Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391

Futurism, used as a source in Elysium Health, in this diff. I'm leaning not reliable because statement could be seen as promotional ("Elysium’s Scientific Advisory Board includes eight Nobel Laureates"), article has previously been tagged for undisclosed payments, the Futurism article has no author's name, and the Futurism site has no article on Wiki (it is listed at Futurism (disambiguation)). But would welcome more information, thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This particular article has a note at the bottom reading Futurism fans: To create this content, a non-editorial team worked with an affiliate partner. We may collect a small commission on items purchased through this page. This post does not necessarily reflect the views or the endorsement of the Futurism.com editorial staff. This is standard boilerplate similar to the one used by The Verge, a reliable source, to distinguish an ad from a news piece. I would say this article shouldn't be used but as a whole I don't see any problems with the website. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 06:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I hadn't spotted it. I'll remove this particular statement and ref. Tacyarg (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.indiafacts.org.in/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Used to be https://www.indiafacts.org/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The website describes their mission to facilitate empirical, fact-based, and data-driven analyses of the increasingly negative gaze on Hindus and Hinduism. Their about-us page shows one editor (Ramesh Rao) and five advisors. The only notable figure among the advisors is Koenraad Elst (please read our article) whose claim to fame lies in being a far-right Hindutva apologist, pushing fringe revisionist histories, and peddling Islamophobia. Rao, the editor, has been described by other scholars as "one of Hindutva’s most vocal and popular contemporary advocates", a "far-right apologist", and "an admirer of Elst".

The website has not been favorably cited (or discussed) by scholars. One considers it to be part of a Hindutva ecosystem that attacks universities not conforming to the diktats of the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party while another notes the website to have "threaten[ed] secular writers with legal writs".

All that being said, do editors feel that the site pass

@Drmies:, fyi. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming everything you've said is true, it sounds like the "empirical, fact-based, and data-driven analysis" is not being applied, according to scholarly sources, at the very least on the subjects of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindu nationalism. With that said, a source can be unreliable in some topics and reliable in others, like how

WP:NBOOKS, especially considering the concerns raised about Hindu nationalist bias. casualdejekyll

19:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@

Casualdejekyll: There's hardly any coverage of the site by scholars or MSM except for the citations, I located. So, there is nothing specific (positive or negative) about their book reviews, in particular. I like your approach and note that the book-under-question is itself in the fringe Hindu-Right territory. TrangaBellam (talk

) 06:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like it would count for

WP:NBOOKS, then. casualdejekyll

14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.laweekly.com/joseph-carrillo-creates-new-genre-of-studio-album/
• https://guardian.ng/life/ultimate-celebrity-blackout-how-joseph-carrillo-came-up-with-genre-bending-studio-album/

At first I thought those were spoof sites, but no, those are the actual

LA Weekly's "guest author" and guardian.ng's "editor" seem like thinly veiled admissions of paid material - I'd say instead of getting rid of them entirely a better course of action would be to restrict them to only articles with a real byline. There's also the fact that LA Weekly has gone through multiple changes of ownership - perhaps pre/post owner change makes a difference. casualdejekyll 22:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see "guest author" anywhere at the LA Weekly piece. The byline is just "Written in collaboration with Pau Castillo". Yes, "Written in collaboration with" is part of the author's name. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see it explicitly called out in the article either. I did see this in the LAWeekly policies, FEES: The Site may impose a fee on the posting of Content in certain areas of the Site. Users uploading Content to fee-based areas are responsible for such Content and for compliance with these Terms. Under no circumstances will the Site provide a refund in the event that Content is removed from fee-based areas for violation of these Terms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to www.laweekly.com/guest-author/written_in_collaboration_with_pau_castillo/, but I'm realizing now that that's kind of unclear. casualdejekyll 14:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait, you mean to tell me they're not an a list celebrity? There are a number of services and people online who will get an article published on a number of publications like these. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thehitavada.com/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

https://www.ehitavada.com/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The Hitvada is used as a source a lot of times. But how much reliable can it be considered? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

For the uninitiated like me, the publication appears to be a century-old newspaper and (hence) passes NEWSORG easily. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Any journal out of India that has "international" in the name is suspect. Unfortunately, this fits into the pattern.

This now-defunct monthly journal appears to have been the endeavors of a Ph.D. student from Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, who is listed as the lone editor; note that the address for correspondence is a hostel room! It is not clear when the magazine shut down but it had been never included in the white-list of non-predatory journals maintained by University Commission of India or any other international bibliographic database of repute. A single article from its dozens of issues has been cited by other scholars.

To summarize, the publication appears to be more of a student magazine than a peer-reviewed journal. So, I ask the participants of this thread about whether they agree with my assessment and whether the publication can be treated as RS. Thank you! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Given the nature of the magazine, it appears to be student run (the hostel address looks to be on campus),

it may be better to look at the reliability of the author's than the magazine as a whole. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This WP:BLP violation claims that Curtis Yarvin has been described as a modern-day supporter of slavery. Two sources are given, neither of which names a specific observer, nor provides quotes from Yarvin's writings, nor describes a specific event. This seems slanderous. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180310152947/http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_29730782/controversy-surrounds-speaker-curtis-yarvin-at-boulder-programming Article: Curtis Yarvin

content:

He has been described as a modern-day supporter of slavery, a description he disputes.

