnet should also be re-evaluated, as it was reacquired by Ziff Davis in August 2024 and is also no longer a Red Ventures property. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Correct discussion history. Strike favorable assessment of reviews, which are difficult to distinguish from sponsored content. — Newslinger talk 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET entries on RSP were not up-to-date at the time of my previous comment. The February 2023 discussion was incorrectly listed as a request for comment, but was actually a standard discussion that was formally closed without ever having the {{rfc}} tag applied. I've re-designated it as a standard discussion in the CNET entires. Also, I've added the March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures, which takes precedence over the February 2023 discussion for the October 2020 – October 2022 period, which I have updated to the generally unreliable designation. The CNET entries now reflect the status quo before the active RfC below. — Newslinger talk 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of CNET, following its purchase by Ziff Davis in October 2024:

• 1. Reliable
• 2. Additional considerations apply
• 3. Generally unreliable

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2, per my comments in the above section. CNET's content quality is a mixed bag, and varies greatly depending on the topic and format. From CNET's RSS feeds, here are the 10 most recently published CNET articles as of right now:
  1. "Today's NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Monday, Feb. 17": No comment on reliability. Generally undue.
  2. "Best Teeth Whitening Kits in 2025": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. The article's biomedical claims are also unusable due to CNET being a popular press source. This product comparison page lacks an original publication date, and is repeatedly updated (see the "Article updated" date) to feature new products, most of which are individually non-notable. The reviews on the page are short blurbs that can be summarized from the product's store listing, and do not indicate that the authors have ever used the products. The page contains a large number of affiliate links that direct readers to buy the products at various retailers.
  3. "Best Nanny Cams for 2025": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. However, CNET did actually test two of the five products on the list. The tested products each have a "Read full review" link which leads to a review article that should be evaluated separately.
  4. "Best Roku TV for 2025": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. Two of the three products have "Read full review" links.
  5. "I Wasn't Disappointed After Trying HelloFresh's New Time-Saving Menu Options": Marginally reliable at best. Article is promotionally toned in a way that makes me doubt its authenticity. Contains only one affiliate link, which is acceptable.
  6. "Best Workout Apps for 2025": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. No detailed reviews linked.
  7. "Best Apple iPhone SE Cases for 2025": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. No detailed reviews linked.
  8. "Best Kitchen Faucets for 2025": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. No detailed reviews linked.
  9. "Best Internet Providers in Gainesville, Georgia": Generally unreliable as sponsored content. This product comparison page has a different format than the previous ones. Most of the listed internet providers have separate reviews (e.g. "AT&T Internet Review: Plans, Pricing, Speed and Availability"), but it is concerning that these reviews only have "Article updated" dates while lacking original publication dates.
  10. "Best Internet Providers in Durham, North Carolina": Generally unreliable as sponsored content.

• (summoned by bot) Option 2 per Newslinger. A historical news site resorting to blatant ad slop as its main venture (no pun intended) is very dissapointing. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 12:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (This vote self-replaced the user's own previous vote. —George Ho (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• Option 2 is the case for every source on the planet including this one (invited by the bot). Anything else is a false overgeneralization. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. Nothing seems to have changed: CNET still appears to be outright unreliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Absent any further information, I would tend towards the status quo. As far as I am aware, CNET is a reliable source. If you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, I may !vote that it is unreliable but otherwise a change of ownership (to a company I cannot at a cursory glance conclude is inherently unreliable) is not grounds for declaring a source unreliable. It depends on the content output, not the owner. Note: I have purposefully not yet done a deep-dive on CNET or Ziff Davis as I feel it should be up to those looking to have a source declared unreliable to provide a reasonable justification and I think uninvolved editors should go into discussions like this without preconceptions. I will not be !voting one way or the other until additional context is provided. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See the above discussion for additional context. CNET was originally designated as generally reliable. After a highly-attended February 2023 discussion, CNET was designated as generally reliable for the pre–October 2020 time range, marginally reliable for October 2020 – October 2022, and generally unreliable for November 2022 – present. The March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures forms the current status quo, which designates CNET as generally reliable for pre–October 2020, and generally unreliable for the time period after CNET was acquired by Red Ventures (October 2020 – present). Although Ziff Davis purchased CNET from Red Ventures in October 2024, a discussion from later that month did not have a clear resolution, with some editors preferring to wait before re-evaluating CNET. It has been six months since that discussion, and this RfC is the re-evaluation that we have been waiting for. — Newslinger talk 08:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As the discussion above says, the status quo is that they are not currently reliable (ie. not after their acquisition), mostly due to their use of AI and the damage that that seems to have done to their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the Daily Express from "Generally unreliable" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to "Deprecated"? Helper201 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. As mentioned next to the entry of the Daily Express on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it shares similarities with the Daily Mail which is deprecated. I see a lot of commonalities between the two and don't see what makes this source better or deserving of "Generally unreliable" rather than "Deprecated". Helper201 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I hoped they would change after being purchased by Reach PLC, but there's no evidence that they have. They're still the same low quality unreliable tabloid source that they were under Desmond, and there's basically no reason to cite them under any circumstances, warranting deprecation similar to other British tabloids like the Daily Mail and The Sun. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As an addendium, The Express has a history of openly promoting conspiracy theories [32] [33] [34][35] [36] Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per Hemiauchenia. - Amigao (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, as it is another British tabloid more interested in ill-informed rants than reporting. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes If anything, Daily Express is even more unreliable than Daily Mail. Jeppiz (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes To be honest, you could deprecate every single one of the national papers owned by Reach PLC and nothing of value would be lost. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a new discussion, disagreement, or change that has caused the need for a new RFC? Or is the Daily Express still being commonly used in a way that wastes editors time? (For reference it's currently used in about 6.5k articles.[37]) Although it doesn't appear that there's ever been a RFC on the Daily Express, so it may certainly be due one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally I'm all ready to go to deprecate a tabloid but I'm not seeing an RfC before here and we really should be basing RSP discussions on disputes that happen on WP rather than just deciding that Now Is The Time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Simon, Daily Express is a garbage rag but given the seeming lack of WP:RFCBEFORE here this might be a bad RFC. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with everyone else in this section. The Daily Express is clearly unreliable and I wouldn't be concerned about it being deprecated but I don't understand why this is coming up now or why it matters. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd argue it matters due to the number of sources in which it is used (6.5k, as stated above). I have also myself seen it used as a source in many articles over the years to try and support factual claims. Obviously one or a few people such as myself cannot hope to tackle a backlog of thousands of pages in which it is used and the potential for this to increase in the future. Listing it as "Deprecated" would at least help prevent future usage of it. Helper201 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• So far, I see no one else opposing the proposal to this date. Nonetheless, the discussion isn't listed in WP:CENT. Shall the source be "deprecated" right away then? George Ho (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Civil War was reignited after the start of the rebel offensive in November so people are using SOHR as a source again. From my findings on the internet, their claims are mostly dubious and borderline disinformation at worst. Especially regarding their claims if there is no visual evidence. I talked a bit about SOHR in a talk page.

"The fact that large (western) news agencies quote them does not make it what they say accurate. For some reason every large (and western) news agency takes what the SOHR says for granted. Here are a couple examples from well known people, with on the ground sources as well, where SOHR reporting is refuted. I expect you to know all these people since you've been following the conflict for so long. But I am happy to give any further information.

https://x.com/Elizrael/status/1366102139639107586 Elizabeth Tsurkov.

https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1145332442422743041

https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1270423630334263296 see whole thread

https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1843663136588738723

https://x.com/EliotHiggins/status/988110118809231360 Even Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat.

Just a few examples of their many inaccuracies. There's also the fact that in this specific offensive the SOHR claims more SNA casualties than the SDF which is frankly absurd if you know how conflicts work. Even with the decently large amount of video footage the SDF are releasing, the battles are still relatively small. Sultan Murad division is not that big. 300 DEATHS (not even casualties) would severely cripple them."

Ideally they should be classified as "Generally unreliable" as a minimum. I would love to hear your feedback about this.

I want to clarify in case I make any mistakes, and I appreciate your understanding.

TedKekmeister (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Of the tweets you linked, Eliot Higgins is an expert and Tsurkov could be argued to be an expert too, but it would be good to have more sources confirming their lack of reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The annoying thing is that no big publications focus on the SOHR inherently as a source. Major publications just take it as truth without verifying it. I managed to find 2 articles from a reputable Syrian fact checking site.

https://verify-sy.com/en/details/1617/SOHR-Fabricates-News-that-Global-Coalition-Established-Court-for-ISIS-Detainees

https://verify-sy.com/en/details/1553/Misinformation-about-Clashes-in-Azaz-of-Rural-Aleppo TedKekmeister (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things I would like to know:

1. Accurate reporting in conflict zones is notoriously difficult. Death tolls are often revised and preliminary reports of an incident may turn out not to be true. What is the tone with which SOHR is reporting inaccurate information? Are they attributing unverified reports or treating them as fact? If SOHR gets something wrong or if new information contradicts initial reports, do they issue a correction?

2. Is SOHR's reliability related to its bias or in service of any agenda? Bias does not necessarily equal unreliability, but unreliable sources can be the most detrimental to Wikipedia if they twist the facts to promote their POV. Is there a pattern of over-reporting or under-reporting the casualties, actions, etc. of any particular faction or alignment of factions? Based on the info on their page, it seems the SOHR is relatively balanced in its coverage and criticism of different factions, if a bit pro-opposition, which is probably why they are a go-to for Western outlets. While a pro-opposition bias might warrant some special consideration of claims about government actions, their relative neutrality would be an argument in favor of their reliability imo. Am I missing something?

3. What are some better sources and why aren't they being used by major media outlets?

4. What are some examples where the SOHR's reporting is used on-wiki in a detrimental manner? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the questions.

1: I understand your concerns but in many cases it is frankly absurd what the SOHR does. See the 2018 YPG casualties for instance. Threefold increase in a single day. The SOHR also does not retract any publications nor apologises if it contains incorrect information. Another important point to mention is that the SOHR itself says that it does not reveal the methodology of its information gathering so as to not endanger their sources.

2: In general they aren't biased in the recording but it their claims are generally unreliable However it seems that in the current SDF-SNA conflict they are heavily biased to the SDF. For instance they claim less SDF deaths than publically available "martyr posters" in this current Manbij offensive. This is blatant disinformation. The SNA casaulties are also absurd but this is more unreliability than disinformation.

3: That's the problem here. There aren't really any bipartisan organisations gathering all the information. The best thing you can do is rely on local sources but they are mostly on twitter. Hence why major media outlets do not use them. They take whatever the SOHR says as gospel.

4: Same thing as I said in point 2. They are misinformation at best and disinformation at worst for casualty figures. For non casualty related news they should be seen as generally unreliable and should be mentioned explicitly if quoted. But it is generally better to rely on non SOHR sources. Another huge issue is that many wikipedia pages in the Syrian Civil War overly rely on the SOHR and if another source is used, it is more often than not referring to SOHR as well.

See Operation Olive Branch and source 274 "Fuel truck bomb kills more than 40 in northern Syria""

It is especially horrible in the newer articles. Namely East Aleppo offensive (2024–present)

I hope this answered all your questions. I'd be happy to answer more. TedKekmeister (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think your concerns about the reliability of SOHR are warranted. Not issuing corrections or publishing a methodology can be a reliability issue. I'm a bit unclear on the story about the fuel truck bomb -- how do we know the SOHR's account is inaccurate here? Overall, I'm not sure what the best approach is, as it seems there is a lack of better sources that material supported by SOHR could be replaced by. Reading the description at WP:GUNREL, it does seem as if a source can be designated as such without systematically removing material supported by it from the wiki if we have nothing better to replace it with. I'm generally hesitant to make sweeping designations about sources, and before I would personally feel comfortable voting for SOHR to be designated GUNREL, I'd like some clarification from a more experienced editor on what exactly the implications of doing so would be for its uses on-wiki. What could be even better would be developing a set of procedures to use SOHR alongside other sources in a way that takes them at their best while using our discernment as editors to avoid republishing their most questionable claims. @Bobfrombrockley and I have had some good conversations about triangulating sources on this noticeboard before, and Bob is well versed in the Syrian conflict so he might have a valuable perspective here. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used the fuel truck bomb as an example that a lot of times in SCW pages, non-SOHR sources just refer back to an SOHR article without any further investigation from those major publications.

Retroactively changing every single SOHR source is a huge pain. Not just because of the vastness but because of the lack of many other secondary sources. This is mainly because so much content from around 2013 to 2018 has been deleted. A possible solution would be to add primary sources (if available) next to the SOHR’s and mention something along the lines of “Local sources reported X and SOHR confirmed/denied X.”

The least that could be done right now is to restrict the use of SOHR sources in new articles. From Nov 27th onwards seems good a start but I have also noticed that during the 4 year ceasefire from march 2020 to November 2024 they are overused as well.

That’s all I have to say now. I would love to hear Bob’s input as well. Thank you for the meaningful discussion. TedKekmeister (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick reply, I strongly think that SOHR is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable. It is used heavily by others in the absence of better sources, but always with careful attribution and often prefixed by "UK-based" and (in the past at least) "pro-opposition". There have been numerous incidents of them getting things wrong, which they never ever acknowledge or correct. They are not transparent in their methodology, as they rely on sources on the ground who are under threat but also presumably of variable quality. Over time, their bias has shifted, from being pro-opposition to being aligned with the SDF and hostile to Turkish-backed and to a lesser extent HTS-aligned opposition and even sharing a lot of information with pro-Assad regime sources. Of massively lower quality than the very robust Syrian Network on Human Rights and Violations Documentation Centre, as well as Verify-Sy. Finally, it releases information quickly, so almost all of its output counts as WP:RSBREAKING. For all these reasons, it should always be attributed, where possible it should be triangulated with other sources, it should always be replaced with better sources once the air is clear, no article should rely too heavily on it, and if an article more or less uses no other source than it's either not a notable topic or needs a lot of work. Unfortunately, some editors seem intent on using every detail it publishes to create large amounts of non-noteworthy and non-encyclopedic Syria coverage. Articles on recent Syrian issues are particularly bad. Here is one really bad example. And Here are many more. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the issue with the lack of transparency in methodology, but why do you think the SNHR is better? This is another UK-based and clearly biased organization, their bias being pro-opposition and pro-Turkey: their documentation of media workers killed in 2024 made no mention of the two journalists killed in a Turkish drone strike, they didn't report on any SNA crimes in Manbij in December, and they attributed only 8 civilian casualties to all opposition forces (including SNA) in the month of December....I agree there should be cross-checking with other sources whenever possible, but I wouldn't immediately consider the SNHR to be any more reliable given their recent reports. Lyra Stone (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ive overestimated SNHR! It’s just I’ve never seen them get anything badly wrong like SOHR or fail fact checks or receive criticism from veteran observers, but perhaps it’s because they get a lot less attention and re-use so less scrutiny. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and I suppose it's also more obvious when something is blatantly false than when something is simply not reported. SNHR just has an issue with not reporting the actions of Turkish and opposition forces. Lyra Stone (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNHR is reliable but they only focus on civilian casualties. For instance Mohammad Othman,Journalist in Idlib and non combatant, was not counted in 2023. https://snhr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/M240101E-1.pdf page 21. Even in the October 2023 report they did not acknowledge his death. It is also a good glimpse into the methodology and visual analysis they do.

This is their report for 2024. https://snhr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/M251101E.pdf December 2024 on page 10. Media on page 17. You can read their methodology and see the results. Mohammad Othman wasn't counted as media worker so possibly a civilian or even fighter. Same thing could have happened to the Kurdish Journalists. (Would love to see a report about them btw because I could not find it)

More often then not they attribute attacks to unknown forces even when a certain atttack might seem like it came from a certain party. The car bombs in Manbij for instance are highly likely of SDF/YPG origin but they are still counted as unknown because no one has claimed it.

In this January report they also mention Turkish caused civilian casualties in great detail. See page 7. TedKekmeister (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that SNHR focuses solely on civilian casualties. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the media workers mentioned in SNHR reports and those left out; those listed all seem to be non-combatant media workers killed in the conflict. They don't list everyone by name, only "the most notable cases". Their 2023 report documents the killings of 3 media workers, 2 of which are named, so maybe Muhammad Othman was the third? In any case, the two Kurdish journalists killed in December, Nazim Daştan and Cîhan Bilgin, were neither named nor counted since all 6 media worker deaths documented in their 2024 reports attributed to the Syrian regime or the SDF (with no unidentified killings). They were non-combatants, and the attack was condemned by UNESCO and reported by the International Federation for Journalists and LeMonde (and SOHR). There is also no mention made whatsoever of the attacks on healthcare infrastructure in Manbij December, including the drone strike on an ambulance that killed the driver (see: Kurdish Red Crescent statement). Note that this is separate from the drone strikes on ambulances in January, which the statement also mentions. I understand their reluctance to attribute an attack to a certain party when it's not 100% clear who it came from, but these attacks are not being reported at all.

