This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

For most content, the NYPost is clearly unreliable, as the community decided in Wikipedia:NYPOST. However, for transit (coverage by Nolan Hicks) and real estate, it is generally reliable, and covers stories that the Daily News, New York Times, and other local media do not cover, such as a series on waste at the LIRR that warranted a response by the MTA, which operates the LIRR. While multiple stories from other outlets cover the proposed service increases on the subway, only the Post story mentions what makes the service increase possible, A person familiar with the plan added that the MTA is also seeking to increase the speed at which trains can travel through work zones — which commonly disrupt weekend service — by 5 mph in order to fit the new schedule. Trains currently crawl underground at speeds of fewer than 10 mph.. I had heard talk of this for months before. I realize that this likely will not happen, but I would recommend that we create a possible exception to Wikipedia:NYPOST for the transit and real estate newsdesks. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 00:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)f

Also, Fox News is green/yellow/pink depending on the topic, and has carveouts. Also, the Daily News also has reliability issues, and is green, though the Post is pink. It is also insane that post-2013 Newsweek and Washington Times are more reliable-being yellow, when they are completely unreliable. Tons of things here need reworking. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For context, this arose from a conversation on my talk page. Kew Gardens 613 noted that the New York Post publishes articles about the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the NYC area (such as news about the Long Island Rail Road or New York City Subway) that are neglected by other NYC-area newspapers. My response was that the community decided the Post was generally unreliable. However, I do think transit-related stories like "Crazy train: MTA, LIRR let $385M fly off the rails, beg Hochul bailout" and "MTA chief Janno Lieber admits LIRR needs staffing, contract change after Post probe" may be marginally reliable, given that the info in these articles can be readily verified (but only by looking through primary sources). Unlike the Post's political coverage, these do not appear to be fabrications.

In regards to real estate, I was referring to stories by a few reporters, specifically Steve Cuozzo and Lois Weiss, who tend to give largely factual analyses. For instance, I was thinking that the story "$465M Deal Done at 140 B'way" could be used on the Seagram Building page to support the fact that its then-owner couldn't actually advertise the structure as the Seagram Building. I removed this reference while preparing the article for FAC, but, as with the example Kew Gardens 613 points out above, I was wondering if the Post could be used as a reference in situations like this. I'm acknowledging that the Post is still generally unreliable, particularly with regards to political topics, but was wondering if an exception could be made for transit and real-estate topics. – Epicgenius ( talk) 00:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The New York Post is weird -- it does a lot of tabloid crap but also some legitimate investigative journalism, and while this is generally driven by a somewhat conservative agenda (highlighting government waste to support spending cuts, coverage related to real estate developer concerns) they are not fabrications. It's like, there's definitely a reason why they decided to pursue and break these particular stories, but that doesn't mean the stories are false. You really have to use discernment here. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 14:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and the story that I was referencing was not an investigation, but just a news scoop on a transit service increase. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support as per the statement by KG613. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to concour on this subject. The Post is generally acceptable in 2 fields, NY Sports and NY Transit. Their other articles have issues but they tend to have a good transit desk and are a reliable source. Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 02:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I supported a carve-out for sports above, but I'm wary here. When I saw the headlines of the first two stories linked above, along with a "NY Post investigation" it was easy to predict they were going to blame unions or one of the democratic politicians. When the Post reports on basic real estate information (the third link), I don't see an issue, but when it's original instigative reporting about city processes, I do think there's still reason to be wary of the influence of its politics. Maybe unions are to blame, along with those pesky democrats always giving in to union demands, but if all that is true I'd expect someone else to at least report on the Post's findings. That a good general rule for unreliable sources: wait for someone else to pick it up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I too am very skeptical of such carve outs. Do we really want to cite NYPost on transit news such as, say, Death of Jordan Neely? Also, if NYP publishes original investigations and those investigations win awards or are even cited positively by other New York or national media, then the current RSP designation of "generally unreliable" would still permit citing NYP in those particular instances. If on the other hand, enterprise reporting by NYP is not backed/cited by other more reliable media, then it should make us question whether that material is worth including in a tertiary source like wikipedia rather than push us to carve out an exception to allow that material in. Abecedare ( talk) 03:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Neely story is more a crime story, for which they are more unreliable, that happens to be on transit. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 11:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  My prediction - from the past behaviour of problematic editors - is that a carveout for the topic will be taken as being blanket permission for anything even remotely tangential - e.g. in one case, controversial BLP material on a sportsman that was sourced to The Sun, on the excuse that the RSP summary mentioned that some editors liked their sports coverage in limited circumstances - 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The investigative reporting onto the LIRR follows a plethora of investigations by the State Comptroller ( https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/lirr-audit-mta-missing-r5dthvh8) and others. Yes, the Post has a thing against labor, but much of it on transit is well-founded, and thoroughly researched. Regarding other sources picking up the story, the MTA itself acknowledged there was merit to that Post series on the LIRR. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• It is important to remember that RSP speaks in broad generalities. Being listed as generally unreliable does NOT mean that a source is always unreliable. Discussion and consensus can determine that a specific report IS reliable for a specific statement, even when the source is deemed generally unreliable. It also works the other way… a specific report can be deemed unreliable, even if the source is listed as generally reliable. Blueboar ( talk) 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  From my point of view, there needs to be two things 1) the specific information is itself verifiably true outside of the unreliable source and 2) There is no other, better, source available outside of the generally unreliable one. How do we know we can trust the NYPost on this story? If it is because another reliable source has reported on it, and we trust that other source? If so, use that other source. If not, how do we know we can trust the Post given their track record? What is the evidence they got this story right when they get everything else wrong? If we have that evidence, cite that instead. If we don't have any evidence, why are we trusting the Post? -- Jayron 32 12:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Their track record on transit stories has been good. They reported the service increases before other outlets did, and this was confirmed by an MTA press release yesterday. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  "other outlets did" Use those. "confirmed by an MTA press release" Even better, cite that.-- Jayron 32 12:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  They didn't cite the specific fact that sparked all of this, namely A person familiar with the plan added that the MTA is also seeking to increase the speed at which trains can travel through work zones — which commonly disrupt weekend service — by 5 mph in order to fit the new schedule. Trains currently crawl underground at speeds of fewer than 10 mph.., which is what sparked this. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, allow, generally it's WP:NEWSORG. Good to see objections appearing to a blanket ban. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a news organization generally known for such poor journalistic standards that very little, if anything, of what it prints can be trusted. If it is correct about something it prints, it is purely by accident, and not by design. -- Jayron 32 14:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I am no fan of the Post, but their transit and real estate coverage has been shown to be accurate, time after time, and they clearly do proofreading here. It is not an accident that this coverage is accurate. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 14:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

