🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_492
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 492

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 485←Archive 490Archive 491Archive 492Archive 493Archive 494Archive 495

Changing RSP

We need to restructure Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for technical reasons. There are several ways we could do this. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Historical Dictionary of Switzerland

The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland ([1]) is a source I've come across and used extensively for Switzerland related articles, especially biographies such as in Franz Vital Lusser. With its scientific approach and ethical guidlines (links in German) its reliability seems rather solid to me. The project is led by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences and backed by the government, and appears both in print and online in the 3 most spoken national languages of Switzerland, German, French, and Italian.

I'm starting this discussion because this widely-used source hasn't been discussed yet and a consensus on its reliability would allow it to be added to NPPSG, which would simplify the work of NPP reviewers. Cheers! YuniToumei (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the purpose of this noticeboard, which is to discuss sources that are contested. If you want to add a source to NPPSG you should discuss it on WT:NPPSG.
Pre-approval of sources is back to front, as anyone who may want to object to the source can't know to object to it before it's used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
(Disclosure: I discussed this issue with YuniToumei before they brought it here.) I don't think you are correct about WT:NPPSG. WP:NPPSG#Adding entries says All information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (usually WP:RSN, but Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable). It makes no mention of WT:NPPSG. I also don't see the problem with raising this issue here now. The banner on this page doesn't require an active dispute over a specific use of a source. Further, YuniToumei has provided an example of an article where it is used and this source is already used in over 400 articles [2]. Toadspike [Talk] 14:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Whatever NPP write this noticeboard isn't for getting entries added to a list, I would suggest taking it to the second part of that sentence "Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable" if that's what you want to do. This is the same as if you were opening a new section just to get something added to RSP, something else that will get shutdown. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for explaining. I can try to find a more suitable venue to post this at. I'll see if WP:CH will have enough participation.
As someone who is new to RSN, I find it surprising that there seem to be these hidden criteria for what and what should not be posted here, specifically regarding the requirement of contestation. The banner at the top of this page saying "Ask about sources in context" isn't much to go by, and I think I followed the requirements that are written of linking the source and providing an example where the source is used. If these unspoken rules are as evident to everyone else here as they are to you, I suggest writing them down on this page, so that confusions like this can be avoided.
Also, I don't think this is comparable to opening a topic here to get it posted at RSPP. There, the instructions are very clear about the requirement of repeated discussion which doesn't apply here. Cheers! YuniToumei (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Greek City Times reliability for interviews

While searching for sources on The Taverna, I discovered an article from Greek City Times. There are a few sources in this article from publications targeting the Greek-Australian diaspora -- the Special Broadcasting Service is state-funded by the Australian government and to my knowledge an undisputed reliable source, Neos Kosmos and The Greek Herald are both Australian publications targeting the Greek diaspora that I was already familiar with, and the Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria run the Greek Film Festival, being used solely as a source for the location of a theatre. However, I was not familiar with Greek City Times. A search on Google suggested they were "a leading media platform dedicated to promoting Hellenism and serving the global Greek diaspora and Philhellenes" (see: their Facebook page), they appeared to be based in Sydney so I just assumed they were a Sydney diaspora newspaper.

However, at the DYK nomination for The Taverna, an editor raised concerns over the reliability of Greek City Times. There have previously been three prior discussions (#1, #2, #3) on this page about the reliability of it, mainly in the context of nationalist editing. Many editors seem to think the site is openly nationalist and biased, which I would not disagree with -- in specific, one of the site's contributors, Paul Antonopoulos, recieved some coverage on ABC's Media Watch for, uh, denying chemical attacks and posting on notorious Nazi blog Stormfront. Antonopoulos still writes articles for the Greek City Times, all of which seem to be quite nationalistic.