Their January report does provide more detail on Turkish-caused civilian casualties, particularly regarding the Tishreen Dam protests. But even the way these casualties are framed exposes a pretty blatant bias. The report repeatedly prefaces each mention of Turkish attacks with the claim that the SDF uses civilians as human shields, and these claims are treated as established facts without presenting any conflicting accounts. The Tishreen dam demonstrations are described as "coerced protests" with a blanket statement that the protestors were forced to participate by the SDF. These accusations may well be warranted and SNHR is right to include them, but to treat them as fact without any acknowledgment of the conflicting narratives from protestors reveals a bias. Contrast this to the Human Rights Watch report on the Tishreen dam protests, which acknowledges the human shield allegations but also presents conflicting evidence through witness testimonies from protestors and verified video footage, including a video of a drone strike on a group of dancing protestors posted to an SNA-affiliated channel with the caption "The armed drone sends congratulations and blessings to the SDF celebrations at Tishreen Dam.”

Anyway, we might be getting off track here. Even if SNHR were completely accurate and unbiased in their reporting, it wouldn't be a full substitute for SOHR. SNHR's documentation is far more limited than SOHR, focusing specifically on human rights violations and civilian casualties. It's not going to give you real-time updates on troop movements, drone strikes, and other events happening on the ground. Lyra Stone (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the proposal to restrict SOHR as a source especially in recent developments. I understand the criticisms towards the SOHR, but we are talking about documenting casualties and military activity in a war zone where independent reporting is nearly impossible. SOHR is regularly cited by major news outlets like BBC, the New York Times, the Guardian etc. which are all deemed reliable enough for Wikipedia, and they are one of the very few organizations providing real-time casualty counts and conflict reports in Syria. I know Bob mentioned the Syrian Network for Human Rights as an alternative, but they have recently shown some concerning biases as well in failing to report well-documented casualties caused by Turkish and Turkish-backed forces; I noted in my previous reply the two journalists that were left out of their 2024 documentation of media worker deaths, their 2024 documentation of attacks on medical infrastructure & personnel also left out Turkish drone strikes on ambulances and the looting of medical centers and killing of of health workers by Turkish-backed forces, all of which was reported by local rights organizations, the SOHR, and the Kurdish Red Crescent.

I'm all for cross-checking sources when possible and using a diverse range of sources in articles (rather than solely relying on SOHR), but restricting SOHR ultimately limits access to crucial information about the conflict in Syria. This is one of the only independent sources providing real-time casualty counts, troop movements and human rights violations in Syria. It's not perfect, it sometimes gets things wrong and should do a better job of correcting itself when it does, but it provides documentation that is otherwise hard to obtain and I really worry about the consequences of restricting such a major source of information especially at a time where misinformation is rampant and independent reporting is hard to find. Lyra Stone (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to.... in Syria." This has been mentioned before. Just because major publications use them, does not mean that they're accurate. Especially because these outlets take SOHR as gospel and do no fact checking on their own.

"I know bob...Kurdish Red Crescent." In this January 2025 report they also mention Turkish caused civilian casualties in great detail. See page 7. Page 13 for ambulance.

"I'm all for... Hard to find." It does not matter if they're "one of the only independent sources" if the majority of their information is: Unsourced, incorrect or borderline disinformation like with the supposed captured Turkish soldiers a couple weeks ago. TedKekmeister (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I commented above already but these are good questions and hopefully this helps shed some more light on the issue:

1. SOHR usually reports unverified claims as “according to SOHR sources”; vague, but not quite reporting them as facts. Contrary to what some people are saying here, SOHR does in fact issue corrections and updates when new information becomes available or the reports are contradicted. Here are some examples: Correcting misreported death toll for church attack: SOHR retracts claim that drone belonged to Turkey ; SOHR issues correction for Idlib post (facebook) SOHR issues correction for Idlib post (X) They also constantly update death tolls as more information becomes available (for example: updated death toll from previous report).
2. I would agree with your assessment of the SOHR being relatively balanced. While they’ve been accused of overestimating civilian casualties caused by Syrian government forces, their numbers align closely with numbers reported by international organizations like the UN and Amnesty International.
3. This is the hard part—if you want real time data for the conflict in Syria, I’m not sure there really is a better source, and that’s why they’re used so often by mainstream media. You would undoubtedly find more accurate reporting in UN reports, Human Rights Watch, etc., but these aren’t going to give you real time data or the level of detail that SOHR provides. A study by ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data) on the reliability of data on the Syrian conflict examined 13 prominent organizations providing data on the Syrian conflict, and found that SOHR is “undeniably the most comprehensive source as it has the highest number of unique locations, event-types and actors" (see pg 17). This is why they are so frequently cited by the media—it's one of the few sources providing independent, real-time reports on the conflict in Syria. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) is the other leading source of reporting on the Syrian conflict, but it has a much smaller footprint in real-time reporting, especially on ongoing, detailed field events than the SOHR. And if the concern is about accuracy and bias, I would argue the SNHR's pro-opposition bias is far stronger; for example, their 2024 report excluded journalists killed by Turkish forces from their documentation of media worker deaths, excluded Turkish and SNA attacks on medical infrastructure (Kurdish Red Crescent statement, RIC) and severely undercounted civilian deaths by opposition forces.
4. Perhaps some of the more recent articles rely too heavily on SOHR data, but that’s largely because they are about recent and ongoing events and the SOHR is the one providing detailed, real time data. That’s another reason I think restricting the use of SOHR on recent articles would be detrimental to reporting on the conflict in Syria—there is no source you can substitute for SOHR that will give you detailed updates on what’s happening in detail the way that SOHR does, you’ll be left with a major information gap. If anything the use of SOHR data should be limited for older claims, which you may be able to support with more accurate information from UN reports, but not for recent events which require real-time reporting from sources on the ground which SOHR consistently provides.

Sorry for the long response, I just think this is a very important decision that could have serious consequences for reporting on the conflict in Syria. Lyra Stone (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1: Looking at these corrections and not sure they’re all actually. The first example is a genuine retraction; they blamed Turkey then an Iran-backed Iraqi militia claimed it so they had to change their story, which speaks to their bias. I can’t find the actual retraction on their own site though. This isn’t SOHR correcting itself. It’s SOHR reprinting an AFP article that cites them, where AFP correct their earlier error which they made because they relied on GUNREL state agency SANA which corrected itself. To find the original SOHR report from this would be really difficult, which is one of the problems with using it as a source. The third and fourth example are the FB and Twitter version of same thing, an update from 2012. The fact it’s 12 years old is an indication of how this is exception not rule BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3 and 4: I agree that there is a lack of a single strong alternative, and if we want hyper-detailed coverage of current events then it’s the obvious source to go to. However, we are not a newspaper; we are an Encyclopedia. If SOHR is the only source for something, it simply isn’t noteworthy. If it’s noteworthy enough to mention, we can attribute SOHR and triangulate with other sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with what you're saying here. I think SOHR provides the most comprehensive coverage for real-time, on the ground updates of the situation in Syria, but you're probably right that that's not the type of information that should necessarily be used for Wikipedia purposes. I was able to supplement nearly every SOHR source with other sources when I went through the recent Syria pages. The only area where I had trouble doing so was when citing casualty figures for ongoing conflicts—it's hard to find detailed and accurate data on these, and as I mentioned above I don't find SNHR figures to be very reliable here either. But you make a good point, I agree with you. Lyra Stone (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SOHR and SNHR is a generally reliable source, and it is not always completely accurate. However organizations such as the OHCHR have cited both as examples of reliable real-time coverage of the events in Syria, and has used both to collect data. The SOHR has numerous different members from across Syria who report to it as new situations occur. This gives the SOHR and SNHR access to invaluable sources related to the conflict that other news sources lack. Without the SOHR most articles related to the Syrian Civil War would have to be cut upwards of 50% of it's content. It's an incredibly valuable source. Des Vallee (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the more active years of the war there was the fact that many reputable news agencies were active as well. This in turn is basically a peer review for each of the sources as shown in the 2017 ACLED study. Most of the time multiple sources reported the same thing thus confirming eachother. It is entirely different now with SNHR and SOHR focusing on different parts of the conflict and no orgs reviewing what they report. Hence why I have said before that only in recent articles (2021 onwards) should have restricted SOHR usage. Basically all articles made in this time period overtly rely on SOHR. TedKekmeister (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR usage should not be restricted under any circumstance. The OHCR report as an example is from 2023, and as mentioned in the article exact casualty data is difficult to attain, yet it is still one of the most reliable in Syria and the OHCHR which is incredibly reliable cooperates with the SOHR and SNCR for data. It should be made clear when only citing the SOHR that it was only claimed by the SOHR with a hyperlink to the organization but not stated as fact. Des Vallee (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is still a valuable resource and it would be better to mitigate over-reliance on SOHR data by making it clear the claims are coming from SOHR rather than outright restricting its use. Banning/restricting one of the leading sources of information on the conflict in Syria, especially a source that is regularly cited by the UN and other international orgs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc. seems problematic. I do think it's good to supplement any SOHR sources with others whenever possible, or replace old SOHR data when more reliable information comes out, but there's no real reliable alternatives for real-time information about developments in Syria. Lyra Stone (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't want to create a hard restriction on using SOHR; it has legitimate uses. I think that its problems predate 2021, that these problems mean we can't see it as generally reliable, but also that these problems aren't so great that we can't ever use it. As Lyra says, the main solutions are supplementing with other sources and attributing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review is a comprehensive review commissioned by the National Health Service in the area of transgender medicine. In my view, that puts it near the top of WP:MEDRS.

However, many editors in the transgender topic area believe it promotes misinformation.[38] For instance, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist argues that:

Cass repeatedly endorses the desistance myth, supports a form of treatment, gender exploratory therapy, which is a form of conversion therapy, pathologizes trans people such as by labelling trans kids "gender questioning" despite them not actually questioning their gender, proposes that social transition only be allowed with medical guidance (which is bullshit as social transition is a human right), and more.

Simonm223 argues:

Anti-trans medical misinformation and worse have been running rampant in the topic area. This is just an attempt to clean up misinformation from providers of such like SEGM and Hilary Cass

Void if removed consistently argues the opposite stance, that this is just an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it excludes sources because they advocate opinions that argue against a transgender point of view.

I received advice from someone once telling me a good way to resolve disputes is by breaking them into smaller ones, so I'm starting this thread to discuss whether the Cass Review is reliable as this has come up in multiple discussions at WP:FTN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable the Cass Review is bad science for all the reasons Chess attributed to YFNS. It is also bad medicine because its recommendations ignored how denial of services to trans youth led to an increase in suicide rates. [39] It isn't just an unreliable medical report, it is an actively harmful one that has almost certainly led to preventable deaths. Simonm223 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simonm223: The source you link says that denial of services did not lead to a significant increase in suicide rates. gnu57 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I misread the article. Somewhat embarrassing but I know I have read sources that did demonstrate the suicide rate increase. Will look later today. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok here is the article I read before: [40] . Before 2020, only one suicide among transgender youth on the NHS waiting list occurred in the previous seven years. Even that is one too many. But following the 2020 court ruling, the number of suicides among transgender youth on the NHS waiting list suddenly exploded to from one (in seven years) to 16 (in less than three years). Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is the activist misinformation originating with the Good Law Project that prompted the government to commission a leading authority on suicide to conduct an independent report, which found it to be false and dangerous. Best not to spread it. Void if removed (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Simonm223. It's been more than a week. Now that you know this is misinformation, will you please strike it? Having the top spot on an RfC occupied by an inflammatory false claim bodes ill for the rest of the discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I struck the part related to the source that I screwed up. Apologies, I forgot about this. I've been preoccupied. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that people like to come to this Noticeboard and ask about the general reliability of a source, but the Noticeboard also clearly states "ask about reliability of sources in context! ... Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Can you give a couple of examples of specific articles / specific content where an editor tried using the Cass Report as a source for specific content, and editors challenged it as not being a reliable source for that specific content? For example, I just searched for "Cass Review" in the history of the Conversion therapy article (since one of your quotes refers to conversion therapy), and couldn't find an example of anyone attempting to source anything in that article to the Cass Review. The Puberty blocker article cites it a few times, but that would be a counterexample to assuming that it's not a reliable source for anything. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The context is whether or not the Cass Review counts for WP:DUE weight when discussing WP:Fringe theories at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You presumably know that that's not what's meant by WP:RSCONTEXT. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I still think if there's arguments on the Cass Review going back to January of 2024[41] that boil down to whether the Cass Review is WP:MEDRS for the purpose of fringe theories, it's better to get that resolved. Heck, I've cited the Cass Review in the WP:TELEGRAPH RfC last year.[42] If we have a WP:RSN thread saying the Cass Review is unreliable, I will stop citing it in discussions and expect others to do the same. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, I just searched for "Cass Review" in the history of the Conversion therapy article

  Really? There are multiple discussions about this on talk, which prompted YFNS' original accusations it was FRINGE over a year ago. Void if removed (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, really. My claim was not about Talk page discussions, which is why I said "Conversion therapy article," linking to the article. Despite being asked, Chess is unwilling to provide examples of someone adding content to an article and sourcing that content to the Cass Review, and another editor removing it from the article on the basis that the Review is not a reliable source for that article content. Can you provide such examples, or is all of this only about Talk page discussions? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a strange standard to apply. GENSEX is a contentious topic and it is pretty common (certainly on my part, as I'm usually in the minority) to raise a topic on talk first, seek consensus and attempt to find compromise, before applying changes. That's just sensible editing. As you can see from the discussion, there was vehement argument against inclusion, which I obviously disagree with, but that's all there is to it.

  Making changes against consensus on a CTOP is the sort of tendentious behaviour that is a swift path to a topic ban. The right thing to do in that situation is drop it, not pigheadedly press ahead and add content, only to be reverted - especially when YFNS then took the discussion onto the FRINGE board, claiming the source itself is espousing a FRINGE POV.

  The "exploratory therapy" material added by YFNS to the Conversion Therapy article around a year ago is basically ground zero for these discussions. Its all there on talk.

  But if you want only narrow examples of article reversions, here's one for starters. YFNS insists that "desistance is a myth", and removed a 37% persistence figure sourced to the Cass Review, which I had added as a secondary source for this figure from Steensma et al (2013). YFNS justification included direct attacks on its reliablity, as well as bringing up the American College of Paediatricians for some reason. Void if removed (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's a strange standard. I seldom edit GENSEX articles, but I frequently edit other CTOP articles, and I don't start with a discussion on the Talk page. I attend to the actual restrictions for a given page (e.g., does the page have a "consensus required" or "enforced BRD" notice? is there a WP:0RR or 1RR rule to prevent edit warring?), and I attend to whether my edit is consistent with policy (e.g., supported by an RS). I just looked at the edit notice for the Conversion therapy article and at the top of its talk page, and although it's identified as a CTOP article, there are no "consensus required" or "enforced BRD" notices for that article. I'm not going to invest time in reading the talk page discussions; it's sufficient to note that there is no FAQ for that article referring to an RfC constraining people from appropriately using the Cass Review as a source on that page (and again: appropriate use depends on things such as whether it's an RS for the specific text introduced into the article). And yes, I do think introducing text that you believe is consistent with policies (e.g., is DUE, is sourced to an RS) and then discussing it if someone challenges the edit is just as appropriate as starting with a discussion. I'm not aware of any policy that requires talk page discussion first, but if you know of such a policy, please point it out to me so that I can read what it says. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CONSENSUS actually suggests that edit first is the correct path, and then through discussion if there is disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FactOrOpinion let me let you in on something that may come as a surprise. I am not a popular editor. Shock, I know. I edit in GENSEX and (IMO) I argue in the best possible faith for a neutral position, and in doing so I come up against a whole lot of resistance and outright hostility because this is not a popular thing to do. I've been dragged through AE, and there are any number of editors and admins that would like to see me banned I am sure.

  So forgive me if I have little patience for being lectured on what policy is, or what edits you think I "should" have just gone ahead and done a year ago.

  I work the way I work - conservatively, and invariably on talk first - because anything else would be futile and short-lived, and I have found it to be the safest and sanest way for me personally, avoiding inflaming edit wars on the articles themselves as far as possible. If I cannot make a case on talk, there's no point. You don't have to work that way, but that is how I work, on these articles, knowing that I am in a minority.