shown by who? - David Gerard ( talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Many of their transit stories are also covered by other news outlets, their reporting has been acknowledged as correct by the MTA, and there have been few, if any, examples of notable inaccuracies in their transit coverage. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 14:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Then cite those news outlets. Problem solved. -- Jayron 32 12:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You are in error. WP:NEWSORG indicates a presumed reliable source. The NYPost is specifically considered generally unreliable per the RFC - David Gerard ( talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We interpret the guideline differently. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 21:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

yes, I interpret it according to what it says - David Gerard ( talk) 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not convinced - the NYPost is already presumed not an RS, and if there's a story in the NYPost that isn't in a better source then that's a point against it - David Gerard ( talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is more because local journalism has been cut back so much that there are some stories or aspects of them that only the Post covers-not that the work the Post reporters did in these stories is inherently unreliable. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, with few organizations even doing investigative journalism, the Post reporter on the transit beat, Nolan Hicks, has filled in the gap, doing research on some subjects. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 14:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal per Rhodo, Jayron and David. Andre 🚐 15:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If they are covering material that RS do not cover, then the content fails due weight. It's a sad lonely hole they've dug for themselves. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Topics can be important even if other news outlets do not cover them. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 16:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well and good, but that's not how we evaluate article content for WP. Anyway, there are many local TV and radio broadcasts in addition to all the local publications and websites mentioned already in this thread. So, e.g. when Pizza Rat made her debut, she was famous on 6 continents. Anyway "investigative journalism" and the NY Post is an odd couple. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of an off-topic, but speaking of the NYPost I'm amazed that after being the only newspaper to report on a major story in the run-up to the US presidential elections, whereas all our green sources mostly just ignored it, and everyone is like nothing to see here, we're moving along to the next hot topic.