Anyway, while I don't think Greek City Times should be cited to support describing Turks as Greek Muslims, I am curious about it in my context. The cited article was (I have since removed it) about a film concerning Greek culture with quotes from the director, none of which I have any reason to doubt the veracity of. The author, Natalie Martin, does have a bit of churnalist content, such as this article about Elafonisi Beach or this one about using ChatGPT on Booking dot com, but also this interview with former Greek Australian politician Arthur Sinodinos, which I also think is fairly reliable if a bit gushing in tone. There are some interviews which are not churnalist yet still concerning -- for example, this is a highly complimentary article about neurosurgeon Charlie Teo, who has had some critical coverage in Australian media, to put it lightly. This interview with George Calombaris only barely alludes to the wage theft scandal that saw a franchise owned by Calombaris sold off. But I'm not sure if it's blanket unreliable, so I'm taking it here to ask if Greek City Times could be used as a source in instances where it interviews others without glaring omissions. LivelyRatification (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In this case if you look at the Neos Kosmos and FilmInk articles and compare quotes from those to the Greek City Times article, it looks to me like the Greek City Times may have just re-written the quotes enough to appear original. Compare for instance: “It was a hot summer in Melbourne when we took over my friend’s Greek restaurant White Village Tavern to shoot this movie" from the Greek City Times to “It was stinking hot. It was a Melbourne heat wave. We took over White Village Tavern and turned it into a movie set." from FilmInk. And the comment about his earliest recollections is the same in Neos Kosmos and the Greek City Times. I think the problem is Neos Kosmos attributes the quotes to a director's statement and FilmInk conducted an interview, but the Greek City Times doesn't actually indicate where the quotes are from and it was published after the other two. At the same time, I understand how difficult it is to find diaspora news sources, especially for Cypriot topics. I agree with your assessment that their other coverage is unreliable after looking at their articles on the Turkish-Cypriot election and comparing them to the Cyprus Mail. Andwats (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The claim in specific that the Greek City Times was verifying was that the White Village Tavern was used as a wrap party for Tsilimidos' prior productions, which I believe no other source says. I am almost certain that this is true (because I heard him say it at a Q&A two days ago, although obviously my recollections are not a reliable source), and it's not mentioned in the Neos Kosmos source, but I agree that the seeming rewording of statements is concerning -- my thoughts were that they might have been working off some sort of press statement, as a bunch of the coverage does read quite similarly. LivelyRatification (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I have no sense if if this is reliable but it was published prior to the Greek City Times and includes the same quote. https://www.sbs.com.au/language/greek/en/podcast-episode/a-taverna-night-that-changes-everything/2e147rhjk Andwats (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't include the comment about the wrap party but the rest of that paragraph appears to have been lifted. Andwats (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
This has a wrap party comment:
“It was a hot summer in Melbourne when we took over my friend’s Greek restaurant to shoot this movie,” said writer/director Alkinos Tsilimidos. “White Village Tavern, the location, has always been a favorite wrap party destination for my productions.”
https://artsreview.com.au/the-taverna/ Andwats (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah that explains it. I had looked through that source but not put it in the article. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd say the Greek City Times is generally unreliable at this point... but at least you don't have to use it lol Andwats (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
By the way I don't think you need "(as per the Australian Arts Review)," the inline citation and bringing it to the attention of the reviewer on the Talk page is good enough in my opinion. Andwats (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The issues reminded me of https://greekreporter.com/2017/06/20/public-hospital-doctor-on-greek-island-found-guilty-of-issuing-hundreds-of-fake-blindness-certificates/ . I know it is not directly related but you may have a laugh anyway. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Comics Beat on BFDI