  This is all a massive derailment. The attempt to edit the page is all on talk. You can read the talk discussion. You can see the objections and all the arguments. If you have any comment to make, make it about that talk discussion, but don't pretend no attempt was made when it is all documented there, in painful, tedious detail. Void if removed (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry to hear that you've been taken to AE. To clarify: when I wrote "I do think introducing text that you believe is consistent with policies ...," "you" was also meant in the sense of "one," not just you personally. I did not "lecture" or "pretend no attempt was made." You said "This is a strange standard to apply," and I explained why I don't think it's a strange standard to apply. You, of course, are free to edit more conservatively if you want. It actually sounds to me like your concern is less about WP:RS and more about WP:NPOV — "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Up to you whether you want to raise that at the NPOVN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly defined question - the Cass Review's commissioned reviews are WP:MEDRS, the Cass's self-published reports are not and make multiple WP:FRINGE claims

1. You trimmed my quote which began with See Cass Review#Criticisms - Cass repeatedly... - you should acknowledge that per our own article, the Cass Review has been widely criticized for a range of reasons. That was not my opinion, but a summary of how we already cover it.
2. This question is incredibly vague. What part of the Cass Review? Reliable for what? (As this page says, Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!)
   • The Review commissioned systematic reviews which most people concur are broadly reliable (hell, I've cited some in articles before) The Review released 2 self-published reports, which were written by Cass and an anonymous team, received no peer review, and peer reviewed literature and WP:MEDORGs have been heavily critical of (including for making claims not backed up by the systematic reviews it commisioned).
   • Again, reliable for what? Consensus has been already that there are claims the Cass Review is plainly not reliable for. For example, Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice that the majority of transgender children "desist" (AKA, suddenly stop desiring to transition during puberty, a piece of misinformation called the Desistance myth) citing Cass [43] - Cass said this based on a single 2013 paper (Steensma et al., 2013), whose own author noted multiple caveats to that finding in that paper, and in 2018 noted this was based on outdated and overly broad diagnostic criteria that conflated gender dysphoria with gender nonconformity of any kind [44], citing that 2013 paper and also the Endocrine Society's statement to the same effect.[45] We have a systematic review (aka, top tier WP:MEDRS) in 2022 calling BS on the claim (which Cass conveniently completely ignored)[46], and Cass Review#Desistance noting multiple MEDRS have critiqued Cass for this claim.
3. WP:MEDRS states Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies - The Cass Review's reports are none of these things. Not a review article, not a book (and besides, Cass was explicitly chosen for not being an expert in trans healthcare), it is not a guideline, or a position statement, even ignoring the fact that the review team is not a national or international expert body. The Cass Review's reports are not WP:MEDRS.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice

This is a gross misrepresentation and you should strike it. I tried to re-add well-sourced, longstanding consensus material (that had been there in some form for years) with additional citations after you removed it. You removed sourced material, and then created a page that describes it as a myth, and now use that page as justification for excluding the contrary sources in the first place.

And you continue here your misrepresentation of the section in question, as I pointed out to you last year. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly didn't one of the systematic reviews research into persistence rates and find nothing. If so the fact that the report ignored it's own review seems quite damning. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page consennsus was to remove it and focus on better summarizing better quality sources such as the 2022 systemic review of desistance literature.[47] In that edit, you reinstate a 2019 narrative review (not as strong as systematic) and remove sourced issues the review noted such as the claim being based on studies where conversion therapy was performed.[48] You then toss in a superflous reference to Cass to try and launder weak primary sources over the systematic review noting just how problematic that claim is. [49] Then, bizarrely, you try and cite the Cass Review glossary for the definition of gender dysphoria to override what the APA, who created the diagnosis, said about it.[50]

As Luna points out, and as I noted in my reply to your comment[51], the Cass Review commissioned a review to look into desistance, which did not report a persistence rate (or if it did, found it about 92% as opposed to 30%) and Cass cites her desistance statistic from a 2013 paper whose author has for years heavily caveated that data in a way that Cass completely ignored.

The article transgender health care misinformation is a good article. The reason it says the desistance myth is misinformation is because we have dozens of RS saying so. You restarted the debate there making the same disproven talking points and bludgeoned the multiple editors saying you were wrong.[52] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done here:

• Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice that the majority of transgender children "desist" (AKA, suddenly stop desiring to transition during puberty, a piece of misinformation called the Desistance myth)

Is present this exchange as if I, out of the blue, added a load of obviously contentious material. This is a direct accusation that I am knowingly spreading misinformation.

I did not. What I did was argue for retaining the existing, well-sourced consensus material, which you removed, and which you subsequently started presenting as a "myth" on a page you created two months later.

So I ask again that you strike this personal attack and gross misrepresentation of the chain of events.

Also, this:

we have dozens of RS saying so.

Is an exaggeration. Your relevant citations for that section are:

• A sociology paper by Natacha Kennedy (one of the critics of the Cass Review, not MEDRS)
• Two papers by McNamara, Allsott et al (authors of the Yale amicus brief attacking the Cass Review, one social science, the other law, neither are MEDRS)
• An SPLC report (definitely not MEDRS, partisan, and co-authored by one of the authors of one of the McNamara/Allsott papers)
• A systematic review that says the best quantitative estimate of desistance is 83%, which is only there on the page because I pointed out you had left out this highly relevant figure, which kind of undermines the whole idea it is a "myth".

The discussion on talk is an absolute textbook example of you and other editors refusing to cite the Cass Review's perspective on desistance, because you think it is unreliable, because you think desistance is a "myth", therefore the Cass Review is unreliable. This is circular.

The right way to do this is to present all significant points of view neutrally, but what you continually do is argue the Cass Review is wrong and exclude it. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to reinstate content that talk had already agreed to remove. You then tried to add a citation to the Cass Review that cherry picked a single study (which the systematic review already discussed and noted was severely flawed).

I don't think you're knowingly spreading misinformation. I truly believe you edit in the best of faith and believe the things you write. I will say I deeply wish you were more knowledgeable about trans healthcare and the history of it. Like with this whole argument, you seem to fail to grasp the basic concept that studies that didn't track trans identity or dsm-5 gender dysphoria are not actually predictive of dsm-5 gender dysphoria or trans identity, which the literature has noted for years.

The RS on the article are only a subset of the literature calling it misinformation, or noting it's flawed.

The Cass Reviews perspective on desistance was not cited because higher quality sources disagree, the author of the single study Cass cited for her claim disagrees, Cass neglected to mention several issues with the claim sources like the Endocrine Society have pointed out nearly a decade ago, and RS and MEDORGs have specifically called out the Cass Reviews claims on desistance as bullshit. Cass correctly identified the issues with the pre-2000s literature, then ignored all criticism of the post 2000s lit and presented it as settled.

A systematic review that says the best quantitative estimate of desistance is 83% - it absolutely did not...

The systematic review said Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. Thirty definitions of desistance were found, and From all of these collections of studies emerged the commonly used statistic stating that ∼80% of TGE youth will desist after puberty, a statistic that has been critiqued by other works based on poor methodologic quality, the evolving understanding of gender and probable misclassification of nonbinary individuals, and the practice of attempting to dissuade youth from identifying as transgender in some of these studies and concludes The definitions of desistance, while diverse, were all used to say that TGE children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, a concept based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s. Therefore, desistance is suggested to be removed from clinical and research discourse

The myth is not that these studies existed, or had these findings. The myth is that based on these old studies that neither tracked 1) DSM-5 GD diagnoses or 2) trans identification (and often included conversion therapy) one can confidently claim that the data shows the majority of trans kids / those diagnosed with GD "desist". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I want to get into a rancorous discussion I care little about, but the Cass Review is not WP:SPS as that policy is intended, and saying it is immediately weakens your argument.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no agreement about what WP:SPS is intended to mean, as is clear from recent RfCs, such as this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't comparing the same thing. As Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist notes above, what is being discussed at FTN are the separate self-published opinion parts with no review or oversight that make several claims that discussion at FTN is agreeing are FRINGE stances. You seem to be trying to avoid that resulting consensus by coming here and using a misleading summary of the subject at hand. Silverseren^C 23:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved and trans editor can I just say it would be nice to not have POINTY things like this brought up to remind me every time I check out the dashboard that I am up for debate on this website Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. It ought to be treated as anything else directly published by a government, ie. it might at best be a WP:PRIMARY source for the official positions taken by the government, but it wasn't published via any form of reputable fact-checking, so it isn't even a primary RS. Even when cited via a secondary source, it definitely shouldn't be used for anything but the attributed positions and opinions of the British government. This makes it mostly useless for the things people would want to cite it for; in the vast majority of circumstances it should only be cited via a secondary source, and even then only in places discussion the political controversy, never the medical or scientific questions involved. Your question focused on what it says, but that's not really the issue - the issue is that it was not published by a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There are ofc cases where a government-funded and notionally government-controlled source has enough editorial independence and a strong enough reputation to be a WP:RS, but that doesn't apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Regarding your comment: “Even when cited via a secondary source, it definitely shouldn't be used for anything but the attributed positions and opinions of the British government.” Which British government? The review was not done by ‘the British government’, it was done by Dr Cass. And the government has changed since the Review was commissioned and published. Your comment makes no sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS isn't (generally) about who wrote something, it's about the publisher - about whether the publisher has proper editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The publisher in this case is the British government, which doesn't lend the report any reliability. This is standard for how we handle government reports. The fact that there was an election since then doesn't change that, obviously. If you want to argue that it could somehow be a RS, you'd have to explain what editorial controls it went through, and demonstrate that the publisher had the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review was not published by the government – it is published by the Review. [53] Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review was published under auspices of the NHS, and it's contents is owned by the UK government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure you understand what "published" means on Wikipedia. The report was commissioned by the NHS, an arm of the British government; Cass herself was selected by the government to head it, and therefore was working at their behest. Anything they publish derives whatever reliability it might have through that chain - from the NHS, and through that from the British government - which makes them obviously unusable for statements of fact. This is not unusual or strange in any way; governments often such commission such reports, none of which are ever reliable sources for anything remotely controversial or contentious due to the obvious lack of independence such reports have from the policies of the government that established them. As I mentioned, there are occasional exceptions, but only for long-standing organizations with established reputations for independence, fact-checking and accuracy, which "The Report" clearly lacks; the idea that a government could commission a report, assign whoever they please to produce it, then say "trust us, it's independent of us" is obviously absurd and would allow a government to turn anything it pleased into facts. A report gets its reliability not from having a fancy website or calling itself "The Report" in big capital letters, but by being published through a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How could you possibly assert that a group the government established specifically to produce a single report could meet that standard? --Aquillion (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much like reports by US governmental institutions it use should be attributed. Reliable yes, but only with attribution. As to whether it's due inclusion that's not a reliability question but one of NPOV. I would suggest not splitting the discussion that is already occurring on WP:FTN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's complicated - The underlying reviews are generally high-quality WP:MEDRS sources but have received some criticism by other WP:MEDRS sources and so some attempt should be made to situate them in the context of the rest of the field instead of relying solely on them for controversial claims. The report is a government report that has received quite a lot of criticism by other sources including some WP:MEDORGs. So its reliability is much more complicated and context-driven than most other sources: there are some cases where it summarizes the underlying reviews in a straightforward way (and there it's clearly reliable), there are cases where it claims to be based on the reviews but goes further or is more opinionated than them, and there are cases where it's not directly based on the reviews at all (and often those are the most controversial bits). It should be treated like any other government report written by experts but which has also been the target of significant criticism by experts, which is to say, it's complicated.

If I had to give these a color rating I'd say the reviews are WP:GREL but with the caveats listed above, and the report is WP:MREL: it is sometimes reliable for some claims but significant skepticism is warranted. Loki (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to see if the Cass review had an error corrections process (like one would usually see in a modern paper in a journal) and found this page where a number of changes (both documented and undocumented) have been made. Not sure where this lies (and how often something like this would be done) but it is something to note. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

excludes sources because they advocate opinions that argue against a transgender point of view.

@Chess I take issue with this framing somewhat, because I don't hold with this pro/anti framing. What I am arguing for is proper, balanced representation of sources which contain different clinical perspectives. This is a difficult subject with significant conceptual disagreements between clinicians, and our job is not to pick winners but to neutrally present all significant points of view.

The Cass Review started from the position that children and young people were being referred to clinical services in distress over their gender in increasing numbers, and to evaluate the level of care they received, and the evidence base this care was based on. It found the evidence base was poor, and there was little-to-no followup to see if there were any benefits. This is not arguing against a transgender point of view - it is arguing for a cautious, evidence-based medicine point of view in a vulnerable population. It is also a significant, well-sourced point of view that's been accepted across the political spectrum and by all the medical bodies that actually matter, as well as being independently assessed and endorsed by Scotland's health service.

The controversy now is that the model prevalent in the US in particular is the affirmation approach, which takes the position the clinician is a facilitator of the child or young person's gender identity. Cass notes a tension between exploratory approaches which might explore the underlying reasons why a child is experiencing gender distress, and the affirmative model, which starts from the position that the child is the gender they identify as, and that to ask why is pathologising. This is why advocates of the affirmative model insist any other approach is "tantamount to conversion", since any therapeutic approach that might lead to a child "desisting" is seen as conversion (whether it was in fact coercive or not).

This is the issue. One clinical perspective says a child is presenting in distress, and we have to ask why, because sometimes things like autism, trauma, depression, internalised homophobia, may be manifesting as distress about their gender, and unpicking those reasons can alleviate the distress. The other says that the distress is often a symptom of an unaffirmed gender identity, and that to suggest it is arising from, say, internalised homophobia is pathologising a trans identity. Likewise, that comorbid conditions like autism and self-harm should not be barriers to transition, but managed in parallel.

Both of these are well-supported in the literature. Saying one is definitively right and calling other perspectives FRINGE to exclude them and any related issues is not at all the way to go, and is a misuse of FRINGE IMO. We should admit what we don't know and explain it neutrally to the reader.

In the ordinary run of things, the Cass Review would obviously be a reliable source. However, because trans healthcare for children and young people is currently facing legal challenges in the US from the right-wing, and because the Cass Review found the evidence base was actually weak, its findings have been drawn into the toxic legal/political battle in the US, and those currently fighting against those bans have submitted amicus briefs in various legal cases (including the supreme court) attempting to pick holes in it. Which means that such criticism is not independent, has a major vested interest, and has to be taken with a big pinch of salt. Void if removed (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Void, you have spent the last year repeatedly crying "US activists!!!!!" any time there is any criticism of the Cass Review. Are you actually, seriously, unaware, that trans people in the UK have been the most vocal critics of the review and recommendations since it came out?

Both of these are well-supported in the literature. - no they are not. If a kid says "I am trans and want to socially transition", the claim that a therapist must [unpick] those reasons why and argue the desire might be caused by autism, trauma, depression, internalised homophobia is actually incredibly FRINGE and there's never been evidence it's necessary. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also bears repeating that many of the criticisms brought up in this thread are described as being about the Cass Review, when they are actually about the series of systematic reviews that it commissioned. Eg. a substantial part of both the Yale amicus brief and the Noone preprint is attacking the methodology of those reviews, from the search criteria to the quality evaluation.

Systematic reviews are at the top of the MEDRS pyramid. Grey literature like this is nowhere close. These sources are simply not competent to poke holes in systematic reviews in this way. Taking such criticisms of the underlying reviews as "true" seems to be out of whack with MEDRS. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A non-point - this is a government commissioned review, and as such published under the NHS.

WP:MEDRS reads:

Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, to public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.

The fact remains that this is a statment commissioned by the NHS, includes a systematic review, is referenced in UK guidelines, and there is no reasonable debate that it is allowed by WP:MEDRS.

However, just as the MEDRS-guidelines says:

Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia.

The fact that a MEDRS source is controversial favors attending to statements from it with potential counterpoints from other literature - in an unbiased way.

WP:MEDRS also reads:

Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.

This is exactly what is attempted to be done here - we dislike the source - so we reject its findings. This is not congruent with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS or frankly any of WP:PILLARS.

I implore any editors that take offence to the views of the Cass Review to treat it as a controversial publication by a major national health organisation, that was put forth through commission (as most reports by the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization among others and that make up a cornerstone of referenced literature on Wikipedia) - and thus treat it in the way Wikipedia should treat it - by referencing its findings, and referencing high quality opposing findings side by side in a WP:NEUTRAL manner.

I reiterate from WP:MEDRS:

Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.

Now, let us move on. CFCF (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All your argument really suggests is that WP:MEDRS is not presently equipped to handle state capture of governmental healthcare bodies. Will we be including anti-vax stuff as WP:MEDRS when the United States starts producing it at the behest of their new Secretary of Health and Human Services? Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the Cass Review was somehow ‘captured’ by the Conservative government? If so, why have the current Labour government, and the current SNP Scottish devolved government all endorsed it? There’s not much all 3 of those political parties agree on. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that the Cass review represents the introduction of transphobic misinformation into the corpus of formal UK healthcare. I should have said capture of the state rather than capture by the state. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I sympathise ideas of state capture aren't policy based arguments, or you at least need to show strong RS to back it up. If you believe MEDRS needs to be updated you need to take it to WT:MEDRS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that, if MEDRS automatically assumes government sources are reliable we're going to have a rough four years. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it does, but discussions on MEDRS are complex and can't be reduced to simple claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:MEDORG, well, it kind of does; at least, it creates the very strong presumption that they are. Meanwhile, the National Academies are already compromised in areas that intersect significantly with public health. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about everyone who has already discussed this at length on various talk pages takes a few steps back and allows other members of the community to discuss this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(IMO this is already happening, there are lots of people in the discussions on FTN that don't normally edit WP:GENSEX.) Loki (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that it can't just be ignored, but neither is it always due for inclusion. I suggest that unless it is going to be discussed in WP:RSCONTEXT the question is just to broad to be given anything but the most broad answer. It's a govermental report, and if it is going to be included, it should be used with attribution as with other such reports. Whether it should be included is a matter of NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a governmental report. It is an independent review, commissioned by NHS England. It is independent of both the NHS and the Government. That's the point of an independent review - to be independent.

The Review is independent of the NHS and Government and neither required nor sought approval or sign-off of this report’s contents prior to publication.