• Oppose Difficult to believe that something worth reporting in NY is only covered by the NYP. If RS don't report something; it is questionable. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 18:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You are significantly underrating the decline of local news in New York City. The Times barely does local news, and the Daily News misses some things. Relatively new news outlet The City covers stories that the other outlets don't. That only one outlet covers something does not mean it is not "worth reporting". Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't think so -- and I've lived in Manhattan for over 30 years. The Sunday NYT devotes large amounts of space to the metro area -- multiple sections. I read one of the NYP stories linked to above and really see no reason to take it at face value as the evidentiary links went to stories by the same reporter. 18:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) O3000, Ret. ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The Times news coverage to the metro area pales into the comparison to what it did decades ago-even if you have lived there for over 30 years, and tons of news-for the outer boroughs especially does not get picked up. Again, the story about the service increase got picked up by other news outlets with the details on the increase spot on-a couple days before the MTA confirmed it in a press release. The Post's transit coverage is accurate. Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 18:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are tons of local media in NY. In the E Village alone there is a Village Voice, Village Sun, and The Villager. There's AMNy, Spectrum 1 News, City and State, Gothamist/WNYC, 1010 Wins, WBAI, Pix11, etc. Andre 🚐 18:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be charitable here, but [ [1]]? This guy? They went under pre pandemic, in 2017. I have to say I do not think you realize how much NYC local coverage has gone under, just like how much has in NJ Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 22:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, they are still around [2] Looks like they briefly didn't publish between 2018 and 2020. Andre 🚐 00:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, the NYT, Newsday and the New York Daily News do provide a lot of local news coverage (though it seems like the NYT expanded its non-local coverage greatly starting in the late 20th century). And as Andrevan says, there are also many local sources online, such as NY1, AM New York Metro, and Gothamist. In general, I've found these sources do cover NYC-related news quite comprehensively, with one exception: the late 1990s and early 2000s, when many of the online sources didn't yet exist, but when most of the largest print media sources of the mid-20th century had died out. This isn't really related to the NYP, though; it's just something I've noticed over the years. – Epicgenius ( talk) 21:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify what I wrote above, I'm saying this is an area where I think there's more reason to be alert than with sports. I think it's possible to have an extremely narrow carve-out along the lines of "can be used for basic reporting on transit, but not for the politics of transit, and not where the Post offers novel interpretation or judgments that haven't been reported on elsewhere". The idea is to be able to capture basic goings-on (station closings, construction work, announcements, etc., but not the "the [insert typical enemy of the Post] is to blame/is inept/is spending too much/isn't doing enough"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Major station closings, construction work, announcements would be published elsewhere. Minor or temporary station closings, construction work, announcements don't seem to fit in an encyclopedia. Better source would be here O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Major station closings, construction work, announcements would be published elsewhere - Maybe, and if they're not, I don't see any reason not to cite the Post for those. Minor or temporary station closings, construction work, announcements don't seem to fit in an encyclopedia. Whether it's due weight is a separate consideration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support The Post is the last of the big guys, as even NYTimes has conceded a lot of that coverage. Its not ideal but they have the reporters. Blanket bans are bad for a general reason, and it shows when people who try to cite local media cite sources that went under in 2017. Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a local Village Voice article from this month. [3] Care to retract your incorrect statement. Andre 🚐 00:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose if local coverage has gone to hell, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't justify elevating generally unreliable sources to fill a perceived "gap" (if reliable sources don't cover it, it's not a gap for Wikipedia's purposes). Specific stories can be discussed on a case by case basis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's important, someone else will also be writing about it. I concur with the point just above: our goal is to summarize what reliable sources say, so if there aren't reliable sources, there's no "gap" in what we can, by the basic nature of the project, write about. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• No thanks. The "Real Estate Newsdesk" is a fact-washing outlet for developers' PR, and the "Transit Newsdesk" is going to be a magent for problems with things like the Jordan Neely case. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sympathetic to this suggestion, because the Daily News is probably being sucked dry by its non-journalistic owners (a recent article in The Atlantic about the Chicago Tribune, owned by the same company, was pretty horrifying [4]), and the Times has never really focused strongly on local news (although it's gotten better), so a paper which deals with local issues like transit (a vital issue to New Yorkers) would be good, but I also understand the distrust of the Post, and agree that whatever their recent track record, they could go all Murdoch at any time. I would say that a formal carve out is not a good idea, instead, decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also point out that sources such as Gothamist, The Real Deal, Curbed, Crain's New York Business etc. can fill in the gaps left by the coverage in the News and the Times. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The example given just isn't significant enough to be worth including based on one low-quality source anyway; it's an anonymous comment about a minor detail. And in fact OP's interpretation of it is speculative; even that source doesn't say it's what makes the service increase possible; likewise, the one other thing you cite from them is manifestly highly controversial. RSP isn't absolute and you can always make an argument for an individual exception on the pages of specific articles, especially for something that is unexceptional and uncontroversial, but this would make a terrible argument for an exception and is a terrible argument for a carve-out. Beyond that, you haven't actually presented any argument for why you think this source is unusually reliable for transit- or real-estate related news; you've just indicated that you really really want to cite them because you can't find other sources for the things you want to add. The lack of other sources makes it more important to be careful, not less, because it means that glorified press releases or tabloid flack posted on those topics could come to define our entire coverage of those topics unopposed. Wikipedia can't cover everything; sometimes there's just not enough WP:RS coverage available. In that case the safe thing to do is to say nothing. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In February I removed a section from this on families as it had an unreferenced template and as well as having no references I believe it included trivia and at least one BLP issue about two brothers who were said to be alive. I also felt the tone wasn't encyclopedic. Recently a new editor, User:Naxh who clearly knows a lot about the town reverted me twice. They've now added some sources although they say that only the physical books accurately reflect the text. We had a big of a dingdong but I hope that's sorted. However, I'm still concerned about the sources and would like some uninvolved editors to comment - I'm notifying the editor so they can respond. The original text was added by three separate accounts in 2009 and I'm guessing they were probably locals. Here's my comments about the sources. I used Google translate.