I'm looking at this article. IRS SIGCOV for BFDI or not? To expand on what the issues are here, I want to hear from editors at RSN as to whether this is 1) WP:SPS (and, if yes, it can't still be used to sustain notability as it comes from a subject-matter expert), and 2) independent (particularly, is it an interview-type-source or not). FOARP (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Comics Beat. BFDI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, it has a 2025 Eisner Award for "Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism" [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that is IRS SigCov. —Alalch E. 09:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
It's an interview mixed with original prose, but most of the original prose just repackages things said the interviewee has said with little added. As one example:
the genre has exploded in popularity, with not just Battle for Dream Island but its unofficial sister show Inanimate Insanity ... Two Inanimate Insanity writers — Sam Thornbury and Joseph Pak — have taken on a showrunner-like role for BFDI looks like good original analysis, but this is tempered by the fact that the interviewee says above that the object show community is kind of unrecognizable from what it was like five years ago or ten years ago ... It really started to fragment and grow. It’s a whole umbrella of umbrellas, and below that it was Cary writing for himself ... But as the lore like keeps getting more and more complex, both of us look to our directors, Sam Thornbury and Joseph Pak.
There isn't enough independent analysis or coverage present for me to count this source towards WP:N, but I'm willing to hear any arguments to the contrary. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
For me, per "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.", this counts. Maybe not for a full GNG-point, of which I prefer to see at least 3, but it adds to the argument for WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I think this isn't an unreasonable position to hold, and if I did count it towards WP:N it would certainly be as a partial point as you've said. Given the interview content, do you find the coverage present to be fully, partially, or not independent? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
The first three paragraphs appear to me to be completely original coverage, with the first paragraph giving a general overview of BFDI and mentioning object shows as a concept, the second paragraph talking about the AMC/Marcus theatre screenings of TPOT 20 and a brief concept description of that episode, and a third paragraph talking about it selling out and the video release getting 1 million views in 9 hours.
There's also the later paragraph ("Indie animation based on characters with names like Taco and Book might sound like the kind of low-effort slop that gets YouTube parents angry, but Battle for Dream Island uses the minimalist character designs like XKCD uses stick figures. Not only do they not fall back on lazy jokes about what the object does in the real world, but they actively develop away from the predictable traits.") which seems like original coverage to me as well. ZestySourBoy (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I won't contest that the first 2.5 paragraphs are fine, half of it is about the screening of a single episode, but it's original.
From my view the substantive content of the latter paragraph starts at Battle for Dream Island uses the minimalist ..., but the part that states Not only do they ... they actively develop away from the predictable traits is somewhat restating what the interviewee says later that the design of a character, or what object they are, doesn’t play any role in their personality. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair appraisal I can agree with that. There is also the brief mention in the second to last paragraph of BFDIA being the second season, TPOT being the fifth season, and the two shows running at the same time which also appears to be original coverage. ZestySourBoy (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
The interviewee themselves states right after that they are running two concurrent seasons ... to have a website that explains why two seasons are going on at the same time. The context the author gives on what seasons and in what order is good, but it still looks like the article content is being led by the interviewee's statements. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh I didn't spot that good catch. Well I guess that's all the completely original coverage from this article.
Also worth mentioning I think is that we can now confirm that this is a perfectly natural article, the writer Russ appears to have gone to one of the TPOT 20 theatre screenings as seemingly confirmed in this tweet from Michael: https://x.com/fernozzle/status/1980794374322811287 ZestySourBoy (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • What I'm getting from the above is that this is a peripheral source. It's still not quite all the way there as IRS SIGCOV. Or does someone else have a different point of view here? FOARP (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    In my eyes there is still enough original stuff in this article for it to be considered significant coverage.
    From what I know the main point of needing significant coverage is two-way, and correct this if this isn't the case: First to verify that BFDI is notable enough to warrant making a Wikipedia page, which is quite obvious. Second, and the one BFDI always struggled with, is to actually have enough information from sources to write a standard proper page about the subject.
    Looking at Draft:Battle for Dream Island, that looks to me like it has enough information to be a proper page. ZestySourBoy (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    It could squeak through in it's current shape, but I'm far from confident, and no consensus would mean "stays as a draft at this time" in this case. Anyone who wants can start a WP:DRV (because of the previous WP:SALT-ings, see discussion at [4]) and see what happens. It's annoyingly bureaucratic, but the subject has a lot of baggage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    That makes sense. No harm on sending it through a deletion review, if it fails and it stays a draft then that's fine, we just wait for another news article and that should do it. Starting a deletion review might be better to leave to someone who knows Wikipedia better and can do it well, I'm not confident enough on the inner workings of Wikipedia and especially specifically how to submit a deletion review to do it myself. ZestySourBoy (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    That's fair. I note that the "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer..." bit has been done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly, I think the better move here is just to wait a week to see if any other source comes up. No need for pushing on this. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Fonts in Use

Should Fonts in Use considered unreliable, because it is self-published and user-generated, similar that to Medium which is unreliable. Absolutiva 22:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The 'About this site'[5] seems to make clear that it's user generated content and so wouldn't generally be reliable. Is there a disagreement about it's use? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

UEFA cited at FCSB

At Talk:FCSB there is a heated argument whether what UEFA recently wrote about FCSB and Steaua Bucuresti is coherent. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Since UEFA is an involved party here, whatever editors want included here needs coverage from independent sources, otherwise it is not due for inclusion, independently from ist factuality. Cortador (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

On Talk:Circumcision there is an ongoing discussion about whether peer-reviewed psychology and human-rights research (e.g., Hammond & Carmack 2017; Hammond et al. 2023) can be used to document psychological regret or loss of autonomy among some circumcised men.