I removed the material and other editors reverted. sbelknap (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So, probably libelous rather than slanderous, but best to leave the defamation talk aside. It certainly seems as if he has been described that way, but more context would likely be good thing--say, from this Vox piece. Cheers, Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

All of this is about a 2018 controversy with a speaking engagement. It's phrased in the article as if it's an ongoing label by high level sources. The Daily Camera is small. Vox has been decided to be a "partisan source in the field of politics." So these are not great for such a contentious label. Really this should be phrased as a controversy which petered out. EDIT: sorry it looks like it was 2016. Nweil (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If Yarvin has "been described this way" why do we not learn from these sources who did the describing? Anonymous sources are not appropriate for an outrageous claim in a biography of a living person. sbelknap (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Can I get an objective pair of eyes on this site with regards to propriety of use in the BLP at Monica Witt. It feels like original research (an employee's anecdotes), and have removed it for the moment out of an abundance of caution. Thanks for any help! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The source is basically advertising spiel for a business, written by an employee of the company doing the advertising. I'd don't see any reason to doubt what amounts to personal recollections, but with a BLP it's probably best to use a much better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That was my same intuition, yes. Thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Would some you folks who regularly contribute here and are knowledgeable about reviewing sites please take a look at this one and give an opinion on whether or not it could be used as a source? Thanks - wolf 01:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, it does have an editor,[24] a corrections policy,[25] and I easily found an example of an issued correction,[26] so it looks pretty decent at first glance. What were you looking to use it for though? Cause it all really depends on what exactly the source says and how exactly it's used on Wikipedia. The site appears to have a narrow focus, mainly covering super hero franchises, so it's likely to report details on a level beyond what's appropriate for Wikipedia, and carry less

WP:WEIGHT than broader outlets. Siawase (talk

) 08:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I used this report from The Direct, along with 3 others, to add content about the poor box office performace of the superhero film

stymieing the discussion process by continually focusing on the relibility of this ref. The report itself appears correct and is inline with several other RS, and as the site has the features we look for, I decided to use it and belive it should be able to be used. I came here hoping to put that point of the dispute to rest. Thanks - wolf

15:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. It looks pretty good to me, though as usual, I personally know nothing of its reputation. That said, for something like this in its core area and something that does not appear particularly contentious or freighted, I would think it's an appropriate source to use. Just an opinion from a guy who should be working! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That article at thedirect has been updated to include the contradictory reporting from deadline (guess they really are good with updates/corrections) so it could no longer be used to unambiguously call the film a bomb. This seems like a case of

WP:RSBREAKING where it's probably better to wait for the dust to settle. Siawase (talk

) 19:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate it, but I didn't really want to focus on a single content dispute. This article aside, I just wanted to enquire about the general reliability of the site, and see if anyone here found any reason it could be considered unreliable. Thanks again - wolf 19:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think thedirect.com is generally reliable in its coverage of popular culture, and would have no qualms about using it to support a claim in that field. BD2412 T 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Pages on this website are currently used as sources or external links in several articles, such as belief, sexism, Karl Popper, terms for Syriac Christians, Militia Act of 1903, and season.

The site has been used in various corners of Wikipedia since WP's early days, probably because it hosts a lot of information on a wide variety of subjects such as philosophy, history, and language and was a handy resource back in the 2000s, when not nearly so many academic RSes were available online. But despite presenting itself as the proceedings of a philosophical "school", it is clearly the work of one man, a retired community college philosophy professor who is prone to adding new and tangential political polemics to long-standing pages, so a page that Wikipedia cites today might end up with a rant added to it tomorrow. (The current fourth and fifth paragraphs of the site's front page demonstrate this pattern.)

This site is certainly an

• Yeah, this is a
  WP:FRINGE. Google Scholar shows single-digit-to-no citations for his works, a red flag that this isn't a widely-respected mainstream source. --Jayron32
  13:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Non-expert SPS, should be gently shown the door. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I cited this source code as a reference for the page about

In general, you should not do this, though the link to the source code may be an acceptable link. The only time I would see the source code being a reference would be if it were like additional material prepared as part of a published peer-review paper as the origin of the algorithm, but even then, an external link would be better there. Masem (t) 01:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:OR right? Because there's no paper on a VQT bandwidth calculation that exactly follows this JavaScript source code being cited as references on the CQT page. 180.253.8.202 (talk

) 02:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be cited as a source. Masem (t) 02:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Back then when I was expanding the article about

WP:DE (pinging Masem to make sure no misunderstandings). 180.253.8.202 (talk

) 02:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're citing source code directly, then you can only use it to support claims that non-experts can understand from looking at the code.