Void if removed (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may very well be that it was created independently, but it is still a goverment report. If I run a business and hire independent consultants to do a report on the operations of my company, that report is still one of my business's reports.
An organisation can't disclaim the report it caused to be created. To accept that would be a very bad precedent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is WP:DUE requires a source to be reliable for it to factor in. If other editors are saying "the Cass Report can't be WP:DUE because it isn't reliable", is that a WP:DUE issue or a reliability issue? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be near circular in logic, and wrong. Unreliable sources shouldn't be used, if the source is unreliable why is a discussion on it's inclusion happening at all. As I've said the report is reliable for what it is as such reports are, but that doesn't mean it gets a pass against offer reliable sources.
I can only again say it should be used with attribution, and may not be due. If other sources are discussing it in a particular context then it's likely due, if it's in relation to trans health care in the UK it would definitely be due. Where it's used it should be in context with all other significant view point from other reliable source, but that is deeply into NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not level 1 reliable—Use with caution and with regards to WP:WEIGHT. A lot of other MEDRS have made strong points against some of the reports findings — it is best as a primary source for itself and I would never support using as a pure citation without describing the full context of its release and responses, at minimum give it an in-text citation eg “according to the Cass Review,” and avoid using the original reports (stick exclusively to the review elements). The context of its political motivations and the responses from other medical organizations impact its reliability, as in other cases where different government or medical bodies disagree on medical recommendations. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying—i agree with CFCF’s point that it belongs in discussion alongside other high quality opposing sources and with context ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask Malvoliox what you mean when you say it is not WP:TIER1 reliable?

This terminology isn't really used when it comes to WP:MEDRS where government reports are at the top tier of reliability (see quotes above, and the MEDRS-page).

I think your interpretation of my comment is that the source is both WP:RS, but also WP:DUE in many contexts. Is that right?

And, just so that we, and everyone else here can be on the same page, and to square the tiering you refer to: the fact that the source is both "reliable" and "due":

1) In no way endorses its findings as truth

2) Nor does it negate the need to also present what is a preponderance of opposing views.

Do you agree?

I think this is a very simple take and frankly the only viable position that adheres to both WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:DUE, and WP:PILLARS.

CFCF (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I’m not deeply familiar with the specifics of MEDRS. I meant that I would agree to the relevance of MEDRS guidelines where government and scientific perspectives differ. I would only advocate inclusion in a context that acknowledges its presence in a field that disagrees with its claims more than it agrees—the one piece you brought out that I was referring to was this piece of MEDRS:

”Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia.”

This is a case of needing to demonstrate the ways in which the overall field scientific literature differs from this review, which was created in a politically motivated context in order to achieve a particular result.

It’s a good source on itself, and it’s notable in its impact, but it differs from most literature and has racked up a lot of criticism in the medical community. That’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with what the findings are so much as one of acknowledging the context of its commission & responses by the medical community. I lean towards not reliable in contexts purely about what is medically viable/reliable in the context of government recommendations as it is the basis for some.

~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable A quick glance at the page for the Cass Review shows the medical fields of pretty much every country outside the UK ripping its conclusions and recommendations to shreds. It’s a non-peer reviewed government report from a government with a long and well documented history of targeting trans people, and should be treated as such. Snokalok (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument has nothing to do with whether it is a WP:RS. Rather it highlights the need to present the results of the report in a neutral and unbiased manner - with corresponding findings from other high quality sources next to it. CFCF (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it matters; WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Heavy criticism is one indicator that it lacks such a reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUNREL. The review has no editorial oversight and as noted within the Cass Review article, several major medical orgs have criticized it for significant methodological flaws. It should not be used to support MEDRS claims and should primarily be used as a primary source for articles related to the review itself and related controversies. HenrikHolen (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Use with care I think the responses that suggest this is a complex issue are the most on point. This is clearly a well researched report conducted for (and presumably accepted by) the NHS. It is also the sort of report we are going to normally put the most faith in because it was a search and summary of other sources on the topic vs trying to be it's own primary source. The criticisms of the report appear to be more based on not liking the results vs any true problem with the report itself. However, as others have noted, it didn't undergo traditional peer review. Conversely, if it has been cited by many then it's views should be seen as influential. I would treat it as an expert review. When it speaks to a topic citing with attribution is reasonable. Unless the NHS rejects the report as unreliable I can't see treating it as such. Springee (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inf: the Cass Review has been accepted by NHS England, which commissioned it, and also by NHS Scotland, a separate body responsible to the devolved Scottish Government. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It's a nakedly political document advanced for culture-war reasons in a corner of the world where all the major political players are nearly or completely captured by transphobia. I'm sorry I don't have the WP: shortcut on hand for that situation, but that's the size of it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  in a corner of the world where all the major political players are nearly or completely captured by transphobia. There's no shortcut because you can't automatically ban sources from parts of the world that have hateful political views. This logic was decidedly rejected when editors tried to degrade the reliability of multiple major British newspapers due to transphobia in the UK. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not talking about banning all sources from the UK. I'm saying that something can be endorsed by multiple political parties in the UK and still be rotten. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it is a “nakedly political document advanced for culture-war reasons and that “all the major political players are nearly or completely captured by transphobia. – apart from the fact that you disagree with the Review? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is probably that the Cass review is too apolitical. It simply looks at the published medical evidence and draws conclusions from that. Unfortunately in a field that is exceptionally politicised, that creates problems. In another country altogether, people who want to do some quite bad things are seizing on it and attempting to make life difficult or even unbearable for transpeople. That is not Cass's fault.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As others have said, this is an independent report commissioned by the British government, conducted by an extremely eminent individual. Its findings will very often be WP:DUE but it should usually be attributed as any source in a field where a range of often completely contradictory opinions exist.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Unreliable - This is certainly a controversial source, and as such needs to be used with caution. But that does not mean it should never be cited. Context matters. The review is influential enough that it can not be simply dismissed as Fringe/UNDUE and ignored.

I would also caution editors to distinguish what the report itself says, from what activist sources (both pro and anti) claim it says. It has been misrepresented by both extremes. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is a reliable source. Despite being commissioned by the NHS in the UK, it is not government-driven because Dr. Hilary Cass and a large group of medical experts rather than legislators shaped its conclusions. Professionals from pediatrics, endocrinology, and mental health were involved in the review, which adopted a cautious, evidence-based methodology while taking patient experiences and global medical research into account. Its credibility was strengthened by similar independent reviews conducted in Finland and Sweden which came to similar conclusions. It is probably a primary rather than a secondary source, being a government commissioned research, but it is a very important document reflecting best practices and patient safety in gender-affirming care.--Colaheed777 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it is a generally reliable source. There are many signals of reliability. There is uncritical use by others: [54] [55] [56]. It publishes corrections: [57]. It was written by a recognised expert [58]. It has of course been criticised by many, but unusually and very usefully we have peer-reviewed academic articles explaining why those criticisms are over-egged:

From [59]:

Recently-published critiques of the Review have contained incorrect or inadequately contextualized claims.

From [60]:

We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review’s role and process

many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review... are unfounded

These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes...

Many of these misrepresentations and misunderstandings are repeated here in this RfC. It's particularly unfortunate that the first response repeats a piece of misinformation which still hasn't been struck more than a week later.

On the subject of whether this is a "government report", I think the relevant question is not whether its genesis was in government or whether it was funded by government, but its degree of independence from government. The report is completely unlike, say, a publication from the Cabinet Office, which is the principal executive. NHS England is a step removed from direct government control, and the Cass Review is several more steps removed. Cass in turn commissioned a series of systematic reviews, which if we follow a reductionistic fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument would make them "government reports" too. Clearly they are not, and the degree of autonomy granted to Cass was such that the Cass Review is not materially governmental either. Evidence of this is the broad bipartisan support it received and continues to receive even after a change in government. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also note this oblique criticism of the criticism via the Hierarchy of Disagreement in this recent peer-reviewed article:

In medicine the hierarchy of disagreement is a valuable tool for examining the arguments made by groups advocating different treatment approaches, particularly when combined with the evidence pyramid. Anyone wondering whether to rely on the recommendations of Cass Review or those who have rebuffed these arguments would be encouraged to annotate the critique published by (McNamara et al, 2024), with coloured highlighters to code the types of argument used against the conclusions of the Cass Review or try the same with Cheung et al.’s 2024 critique of McNamara’s critique - (Cheung et al, 2024). The resulting colour maps neatly illustrate the predominance of arguments from each level of the disagreement pyramid.

Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from discussion that there is no consensus as to who the publisher of this report is. I would think that in any other circumstances a self published(?) report that we only know 1 of many authors of wouldn't be argued as a RS let alone a MEDRS source. The only place this could get reliability from is use by others and I have never seen that argument been presented for MEDRS before and that argument has not been made here. I would also note that people have been heavily arguing about the independence of the report from the NHS and government so the idea that this is a statement from the NHS seems at odds with the fact that the NHS had no control over the report. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unhelpful question. There's a lot of misinformation about the Cass Review. As already noted it makes little sense to describe it as a "source", reliable or otherwise, since it is a four year review chaired by one person, consulting with over a thousand individuals and groups, commissioning around eight specific medical reviews published in clinical journals that were themselves run by teams of dozens of experts, and with the purpose of answering issues affecting NHS England (not, cough, the USA). Saying the Cass Review was not "peer reviewed" or is "self published" or is the spew of a transphobic government are all activist misinformation tropes of the most blatant Trumpian kind. As noted earlier, there are a lot of systematic reviews and scholarly investigations that were commissioned by the Cass Review. These form as integral a part of the Cass Review as an engine does in a car. These are all MEDRS of the highest order. The Final Report, has a sole author, but, guys, that doesn't make it "self published". It was commissioned and published by NHS England. This is not the same thing as the Tory Party, and as a non-departmental public body has independence. We still have a functioning democracy here, where our health bodies are run by people whose aim is to make a nation healthier, not to make shareholders richer or not win elections or advance ideological causes of any flavour. Furthermore, the report was accepted by NHS England and then reviewed and adopted with adaptation by NHS Scotland, which is an entirely different body funded by an entirely different government elected by an entirely different nation. You can read NHS Scotland's review here. Nothing in NHS Scotland's review, which itself took months and involved a team of experts, rings any alarm bells about the Cass Review's Final Report being an unreliable source.

If we concern ourselves with the Final Report then it is a mix of two things. It contains a lot of factual information, "key findings", much of which is based on the MEDRS sources I mentioned earlier, plus other information from how NHS England's gender clinic was performing at the time, and the kind of population cohort going through its doors. For these facts, there is nothing to suggest it is anything other than top tier reliable. Other bodies may well present these findings with different emphasis and some may reach different conclusions from the same evidence, but this is a natural result of us being humans rather than machines.

The other thing it contains are 32 recommendations from Dr Cass. And that's what they are. They are aimed at NHS England, and other countries are welcome, as Scotland did, to look at them and pick what they like and reject what they don't, or to ignore recommendations that simply don't apply in a different healthcare system. It is wrong of us to consider the "reliability" of these recommendations. It is clear that while some nations and bodies are enthusiastic about them, others are not. That doesn't make them unreliable. For example, the US have an insurance model of healthcare and the UK has a tax-funded model. Recommending one model or another isn't a reliability issue. Rational people can come to different recommendations.

Lastly, aside from the nonsense about self-published, I see some claims that we should treat this highly cautiously because of some association with government. I've already noted it is independent of that and not some Tory Party Manifesto or campaign leaflet. But, well, would you listen to yourself? This is the epitome of "I don't like their findings so I'll invent some rule saying it isn't reliable". Is NHS: Covid-19 unreliable? Is Gov.uk: Getting an MOT unreliable? Is Gov.uk: Your rights and legal support unreliable? Are you saying that government information about seat belts is unreliable? Maybe the UK National diet and nutrition survey is unreliable? The vast vast majority of publications by a mature democratic government, or organisations that report to it, are not political or ideological or remotely contentious.

The author of this RFC has asked the wrong question, and I think we should call a halt to using this noticeboard as a proxy for waging the trans culture war battle on Wikipedia, as though editors here are any more capable of finding The Truth to that one than the wider population or the actual experts in healthcare. -- Colin°^Talk 15:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here might be a good place to mention the Assurance Group, a 7-member panel which has been established to provide expert advice and challenge about the approach and processes used to conduct the review, and to ensure that the Review is conducted in accordance with its terms of reference.. This is very far from being a self-published source, as there are multiple independent professionals providing oversight. In fact, a 7-member panel of experts from multiple disciplines is far more oversight than some academic peer review involves. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on that page that suggests that the group reviewed the final report (In fact if one considers the report to be an outcome, the group could not have informed the report). Also the group was chosen by Cass (the only know author) so it doesn't scream independent. Do note the difference between the reports and the review (which usually refers to the process/group rather than any output.) LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luna, my own !vote should make it clear how dimly I think of the idea that this is "self published" or that there is any doubt at all who the publisher is. -- Colin°^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, there is no agreement among editors (here and elsewhere) about what "self-published" means. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970 above argued that the final report was published by the review. I did have a look for a statement about a publisher but couldn't find any statement. If you have any statement so that there is no doubt it would be very welcome. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Review does appear among "formal publications from the Cass Review," but does not appear among the NHS's own publications. Those are the most likely publishers, though perhaps you have some other proposal for who might have published it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, do you mean the final report (it is very important to use precise language here as it can get confusing with the Cass review, the Systematic reviews and the interim and final reports.) LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the final report, as should be clear from the first link. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My remark was based on the fact that the Review appears on the tab for ‘Publications’ on the Review’s website. This was in response to suggestions that the Review was a ‘government’ publication. I don’t think this is relevant to the question of whether it is a ‘self-published source’ in the Wikipedia sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion I don't think there is a single word in WP:SPS that applies to the Final Report of the Cass Review or any of the supporting scholarly works. Nor is there any evidence in the discussion you link to that suggest editors have "no-agreement" whatsoever about what self-published means. There's quite a difference between editors recognising our current description/definition in inadequate and failing to reach any consensus on a better one that tightly defines the Venn bubble of what is and isn't self-published, and your claim that editors have simply no clue. It is quite possible for editors to agree that some works are definitely self-published and that some are definitely not. Having a single-author, for example, doesn't make the work self-published. Being commissioned and published by a body ultimately funded by the taxpayer doesn't make the work self-published.

Wrt the earlier comment about the Assurance Group. I don't think they reviewed the final document. Their job is to be process nerds and ensure the review is done properly. But guys, this is a 388 page report. I can barely type two paragraphs without making a typo. The idea it wasn't proof read and fact checked meticulously is for the birds. There's a FAQ on the website for disinformation, but there isn't an errata page (AFAIK). The fact that some information some claim is essential to know about the review/publication process is evading their detective powers from their home PC is not evidence that Dr Cass just blogged their review and posted it on WordPress.

Any rule invented as a reason "X should not be used as a source" needs to work generally. FactOrOpinion, much of the disagreement about whether something is or isn't a self-published source is that it effectively kills it as a source, and that is in fact what an editor wants to achieve. Same goes with the FRINGE arguments elsewhere. It's a weapon. One editor wants to expand a definition to include a source they want banned, and it is up to other editors to say that if we adopted that rule elsewhere, then all those perfectly reasonable sources would be banned too. I should note this is all done in good faith but people can argue wrong headedly in good faith.

The non-departmental public body that calls itself National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published Tirzepatide for managing overweight and obesity. Many of the arguments pushed forward on this noticeboard page applies to that. And yet NICE guidelines form a bedrock of MEDRS sources throughout our medical articles. That document, like the Cass Review, contains a mix of uncontentious evidence-based facts, and some recommendations, some of which are contentious. Other health bodies will reach other recommendations as to minimum BMI, or what kind of weight-related comorbidity is appropriate, or when to stop treatment and so on. And not least who should pay. Some of the NICE recommendation is evidence based medicine and some weighs the financial cost to the NHS. What I'm not aware of, on the subject of weight loss, is editors demanding to know the name, address, telephone number, school qualifications and grades, university degree, last three jobs, current holiday plans, BMI, health conditions and marital status of the bloody copyeditor. Or complaining that since NICE commission their own reports, appoint their own experts and publish the reports on their own website, that this is some kind of self published source we should run screaming from. Colin°^Talk 19:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, there's agreement at the two ends of the range, for example, that things like tweets are self-published and things like peer-reviewed articles aren't. But there's no agreement about a huge swath that falls in between, that is, no agreement about whether/when publications from the following kinds of organizations are self-published: advocacy groups, universities, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental bodies, museums, foundations, charities, labor unions, and political campaigns. All you have to do to see that disagreement is look at the !votes for Question 2, and you'll see even more of it if you look at the RFCBEFORE discussions. Seems to me that the Cass Review falls in that middle ground. If by "the supporting scholarly works," you mean the systematic reviews that the Cass Review commissioned, those weren't published by the Cass Review itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"those weren't published by the Cass Review itself" Why do you write those words. So what? They were published in frankly the highest quality journal one could hope for. They are still part of the Cass Review. here describes the reviews. Each one says This work was funded by NHS England to inform the Cass Review (Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people). The funder and Cass Review team had a role in commissioning the research programme but no role in the study conduct, interpretation or conclusion. These are all part of the "Cass Review".