User:Bon courage has argued that these sources are "unreliable" under WP:MEDRS, while I’ve noted that such studies are not biomedical in nature; they address psychological and identity outcomes, which MEDRS itself describes as outside its biomedical scope:

> “Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.”

The question I’d like clarified is:

  • Does WP:MEDRS govern the sourcing of psychological and autonomy-related outcomes, or are those appropriately covered by WP:RS since they are non-biomedical?

Relevant discussion for context: Talk:Circumcision#Missing_discussion_of_psychological_regret_and_distress

Any clarification or precedent from past discussions would be appreciated, so that the sourcing standard can be applied consistently across medical and psychosocial topics. Editor25319531 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to use non-MEDRS sources but we shouldn't use them to "smuggle in" medical claims. To take Hammond & Carmack 2017 as an example, Hammond is a human rights activist, the article is published in The International Journal of Human Rights. They ran a survey and found various adverse outcomes (pp. 11-12). It would be inappropriate to add them to the article. The same article could be a reliable source for other, non-medical claims. Alaexis¿question? 06:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The question the editor is posing is whether claims about well-being, regret or identity are covered by WP:MEDRS, which indeed an interesting question. However, I think the answer is in WP:BMI, which broadly covers attributes of treatments (their advantages/disadvantages) under "information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health". I think psychological well-being is definitely broad understood as a part of human health. Katzrockso (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
As these would relate to diagnosis, yes we would need MEDRS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes. This is a permathread as drive-by activists are unhappy with what MEDRS currently say, but the guideline is clear here:

Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field.

So no, we're not going to be using primary sources to advance a position at variance with the strong sources we cite. Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor25319531 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor25319531, comments generated by a large language model (such as an AI chatbot) are not acceptable on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write your comment in your own words. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Newslinger, I really appreciate your note. I did use an assistant to help me refine the phrasing, though the ideas, arguments and sources are mien. I'm still new to wikipedia, so thank you for the clarification. This rule makes plenty of sense. To comply with WP:AITALK, I'll rewrite and repost a version fully in my own words. Editor25319531 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Is this not being discussed above? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I think he accidentally made it again somehow Obesechingus (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Bringing this up again after the earlier conversation was collapsed per my procedural error. Phrasing now in my own words.

The question is whether WP:MEDRS applies to long-term issues of identity, autonomy, and subjective sense of well-being following an involuntary medical procedure.

On Talk:Circumcision, there is a discussion on the fact that the article currently only addresses strictly biomedical outcomes, e.g. bleeding, complications, etc. I would expect those kinds of outcomes to fall under WP:MEDRS. But whether a population of men has expressed a subjective sense of loss of identity and autonomy as a result of involuntary circumcision is not a MEDRS topic--it is not a claim about biomedical efficacy or safety.

As an analogy, sources on biomedical outcomes of sexual assault, such as pregnancy, physical injury, or elevated biomarkers of stress, are generally subject to MEDRS, while subjective psychosocial outcomes and human rights issues are generally not.

There are numerous, well-cited, peer-reviewed, non-MEDRS sources that find no population-level difference in satisfaction among circumcised and uncircumcised men (see links in the talk page). There are also numerous well-cited, non-MEDRS sources that document a sub-population of involuntarily circumcised men who express deep subjective anguish.

Neither of these findings support or refute claims about biomedical complications from the procedure. However, editors of that page prevent identity-based and psychosocial outcomes from being presented since these are not represented in MEDRS sources.

Should the psychological and identity-based outcomes of circumcision be discussed on that page given that there are no MEDRS sources on that topic?