2 https://www.annahar.com/arabic/section/83-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/02022021064848965 - not sure what it is.

3 is a political article https://www.ssnp.info/?article=98047 "The Syrian National Social Information Network is not responsible for the text and its content, and it only expresses the point of view of its author" clearly not an RS

10 is a personal website "The data presented, throughout the site, is derived from hard disk files that I purchased from the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, relating to the 2014 voter lists for the parliamentary elections, which I converted into databases that can be queried to obtain the desired data report" he didn't add

4 is Wikipmapia

5 is https://web.archive.org/web/20110707205933/http://www.baldati.com/networks/community.php?networkid=1004 - community sourced, shut down in 2017

6 https://www.asswak-alarab.com/archives/17854 by a poet, writer and journalist, dubious source

10 is a personal website "The data presented, throughout the site, is derived from hard disk files that I purchased from the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, relating to the 2014 voter lists for the parliamentary elections, which I converted into databases that can be queried to obtain the desired data report" https://lub-anan.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA/ is a personal website - scroll down to bottom

11 I think is self-published. https://www.yelleb.com/company/291863/edito-creps-international

12 is https://archive.org/details/olomnasb_ymail_20180116 "A glossary of family and person names and glimpses of family history

Muʻjam asmāʾ al-usar wa-al-ashkhāṣ wa-lamaḥāt min tārīkh al-ʻāʾilātThe author, Mr. Ahmed Abu SaadGenealogy LibraryO Allah, bless Muhammad and his" 13 is "Michel, Abi Fadel (2002). Lebanese Cities, Villages and Families A Bibliographic Dictionary (in Arabic) (1 ed.). Beirut: National Archives Foundation." - not sure whether the author is an rs

14 is the same and I find https://librarycatalog-bau-edu-lb.translate.goog/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=52136&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc Publisher is https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85_%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc which looks more like an ad than a wikipedia article IMHO. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback!

Regarding 2, the article in question is sourced from An-Nahar, a reputable daily newspaper in Lebanon, known for its reliable reporting. The article discusses the Roman aqueduct in Mansourieh and even acknowledges the existence of another aqueduct sharing the same name in the Nahr Adonis region. I understand that it is important to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information, so rest assured that the article's source adds credibility to the content presented. I think you won't find anything published in a Western language about Mansourieh, Western historians and journalists are just busy working on more important stuff.

3 is a political article but it cites to two historians, one of them a local, and the other being Elia Sadek a nationally renown historian for expertise on Lebanese and Levantine genealogy. Additionally he is a published author and poet but all his books are in Arabic.