Code like this:

main( ) {

extrn a, b, c;

putchar(a); putchar(b); putchar(c); putchar(’!*n’);

} 1 ’hell’;

b ’o, w’;

c ’orld’;

is not going to be an acceptable source for a statement like "The first

putchar input/output system." WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Is the Turkish-language Bilgitopya generally reliable? This page has been used to support this statement at Nagihan Karadere. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I am depending on the Google translation of the site to English, I don't think it is reliable, and certainly not for a BLP. The "About" page indicates that it is a group blog created less than 18 months ago, and run by a small group of friends. Although it states that the writers are subject-matter experts and that there is editorial oversight, all of the authors and editors are anonymous, so it is impossible to confirm the accuracy of that statement. I doubt that the material cited is at all controversial, but there must be a better source to confirm that the person participated in a popular reality TV series.
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 21:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've removed it and added some other sources which I hope are better. Tacyarg (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU) has not shown the chapter to be written in Gillum's own words, if they had we would not be having this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not what you said earlier, Horse Eye's Back. I wrote "Gary Gillum himself wrote the portion that I cited, but there wasn't a good way for me to show that in the citation template." Then we continued the discussion. And I believe the argument, which I thought was interesting, still applies. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm missing the part where you provided a WP:RS which confirms that the chapter was written in Gillum's own words. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. The only source we have to prove that the chapter is, in fact, quoting Gillum's words, is the book itself. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A book which we both agree is not a reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

For our reference, can you link to the source or provide the bibliographic information? It may qualify under

WP:ABOUTSELF or maybe not; it would help to be able to assess the source directly. --Jayron32

17:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, its this book[27] about Mormon near-death experiences used to argue for the existence of the Mormon heaven as described in their scriptures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Chapter 18 on "Personal Revelation" presents the experiences of Gary Gillum and Joe Swick in their own words. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Here through reading the thread on Rachel Helps's talk page. The only content I can see that was sourced to the book was the sentence "Gillum's third marriage ended in divorce." That doesn't seem overly controversial and self-serving, and I don't see a reason why it can't be sourced to an interview with the subject if other sources can't be found. ~Awilley (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The phrase which started the conversation was "In 1963 Gillum had a near-death experience after a car accident. He saw an intensely colorful place and felt that he had a choice to return to his body or not. His spine was fractured and he had internal injuries, but he recovered." Fringe claims are generally viewed as both controversial and unduly self serving. The source also isn't an interview per say, its supposedly based on an interview but that's not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I *think* this could be altered to make everything that isn't verifiable a claim by changing "He saw an intensely colorful place..." to "He said he saw an intensely colorful place..." I'm not sure that it alters the argument, but perhaps is a slightly better way to use the source?Naraht (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not see that text. If that is to be in the article it should be rewritten as, "Gillum wrote that in 1963 he had a near-death experience after a car accident. He said he saw an intensely colorful place and felt that he had a choice to return to his body or not. His spine was fractured and he had internal injuries, but he recovered."

WP:SAID ~Awilley (talk

) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Gillum didn't write it, Gibson did based on an interview they apparently conducted with Gillum. "Gibson wrote that Gillum told him that in 1963 he had a near-death experience after a car accident. According to Gibson he said he saw an intensely colorful place and felt that he had a choice to return to his body or not. He said his spine was fractured and he had internal injuries, but he recovered." would be accurate but that doesn't work without the source being a WP:RS which it isn't. Its a work of religious pseudoscience. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that it is a reliable source as a primary source about Gillum's own experience and what Gillum tells us about himself (that he had a near-death experience in 1963 after a car accident and that he and his third wife divorced). I don't consider it evidence for the claim that one religion is more legitimate than another. I consider it similar to an interview on a blog. I took photos of the seven pages of the chapter in question and am happy to email them to any interested parties (they are through Google photos, which is blacklisted). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean what Gillum tells Gibson about himself? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The core of the book is arguing that these NDE are in conformity with Mormon religious beliefs, no? I don't think its possible to read the text in a way which doesn't advance the claim that one religion is more legitimate than the others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• A couple of points. First, I don't have access to the book or excerpts, so I have no idea whether the passage in question was written by Gillum or the author. That may not matter either way. Second, I have serious questions about whether the source is reliable. The author's profile states that he is an engineer by education and profession, and that near death experiences are his hobby, as it were. The publisher appears to be a specialty publisher that only publishes works on Mormon religious matters, and from all appearances is run out of a modest private home in suburban Salt Lake City. The publisher's president is Dwayne S. Crowther, another author of religious books. I have no idea if it is some kind of vanity press or not, but it is highly suspect, and not the kind of source that I would use for a BLP. Third, as for
  Banks Irk (talk
  ) 20:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm fine to leave it out, but I am curious about the implications for other interviews (since many podcasts are essentially self-published by someone who is not the subject of the interview). I have used podcast interviews as sources for a handful BLPs, but it sounds like it depends on the perceived reliability of the podcast itself? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is not a podcast, the difference is with a podcast we can be fairly certain that the words are the subject's its just the editing that can be problematic. With a written one we don't know that either the words or the editing is an accurate reflection of reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The only time an interview can't be used is to establish notability. Outside of that, and unless the subject has publicly stated the interview contains false information or misrepresents them somehow regarding the information in question, it's perfectly acceptable to use content from an interview as a source for facts, comments, or other information within the article. HEB needs to stop beating this very dead horse. To sum up: Interviews can't be used to establish notability, but they are generally acceptable outside of that as sources for facts in the article. ···
  Join WP Japan
  ! 18:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Clearly that's not true because interviews can be fabricated, for instance I just posted an interview on my blog with the Wikipedian Nihonjoe and in that interview they said that we can't use this sort of source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Now you're being facetious. If you actually did do that, then it would be false. Interviews have long been used as sources in all sorts of articles here about people, companies, and so on. They can't be used to establish notability, but they are often used for simple facts about a topic. Generally speaking, though, personal blogs (such as yours, if you even have one) are not considered reliable. ···