Nobody arguing the Cass Review is "self published" is interested in debating your middle ground. It is an argument used to ban a source for containing recommendations and facts editors wish, in all good faith, to suppress. It is frankly as silly as someone saying the NHS Health website is self published. -- Colin°^Talk 11:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it because I was addressing publication status: self-published or not. Everyone agrees that the systematic reviews are not self-published. But that has no implications for whether the Review itself is/isn't self-published. Re: "They are still part of the Cass Review,'" I don't agree. They don't appear in the Cass Review (formally: the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People) and don't appear in the Cass Review's publications list; that the Cass Review team commissioned them does not imply that they're part of the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, any more than the fact that the NHS commissioned the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People implies that that Independent Review is part of an NHS publication. I suspect that part of the problem here is that people use the phrase "Cass Review" to mean more than one thing (e.g., the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, the team that wrote that review, the acts of reviewing by that team, the website explaining the team's work and hosting its publications); we're talking about whether the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People is/isn't self-published. I'm not trying to argue about whether the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People is/isn't self-published, my only point is that there is no agreement among editors about what "self-published" means.

Re: "Nobody arguing the Cass Review is "self published" is interested in debating your middle ground. It is an argument used to ban a source for containing recommendations and facts editors wish, in all good faith, to suppress," I suggest that you ask Void if removed whether he thinks that the Cass Review is self-published. I've read many, many of his statements about what "self-published means," and based on everything he's said about it, I think he'll say that the Review is self-published, even though he clearly doesn't want it suppressed and considers it reliable. Odds are that he'll also say that the NHS website is self-published. If you don't want to ask, I can link to statements he's made about other similar organizations and about self-publication more generally. He considers everything self-published unless it's published by a separate publishing company. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it remarkable if, at the end of a four year effort, the assurance group didn't provide some level of oversight of the final report, given one of their roles is:

Advise on the types of evidence that should be sought by the Review team, the methods for gathering that evidence and the interpretation, significance and relevance of the evidence.

(my emphasis)

At an absolute minimum, having a team of people assure that the Review was conducted using appropriate processes and methodology is a strong quality signal that should remove all doubt that this might be a SPS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it matters whether the report is SPS or not… since it would qualify for the “expert exemption” even if we wish to define it as such. Not all SPS are “bad”. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It matters in terms of whether anyone knows what "self-published" means, as it's untenable that there is no consensus about what a key policy means. I agree that that the Review probably falls under the expert SPS exemption even if it's self-published, but it's a strange case, since Hilary Cass is the only author who's actually identified. What does the expert SPS exemption mean for a co-authored work when only one author's expertise can be assessed? And even if it's considered an expert SPS, those likely aren't considered high quality MEDRS sources. (For example, the RS statement about preprints says that they shouldn't be used for medical content.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes It's a NHS-commissioned report based on systematic reviews which are considered top-rate MEDRS. Of course, it should be presented with appropriate attribution and in context with other significant viewpoints, similar to how we treat other national health body publications. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, as noted, The Cass Review is a comprehensive review commissioned by the National Health Service in the area of transgender medicine. It made conclusions that were highly unpopular in some circles, however, that doesn't make it less reliable, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, The Cass review is a reliable source on its subject matter. The criticism comes mostly from partisan sources who disagree with its finding that the evidence supporting the benefits of puberty blockers for minors is extremely weak. Many of these critics argue from an ideological standpoint rather than a strictly scientific or medical perspective. However, the Cass Review aligns with growing international scrutiny over the use of puberty blockers in gender medicine, and the concerns raised in the Cass Review are part of a larger reassessment of pediatric gender medicine worldwide. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no RSP listing for Frontiers Media, but they were marked a potentially predatory publisher on Beall's List and are highlighted in the cite script. Our article on them recounts a history of concerning editorial and publication decisions that make me think it is not an RS. This specific posting follows an addition by @Veg Historian to Raw Egg Nationalist (an article I wrote, very strange far-right influencer person) using content cited to an article in Frontiers in Communication. I have little objection to the specific content added, and the cited article seems... fine, but it is in Frontiers in Communication, this is a BLP, and AFAIK our general ethos is "no predatory publishers ever".

I saw the article while writing the entry, but chose not to use it as I was under the impression that Frontiers is a predatory publisher. Searching the RSN archives I found a bunch of contradictory advice, some is declaring them wholly unusable, some is more disputed. After talking with Veg Historian, they argued that it is only an issue with MEDRS stuff, while I think the editorial problems are probably bigger than that. We both agreed we should probably get more clarity on Frontiers Media - does anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff on Frontiers is good, some of it is quite bad. I think declaring it completely unreliable would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is a bad idea. I think Frontiers papers on paleontology topics are quite usable (often published by eminent experts in the field) for example, so it should be considered on a case by case basis. So much biomedical literature gets published that there's basically no point citing anything in frontiers in that topic area when there are always going to be more reputable alternatives. In this case I think that the use is probably fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of their problems seem to stem from non biomedical journals of theirs, in which case I still think there is an issue. How do we know this journal doesn't have the problems it seems all the rest do? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do they, looking at Frontiers_Media#Controversies and Retraction Watch [61] 90% of them seem to biomedical related. I should have said more forcefully that Frontiers is basically worthless for biomedical topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the psychology one. Looking at their list of journals it seems mostly medical and I assume (I could very well be wrong, I don't edit biomedical anything) that there is a lot more publishing going on in that field than some of the others. So I'm not sure if that's a great sign for the other ones, in lieu of other evidence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology is at the forefront of the replication crisis just like biomed and the topic areas have many of the same issues. If you look at retraction watch both topics come up pretty frequently. Any area that gets a lot of retractions is an area that you should really avoid citing frontiers for, because it attracts the worst slop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I'm not well acquainted with this field. So what would you say is a sign a Frontiers journal is fine? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers IMO is almost never fine, except for basic duh claims like "Sigmund Freud once existed", where theres almost always better more reliable sources for. Special issues are particularly suspect. IFFFFFFFFF the author is a well known expert (and we're talking well-known here, not just random person with a PhD), then sure, maybe. Otherwise maybe if they have a substantial IF, above the average of the field. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mostly agree and would prefer not to use dubious sources unless I have to, but our current consensus on the source doesn't support its removal. So it just seems stuck with a sub par source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a better question is there any better guidance on determining when Frontiers is fine to use? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the author has an established reputation I think it's OK. For example this paper is published by well-regarded experts, and paleontology papers often tend to be published in low-impact journals anyway, so it's taken more on the authority of the authors than the journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finland just downgraded this journal (along with another 270 Frontiers journals) to level 0 on their quality scale (ref). Level 0 is equivalent to no peer review at all. MrOllie (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 271 count also includes MDPI? Or at least from how I'm reading it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective (an editor who is almost exclusively focused on our environmental articles), I can concur with Hemiauchenia that some well-known subject matter experts occasionally publish in Frontiers, and some of their articles have been well-regarded enough to get cited in high-profile reports and reviews. Most notably, I recall seeing occasional Frontiers citations in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (i.e. a few out of the thousands it contains) - the gold standard for climate science (even some MDPI might have been there, but I'll have to double-check that.) Deciding we as an encyclopedia know better than the IPCC is...not a step to be taken lightly.

It is also true that I don't think any scientist in the field would choose to publish in either Frontiers and MDPI if they didn't have to - however, environmental fields are so vast that more established journals can afford to pick the flashiest research, and a perfectly well-conducted paper whose scope wasn't ambitious enough for them may be forced into these journals.

To clarify what "not ambitious enough" might mean - when comes to research surrounding effects of climate change on agriculture, it is astonishingly focused on just the four big staples. Any given fruit or vegetable might represent a multi-billion dollar market worldwide - but good luck finding papers describing climate impacts on those in Nature, Science, PNAS et al. Likewise, once a species is obscure enough, biology papers about them become exponentially less likely to get published somewhere with profile, etc., etc. Thus, my approach for either publisher is to only use them when no other peer-reviewed research exists, and the reason for that appears to be obscurity in the "physical limitation" sense, rather than the fringe sense. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that Frontiers Media outside of human biomedical content do publish a lot of mainstream science and many Wikipedia articles cite them. The article in question on Raw Egg Nationalist published in their Communications journal is well written [62]. Frontiers publish the journal Frontiers in Animal Science which nobody would call predatory or quackery, its just standard stuff in its field. There are many other Frontiers journals like that.

The only issue I have seen on Wikipedia regarding Frontiers is their Nutrition journals. Basically, they have a long history of publishing very poor quality WP:BMI papers or reviews. What I mean by this is that they make biomedical claims about anti-disease effects from very weak In vitro studies or those done on animals WP:MEDANIMAL and try ad pass them off as legit review papers. There are many examples of this. They often put out papers claiming all sorts of foods have anti-cancer properties then in the conclusion section they will admit more research needs to be done and there are no clinical trials. It's pretty much the same thing every-time and I have had many chats about this which experienced medical users. Such papers are removed off-Wikipedia for failing WP:MEDRS. However, occasionally they do put out a good review. MDPI have the same bad track record of doing this on nutrition articles, however they also publish legit science. I think Frontiers Media should be judged individually on which journal it is, who the editors are and the quality of the papers. Veg Historian (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don’t see why their obvious quality control problems would not apply to non BMI things. Frontiers in Communciation was one of the journals downgraded in Finland for having a lack of adequate peer review, when some of their journals were kept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all new to me. I am trying to trace articles that mention the history of this online. So far the earliest I found was this [63] which talked about 60 journals being downgraded in Finland by JUFO (hardly any of these were Frontiers). Someone has put the original list on Google spreadsheet [64]. A different list was to include 271 journals mentioned here [65] which are nearly all Frontiers and MDPI. The full list of 271 journals is online [66]. In response an open letter to JUFO has been filed [67]. It seems this has only happened in the last 2 months and there is still a debate about this. I am surprised to see Frontiers in Insect Science on the list. We have cited this journal on articles like Bulimulus bonariensis. This looks like normal non-controversial science to me. I would be interested in knowing what users suggest. If there is going to be a consensus vote here and we get to WP:GUNREL does that mean a complete removal of Frontiers? A lot of good content from articles will end up being removed and probably not replaced. Veg Historian (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I do find the Finland thing concerning. It mentions several of their journals that weren't downgraded - I have to wonder what those are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers in Earth Science still seems to be a 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is frontiers media accessible through Wikipedia Library? I've not come across it but there are a lot of sources there. Regardless of what we decide here, if Frontiers Media comes up when the "peer reviewed" checkbox is selected, editors are likely to use those sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Frontiers is open access. Not sure the Wikipedia Library would have to do with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not to my knowledge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's good then. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing idolchatteryd.com as a reference because it looks like a blog run by a non-expert. However, when I came across Casey James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I see that some editors think that the owner of idolchatteryd.com is/was a journalist at The York Dispatch, Mark Franklin. There's no mention of the claim at https://idolchatteryd.com/about/ though it is in the meta information at idolchatteryd.com. Anyone think this could be a reliable source?

Specifically, in Casey James, it's used for:

Mark Franklin of the York Dispatch considered Strip It Down to be a more authentic representation of James as an artist than his previous album,^[1] calling it "bluesier [and] much more rocking".^[2]

In the same article, I noticed the use of the Idol Chatter blog of USA Today used in the article ten times as a reference. The author is Brian Mansfield. Anyone see reliability (or any other) problems with it? - Hipal (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Casey James, it doesn't matter if Franklin is an expert. It's still a self-published source, James is still alive, so it fails WP:BLPSPS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would be a good source to use for such claims. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This material is on a biography, but it's not "about a living person" in the sense of BLPSPS, it is about an album. Separately, I'm puzzled by these references: were the references also perhaps published in the York Dispatch? It's sort of suggested but it's unclear. If they were then they're not self-published. (I do not have an opinion about whether this material should be in the article or not.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digging deeper, it appears Mark Franklin was the Managing Editor at The York Dispatch in early 2015, and previously; but not late 2015. The website carried a copyright for The York Dispatch in it's early years [68], but later it displayed a copyright for Mark Franklin starting in 2008[69] I think it safe to treat it as self-published since The York Dispatch no longer holds the copyright to any of it. --Hipal (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Chatteryd article hosted at YDTalk.com: https://web.archive.org/web/20110616013227/http://ydtalk.com/chatter/2011/06/crazy-new-single-from-season-9s-andrew-garcia/ I don't think this meets WP:NEWSBLOG standards. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website ringwatchers.com is used as a source on SpaceX Starship related pages. The page, to my eye, seems like a an unreliable and possibly a self-published source. Authors go by handles like "memereview" instead of their real names. However they do have multiple authors so it's not just one person operating the site, and they do accept comments on an easily accessible contact us page. I'd welcome comments from other editors. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much seems like a fansite, no real evidence of editorial oversight though they mention team members. I don't see how there would be anything on that site that couldn't be reliably sourced elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content is quite reliable.

When content is speculative, they mark it as such.

For example: see [70]. Its labelled with:

"With After Dark we try to explore more speculative topics, that are not entirely based on facts. That means that everything we write here is only our interpretation of current or past events and what we think might happen in the future. That doesn't mean that it will become true." Redacted II (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what makes a source reliable. Wikipedia requires things like meaningful editorial oversight (which I can't find any details on)... and when a site is self-published (which I believe this site to be) we require it be written by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, NSF has mentioned the Ringwatchers.

I don't have the time to check 100s of videos right now though. Redacted II (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fan site. I can't find any use by others bar one paper on synerjetics.ru. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The core of WP:RS is "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations"

WP:Verifiability states:

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources" RingWatchers isn't academic.

"The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments", but this isn't listed as a requirement.

But, (according to them), they have "a team dedicated to providing the utmost accuracy". Which at least heavily implies that they have systems in place to avoid publishing inaccurate information.

And as stated above, they do mark when an article is speculative.

This is the behaviour of a reliable source, and not a mere "fansite". Redacted II (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The core of WP:V that is that sources should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is why I mentioned WP:USEBYOTHERS as it's a common way to show that such sites are considered reliable by other reliable sources and so show that they have that reputation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with synerjetics.ru, but from what I can tell, its a reliable source. I've only partially read a small portion of it via google translate, so I'm not the best judge.

Since its reliable enough that a reliable source used it for writting papers, its certainly reliable enough for Wikipedia. Redacted II (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One author on one website of unknown reliability used ringwatchers in a paper as a reference, I don't see how that equates to a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dodd (someone who covers SpaceX often and was once slated to fly on Starship around the moon, the latter bit likely qualifying him as a Subject-matter expert) has collaborated with the RingWatchers in 2021. The colaboration was small (mainly using their map of Starbase), but it is a (likely) reliable source utilizing them. Redacted II (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what a subject-matter expert is for Wikipedia purposes. Per WP:SPS, it only applies to an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others saying that this is just a fansite. With pseudonymous authors, no author bios with education and background, no editorial structure, no masthead, and almost non-existent use by others, I see no reason why we'd consider them a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree...... should easily be able to replace this in a few places it's used. Moxy🍁 04:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more or less on point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this policy brief being used in the Taylor_Lorenz#Harassment_and_coordinated attacks section as both a third-party supporting source, as well as a primary source. The Casebook is a seperate thing and not what is being discussed, this is solely about the specific policy brief by this author.

The Media Manipulation Casebook featured multiple case studies by different authors, and was created by the Technology and Social Change project as part of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard Kennedy, and In addition to the Casebook, the Technology and Social Change (TaSC) research team produces a newsletter, a webinar series, white papers, policy briefs, as noted here. Policy briefs were credited to their respective authors (such as  this brief by Catesby Holmes, or this brief by Ashley Odilia Armand). Citation styles for Case Studies from the actual Casebook had a different citation format, and were specifically referred to as being part of the Casebook and credited to their respective authors as well (like  this one on #SaveTheChildren from Kaylee Fagan).

As the Director of the Shorenstein News Lab and Senior Editor at the Technology and Social Change project there doesn't appear to be any editorial oversight regarding the policy brief she authored, which appears to have been written for an upcoming News Leaders Summit that the Shorenstein Center had. (As the co-lead of the Harvard Shorenstein Center News Leaders summit, I want industry leaders to understand how this harassment works [...] so we can begin to adopt best practices to protect and support people going through similar attacks., which is noted in the policy brief). The summits themselves appear to have been small cohorts of journalists and media executives meeting with the TaSC team according to this. This was also mentioned by Dr. Donovan in a webinar here, while emphasizing that Dreyfuss would be in charge of that portion of the program as well as directing Dr. Donovan.

My personal opinion is it falls under WP:NOTRS due to the lack of editorial oversight, as well as there being a pre-existing friendship from as far back as 2016 between Lorenz and Dreyfuss, which would make this a non independant source with an obvious COI. With Dreyfuss being both Senior Editor as well as the author of the paper it would also seem to fall under WP:SPS / WP:BLPSPS.

I think it can be cited as having used Lorenz as an example for their policy brief regarding harassment of journalists in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner, but should not be used as a third party source due to the COI.