10 Not all the data from the Lebanese Ministry of the Interior is accessible online. Lebanese researchers usually go to these websites for readily available English information otherwise they'll have to submit formal requests to access the archives of the Ministry. The government of Lebanon initiated a digitalization process that has now been completely impeded by the ongoing economic crisis in the country. The economic crisis in Lebanon has been described as being the world's worst since the 1850s by the World Bank in a 2021 report. It is not an exaggeration when I say that it is not a priority for the MOI to publish digital info on Lebanese families at the moment.

6 It is understandable to have reservations about the credibility of an author who identifies as a poet, writer, and journalist. While it may be unlikely for a well-known Western poet, writer, and journalist to write about a lost city in the second smallest country on continental Asia, it doesn't necessarily imply that the information provided is inaccurate or untrustworthy? The author just doesn't, to my knowledge, enjoy an international reputation but the newspaper is well known in all Lebanese circles.

12 If the author had not been deemed reliable, the book would never have been published by a highly esteemed publishing company in Lebanon, nor would it have been made available in the renowned libraries and universities of Beirut. Furthermore, I noticed an error in your translation of both the title and the author's name. Furthermore, conducting a simple Google search can assist you in finding and verifying the author's credentials?

I appreciate your understanding and the feedback you provided regarding the rules on citations. However, if you're specifically searching for scholarly works by American, European, or other Western authors on the topic of a small lost village in Lebanon, it is indeed challenging to find extensive coverage. Even Lebanon as a whole may have limited scholarly literature available at the moment. Naxh ( talk) 15:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Article: History of science
• Parties involved: Lingzhi (me) & Headbomb
• Link to discussion on article's Talk page
• Content with disputed verification (not disputed veracity): "Medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology, for example, was largely ineffective."
• Disputed source: Microsoft Word – Proceedings-2001.doc (see page 11, though no page# is given in the article's citation).
• Content added 04:18, 9 March 2010 by Jagged 85, who has since been permanently banned for "abuse of sources... using references which did not support the claims made".
• Summary of dispute: Actually, the arguments are summed up clearly and relatively briefly on the talk page: Wikipedia cannot use a generalization made in one conference paper by one medical student (not a bona fide medical historian or scholar of any kind yet at that time) to support a sweeping generalization about "Many medical historians...". This is even doubly or triply true, if we needed any further evidence, by the fact that that medical student himself hedges on his or anyone's ability to make sweeping generalizations.
• Desired outcomes:

1. Sure, someone can verify that statement with a better source, if one can be found. But the statement must be deleted until is it correctly verified.
2. Furthermore, someone on Wikipedia should spend some time undoing the damage Jagged 85 has done.
3. I'm also asking Headbomb to have the courtesy to go to Talk before reverting. Thank you for your time & trouble. §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 03:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The source is more than fine for the statement, per WP:PARITY. The entire proceedings were edited by WA Whitelaw, now professor emeritus of the faculty of Medicine of U Calgary, and that specific paper written under the supervision of Julius Szekrenyes, also of U Calgary, who specializes in both pharmacology and ancient egypt. Removal of the st atement makes it look like Ancient Egyptian pharmacology is valid and sane, when the bulk of it is not. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on the reliability itself, but such a statement should not be removed. If you believe the source isn't good enough you can add {{ better source needed}} or if you believe the source to be unquestionably unreliable you can remove it and add {{ citation needed}}. As Headbomb had given an argument for the source I would suggest the former not the latter. I would note that the work (functional link) is a book published by the University of Calgary, and that it would also help if correct page number was added to allow verification. A general FYI I've updated the cite with a working link and other missing details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to {{ citation needed}}, which satisfies me as well. §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 11:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The former is often better than the latter. Far easier to use find a good source based on a possibly bad one than starting from scratch. And I agree with Headbomb that the source is fine under WP:PARITY. It's a bit odd to me that we treat thesis papers as if they were all deprecated (worse than Fox News!), when many of them are actually pretty excellent; their only problem is inconsistent quality depending on uni, supervisor, and field. Some thesis papers are complete nonsense or fringe, but it's unfortunate that we often treat all of them as borderline radioactive. DFlhb ( talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my advise seems to have been taken back to front. Having looked into this a bit further I don't see why it shouldn't be considered reliable. If it was a BA thesis it wouldn't be reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, unless it could be shown to used by other reliable sources. However this is a conference paper, that appears in a book published editted by a respected scholar in the appropriate field, and published by a reputable university. I do have some worries about the wording it's used to support, it would be good if Headbomb could supply a page number. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur that the source looks fine for this purpose. The phrasing could be tweaked, but that's not a problem for this thread per se. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I originally asked this in Wikipedia:Teahouse:

I wish to use a Global Times article for an article on a trolleybus route in Shanghai. I'm well aware that this is a depreciated source, but this is one of the very few sources I can find in English (most others are Chinese), and if I were being honest I don't think this particular article can be harmful even if this is used, considering this is on a general topic of trolleybuses in Shanghai and not some controversial topic like politics. Also, Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS, and in this case the context is pretty much alright. In this case, is it okay if I were to use this particular GT article inside my Wikipedia article?

User:Hoary replied:

WP:GLOBALTIMES points not only to a discussion deprecating GT but also responses to subsequent questions akin to "I know that GT is deprecated, but could it be used as a source for xyz?" Their responses can be summarized as "no". Are none of the sources in Chinese usable? If not, then it is indeed rather hard to imagine how a trolleybus route could be misrepresented for propaganda purposes, but the place to ask isn't here but instead WP:RSN.

Bringing this over to clear things up a bit, per his argument in the last sentence. SBS6577P ( talk) 07:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The policy on deprecated sources does allow exceptions. However, if there are sources in Chinese about this topic, why can't you use them instead of the Global Times? Alaexis _¿question? 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the Chinese sources I found are from Baidu Baijiahao (百家好), which is also mentioned as a depreciated source in the Chinese version of WP:RSP. While some of these articles can be considered as a reliable source due to them being created by locally reputable authors (news agencies etc), I'm not really sure for some of the others, so I'd much rather go with GT than being unsure. Not much of the sources directly discussed the trolleybus route in question also. SBS6577P ( talk) 07:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand Baidu Baijiahao is kind of a blog platform. If a news agency or a local municipality publishes something on such a platform, we can use it, just as we allow links to youtube videos posted in the official channels of reliable sources. But if you are not sure about their reliability, I think that an exception can be made for the GT. Alaexis _¿question? 08:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'll take it as problem solved. Appreciate the response. SBS6577P ( talk) 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It really should be avoided at all costs, if there are reliable sources in Chinese use those and if not you might need to accept that the topic isn't WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This webpage was used a http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/Wilderness/ForceRestraint.htm on the wilderness therapy article. 1keyhole ( talk) 20:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Self-published site and the author appears to have published one book which was also self-published. Fails WP:SPS and would only be usable in a WP:ABOUTSELF context. Siawase ( talk) 11:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've seen this website be used as a source but am wondering if it should be included seeing as how overtly partisan it is. Scu ba ( talk) 17:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Their work looks honorable, but I can't find much on their staff or their editorial policy, [5] and [6] are the best I can find, but nothing there shows much of use. I also can't find much in terms of other reliable sources citing it, except for the various partners listed on their "About Us" page. What you'd really need is some evidence that other sources cite their work to show its reliability. -- Jayron 32 17:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not Reliable pending better information on the organization. Concur with Jayron32. I have also not found anything that clues me on their editorial practices, and I can't find any reliable sources citing their work. Their editorial slant looks firmly left, which is not in and of itself a disqualifier. But the lack of any data would make me reluctant to use them, especially for any claims that might be controversial, unless it is corroborated elsewhere. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is a Reuters article that cites it which I came across. [7] Not sure how widely cited it is, though. Mellk ( talk) 21:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's a start but I'd need a bit more. They are almost a blank slate as far as any kind of "about" coverage beyond their own website. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