Join WP Japan

! 20:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And reliability wise the difference between a personal blog and the book in question here is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's already been addressed by others, above. ···

Join WP Japan

! 20:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused, those others appear to be saying that the book is an unreliable source. From a reliability standpoint they're both unreliable sources, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Reeling back some of this, I dont see where the facts that @Rachel Helps (BYU) is trying to add are in dispute. This isn't contentious, it's not politics. This is nitpicking about inane technicalities. I think the book is fine for the sources as sources on themselves material. Nweil (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I expect that the article will end up being deleted, but I'm inclined to agree with @Nweil here. Someone had an experience. He, a religious person, attributes it to his religious beliefs; an atheist experiencing the same thing would attribute it to the weird and wonderful ways that the human brain responds to suboptimal conditions, especially hypoxia. We shouldn't be censoring the fact that he had a bog-standard Near-death experience (bright colors, feeling of floating, choice to live or die) just because he constructed a religious explanation for his experience.

  I think in this instance it is particularly relevant to include this experience because it seem to explain the main narrative arc of his life: He was raised Lutheran, he had a near-death experience in 1963 that he said aligned better with Mormonism than with Lutheranism, he converted to Mormonism in 1969, and he worked in LDS-related jobs ever since. Next up, we censor the Conversion of Paul the Apostle, because it's just some guy saying that he had a life-changing religious experience involving bright lights, and you really can't put that sort of "fringe popular religious" stuff in a serious encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  It would be a BLP violation for us to invent a narrative arc to a person's life which isn't found in a WP:RS. If we had no WP:RS for the Conversion of Paul the Apostle we would not cover it, does that argument mean something special to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are we allowing the use of Ghostarchive for citations in Wikipedia? According to the Wayback Machine, ghostarchive.org is barely over one year old. There's not even an article on Wikipedia about Ghostarchive, yet there are already over 66,000 wiki articles containing citations with it. With a website that young, how do we have any prediction that Ghostarchive will still be around even next year (after hundreds of thousands more wiki articles are using it)? Isn't this a potential maintenance nightmare? There is no information on the website nor in their terms of service to indicate who owns or operates it (List of Web archiving initiatives indicates it has 1 employee). Editors have been using Ghostarchive for their citations for sources that are new and extant on the internet. Thoughts? Grorp (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Not the right forum. Ghost is not a source it's a

web archive. -- GreenC

01:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC: It would be more helpful if you would direct me to where better to post this concern. After wading through all the various noticeboards and help 'places', this is where I thought it was best presented. Do you have an alternative suggestion, GreenC? Grorp (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In such cases, I could try the

Wikipedia:Village Pump for a start. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎}

) 10:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Grorp

how do we have any prediction that Ghostarchive will still be around even next year 1 year ago someone said that as well. People say the same thing about archive.today due to the Russian war, and Archive.org because of the copyright lawsuit.

The site will not last forever and no website on the internet will. Webcite lasted ~15 years before it went. Bigger companies that have lasted for longer have fell. And there are many videos uploaded in 2006 on youtube that are simply just gone.

There is no information on the website nor in their terms of service to indicate who owns or operates it Wikipedia largely consists of editors that don't give out their names. So I never really understood why it matters for archive site owners.

Ghostarchive is able to archive sites that archive.org can't reach or is simply unable to process. Thank you JMF. If you look at the make up of the Ghostarchive links, it is either Instagram/Facebook, Youtube, or paywalled news sources. With the exception of recently Youtube, web.archive.org has difficulty archiving these. Hence where archive.today/ghostarchive.org comes in. People use ghostarchive alongside the Wayback machine, not as a replacement for the wayback machine. For many of the citations, its either archive.today and ghostarchive.org, or nothing. Would you rather have nothing?

Questions like "why not use web.archive.org instead of ghostarchive.org" miss the entire point. Rlink2 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, Ghost uses a technical solution https://Webrecorder.net no one else has (other than https://conifer.rhizome.org/ ) making it great for sites like Facebook that have elements that require click through to view. It does have a niche. And archives die sometimes none are immune. My dealings with the owner of Ghost were very positive he seemed trustworthy, reliable, technically astute and committed --- GreenC 21:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: No, what's missing is a writeup in Wikipedia-space guiding editors to which archives to use for which functionality, instead of berating me, or GreenC kneejerk reacting on me for "wrong forum" (though he civilly answered for the earlier similar archive.today topic on this same board). All these answers above are great, but unless and until someone compiles them and makes them available for editors to read and understand, they'll be buried in the noticeboard archives in a few days and this query will be asked again by another. Grorp (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the more suspicious it all looks. GreenC has written that he has connected with the owner of Ghostarchive and personally spoken many times with the owner of Archive.today.

In January 2022, the community raised concerns about Rlink2's speed and volume of edits and perhaps a COI connection to "alternative archive sites". Rlink2 promised to "slow down" and to NOT use alternative archive sites, and yet today they are still adding numerous Ghostarchive.org links to Wikipedia each day, several per minute. Combined with the copyright violation risk, I would say this practice needs a new looking at by administrators or the community.

