Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here .

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Section size for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (59 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 629 629 RfC: Allkpop 3,386 6,968 Survey (Allkpop) 2,856 2,856 Discussion (Allkpop) 726 726 RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) 1,503 33,053 Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post) 20,262 20,262 Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post) 11,288 11,288 Middle East Monitor 54,680 92,669 Assessment of use by others 14,604 14,604 Fuentes video 23,385 23,385 RfC: Reliability of WION 2,252 2,252 RFC: The Anti-Defamation League 513 333,373 Part 1: Israel/Palestine 591 112,284 Survey (ADL:I/P) 111,693 111,693 Part 2: antisemitism 570 71,038 Survey (ADL:antisemitism) 70,468 70,468 Part 3: hate symbol database 634 37,162 Survey (ADL:hate symbols) 36,528 36,528 Discussion 6,911 112,376 Antisemitism 34,324 34,324 Reliable sources using ADL 4,552 4,552 Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR 19,559 19,559 RS having to revise articles based on ADL data 9,242 9,242 From the River to the Sea" in the Real World Context 7,162 7,162 What should be discerned from this RFC? 30,626 30,626 Hearst Newspapers and AI Generated Content - SFGate and San Francisco Chronicle 4,918 4,918 Hindustan Times 6,221 8,083 Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences 1,862 1,862 Lineups 1,078 1,078 Grantome.com in biographies 1,962 1,962 Indian Research Journal of History and Humanities and Social Sciences 1,401 1,401 Discord 8,632 8,632 Student newspaper for controversy on a BLP 11,679 11,679 Reliability of Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale 1,075 1,075 Reliability of Google Earth 24,024 24,024 Free (self published?) textbooks 5,411 5,411 inf.news 1,473 1,473 is this source Reliable? 408 408 Gamemeca, a Korean gaming source. Reliable? 2,240 2,240 Is this a reliable source? 1,264 1,264 Can I use this as a Reliable source? [Westminster Institute] 6,226 6,226 Joining of new clubs in 2024–25 I-League 1,153 1,153 TED Talks (from [https://ted.com ted.com] or youtube) 12,400 12,400 Gamerant 1,054 1,054 Citing videos from reliable, secondary sources on BLP articles 13,492 13,492 Snowden and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Report 4,857 4,857 Concerning politico report on the nyt 2,160 2,160 Confusing sources 1,317 1,317 Verifyable handwritten letters from historical figures 4,385 4,385 Gradient.com grabien.com as a source for a quote by someone in Blood Tribe (neo-Nazi group) 5,070 5,070 Italian lawyer on Azov Neo-Nazi 3,961 3,961 ClutchPoints 4,690 4,690 The Human Rights Coalition Australia 3,207 3,207 RfC: Legal Insurrection 8,420 8,420 The Dedham Times 1,966 1,966 Reversion of new sourced information on the article Bulgars 8,905 8,905 Modern Life is Goodish for attributed opinion/work contents 2,736 2,736 thoughtco.com 499 499 Computing magazine 1,949 1,949 Total 631,039 631,039

This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Will Oremus (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism". Slate. Kalev Leetaru (10 February 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Nishant Kauntia (30 November 2020). "The Edit Wars: How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right". The Caravan. Samuel Breslow (29 September 2022). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have just added an edit to the page on Madonna's Drowned World Tour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowned_World_Tour), explaining that the rendition of the song Lo que siente la mujer, Spanish version of What It Feels Like for a Girl, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axlNwcRga7Q) contains elements from the Calderone & Quayle Dark Side Mix of the original English language version of the track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_K54-27qFY), instead of using the original instrumental (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdULo9N7A0Y). My edit got questioned on the basis that Youtube is not a reliable source, but this is Madonna's official channel. Doesn't it count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phastolph (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's own channel is a reliable source under

WP:OR here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No websites specifically state that the mix I cited was the basis for the live rendition, but it's very clear upon listening to the videos on Madonna's channel. Does the fact that it's not outright stated make the addition irregular? Phastolph (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does. It's both

WP:OR and, lacking a source caring to talk about it, not shown to be worthy of inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Some time ago I added a reference on the buccellato di Lucca page, is it reliable or not? Also, I would like to ask that the reference I added, in case it's a good reference, be corrected, as I didn't format it very well. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is undergoing in the talk page of WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force for the verifiability and for the inclusion of reliable sources for Indian cinema. Any veterans of RSN who are good at judging the sources, please drop by with your comments and insights. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this RfC was archived without closure. I've made a close request here. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here and at Close requests here (89 days) Don't think it is that hard, probably same as it is already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done here now. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]