From the About Us page it's apparent that they are a collaboration between the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and Khalifa Ihler Institute, the Imprint page itself is simply a copy of the same page at Rosalux.de. The articles are by a collective of authors "coordinated by Bjørn Ihler", and the site is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office. I'd say this is reliable, but should be attributed. Articles could also be more or less reliable depending on the particular author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Weakly reliable: I think its reliability would follow that of its parent agencies, the RLS and Khalifa Ihler Institute, which I assume would be ranked with other partisan but research-heavy thinktanks such as the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), Community Security Trust or Southern Poverty Law Centre. I.e. reliable for facts but best used with attribution to acknowledge partisanship. I note that it is given as the author for articles on various RLS websites, [8] that its launch (covered by this Irish news website, which might not be reliable) featured reputable speakers such as the director of the IRR, [9] [10] that it has been cited with attribution by Reuters on the Russian far right [11] and by Stanford Uni's Mapping Militants Project on the Ukrainian far right, [12] and more recently by French news website TF1 on right-wing Russian volunteers on Ukraine's side. [13]that most of its news articles give the names of authors (e.g. PhD student Sophie Schmalenberger, [14] political scientist Gerd Wiegel [15]) and covered by Spanish news site El Salto. [16] In addition, to give a sense of noteworthiness rather than as evidence of reliability, it has been the subject of an article by left-wing Brazilian news website Brasil de Fato and Opera Mundi, [17] [18] and other news sites, [19] and used as a source by the (less reliable) news agency TeleSur. [20] Its German Federal funding has also been attacked by an Irish fascist/conspiracist website which helpfully points out that its contributors include Hope Not Hate and Dieter Reinisch, "an Austrian academic and was a visiting fellow in NUI Galway and lectures variously between Salzburg and Vienna". [21] BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of interest, what facts are being sourced from it? Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have asked the question above on this talk page. Clarification on this issue will be appreciated. Yesterday, all my dreams... ( talk) 04:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure about that. Unreliable publishers can (on occasion) publish reliable content and reliable sources can (and often frequently do) publish unreliable content. The analysis at a publisher-level is too sweeping in my opinion. Augend ( drop a line) 06:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Augend. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Bon courage ( talk) 06:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, in a wonderful turn of phrase from User: Nableezy, I would direct you to what I call Masalha's Law: "If Masalha wrote this on a soiled piece of toilet paper it would remain a reliable source based solely on his qualifications." Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is far to broad a question to get a real answer. Certainly a publishers reputation could be so bad that anything it publishes could be met with skepticism, but that doesn't mean everything it publishes would always be unreliable. However on the flip side a reputable publisher could publish something that could be considered unreliable.

The article history doesn't make it very clear what is being questioned, nor does the talk page help much. Could you briefly describe the the issue, and the source being questioned? That would allow a more definitive answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 11:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps more context shoud be included. The subject of the article was a disabled author who lived most of her life in a specific house in Viareggio Italy. The question pertains to what non-extraordinary and someahat routie statements about her life can be included about her from the publisher who published her book. An example statement is the fact that she was evacuated during WWII to another town, others pertain to when she met certain people, etc. She arrived in Viareggio in 1924 when she was 27 and lived there for 37 more years. She died in 1961. She wrote an autobiography that concluded in 1942 when she was about 47 years old.

The key sources for her life are all publshed by the publisher of her main book. The sources are:

1. Her autobiography

2. "Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta" (memories of women who knew Valtorta) by Albo Centoni ISBN ‎ 8879870408. This includes interviews with her friends and neighbors from the street she lived on. Much of the information is routine, but has facts about the WWII evacuation, the bombing of Viareggio, etc. as well as how she wrote her book (handwritten) etc. This book covers the period 1924 to 1961.

3. Her assistant Marta Diciotti entered her household in 1935 and remained there even after her death. The events of those years are in her book "Una vita con Maria Valtorta" (A life with Maria Valtorta) ISBN 8879870440.

One question is: Can the very existence of these books be mentioned in the article? There has been the suggestion that they can not even be mentioned, because they have the same publisher has her main book. These and her autobiography were not self published books because there in no evidence that the authors paid for the publication. They have a distinct publisher.

The petty little issue that has given rise to the question here is the statement: "Most of Maria Valtorta's life is known only by the autobiograpy". The existence of books that cover the last 37 years of her life indicates that this is not the case. The length of these books exceeds her autobiography by 3-4 times. Would it be correct to say:

"The first 27 years of her life are only known from her autobiography. Additional, more extensive sources exist for the next 37 years of her life".