Awshort (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You first quote links to the about page, but it's actually from the Research page. I don't think this should be considered self-published for the purposes of BLPSPS, but it might be WP:RSOPINION so attribution where it's not supported by others sources maybe appropriate. As to the potential conflict due to a friendship it would be helpful if any conflict was covered by reliable sources not just supposition. There's an awful lot of journalist whose reporting would be discounted otherwise. As it doesn't appear to have been discussed there previously I've left a notification on the articles talk page to see if anyone watching it has any thoughts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree about it not being self published since it doesn't seem like there is any editorial oversight directly above Dreyfuss. While it is possible that Donovan may have looked over her work, she (Donovan) has noted several times she doesn't understand journalism or what to ask and leaves it up to Dreyfuss. Would you mind clarifying the friendship part? Lorenz said she was friends with Dreyfuss in 2016, Dreyfuss and Donovan said the same in 2023 about Lorenz. I don't think it needs a secondary source to showcase that the two considered each other friends and it presents a conflict. If the source is supposed to be an independent source doing a study on a third party and it is instead a friend/coworker, it would raise concerns on it not just being an opinion piece by a friend or acquaintance who can say whatever they want. Lack of editorial oversight would (in my eyes) rule out considering the brief a reliable source, including for statements of opinion.

Regarding prior discussion, it did occur, but I disagree with the other editor stating that At worst, we could attribute it to the Media Manipuatlion Case Study group. Donovan did not publish the report, Dreyfuss did. And attributing it to the Case Study group made no sense when it was written by one person. The other editor may have thought that the website is the complete Casebook and not individual studies and reports but who knows. They stopped replying and the thread got archived but I wanted to see what outside editors thought. I appreciate the reply, regardless :)

Awshort (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked at/with these types of organizations, that's not how they function. Just because someone's title happens to be towards the top of the org chart doesn't mean that other people don't review the work. I don't think that chain of argumentation should be used here. There is no reason to believe that this piece didn't undergo editorial oversight by other members of the org. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's more like WP:RSOPINION. Seems reliable enough if it got published on an academic project.

WP:DUEness is probably most pertinent concern. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll first note that Awshort and I have a past history of conflict, and while I try to steer clear of them now, they have tried to remove the harassment section from that article multiple times, so I'm going to chime in here.

It seems like Alyo and ActivelyDisinterested gave good explanations as to why this specific source is fine to use.

That said, I want to note -- as I did in this comment -- that this is far from the only article that mentions harassment of Lorenz. While that's not what we're discussing on this board, multiple sources are relevant to show that this source isn't some WP:FRINGE theory. As we know, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of sources:

1. The Information: "No stranger to digital harassment, doxxing or the dangers of online celebrity, Lorenz took what could have been a basic Beltway bulletin and made it a thing."
2. The International Women's Media Foundation: "The IWMF is appalled by the relentless online smear campaign against New York Times technology and internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz....Carlson’s commentary is a deliberate, deeply dangerous effort to mobilize harassment toward Lorenz."
3. Forbes: "Right-Wing Figures Attack Journalist Taylor Lorenz For Revealing Creator Of ‘Libs Of TikTok’"
4. Media Manipulation: "As a result of her prominence, gender, and the nature of her reporting, Lorenz is a frequent target of coordinated harassment campaigns that include being swatted, stalked, dedicated built specifically to harass her, her followers getting harassed for associating with her, and waves of threats and hate that include disturbing sexualized fantasies and anti-semetic slurs."

Delectopierre (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These have been explained already; you are trying to make opinion pieces seem more due than they are and create a narrative. Forbes is WP:RSHEADLINES, IWMF is WP:RSOPINION, MediaManipulation is being considered as possibly WP:RSOPINION above (which is not the same as "fine to use" for facts), and TheInformation is an irrelevant mention in passing that does nothing to support 'coordinated harassment'. Please keep this topic related to this source. Feel free to mention it in the still ongoing DRN discussion between us that you opened if you would like to.

Awshort (talk) Awshort (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Delectopierre: I just wanted to clarify - I meant mention your opinions with sourcing on the DRN, not mention the above post itself. Re-reading what I had posted, it came across like it could be interpreted as a "Go tell if you dont like it!" manner which was not my intent.

Awshort (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised there's a thread open on DRN and another on NORN. It seems the two of you have also gone over this at the articles talk page as well. Maybe a RFC asking if the inclusion box a harassment section should be the way forward? If that results in inclusion discussion could move on to what to include. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful the the DRN discussion may squash some of the conflict between DP and myself but a future RfC isn't a bad idea. With either option the reliability of this particular source would still factor into if material from it should be taken as fact or opinion and help clarify dueness and how to properly balance it between opinion pieces / RS. Awshort (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But at the moment the discussion is split across multiple forums. RSN isn't very good at solving complex multi-source problems, as they are generally more about WP:DUE (e.g. NPOV) rather than strictly about reliability. Without WP:RSCONTEXT you will only get a general answer, as others have said the source is probably WP:RSOPINION. I suggest this is closed if you plan to continue with DRN, follow that process and see what comes out of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel Forbes, IWMF, and Media Manipulation are not reliable sources. That's your opinion and it's fine for you to have, but you have not demonstrated it to be based in policy. I'm not going to go into the weeds WRT those sources in this forum. If the DRN thread comes off hold, we can do so there.

Please keep this topic related to this source. If you re-read my comment you'll see I addressed this. Delectopierre (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the following sources reliable? They are being used as citations in the article for SearXNG.

• XDA - a site ran by Valnet. It may be reliable, but according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, Valnet runs several content farms. Is XDA one of them?
• Writing Waves (California State University)
  • 1) Are publications of first-year student compilations a reliable source?
  • 2) Is the answer to 1) is yes, is Writing Waves (California State University) a reliable resource for articles about search engines?
• Are Bachelor Thesis like this one a reliable source? (It is the third source on the SearXNG article.)
• I am not sure if this is a reliable source. It looks like a research paper, but I am not sure if this is reviewed by someone, a pre-print, or something else. (It is the first source on the SearXNG article.)

2620:8D:8000:10E6:2D39:5263:1C8E:62AC (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS (subsection WP:SCHOLARSHIP), our base level for thesis starts at the dissertation level: "completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate", with only one exception: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Pavlor (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is related to the claim it is used on in any article. What claim is the source being used for? Ramos1990 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial factoids, i think. In this case the bachelor thesis also isn't a source independent on the article subject (author is a maintainer of SearXNG). So about self situation - roughly sufficient for verifitability, but not something you could use in an AfD to prove notability. Really weak source in my point of view. Pavlor (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bachelor's thesis by an associate of a web site, as a source for "a list of these things can be found at this web site", is not really much better than sourcing it to the web site itself. Clearly one could go to the web site itself and verify the claim, but it doesn't provide evidence that this site is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. And the inline extlink violates WP:EL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your last pdf is not a research paper, it's another bachelor's thesis. I've updated the cite in the article to reflect that. As others have said only completed published doctorial thesis are generally considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced by Writing Waves, it's a student journal some of which have more of a reputation than others. It's definitely not the strongest source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the bachelor's theses and the freshman writing journal:

1. In general, the spirit of WP:SCHOLARSHIP would cut against bachelor's theses as being WP:RS. It's not impossible—if there was one that was as influential as the master's thesis A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits, for example, I think we'd use common sense with respect to reliability and evaluate the use by others. I can't claim to know the state of the literature in all fields, but I don't quite think these specific bachelor's theses are of that level.
2. As for Writing Waves, it looks like the university selects certain freshman-level writing course essays and posts them online. There's a real and good pedagogical purpose to having these sorts of websites—it enables students to get used to university-level writing and it provides a sort of positive non-grade incentive to get good work out of students. But, in terms of reliability as a source for facts, we're more or less looking just at a collection of undergraduate student work pulled from assignments in a freshman writing class. As is the case with bachelor's theses, the spirit of WP:SCHOLARSHIP cuts against considering this sort of work as a RS.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the bachelor's theses and the journal should be removed from the references section of the article?

2620:8D:8000:10E6:4C03:2CC9:9FDE:CD11 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is material presented in Chessable courses by strong (titled) authors sufficient to be considered reliable for chess-related (specifically opening) content? JDiala (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala: How do Chessable courses compare to traditional books on opening theory? Traditional academic books reviewed by an editor and published by someone other than the author are the gold standard for sourcing. The question I'd have is whether Chessable is publishing/editing courses created by authors or if they're just acting like Amazon by acting as a marketplace for chess courses. If they serve as a marketplace, you'd have to look at the individual courses. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few different sorts of courses that Chessable offers; some of this was discussed at Wikiproject Chess's noticeboard. Chessable more or less can be broken down into having three types of courses:

1. Courses written by titled players;
2. Publisher Courses (courses which adopt some sort of published book into its move trainer format); and
3. Community courses (written by non-titled members of the Chessable community).

Regarding each of the three types:

1. My understanding is that the courses that are written by titled players are often subject to beta-testing and review before they are actually published. For example, here are two public requests made by staff to get beta-testers. And Chessable appears to have some sort of creative direction, even setting a schedule for courses that will be coming forward. So, at least from that perspective, it does look like there's some semblance of editorial control, selection, and review prior to publication.
2. Publisher courses are generally selected by Chessable from dead tree books that had already been published (frequently from Everyman Chess or Quality Chess). What chessable adds is move trainer to it, and also it might add some corrections based on engine analysis/later discovery of improved moves. But, in general, I would treat these as having more or less the same reliability as the dead tree books; it's working as a publisher there.
3. And then there are the community courses. There is some evidence that there is review by chessable prior to publication (see Chessable support FAQ), and at least some have peers do beta testing (such as this example, which became a course on the Devin Gambit). But it's not clear that this sort of peer review is required, and it's not quite clear what the level of review is before Chessable allows the course to be made public. It is certainly possible for weaker over-the-board players (particularly with engine help) to produce and publish strong analysis, but I don't think that this should be our baseline presumption for any particular course. We probably want to look case-by-case.

In short, the titled players courses are A-OK, and the Publisher courses should be treated similarly to the books from which the course was derived. A case-by-case approach on the community courses makes sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With that context, I'd agree that the titled author courses are reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a chance to look at this website in a bit more detail of late - steamlocomotive.info is used widely as a source across UK steam locomotive articles, especially around recent events like livery changes, status and location. However, when delving into the pages it would appear that it relies wholly on user-submitted “reports” - surely that would fall under WP:UGC since there doesn’t appear to be editorial oversight as such? Danners430 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it appears to be a steam/rail fan site. Their about us page[71] suggests that it is primarily a collection of user generated content (it also doesn't appear to have been updated since 2012, saying "This website has been online since September 1st, 2001." followed by "After 11 years of operation, the site remains a fluid, and changing thing.") I would also note that it doesn't pretend to be a reliable, serious, or academic source, for example they cover both steam and compressed air... why? "The decision to include the compressed air locomotives was a bit whimsical perhaps, but pleased the guy (Doug) who does all the programming and database work that underlies this site." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the about page hasn't been updated, it is very much active as a spotter site - the latest update I've seen is to the Sir Nigel Gresley page, where someone has posted an update less than a week old. However, that doesn't change the discussion here I'd wager. Danners430 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotter sites aren't reliable sources so I think you're more or less right that it doesn't change the discussion. I don't mean to diminish spotter sites in any way (I am a participant in a few) but its an apples to oranges situation, the world's best apple is still a terrible orange. Spotter sites are meant to be fun nerdy communities built around the peculiarities and tastes of the community, they aren't meant to be competition for academic journals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll leave the discussion open for a day or so longer to see if any other comments are forthcoming, but it would appear that the conclusion may have already been reached... Danners430 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely say no more comments are forthcoming… I’ll start depreciating the source where it’s used. Danners430 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Excuse me if this is not in the scope of RSN.) I would like to ask more experienced editors if the sources for the content removed in these two diffs, [72][73][74], are really inadequate, as claimed by the reverter. I would note that one of the sources, The Times, is considered generally reliable per RSP, but there may be some nuances of WP:BLP I am not aware of. The newspaper article is paywalled, and I do not have access to it. Janhrach (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article seems to account for the claims appropriately. The direct citation to the mp3 file hosted by Jens Weinreich does raise some eyebrows, although its inclusion is arguably justified by the Sports Integrity Initiative source which directly mentions its importance (not sure about that source's reliability though, so this may be a WP:DUE issue for the citations to primary sources, even if the general claims have been adequately verified by the Times). I'm concerned that the reverts were made by a brand new account with enough savvy to WP:CRYBLP after less than 20 edits, in addition to exhibiting other signs of WP:UPE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content cited to Tablet and a court document, in Special:Diff/1277087870 (which I think you meant to link to above but accidentally linked to the following edit twice), however, could more justifiably be objected to on BLP grounds, as the court document is primary, and Tablet doesn't appear to have as strong of a consensus in favor of its reliability (I was able to find this discussion from 2021, which is not particularly decisive, although there is a rough consensus that it is generally reliable). The specific claims attached to Tablet and the court document don't appear to be repeated by the Times. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Yes, I messed the second diff up. Janhrach (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing on is that it's owned, funded and operated by Andy Brown. In other discussions the question has been raised that such situations could represent self-publishing.
As a seperate issue in both diffs you should avoid embedding links in text, see WP:CS:EMBED. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the inclusion of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam by Bat Ye’or as a reliable source. This book has been cited by multiple historians and scholars who have engaged with its arguments, particularly in relation to the article History of the Jews under Muslim rule.

For instance:

• Paul Fenton, in his 1981 review of the French edition of Le Dhimmi, noted the importance of both works, stating:

The need for a serious and objective source book on the history of the Jews in Arab lands untainted by ideological options has long been felt by students of Middle Eastern history. The two titles under review both respond to this need, albeit in quite different, if not complementary, manners.^[1]

• Leon Nemoy, curator of Hebrew and Arabic literature at Yale's Sterling Memorial Library, affirmed the credibility of Ye’or’s sources, writing wrote that while one might disagree "here and there" with the major thesis propounded by Bat Ye'or, it cannot be dismissed as "a pack of lies" since her documented evidence comes from "highly reliable testimonies".

Obviously the principal part of the book is the documentary section, which offers to the reader the original views of Muslim theologians and jurists on the general relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and on how non-Muslim minorities should be treated, as well as the testimony of both non-Muslim minority individuals and foreign observers as to what the Dhimmi's life was actually like. One might conceivably disagree here and there with Mme. Bat Ye'or's conclusions drawn from these documents, but one cannot challenge the original Muslim texts, or characterize all the factual accounts of both Dhimmis and foreign observers (some-if not most-of the latter were not exactly philosemites) as a pack of lies from beginning to end. These pièces justificatives are essentially highly reliable testimonies by eyewitnesses on the actual circumstances of non-Muslim life under Muslim rule throughout the medieval and modern periods of history." ^[2]

• Allan Harris Cutler and Hellen Cutler, in a 1985 review, described the book as a "documentary history of Islamic antagonism toward Christians and Jews." They also recognized that Ye’or's perspective aligned with historical evidence of dhimmi status under Islamic rule.

  Those of us who, as disciples of Massignon, are working to achieve true reconciliation between the three Abra-hamitic faiths owe a debt of gratitude to Bat Ye'or for the extreme realism of her challenging book, which in essence is a documentary history of Islamic antagonism toward Christians and Jews·[...] .Bat Ye'or believes that the practice conformed to the theory most of the time, the implication being that Islamic mistreatment of Jews and Christians throughout history was as bad as Christian mistreatment of Jews and Muslims.Other scholars with a more optimistic view of Islamic attitudes toward dhimmis hold that as often as not the Muslims in practice ignored the contempt which their sacred texts taught them to exhibit toward Christians and Jews,the implication being that on the whole Muslims treated Jews and Christians better than Christians treated Jews and Muslims.^[3]

Bat Ye’or’s work has also been cited in historical studies by respected scholars such as:

• Raphael Israeli, who has written extensively on Jewish history under Islam.
• Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages.
• Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael's House: A History of the Jews in Muslim Lands
• Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam: "Two other works, which emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record, are Bat Ye’or (pseudonym), Le Dhimmi: Profil de ľoprimé en Orient et en Afrique du nord depuis la conquête arabe (Paris, 1980),^[4]

The inclusion of The Dhimmi as a source is justified by its recognition in academic literature and its use in historical studies. The book provides a significant perspective on Jewish and Christian life under Islamic rule, making it a relevant source for Wikipedia’s coverage of this historical period. Forty years after her book The Dhimmi: most books written on the subject have changed their perspective on the situation of Jews in Muslim countries; they have become less lenient about the status of Dhimmi compared to those written before 1980. We should be able to cite it as a courtesy.Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a subject like this, where there are many reliable books, no book should have very much individual influence. But I don't think there's anything wrong with using The Dhimmi as an attributed source for noteworthy opinion, or especially for documentary translations. The opinion of scholars like Nemoy is not easily dismissed. I don't think it's appropriate to apply critiques of her later career to this book.