Editor25319531 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Why have you started yet another discussion about #Scope of WP:MEDRS for psychological and autonomy-related outcomes in medical topics? (You started two threads less than an hour apart; only one of them was collapsed.) Can you keep the discussion to just one thread please? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

CBS News and Bari Weiss

Acording to recent reports ([6] [7] [8]), Paramount Sydance is planning to appoint Bari Weiss, right-leaning journalist and founder of conservative outlet The Free Press, as editor-in-chief of CBS News. Do you think that it may affect CBS's reliability?

The Independent reported that CBS News staff were “literally freaking out” by this decision. ([9]) That's not a good sign. G13 vs G14 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Lets wait and see. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it certainly will affect CBS's reliability, but we will need to collect evidence in order to justify a modification to how the source is treated on-wiki. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
First piece of evidence is CBS News is now recycling FP reporting: [10] EvansHallBear (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
And they originally misspelled Mamdani's name in the headline (as "Mandani"), though it's now corrected. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
On a related note, I have read several CBS News articles recently, reporting on ICE raids in the Chicago area. I have concerns separate from the influence of Bari Weiss about how these incidents have been treated by the outlet; in particular, CBS tends to report the official story even when it seems to be verifiably contradicted by other evidence and makes no effort to investigate the truth of government claims about consequential and controversial incidents. Media deference to the official story is a well documented issue in media studies, and it would be difficult to propose a change in our general assessment of sources on this criteria that would leave us with any left to use, but it might be worth a separate discussion about how to deal with this as unsupported government claims about ICE activities that could constitute BLP or simple reliability concerns become increasingly common.
Some relevant diffs and links:
1. 2. 3. 4. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
They have also described the Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) as such: Israel occupied strategic parts of its shared border with Syria and conducted air raids and land incursions, citing potential security threats.(emphasis mine) Further, they frame the demand for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory as a negotiating position and not what is required under international law. [11] EvansHallBear (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
If Walter Cronkite weren't already dead, I'm pretty sure recent events would kill him. EEng 02:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Deference to Trump regime narratives, inaccurate statements regarding Israel's warmaking against its neighbours... If we see CBS start saying wildly transphobic things then I think we've got pretty strong evidence that Weiss' leadership has negatively impacted CBS's reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
We don't know how it will affect CBS' reliability, if it all. A news organization can change emphasis in coverage (for example) without undermining the reliability of what it publishes. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
There isn’t much credence to the labeling of the FP as a conservative outlet. But, as others have said, there’s no reason to believe the reliability of the outlet (to the extent it is actually a reliable, fair source currently) will change. Jcgaylor (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Nothing to do or be said at this point. It would only have an effect if sources start to question the reliability CBS News after Weiss has become editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Could affect it? Certainly. Weiss isn't exactly great.
Will affect it? WP:CRYSTAL exists for a reason. We can't do anything unless and/or until evidence is presented that there's any noticeable shift in reliability. The Kip (contribs) 06:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh no, a conservative voice might have slightly more power. Bluesky in shambles. Clearly the end of the world is nigh. For my part I'm quitting the internet to raise goats in Montana. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between actual conservative journalists who value integrity vs. an anti-woke opinion writer and pro-Israel hack who has leaned too far into the MAGAverse in order to gain power and influence. Meh. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
"Ms. Weiss has described herself as a 'left-leaning centrist,' a 'radical centrist, [and] 'a gay woman who is moderately pro-choice'..." - The New York Times, 6 Oct 2025. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
And The New Republic describes her as "anti-woke, anti-trans, pro-Israel" - and I'd say that much more closely describes The Free Press' actual reporting.[12] Snokalok (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
That appears to be correct. Weiss is a self-described "Zionist fanatic". Her "anti-woke" stance and support for the Intellectual Dark Web were one of the main reasons for her departure from NYT. FP whatever be its reliability on political topics barely chalks upto mark on trans issues with frequent unscientific assertions. Gotitbro (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Wait and see. No effect yet. Andre🚐 03:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Anything now would be WP:CRYSTAL and regardless of bias the question of reliability would only stem if fake news crops up regularly. I can speculate about the effect of this on Palestine-Israel coverage specifically, but that is again entirely crystal. Gotitbro (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Reliability is about a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A drastic change in leadership is a reason to potentially re-examine that reputation once we have more coverage to see if things have shifted, and possibly to divide it into a separate era if the reputation seems different, but we'd have to wait for that coverage to actually appear. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@G13 vs G14 Just so you know, you made the news: [13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
oh wow G13 vs G14 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Internet Animation Database

I don't think this has been discussed before, but on articles such as Andrew Huebner and Bill Melendez, some of the subjects' references include the Internet Animation Database.