Grorp (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"And GreenC added the Ghostarchive section to

WP:WAYBACKMEDIC and InternetArchiveBot where new providers show up. I'm also the original author of WP:List of web archives on Wikipedia so of course I maintain it. I am also a disclosed employee of Internet Archive ie. the WaybackMachine, which should give you pause that I am in a conspiracy with archive.today and Ghostarchive. These are non-profit entities, we work together to do what is best for Wikipedia and sometimes it requires communications. If you look at the percentages, archive.today and ghost combined make up probably less than 5% of all archive links on enwiki, I don't see how anyone is going to get upset with that, indeed might wonder why so few. As for Copyright, this is a long term known issue that effects every archive provider including Wayback. Anyway suggest assuming good faith a little more. -- GreenC

02:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Grorp

(Edit Conflict)

kneejerk reacting on me for "wrong forum" I saw nothing wrong with his reply. I think he was just being succient and to the point.

Rlink2 promised to "slow down" And I did. Quite significantly, as a matter of fact.

and yet today they are still adding numerous Ghostarchive.org links to Wikipedia each day I actually started this run 3 days ago. Before that i was doing a PDF run that was all web.archive.org. So not every day. The vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with ghostarchive. And a significant portion have nothing to do with archival at all.

If a website requires a subscription to read their copyrighted content, then it is a violation of their copyright to go around the paywall and offer up the information to everyone for free Usually the paywalls work by having the information embedded in the page response, but just hiding it. So it is like a "fake paywall". It doesn't bypass the paywall on purpose, it is rather a side effect of archiving the page. If you use reader mode on your phone the same effect would have been achieved. Regardless they all work with DMCA so if a publisher wants their page removed, they can easily do so, I believe.

a potential close connection You forgot to reference the portions where both me and GreenC also said we had communicated with the Internet Archive. GreenC also works for the IA as stated above. All of these websites are free. Ghostarchive.org doesn't have ads on it, nor do they even ask for donations. Archive.today has ads now but I think its because of the Russian Ukraine war, before that there were no ads.

If you look at the percentages, archive.today and ghost combined make up probably less than 5% of all archive links on enwiki, I honestly find it amsuing that so much lines of text have been written about these two websites, yet it isn't even significant on enwiki. All this time talking about websites which already have wide acceptance could be used to write 50 FAs and maybe 20 GAs (Good articles) to go with it.

a very strong copyright violation risk by using any links to a specific archive article that had pierced a paywall in any manner. I believe this has also been talked about. Rlink2 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Just because a computer program can get around a paywall, or even accidentally get around a paywall, doesn't reduce/mitigate the actual copyright violations taking place. There is a world of difference between a human using an internet browser in reader mode and being able to see an article ordinarily behind a paywall and a computer program scooping up a copy and permitting it to be displayed to anyone on the internet, on demand, in perpetuity.

Though I didn't know GreenC had anything to do with Archive.org and now see their disclosure, I don't see any similar disclosure on your User page. I seem to recall several others asking you directly if you had any relationship or COI with Ghostarchive or Archive.today, but several times you sidestepped their direct questions while never quite denying it. I'm not going to try reading that megathread in full to ensure I am precise, but that was the gist I got when I read some of it earlier, and your lack of clarification on this thread tells me there wasn't any such disclosure or denial then, either. Grorp (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Grorp

Just because a computer program can get around a paywall, or even accidentally get around a paywall, doesn't reduce/mitigate the actual copyright violations taking place. The computer program is not "getting around" the paywall. If someone gives you a page with invisible ink, and you find a way to make it visible, is there anything wrong with that?

There is a world of difference between a human using an internet browser in reader mode and being able to see an article ordinarily behind a paywall and a computer program scooping up a copy and permitting it to be displayed to anyone on the internet, on demand, in perpetuity. Reader mode can be used at any time so they are the same thing. In fact reader mode is way easier to use than archives, and it comes bundled with the browser so the existence of that is worse than an archive.

I don't see any similar disclosure on your User page. All I said was that I talked to the owners of the site. I didn't say I was paid by them or I worked for them. Even then, how is that a bad thing? Others pointed this out too. You started out by saying "we shouldn't use this site because we don't know the owners", yet when people do actually try to find more info about them you are also complaining. Using your logic, you would have an COI with Amazon because you talked to their customer support once.

Even on the COI page it states under "Practices not regarded as COI": Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. (emphasis is mine)

So what you are describing as a COI, isn't even a COI. How would this supposed relationship be a bad thing?

By your same logic, anyone who is intrested in Addison Rae and edits her Wikipedia article is automatically connected with Addision Rae.

while never quite denying it. I flat out said I didn't work for any of the archive sites (not even in an unpaid manner). Rlink2 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Myself and many others have known Rlink2 for a while. He is not an undisclosed COI. It's not a crime to add links to non-Wayback providers. My impression is don't like these sites for whatever reasons is your real concern. The question is why so much dislike when they make up such a small number overall, and provide niche services. -- GreenC 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

is anyone familiar with (or willing to look at) the Aswang Project as a source for Philippine mythology? I think the About Us page, while somewhat casually stated, might amount to a statement of authorship and an editorial policy. My issue is simply that I am not certain that it's an authoritative source, and while I am somewhat interested, I don't want to sink a lot of copy-editing into a page that has accuracy problems, and the page does cite the source at least three times. Any thoughts appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I see 50 results when I search the

WP:SELFPUB

. I'm not sure the few posts that have another author should be considered differently, since the editorial policy isn't clear.