BTW the most-cited source on History of the Jews under Muslim rule currently is A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations (2013) which should only be used carefully. Despite the apparent quality of its editorial team, some of the individual articles are unworthy. For example, Nazmi al-Jubeh's "Jerusalem and Hebron in the Ottoman era". GordonGlottal (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with both of your statements. Frankly speaking 40 years after she wrote this book there is no information that we cannot find elsewhere but this book brought a new perspective on the topic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is a clear consensus not to add this book as a reliable source. I won’t insist, thanks for your participation. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just at a glance, there's a lot of scholarly criticism and a range of other opinions attested at Bat Ye'or. I'm not seeing any specific criticism of this book there, however. It seems that RS describe her as "controversial" without attribution [75], and note that she's never received an advanced degree or held an academic position (but there is some WP:USEBYOTHERS despite that). Given that there's RS descriptions of her work writ large as conspiracy-driven and controversial, at most perhaps some use with attribution would be appropriate. I would want to see a more thorough argument that acknowledges the criticisms logged against her and presents more USEBYOTHERS that overcome these issues to justify use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first few pages of search results on Google Scholar for Bat Ye'or and "Bat Ye'or" "Dhimmi" are not encouraging, mostly returning papers identifying her work as being in service of promoting the Eurabia conspiracy theory ([76], [77], [78], having skipped over a few indeterminate results I was not able to access and publications of dubious reliability for this topic, such as counter-polemics by academics at titular Islamic universities). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also concerned about some of the other key things we know about Bat Ye'or. A promoter of the Eurabia conspiracy theory is not someone I am likely to expect good historical work from. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also worth noting that, among the scholars listed in the OP's initial post, Raphael Israeli and Martin Gilbert have also endorsed the Eurabia concept. Cohen, meanwhile, was highly critical of Bat Ye'or in Muslim Anti- Semitism: Old or New? in Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora, eds., A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations: From the Origins to the Present Day (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 548-553 Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora's book, there is nothing about this book (The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam) but about her. We have to separate the book from the author. Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually not true, Cohen mentions it in the first chapter as the chief proponent of the "neo-lachrymose" school. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the book talks about her not about her book, Th Dhimmi… Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, see note. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also a bit of a double-standard at play here. Cohen was brough up in the context of three scholars who had cited Bat Ye'or not three scholars who cited that specific book. When I looked for Cohen citations to Bat Ye'or what I found was a citation that was very critical of her. That still very much is a citation but doesn't move the needle on her not being an author of fringe work. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My take is, Cohen clearly sees the book as a notable opinion worth mentioning in encyclopedia articles! GordonGlottal (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Two points: first - this is not demonstated with nothing but a reference toward the title of a book Cohen wrote. A more complete citation including the context in which he mentioned the book would be preferred. Second, the citation I found, from Reza Zia-Ebrahimi, indicates that the specific book we are discusing is where the idea of Dhimmitude - part of the Eurabia conspiracy theory - was originally formulated. So a vague hand-wave toward a citation of a book containing the original formulation of an islamophobic conspiracy theory is not a compelling case for a reliable source. Although it may be a notable fringe source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As explained below, this is a mistake by Reza Zia-Ebrahimi. The concept of Dhimmitude was developed 15 years after The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, in a book titled Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Moreover, there is no reason to follow Reza Zia-Ebrahimi over at least four prominent historians on this topic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reza Zia-Ebrahimi is a senior lecturer at King's College London. He is a prominent historian. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I really can't find it, could you give the kindle location or anything that could help? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to separate the book from the author; just because she has promoted conspiracy theories does not mean she couldn't have written a book that changed perspectives on a part of history. Just because Churchill was racist doesn't mean he shouldn't be cited, just because James Watson was racist and sexist doesn't mean the discovery of DNA should be ignored, etc. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but in that case I think you need to show an overwhelming amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS with respect to core bibliographies of the topic of religious minorities in the Muslim world, not a few scattered bits of praise that studiously avoid bringing up the other controversies. In particular, the criticisms I link, while focused on Eurabia as a concept, specifically take issue with Bat Ye’or’s research regarding Dhimmi status, so this is not something that can easily be separated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  thats a tough order to sell at WP:RSP, where unreliable authors are often the reason to declare sources unreliable. being the primary pusher of the Eurabia conspiracy theory should disqualify this author, especially as this book overlaps significantly with those problematic viewpoints.

  those comparisons you brought up have no real relevance here User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And in this case, Dhimmitude is actually a conceptual part of Eurabia. It is not distinct from the conspiracy theory.Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  She used the word Dhimmitude in Eurabia not in the book The Dhimmi… Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you need to be an expert in etymology to see that "The Dhimmi" and "Dhimmitude" are associated concepts. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And, in fact, this source identifies the book you are describing as the citation for the concept of Dhimmitude. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, I understand that there is a consensus here regarding this book, so I won’t insist on adding it as a reliable source. Thank you for sending me this article; however, there is a mistake in it. The concept of dhimmitude does not appear in The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, but Bat Ye’or developed it later in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Anyway, once again, thank you for sharing your point of view. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "I would like to separate the book from the author"

  Are you really trying this tactic? "Separate the artist from the work" may work in fiction writing, but this is verifiability and reliability. Her being a proponent of antisemitic conspiracy theories is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the question of her reliability on a topic like this. 129.7.0.188 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a misunderstanding here. She is anything but antisemitic; I have never seen such an accusation against her. She has been accused of constructing an 'Islamophobic conspiracy theory,' but the book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam has never been accused of such infamy. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While this is not the definition most people think of, Islamophobia that focuses specifically on Arabic Muslim populations as a subject of emnity is technically anti-semitism. Simonm223 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The word antisemitic was originally coined to specifically mean hatred of the Jews, not hatred of Semitic people. Choosing a word that by plain reading means hatred of Semitic people has caused confusion, as has hyphenating it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The dictionary is full of words whose meanings diverge from their etymology, yet no one insists on restoring their etymological sense: Nice (from Latin nescius "foolish"), Awful (full of awe), Silly (from Old English sælig which meant "happy"), etc. If we did, nobody would understand each other.

  Singling out antisemitism for etymological scrutiny is particularly suspect. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very true, but the dictionary definition of antisemitism is the hatred of Jews not the hatred of Semitic people. Or where you replying to Simonm223? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was replying to Simonm223. I fully agree with you previous answer. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely opposed to this. It’s not a work of scholarship. It’s highly selective cherrypicking from other, better collections of primary sources to produce a skewed ideological vision. Any sources which cite it as authoritative probably lose the right to be seen as reliable themselves. Other sources mention do so in order to criticise it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be difficult even Bernard Lewis the most prolific and probably prominent historian on the topic cite this book: "Two other works, which emphasize the negative aspects of the Muslim record, are Bat Ye’or (pseudonym), Le Dhimmi: Profil de ľoprimé en Orient et en Afrique du nord ddepuis la conquête arabe (Paris, 1980),^[1] Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything written by Bat Ye'or can be reasonably be assumed to be unreliable garbage. We wouldn't accept her work in the same way we wouldn't accept that of Alex Jones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep in mind that reliability is context-dependent. Boutboul (talk · contribs), what do you want to use this source for? Alaexis_¿question? 23:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That the book brought a new perspective on the topic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all you want to write you re looking at the wrong source, you would need a secondary source that said that this work brought a new perspective to the topic. You can't use a primary work to say what impact it had. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources saying that, but to mention it, you need also to mention the primary source, don’t you? Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a secondary sources says something about a primary source the primary source isn't needed to back it up. It can be included as a courtesy, but it's not required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that you're working pretty close to WP:FRINGE material here and that means that there will likely be increased scrutiny on the sources used. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutiny is fine, it will help to improve the text if necessary. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy is the right word to express my willingness to add this book. Anyway, it seems impossible to reference it. Thanks for learning me this. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That the book brought a new perspective on the topic."

I can't help but feeling that your responses here have been deliberately vague and evasive. "Brought a new perspective?" What is that new perspective? What is its relevance? Is it the perspective of a conspiracy theory rooted in bigotry, as numerous commenters have very amply shown? 129.7.0.188 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume my good faith, I was not deliberately vague and evasive. What I wanted to say is that after 1980 most books written on the subject have changed their perspective on the situation of Jews in Muslim countries; they have become less lenient about the status of Dhimmi compared to those written before 1980. But I understand the clear consensus here, I won't change it for sure :-) Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boutboul, you quoted Leon Nemoy saying that while Bat Yeor's conclusions are questionable, the documents she cited are kosher (pun intended). By definition, these documents were not written by her and therefore you can find them in other sources and cite them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does not say that the conclusions are questionable; rather, he states, "One might conceivably disagree here and there with Mme. Bat Ye'or's conclusions," which is slightly different in my opinion. Besides, I agree that most documents can be found elsewhere and that the article won't suffer from a lack of information if the book is not cited. However, as a courtesy, I believe we should add this book as a reference, although I understand that I won't be able to convince anyone. Thank you for your constructive intervention :-) Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review in the Middle East Studies Association Bulletin begins "It is seldom these days that scholars have the opportunity to encounter a book that illustrates practically all the fallacies of the professional historian." Yes, some writers who have similar views about Islam like her writing and cite it, but it can't be denied that she is one of the most controversial authors in the field. She is known as an activist and does not have academic credentials. Her promotion of the Eurabia conspiracy theory is a big warning sign. We should stay away from the extremes when we select sources. Zero^talk 05:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Also, to say that Bernard Lewis cites it is misleading. He only mentions it once, as an example of the negative genre, and never takes any information from it. Given the almost complete overlap of topic, this is a very negative observation. If a serious scholar like Lewis ignores the content of the book, why should we do otherwise? Zero^talk 05:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I may be wrong, but I believe we should provide readers with all relevant information, including sources that are not mainstream, as long as they are supported by prominent scholars and given appropriate weight—perhaps a line or two in the article.

Moreover, there have been at least four editions of Bernard Lewis's The Jews of Islam (1984, 1987, 2010, and 2014), both before and after Eurabia. He could have removed the reference to The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, but he did not. I believe he was fully aware of his decision to retain it, and rather than criticizing the book, he merely noted that it focuses on the negative aspects.

I also take this opportunity to thank you for prompting me to make this RS request, even though I now see it is a lost cause. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to select the best sources, not to provide readers with a range of sources from good to bad. Regarding Lewis, it is commonplace for scholars to mention sources they don't consider worth mining for their own work. Think of the thousands of books that mention Mein Kampf—it isn't a compliment to merely mention a book. It would be different if Lewis praised it. Zero^talk 03:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are United Press International's "On This Day in History" columns reliable as a source for birthdates in Wikipedia articles? From what I could find, this issue has been somewhat previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#Alleged circular sourcing. I accept that the news agency is considered generally reliable, but I am having a hard time believing that they (whoever writes these articles) are independently verifying each and every person they include in these trivia lists. The majority of those included are older people for whom plenty of reliable sources exist, but the lists typically conclude with younger people for whom there often exists a significant lack of reliable sources that have published their birthdates. Of course a quick internet search will get you a birthdate since databases such as IMDb are user-generated and do not adhere to the same standards of verifiability for living persons as Wikipedia. That would seem the more obvious basis of these lists, but I realise my question likely calls for information which is not public. However, I feel the topic needs further inquiry. Οἶδα (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the last discussion it was about edits being reverted, but that happened due to a banned editor. It doesn't appear that the issues with that editor apply directly to UPI itself.
Editors should use their own judgement on the reliability of sources, but that judgement needs to be based on something more than suspicion. Without anything to back up that suspicion there's not much to say.
However for articles about living people UPI's list may not be reliable on it's own. WP:BLP has a higher standard of reliability than the normal guidance for other articles, one of those is in regard to dates of birth (WP:DOB). Dates of birth for living people should have either been widely published or have been published by the subject themselves. So if the only source for a date of birth is UPI then that date shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Yes, my primary issue is with these articles being used as a DOB source in the absence of more reliable ones, particularly for younger persons. Οἶδα (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPI is only generally reliable up until its acquisition by News World Communications in 2000, after that its additional considerations apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a source cited by a user is listed in Oxford Bibliographies, does that guarantee its reliability, regardless of being published by a non-academic press? A user is insisting that the book "Shivaji-His life and times" by Gajanan Bhaskar Mehndale is a reliable source, because it is listed in Oxford Bibliographies Online. My concern is that the book is published by a non academic source and the author is known for his Right-wing stance. Hu741f4 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need a bit more context here. Reliability depends on what the claim in question is. But the short answer is "not automatically". However, it would seem a point in favour.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No source is always reliable and no single characteristic is permission for inclusion. If you are concerned about bias (as every source has in some direction), it's possible your concern is rightly one of due weight: if claims are clearly fringe in the context of the scholarship as a whole, they may not merit mention in a given encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Bibliographies Online was actually one of the first articles I wrote on WP! Anyway, aside from that aside, if they are sourcing an OBO article (and that OBO article happens to reference Shivaji-His life and times) we should evaluate OBO as a source, not Shivaji-His life and times. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that OBO is not RS. However, if they're citing Shivaji-His life and times directly and claiming it's RS merely due to its appearance in OBO, that seems questionable (though its sourcing by OBO may positively contribute to an independent evaluation of its reliability). Chetsford (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The referncing of OBO may help in establishing reliability, but it is not automatic. More context is needed as to the claim the source is being used for. Also all sources have bias. the comments by Remsense are good points. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The referncing of OBO may help in establishing reliability, but it is not automatic." Yes, that's why I said "if they're citing Shivaji-His life and times directly and claiming it's RS merely due to its appearance in OBO, that seems questionable (though its sourcing by OBO may positively contribute to an independent evaluation of its reliability)". Chetsford (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree with you too. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The context for this request is (at least in part) based on discussion at Talk:Sambhaji as to whether OBO's endorsemment of Mehendale's Shivaji: His Life and Times on this page about Maratha Rule 1674-1818 confers reliability in the context of claims about Sambhaji. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://satyaagrah.com/india/india-education/1038-how-chhatrapati-shivaji-maharaj-was-establishing-hindu-samrajya-by-concluding-centuries-of-islamic-oppression-historian-gb-mehandale-destroys-secular-propaganda-against-hindu-samrajya-divas I dodn't found he sentence for Mehandale here to be the mouthpiece here either like the writer just discussed the author's work without much emphasising on his bias etc. like you ignore some good or other bad.@Rosguill

Commented here because the talk page is locked. I initially thought actually that the blog actually talks of him being some organisational mouthpiece but rather his content is being discussed not even he is accused of bias or something.

Similarly, UNESCO is mentioned (https://satyaagrah.com/religion/hindu/2820-jantar-mantar) in the same web then we wouldn't automatically make UNESCO a mouthpiece of something. Similarly a large rane for different writers is mentioned per particular favor or view, I see. 2409:40E4:1353:1449:5103:FEAE:49A8:4BA5 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I the same you can see the other academic David Pingree and Nath Sharma which are academically noted too are referenced for his content doesn't automatically make them mouthpiece either. 2409:40E4:1353:1449:5103:FEAE:49A8:4BA5 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to help with The Tempest article, with a view to retaining its good article status.

I have a few questions which I think are within the scope of this noticeboard. I don't remember ever posting here before. I'm not sure whether to add items to this topic as I go along, or to start a new topic for each query, so feel free to give me guidance on that point.

• Firstly, I see that the source for the sentence "The performance was in collaboration with The Imaginarium and Intel, and featured "some gorgeous [and] some interesting" use of light, special effects, and set design.", which is here actually says "As for the innovations, some are gorgeous, some interesting, and some gimmicky and distracting." So my questions are:
  • Is this a reliable source? I'm inclined to think yes.
  • Has it been misquoted? I'm inclined to think that the source is not reflected in the article, where the editor has cherry-picked two positive points and just ignored two negative ones, therefore in effect misrepresenting the source.
  • More meta-, but perhaps more important: Do you agree with me that it's legitimate for me, as a Wikipedia editor - instead of fixing the above - as an editorial decision to simply delete anything that's only referenced to a review of a particular performance, on the grounds that any professional performance of a famous play will inevitably have WP:RS reviews, but that per WP:WEIGHT it's only those performances which are mentioned in academic literature about the play which ought to make it into the article.AndyJones (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondly, is Classical.net a reliable source? Any guidance you want to give me about how to establish that for myself rather than posting here would be gratefully received. AndyJones (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This looks like an WP:EXPERTSPS source. Avoid using it for BLPs. But Michael Nyman is an expert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thirdly, what to do with this: https://archive.org/details/tempest00hirs on which my questions are:
  • Is it a reliable source? I'm leaning towards yes but don't feel I have much to go on.
  • I appreciate this (and various other questions of mine) might have drifted off the usual remit of this board - but here goes:
    • I would challenge aspects of what's been sourced from here. Any thoughts how I can read it for myself to establish what it says?
    • I'm a bit worried that some quite specific points are sourced to a range of about five pages rather than (as I always try to do) specifying the exact page which makes a particular point. Is that red flag? Even if not do you have any thoughts on whether the range should be tighter? AndyJones (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a reliable source. I would not consider a five-page range a red flag as we summarize sources rather than transcribe them. You should be able to borrow that book from Archive.org to read the quote. Otherwise try and interlinear loan. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your first set of questions, yes ut is a RS, yes, it is being slightly misquoted to seem more favorable than the review suggests. The question of due weight for any given performance is outside the scope of this noticeboard and is likely best addressed at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this hasn't come up before (at least my search didn't turn up any mentions beyond this incidental discussion from the other day): in Luisa de Medrano, after the removal of a poor source, there's now a bunch of content sourced to this Google Doodle page (see this edit removing the prior poor source, prompted by this talk page discussion). Thoughts? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way, so it's reliable for the fact Google produced a doodle about a particular subject. I would be less convinced by the blurb that comes with them as Google scraps a lot from Wikipedia. Whether the fact a doodle was produced should or shouldn't be included in any particularly article is a NPOV question rather than reliability (see WP:DUE). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, google doodle came up at Talk:Fatima Sheikh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I happened upon a content dispute at Talk:Ligier European Series where a key source of contention was whether this article qualifies as a press release and should be tagged accordingly. I do agree that even though it might be a press release, it can be used to support uncontroversial information, but I'd like some additional eyes on the matter. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 20:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Here's the actual Ligier press release from back then. Wording at DSC is majorly different, recounts all key points neutrally, and adds information on engine and price of the cars. Dailysportscar is one of the most reputable sportscar publications, founded 2001. The writer, Mat Fernandez, is unaffiliated to Ligier. MSport1005 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add some info from the slides from a talk by one of the Nvidia engineers that works on the Vulkan API about the llama.cpp project. There are two parts to the talk - one is about a new feature he is adding and the other part is an overview of the existing methods/general overview. I want to use the general overview portion of the slides as a source. This is from the Vulkanised 2025 conference organized by Khronos, the developers of the Vulkan API. The speakers are vetted by the group.[79]

I want to make sure that using this source is in line with the following rule:

>Self-published or social media sources are generally not reliable unless the author is a recognized expert

I believe the author is a recognized expert having published in multiple journals in his field (GPU compute), one of which has > 1,000 citations. [80]

The main thing I want to use it for is as a source that llama.cpp uses Vulkan and that it requires at least Vulkan 1.2 specifically. (page 15.) It is not a controversial point, just not listed anywhere else (aside from in the source code itself).