Is said database considered reliable or unreliable per the relevant guidelines/policies at WP:RS, WP:V and so on? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Per [14], seems a crystal-clear WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
In this case, should it be removed? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it should be removed. Even if it were considered an EXPERTSPS, self-published sources cannot be used as sources for content about living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't know about it being a self-published source. The way I read that mission statement, it started out as a self published source, but "it's a big project, and one that I peobably(sic) cannot do alone" so now they have recruited and are recruiting "researcher"s with "special knowledge of animation or any specific studio" to contribute. Even if it is still a self published source, SPSs "may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I have absolutely no idea if the owner of that site is an established subject matter expert though. @Sjones23 I think we need a deeper analysis before concluding that it should or should not be removed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
There's also "Once logged in, any user may submit comments or ratings to any of the cartoons listed. If you have special knowledge of animation or any specific studio, we can register you as a "researcher" which will allow you to edit the "meat and potatoes" of the site. Contact us and let us know what you're all about if you're interested. The final tier is the"adminstrator" and is basically used to administer the site as a whole." SPS and WP:USERG. Also, no named staff etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like it's using a Wiki type model. From their how to help page it seems like they do some minimal vetting of their researchers, but it does not seem too in depth. They say "We’re always looking for people who are either knowledgeable about animation or have access to studio records" but then follow it up with " Right now, I’m also interested in fans who can submit synopsis for individual works."
It seems they are more selective than the "anyone can edit" model we use which is also used by IMDB, but I'm not sure they're limiting researchers to subject matter experts. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Reasonable concerns. I'll go ahead and remove the IADB as a source. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Paleobiology Database

In my experience the Paleobiology Database is usually reliable when confirming a taxon exists and also it’s authority but has some junior synonyms and is sometimes innaccurate when you deal with the classification of some taxa for example in [15] it states that Sunella bispinata is the type while S. grandis is the type and S. bispinata now has it’s own genus, Caudicaella and they don’t list the real species and list this false species which is from the Eocene while Sunella is Cambrian stages 2-3. Houcaris (User:Zhenghecaris) (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a dispute over this source? More context would help. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Re: 1983 Halloween special

An undocumented leftover from my article-sandbox phase (from way back in the early 2010s) concerns The Great Bear Scare, the 1983 Halloween sequel to 1973's The Bear Who Slept Through Christmas. I was hoping to pull a Lazarus with this topic (the same way I did for Betty Boegehold a few days ago), but alas...

Going through our trusted repositories late this morning:

  • Newspapers.com offers a plethora of TV listings;
  • ProQuest mentions its turn-of-the-milennium rightsholders, Artisan, in at least two results;
  • the most miniscule of a Blockbuster movie-guide review is as good as it gets at OL/IA;
  • and GBooks brings up a more substantial review in a 2015 book chronicling vampires on television.

Sadly, unless this last (Web 1.0) recap gets a pass--and unless the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) tows in a couple more sources of better provenance--I'm afraid it's a lost cause per WP:NTV; cutely designed bears, though. (Insurance in the form of Lonzo Anderson's The Halloween Party is most likely on the horizon come tomorrow.)

  • "The Great Bear Scare (syndication, 1983)". The Island of Misfit Christmas Specials. Platypus Comix. Retrieved 2025-10-26. [A] Halloween special that aired during Christmas by mistake. If that isn't a good enough indicator of the thought and care that went into it, maybe the rest of this page will convince you.

From one of its fellow viewers (through Marpin cable in his native Dominica), back when Disney Channel carried an IVE/Artisan print in 1998. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

One look at HathiTrust's results (our last resort), and (with WP:RX on our side) we may be in luck soon--emphasis on may: The special was mentioned in at least four 1980s issues of Landers Film Reviews, which catered to the educational-media market. Example of a Landers review (for the otherwise highly obscure documentary short "Cotton Candy and Elephant Stuff"); proof of earliest GBS mention from this publication (ca. late 1983). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_492&oldid=1325648281"