And while the about page mentions Clark having edited a book, at the Amazon link[30] the publisher is listed as "The Aswang Project" so this would be self-published as well, so Clark is not qualified as a subject matter expert per Wikipedia's policies.

One of the other authors, Daniel De Guzman, appears to have published only fiction and is not an expert per Wikipedia criteria either. Siawase (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Recently, in the WP article about Croatia, I added new information about the Croatian rulers, which was missing in that article and therefore the article was incomplete. Wikipedia member Miki Filigranski rejected my edits based on his opinion that my sources are not reliable. The reason he gave is this: revert, good faith but badly edited with unreliable sources. I believe that it was not about bad editing, but about adding new and unknown historical data to the article about Croatian history, based on verified and reliable sources of information. I also think that before such an action, a discussion should have been started on the talk page and a consensus of other editors of the article should have been sought, which was not done. That being said, I started a discussion on the talk page and got this response from him to my remarks: Before making major edits please read WP:RS and other related editing policies on citation style, editing style and so on. Most of these and possibly even all of them cannot be considered as reliable because exist more credible and reliable, actual, historiographical sources. Other articles from Wikipedia aren't sources for citation, while Croatian Wikipedia is known for having low-average quality. Anyway, this kind of articles should have only an abstract, basic and most relevant information in their section, while those which scope is only history must have more information. In this regard, I can state the following: 1. Before starting the work, I was informed about the Wikipedia rules and I am clear about the importance of the reliability of the source, and I pay attention to that in my Wikipedia work. 2. So far I have edited several Wikipedia articles and there have been no objections to my writing or editing style 3. My sources of information for this article are from Croatian national, state and historical sites and are therefore reliable 4. There are no pages on the Internet about Croatian history in the Croatian language that are more reliable for Croatian history 5. I did not use another Wikipedia page as a source for my article 6. I don't understand what relevance the quality of the Croatian Wikipedia has to the article on the English Wikipedia 7. I believe that my text contained only abstract, basic and most relevant information about Croatian history

My sources: [31]https://web.archive.org/web/20170901042156/http://www.hupi.hr/povijest/glave.html [32]http://www.hrvatskarijec.rs/vijest/A20818/Hrvatski-knezovi-i-kraljevi/ [33]https://sites.google.com/site/republikahrvatska1232/hrvatski-vladari-i-njihove-vladavine

Article: Croatia

WP:DIFF https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatia&diff=1122945641&oldid=1122945062 DanielCro (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

After talking with Miki Filigranski, I accepted part of his arguments and would like to add some more sources for review and ask for your opinion:

[1]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=15823

[2]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=37767

[3]https://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=62489

It is about the Croatian encyclopedia, a very credible source in my opinion, and I believe that very important Croatian rulers are mentioned, significant for Croatian history, and that they should be included in the wikipedia article about Croatia due to their relevance and importance. DanielCro (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

In general, a good encyclopedia can be a good source, but on WP,

WP:PST. In our terminology, the history books are secondary sources and the encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 12:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like you are both acting in good faith, and at least trying to do things the right way. Have patience and keep discussing potential sources on the article’s talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@

So, my opinion is that as soon as Musk changed the blue checkmark system to a pay service, and stopped actual identity verification, then all bets are off on the trustworthiness of Twitter "official" accounts. Basically, for $8, anybody can pretend to be an "official" account and tweet anything they want. Whatever limited utility Twitter had as a primary source for

WP:ABOUTSELF-type statements is entirely out the window, and we should no longer user Twitter for anything. --Jayron32

13:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed entirely, though since we have already seen that and there's so much turmoil, I would argue we should treat that as immediately effective. It can be revisited in the future if there's a reason to do so. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that system has now ended and only lasted about a week? — Czello 14:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Czello, that seems to be the case, but Musk has said it will return. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We can only deal with what is, which is (as Czello pointed out) we're back under the old rules regarding verified accounts. I'd just chalk it up to Uncle Elon trying an experiment which didn't work. Now should things change down the road, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. But until we get to that bridge (should it reemerge), we should just keep going as we've been going - it's all we can do. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Vjmlhds -- I certainly understand this approach, but I would respectfully disagree. To my mind, sites aren't reliable until they show themselves as unreliable, it's the other way around. We sort of presume unreliability unless we can check off the factors at