Slides: https://vulkan.org/user/pages/09.events/vulkanised-2025/T47-Jeff-Bolz-NVIDIA.pdf

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG-rxpeLGA8 J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious case of WP:EXPERTSPS. I think the publication requirement is too harsh for software engineering, but even then, this person obviously meets it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess Thanks. In your view, would that apply to material related to the the main topic of the talk as well, ie. the new features, or only to background coverage of existing features? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bolz is one of the guys who invented linear algebra on GPUs (that's the paper with 1000 citations you mentioned). He's also a distinguished engineer at Nvidia, a role which involves representing that company as a subject matter expert in the broader technical world. I would consider him an WP:EXPERTSPS on pretty much anything related to GPUs or high-performance compute as a whole.

The cooperative matrix multiplication API in Vulkan is definitely within Bolz' area of expertise because he created it.[81] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing NPP I cannot find an entry in WP:NSPORT for shooting sports. Is the website at https://esc-shooting.org a reliable source when used as a source for a gold medal in a BLP? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sites a bit weird but it appears to be the official site of the European Shooting Confederation. It's reporting is going to be on its own members, so it should probably be handled as a WP:PRIMARY source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given its current issue with Wikipedia (as can be seen here and here) and it being used as a source in over 1200 articles, I wonder how reliable it can be considered to be? In the RSN archives, I only found this in relation to Le Points reliability, which doesn't exactly look like it would be reliable. I know that bias in itself doesn't make it unreliable, but given the archived discussion, I'm not sure if it can be considered MREL or even GUNREL. Nobody (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:RSBIAS are all going to apply. It's editorials should be handled with caution, as with most editorials (the last discussion was about an editorial).
The fact that Le Point doesn't like us doesn't effect it's reliability. That it's complaining about Wikipedia repeating reporting from other sources, while not complaining about the original reporting, is somewhat typical of news organisations whose bias runs contra to Wikipedia (again bias/opinion etc).
The best way to judge it's reliability would be to find secondary sources that discuss any issues with Le Point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find many discussions online, but what I've found mostly says that: Its factual news reporting seem reliable, but their editorial/opinion pieces have centre-right bias, use circular or biased sources sometimes. Nobody (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials and opinion pieces are only ever reliable for the opinion of the writer, and may not be due for inclusion (that's the WP:RSOPINION part). Whether they're political position is centre-right, right, left, up or down, doesn't effect their reliability (that's the WP:RSBIAS part). As with any source, and particularly news organisation as they tend to publish on short timeline, they may not always be reliable. Mistakes can be made or what is published in one place can be shown to be wrong by other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ActivelyDisinterested. I have never found any reliability issues with Le Point. Users should obviously adhere to the neutral point of view policy, taking care to ensure that content from Le Point constitutes due weight in the article. But the same applies to JDD, which has similarly been dubbed a torchon for purported Islamophobia. I would prefer to not comment on that. I tend to read articles regarding non-contentious topics, and have not noticed any reliability issues which would suggest Le Point is WP:GUNREL. Οἶδα (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia community which Le Point is upset with is entirely separate from that of the English Wikipedia. The Telegraph complains that Wikipedia is biased yet it remains generally reliable, so one would have to look to the specifics of the claims to determine whether they are engaging in distortion of the facts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Le Point is a well-known major news magazine. Like many news magazines, it has a certain degree of political bias (leaning conservative) but it certainly remains generally reliable. Jeppiz (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

A video has been proposed for inclusion on Bernard Etxepare, which has been disputed. Discussion here, now fizzled out with no consensus established. (And in any case, due to the nature of the discussion, it would be useful to get external; eyes of impartial editors here rather than those of us doing the Last Tango on Talk.)

Inclusion is disputed on the grounds that

1. Its provenance is unclear (do the authors/publishers meet RS standards? Apparently they are members of a Wikimedia group or chapter);
2. It appears to merely restate material already contained in the article in breach of MOS:ELNO;
3. Its quality is questionable;
4. There is no indication it has undergone a peer-review;
5. It would fail MOS:IMAGEREL;
6. That WP:NOTYOUTUBE applies.
   Paging discussants: @Theklan, Bastique, Doug Weller, JMF, ObserveOwl, Drmies, and Iñaki LL: Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fortuna, my characterization ("cartoon version of dead person") is a bit out of context here; I went literal to point out just how, eh, different this is from what we regularly expect from reliable sources. I will still maintain that such a video in general and this video in particular should NOT be accepted as a reliable source for article content. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The provenance is perfectly clear. It is at the Commons page, at the description, at the link of the description, and at the Wikidata item associated. Also, the authors of the video are stated, and all the licensing information clear.
2. Adding a video, an image or an audio is not related to MOS:ELNO. Adding an audio with the exact content of an article (Wikipedia:Spoken articles) is encouraged, even if it literally repeat the content of the article. If the information is already contained in the article, then you can't say that it is unrealiable. Adding a video is adding extra content, not an external link.
3. "Its quality is questionable"... why? Did you find anything incorrect, misleading or false? Because that's the main point of saying something is unrealible.
4. The peer-review process is stated in the credits. However, you don't need peer review to add an audio, image or any other media.
5. Adding a video with more content is just what MOS:IMAGEREL mentions. The video is about the topic, and just about that.
6. WP:NOTYOUTUBE is not an official policy.

Theklan (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jusr to save others time, the details of the video that you put on your talk page are:

" The videos are part of the Ikusgela project (as stated at the Commons page). Ikusgela is done by the Basque Wikimedians User Group, in order to provide free education videos that can be used in Wikipedia. You can read more at Ikusgela website and at the Basque Wikipedia site eu:Atari:Hezkuntza/Ikusgela. This video is part of a series about Basque literature, and it's the first one (that's why it has a presentation at the beginning).

The video script was done by Lander Arretxea and Ane Garcia Lopez, both with a literature background (which is the topic of the video). There was an extra pedagogical advisor, a literature professor: Alaitz Urkizu. Animations were made by Peru Isasi, Elba Berganza and, Asier Kortabarria, from Hiru Damatxo. The illustrations were made by Unai Gaztelumendi and the voice by Nerea Arriola. As the video was paid after winning a grant application, it was later reviewed by the pedagogical materials section of the Basque Government, and that's the reason to have a seal of approval and being recommended by the Government as a good material for the topic in their catalog." Doug Weller talk 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A procedural question: the video is not being cited in the article, so how is WP:RS relevant? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's my whole point here. Theklan (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You mentioned MOS:IMAGEREL. Now I know that this is a different issue, but when you discussed this, asking if it was "significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative"? Does it "have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding"?+ - you then said if it did all those we should move on to provenance.

  When an issues crosses more than one policy and guideline I think both need to be discussed at the same venue, otherwise it becomes too confusing. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but it seems to me that reliability as a source is probably the least relevant challenge, so IMO, this is the wrong forum.

  Let's take another example: Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) (Ode to Joy). First, it would be essential to have an audio track of at least the prelude – I can't see any dispute there. The Ode is the anthem of the European Union, so let's say someone tried to add a video of the EU flag being raised with the Ode playing in the background. Would any discussion regarding such a video really be about its reliability as a source? No, it would not. It would be about its relevance [as in MOS:IMAGEREL or its WP:DUEness.

  There are solid grounds to challenge the video but RS is the least of them. Wrong noticeboard. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact I would go so far as to say that Fortuna imperatrix mundi's reference here is time wasting. The discussion at the article talk page did not just fizzle out: the consensus that it did not merit inclusion as an illustration was clear. As I read it, there was also a consensus that it did not merit inclusion in external links, per WP: ELNO. The {{commons}} provided an adequate pointer. So this entire discussion about it RS status is moot (US sense). Why are we even discussing it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the good faith, JMF! I assure you I am not in the business of deliberately wasting anyone's time, particularly my own. Perhaps my choice of words is at fault; but no comment has been made at the talk page for three days. At what point does a discussion fizzle out?! I agree with your conclusions as to the result of the discussion, but closure by a neutral party would draw a line under a discussion that became increasingly adjacent to the topic in hand. Frankly, I'd be more than happy to withdraw this were that to happen! Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  'No further comment for three days and further attempt to re-add it to the article' reads to me rather clearly as acceptance of the consensus, though perhaps reluctantly. Let's leave it at that. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd appreciate a statement about the intent of the video and what the video adds to the article that either cannot be accomplished with text or that is better accomplished with video than text. My impression is that the intended use is contrary to MOS:IMG, which states in part that "Videos should be used as a supplement to article material, to concisely illustrate the subject in a way that a still image or text cannot do. Videos should not replace article text, and articles should remain coherent and comprehensive when video playback is not available" (emphasis added). But maybe I'm wrong about the intent. It also seems rather long for a "concise" illustration. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is a valid point (which I raised at the article talk page) but how is it relevant to a WP:RS challenge? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the intent is to add content, then it matters whether it's an RS. If it's only summarizing content that has already been sourced to RSs, then it can be presumed reliable, but if it's considered an SPS (and I realize that editors don't agree on what "self-published" means), then it even matters whether the creators would meet the EXPERTSPS exception. Both RS and SPS questions are addressed at this noticeboard. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, may I ask: did you find something unreliable in the video? Theklan (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, that is not for us to do; material should stand (and, conversely fall) on the strength of its authors/publishers. It is not enough that it has not been found unreliable; it must be found actually reliable. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't watched the entire thing yet, and I'm not going to yet, as I'd like some more information. A given source can be a reliable source for X and not a reliable source for Y (see WP:RSCONTEXT), so it would help to know what you want to use it to illustrate (the entire article? some specific subset? to add content that isn't in the article?). I see that in the Talk page discussion, you said "the script has been made by Lander Arretxea and Ane García López, both writers of educative content about literature, reviewed by the Basque Government department of Education (you have it in the video) and the award is the Rikardo Arregi Kazetaritza Saria, the most renowned prize on communications in Basque Language." (I cannot read the page you linked to; it doesn't offer an English translation, and my browser's translation function isn't working for that page.) That information suggests that it's likely a reliable source (depending on what it's being used as a source for) and also that it likely wouldn't be considered self-published or would meet the EXPERTSPS exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The video covers the author, why it is relevant to the Basque literature (first printed book), the concept that there was literature before, but it was oral, but within his context (printed press) became possible to print books, so he printed the first book in Basque language. Then, it covers the book, which topics it has, and some of the most known poems, which are popular songs. That's why ite ends with the invitation to dance (@Drmies:), as that's the last verse of the book. So the video is not about an specific section, but about all the article should cover (and it covers in the Basque version). Theklan (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The whole point is that it should be something else that "covers" all of that, something we can obviously trust. A website with an editorial board. An editorial statement from a publishing company or supporting association. The thing itself cannot lend validity to the thing. It's like how Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, but if I record a Wikipedia article and add it as an Spoken Wikipedia file you wouldn't argue about it not being a RS. Theklan (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me explain that the Rikardo Arregi Communications Award is not to this video in particular, but to the whole project. As the video is part of the project, I would like to add how reliability is added to the videos:

  • Most of the videos have University professors or specialists in the making process. For the Philosophy videos this are at least two different professors, who peer-review each other. For the Basque literature and culture videos the supervision is made by also by university professors or advanced researchers (you can see the names in the credits). For the new series called our ancestors the video scripts are supervised by two university professors each, and the people from the Cathedra of Scientific Culture in the University of the Basque Country. They are also part of the publishing process. Some of the videos, especially environment-related are made directly by researches, where they summarize their research topic.
  • Other videos have external partners, like the digital skills series, which is done in co-creation with an institution working on that topic (Badalab)
  • There are other videos, which summarize a topic in 8 facts. These videos are different, as they are summaries of Wikipedia articles, and they give in the video page the script and the references.
  • Nearly all the videos are also reviewed by wikipedians, looking for things that would be problematic as NPOV or copyright.

  The project itself follows the guidelines of the Basque Wikimedians User Group, and they are specifically done to use on Wikipedia, and providing a realiable script is the main goal of the project. Theklan (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion about the validity of adding summary videos at articles is not related, as far as I understand with WP:RS. Summary videos can be a good addition to articles (Carthage#Layout or Persepolis#Construction for two examples I just found), but that's a discussion about the validity of MOS:IMG. If this exact video is not realiable as a supplement to article material, can be discussed. As far as the conversation goes, there is no doubt of the accuracy of the content, as no one has stated anything to claim that the video itself is unreliable. Theklan (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By implication, everyone who has questioned the authority of the authors has also questioned the video's reliability. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theklan It's whether it is from reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That includes the authors. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I copy from the talk page, where this was asked before:

Most audiovisual products are done by people who know about the topic, and other whose expertise is technical, including scripting something for an specific audience. Making videos for students is something difficult, that not everyone could do. I see it as summarizing an article: it needs expertise to capture what's important and what can be left out. In this case, this is one of the best videos made about Etxepare... you would say... [citation needed]. Let me show you: you can go to the official page for education resources in the Basque Country, the one all teachers would go if they need materials to teach something. If you search for Etxepare, you will find some interesting results ([note: this is a Basque surname, so you can find other materials done by people with that surname]). However, the 7th result, and the first video is this one: https://eimakatalogoa.eus/vufind/Record/60132. There you'll find all the autorship data, which age-target is thought for (education curriculum) and two important tags: Curriculumeko baliabideak (curricular resources) and EIMAk onetsitako materialak (materials approved by EIMA [i.e. themselves]). So, if the question is if this material is reliable: well, it is according to the maximum authority in education materials in the Basque Country.

Is this enough to decide if a source is realible? Well, we can have different standards, but I would claim that theirs is high. -Theklan (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who remains concerned should raise it at Commons, not here. The video is no longer used to illustrate the article, let alone used as a citation in support of any text content. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure it represents the official Basque official ire. But should we trust any government’s view. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure why we are assuming that the Basque government is a neutral or independent source. Does it fund the Wikimedia chapter referred to as the video's creators? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that. It also funded these videos, as a grant selected between way more projects. A grant which asks for high standards on education material. You can read about the process here. Is that your problem? Theklan (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be neutral (see WP:ALLOWEDBIAS), the Basque government is not the author, and it's unclear to me whether it's the original publisher. We use government sources all over WP. Government publications are reliable for some things and not others, and the main issue here is whether the content of this particular video is accurate. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find something to untrust the video? Because we have all we need to declare that the video and the project are trustworthy. Can we trust any government? No. Can we trust any University or institution? No. Can we trust a well done, documented and reviewed material? I think we should. Is a Government, University or institution supporting the material as trustworthy a good hint of this realibility? I think so. Theklan (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theklan All governments have political aiims. The government of Indis is dedicated to rewriting history. I’m not saying the Basque government is comparable, just making a point. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. However, this is not a political body decreted by the Government, but a public agency devoted to validation and assessment of education materials. I would say that they are a good source for knowing which materials on Basque literature are good and which are bad. And this is not a video about a topic where you are going to die if you follow some bad advice: we are talking about a well known topic in the Basque education curriculum (the first author to print a book in Basque), and the content of the video is pretty standard.

It's evident that all institutions have bias, also happens at Universities and peer reviewed materials. Is something inherent to the existence of opinions. However, even for the most important topics, we try to build trust on institutions. And if you are looking for learning materials on a topic about Basque culture and literature, it seems that the institutions from the places where this is a curriculum topic will be better than others. Theklan (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further interest in this discussion, I was interested in discussing usefulness of videos in general, not the reliability of a particular video. No need to page me in further related discussions. Thanks. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]