WP:RS. That said, Twitter used to be reliable in certain limited circumstances, but then very much lost that reliability during the initial blue check chaos. Has it regained its previous reliability? I don't think we can assume that. Are there some remaining inconsistencies from that time? Who knows? For me, Twitter lost its reliability and I have yet to see a reason we should assume it. As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 15:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, while I do understand your point, you can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. Whatever one feels about Musk, it can't change the facts of the situation at hand, which are that after a brief foray in a new format, the original format (which had long been accepted as reliable) has returned. Can't play the "it was reliable then, but not now" game, because that opens Pandora's Box to where any source which is usually deemed as reliable, can be questioned based on the eye of the beholder. As long as the traditional Twitter rules are in place, we should just proceed as normal. If Uncle Elon changes things up again, we can always revisit this conversation. But for now, the best course is to let sleeping dogs lie. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Vjmlhds -- I promise to stop belaboring this, and I realize consensus may well be against me, which is fine. I just want to note that I wouldn't say it was purely in the "eye of the beholder," but I guess my thinking would be "wait and reevaluate after major disruptions." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As it stands any account that has the This account is verified because it is notable in... should be considered reliable for aboutself comments. If it becomes impossible to tell the difference between paid checkmarks and non-paid checkmarks, then it will no longer be reliable for such facts. Anything from non-verified (check marked) accounts should be considered unreliable, whatever happens. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what twitter does, if Foo company links to their Twitter page then it's clear intent that the Twitter account is run by the company and usable with all the traditional caveats. Slywriter (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

True, but for individuals it might become more of an issue. They don't tend to have official websites that can confirm their official Twitter account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @HHH Pedrigree on the main point: If no independent reliable source thinks that naming referees is important, then Wikipedia shouldn't, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not the job of "independent reliable sources" to decide what is or isn't notable/important. Their job is to verify statements made. If we as editors say ABC is XYZ, our job is to then find a reliable source to verify it. The purpose of the source is to back up the claim made by the editor. It is not the job of the source to decide if something is notable/important or not, just if that a claim is true or not. Notability and importance are in the eye of the beholder, as one's parameters may not be the same as another. There is no outside source that can say if so-and-so is notable, important, or not, because there is no outside source whose job it is to be the all-knowing arbiter of notability/importance. As an example, Dave Meltzer is a good source if you want to know if Mr. X is a referee in Impact Wrestling. It isn't Meltzer's job to decide if Mr. X is notable or not. I think the collective we as Wikipedia editors sometimes get into a bad habit of trying to apply Wiki guidelines to things that are outside of Wiki's boundaries. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, if you want to get rid of Impact's referees, then you'd better do the same to WWE and AEW (and any other article that list a company's referees as well). Can't pick and choose which promotion's referees are notable or not since they all do the same job. And getting back to the main point that started this whole shebang, if you are a referee for a wrestling promotion that airs on national TV every week, that makes you notable anyway because of the job you have and the exposure you get from said job. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the policy that primarily controls what is important enough to include in an article:

• "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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."
• "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Note the absence of any policies that say anything like "you can put ABC is XYZ in an article, as long as you can find any reliable source to verify it". There's even a whole section at WP:V that's titled Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

The article-writing process is to first read good sources, and then decide what to put in the article; it is not to put whatever "claim made by the editor" you feel like having in an article, and then find a source to back it up.

I also suspect that you will want to spend a while contemplating the principle behind

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But to answer your implied question, if the only reliable sources that mention any referees' names for any of these articles is a self-published, non-independent source, then I'd be happy to see them all removed. OTOH, if one business's refs get talked about in reliable sources and another one business's refs don't get talked about, then we talk about the refs in the first article and not the second. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 02:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The dirty little secret about Wiki policies is that there are so many of them, they wind up cancelling each other out, because they all find a way to contradict each other, and then we wind up in discussions like this, where we the editors through consensus basically get to make things up as we go along. When you strip out all the Wiki-ese, it's all pretty much the time honored tradition of throwing enough stuff up against the wall and hoping something sticks. I also get his feeling if Uncle Elon didn't buy his shiny new toy and upset the apple cart, we wouldn't be here even having this discussion. What that boils down to is this...Musk - by virtue of designing electric cars and rockets in his day job - has a bit of a mad scientist streak in him. He took his new toy in his lab, performed a week long experiment, and it didn't work, so he gave it an antidote and it went back to normal. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this has only become an issue recently. Not just with Twitter as a source, but the referees thing as a whole. It seems like a bit of a one man crusade, honestly. I also feel like people as of late are doing a lot more to try and keep information off here than put information here. I feel like we're doing things in reverse order to how they'd make sense to a normal person.

Specifically, if I see Referee X on TV show 1 every week, their Twitter indicates "Yo, I work here," that should be it. Instead this entire argument seeks based off of "I'm dubious about the statement Referee X made about their place of employment, they say they work for the company on Twitter, but I'm trying to question that for some reason, because I don't watch the weekly show they appear on you need to prove to me as someone who doesn't watch that you're correct, I'm gonna keep shifting goalposts." Why are we looking for reasons to argue against established fact? I can't work out the point in that. If Referee X is on TV for Company 1 every week and their Twitter which is considered a credible source per WP: Twitter says the same, that's established fact, not something which requires "Nope, not good enough because... I say it isn't."

And we've had the notability of people debate. You simply do not have a match without a referee. By that train of "logic," there's no point in having wrestlers there either. SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say I don't understand why we have an article for

WP:LISTN, as clearly no sources are talking about this subject as a whole. You'll find sources talking about the company, individual people, and probably a list of all of the active wrestlers, but if we are having to go down as far as individual people's own tweets about themselves, is this even a topic that warrants retaining? I feel like this has had a bit of a scope creep from just covering which wrestlers should appear at shows. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 19:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Kamikaze Hearts (film)
• Source in question

This article uses a source called The Cultural Gutter for reviews in the critical response section:

L.A. Weekly wrote in 1986, "drags you to a certain place — the world of lesbian-junkie porn stars — and keeps you there for 80 minutes. If you’re excited by that place, or even if you find that place disturbing, you’ll like this film because it’s so relentlessly inside the world of naked bodies, make-believe, addiction, despair, two-bit sleaze and two-bit dreams."

Johnathan Rosenbaum in the Chicago Reader described the film as "Alternately distressing, instructive, contestable, and fascinating".

MartinPoulter and I both have voiced concerns over TCG’s reliability, and there hasn’t been any discussion about it here before, so that’s why I’m coming here. Two questions:

1) Does this source work for backing up the two statements I’ve shown?

2) There is more information in the source than has been used in the article. Should editors continue expanding the article with information from this source? ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Cultural Gutter as a book:

• https://culturalgutter.com/sponsors/
• https://press.etc.cmu.edu/index.php/product/the-cultural-gutter/
• https://www.amazon.com/dp/0557958393
• https://books.google.com/books?id=nulfAgAAQBAJ
• https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Borden%2C%20Carol
• https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/The_Cultural_Gutter/6686945/1
• www.l u l u.com/shop/carol-borden-and-chris-szego-and-ian-driscoll-and-james-schellenberg/the-cultural-gutter/paperback/product-14521662.html

you could contact the public libraries where the quoted sources are published, for photos of the 1986 microfilm

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Page watchers needed, please. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been much debate on whether or not Radio Free Asia is a reliable source of information. Some have argued that its close connection to the US government and the CIA makes it inherently biased and therefore not a credible source.

Critics of Radio Free Asia point to its funding, which comes largely from the US government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The BBG is an independent federal agency that is responsible for overseeing the United States' non-military international broadcasting. Critics argue that because the BBG is funded by the US government, it is not impartial and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source of information.

Additionally, there are concerns about Radio Free Asia's close connection to the CIA. The CIA has a long history of using media outlets as a way to disseminate propaganda and advance its own agenda. This has led some to question the credibility of the information provided by Radio Free Asia, as it is likely that the CIA has some level of influence over the content that is produced.

In light of these concerns, it is clear that Radio Free Asia cannot be considered a reliable source of information. Its close ties to the US government and the CIA make it inherently biased and susceptible to being used as a tool for propaganda. For this reason, it should be banned as a source on Wikipedia. 2A01:598:89F3:7D41:FC9A:495B:8D48:E0DF (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There was a well-attended RfC last year which produced the current status. If you think that something has changed or if there are arguments which were not made then, you can open a new RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 11:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable accurately describes this
  Highly reputable news organizations often cite specific numbers published by RFA, and even use RFA as the sole source for their reporting, as I note below, and noted in the prior RfC on this topic that took place in March of this past year and the abortive RfC
  that took place this past September.

Multiple RS have used RFA as their sources, including The Wall Street Journal (1, 2) and The New York Times, which has both cited it as the basis of their reporting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and directly republished stories written by RFA. As can be noted by clicking through the links, these sources cite RFA even when China is the subject of the events depicted in the articles themselves.

There are reliable sources that have explicitly upheld the reliability of RFA as it pertains to issues of controversy, including the

Uyghur genocide. According to The Atlantic, "from the day China’s detention campaign began in earnest, RFA’s Uighur Service—the only Uighur-language news outlet in the world that is independent of Chinese government influence—has frequently been at the tip of the spear of coverage. From the RFA offices in Washington, D.C., its team of 12 journalists has broken hundreds of stories, sometimes bearing sole witness to China’s alarming and escalating crackdown on Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups in the country." The magazine regularly cites reporting from RFA as a source for news in China, even on topics of controversy (1, 2). In other times The Atlantic has reported

that RFA provides "independent news to many rural Cambodians".

The Financial Times has also used RFA's reporting in order to write its own stories (1, 2, 3, 4).

The Times has used RFA's reporting to write its own stories about events in North Korea, Burma, Xinjiang (1 2 3 4 5), Chinese technological surveillance, Chinese dissidents, Tibetan riots, and more.

The Economist has also been quite explicit in praising RFA's work, even in the geopolitically contentious area of the detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

The RS that report this are not limited to those RS that are based within the United States and the United Kingdom.

Al-Jazeera has also repeatedly used RFA as a source for their reporting on topics of controversy within China (1, 2, 3, 4) and Burma (1). Spain-based El País has used RFA as a basis for its reporting on the events in Xinjiang. RFA has even been cited by Argentina-based Clarín on topics

involving North Korea.

It seems to be generally reliable based upon the fact that

other generally reliable news agencies regularly cite the group, even when the topic of the stories are the subject of public controversy. And, if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don't see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is anything but generally reliable for reporting facts on the ground. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

07:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, I also don't see it reasonable to deprecate or "ban"

WP:NEWSORG's reliability, and neither OP nor others have presented meaningful evidence against those three criteria for RFA writ large, despite repeated discussions on this publication. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

08:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the website Oddity Central?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information