I am sorry to be taking time here with this question, but this seems like the appropriare venue for the question. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... ( talk) 12:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

They may not have been self published but they were published by a group that has "the specific and priority aim of developing, documenting and spreading the knowledge of Maria Valtorta..", so they are hardly independent. Given they are published by want appears to be an advocacy group the works should at least be handled with a lot of care. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check through. And of course, we will handle them with a lot of care, in a strong sense of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In general no "extraordinary claims" from these types of sources should be used, but routine claims such as evacuation during WWII etc. or the people the author knew are not controversial and not promotional. In addition, the people she knew are backed up by a book of photographs (same publisher, ISBN 8879870343) which shows the people existed. So we will handle them with extra care, not use exceptional claims or wonder off to unnecessary details. But we will also not deny the fact that the books exist. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... ( talk) 15:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Philippine News Agency (PNA) offers local news sources that can be reliable like Rappler. Other news sources that are copied from Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, TASS, and PR Newswire.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also involved by comparing with local news ( https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1202018) and ( https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1201938) foreign news sources. 112.204.206.165 ( talk) 23:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This website was added as a reference in the Italian War of 1542–1546 article.

Previous comments concerning this site indicate it is not reliable.

Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Antill and Dugdale-Pointon are qualified in the field of strategic studies and international relations, which are closely related to history, but not quite history itself. Rickard is the historian of the three, but seems to never have completed his studies after having studied medieval military history for nearly a decade, otherwise they would mention his bachelor or master. Having a BA in History myself, I would be concerned if they know enough about source criticism and textual analysis to discern the context, authorship and textual history of sources (which is important if you want to write about history). That doesn't necessarily make the site unreliable, but that it's WP:TERTIARY is probably an apt assessment.

I do not share Miniapolis's POV concern about the quote in question. As far as I know, that is historically accurate, and easily supported by other sources. I'm not even sure what is "POV" about it, it is just factually correct. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

NPR released a piece yesterday about an independent report that found, among other things that former U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack [v]iolated the independence of journalists working for newsrooms at the Voice of America and other international broadcasting networks funded by the government. Pack was appointed June 2020 and resigned January 20, 2021. As an extremely informal discussion: should extra caution be used for these sources during that time period? Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 04:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's now considered generally reliable with a caveat that "some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government." I think that this confirms that there is some influence of the US government on VoA et al. As far as I can see, in this case the influence did not lead to any falsehoods being published, so I don't think there are grounds for reclassifying it. Alaexis _¿question? 07:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! To clarify, I was asking more from an operations standpoint (what to do if I encounter a VoA source from that time period) than from a classification one. And I have my answer: the caveat to consider concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government covers incidents such as the one I mentioned. Thanks again, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Voice of America is U.S. propaganda news. Why is it reliable? Chances last a finite time ( talk) 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it doesn't publish falsehoods. It's issue, if any, is that it picks (true) stories that highlights/put American interests in a favourable light. A source can be biased without being unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb says it well. State-funded or state-supported media may be putting the US, or in particular the U.S. federal govt which it is financially dependent on, in a favourable light, but if it evident that its staff are confident in criticising that govt or society for whatever reason (which VoA does do, AFAIK quite regularly), it cannot simply be labelled 'propaganda'. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that fmg.ac is is currently used about 123 times on English Wikipedia, and is frequently invoked in genealogies and biographies. Although anyone can join this website and submit material ( WP:USERGENERATED?), https://fmg.ac/about-us does say All submissions are subject to expert review as a form of quality control. Still, I've got concerns about its reliability, especially the genealogy at https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/RUSSIA,%20Rurik.htm. The most frequent way this particular web page is invoked on English Wikipedia is to support the claim that this or that person was "a member of the Rurik dynasty".

The "Rurik" genealogy is quite impressive, and does have 1190 citations to what sometimes seem to be reliable sources. But the main two sources are Baumgarten 1927 and 1934 ( WP:AGEMATTERS), who based himself on WP:PRIMARY sources:

• The outline genealogies in the present document, into which primary source information has been fitted, were compiled mainly from Baumgarten´s works. (...) Although his works date from 1927 and 1934, they have the great advantage of citing the primary sources on which the information is based. Nevertheless, his citations are not as helpful as they could be, firstly because the publications include no key to the abbreviations which the author uses and no full list of works cited, and secondly because the absence of exact quotations means it is impossible to judge the weight of their evidence. This has serious WP:RS and WP:V issues.
• Moreover, 164 out of the 1190 are references to The Russian Primary Chronicle, which is a notoriously unreliable WP:PRIMARY source.
• Many other sources are from the 19th century, or are critical editions of WP:PRIMARY sources, like the Monumenta.
• 7 sources are 'private emails' with certain authors. Obvious WP:V issue.
• On the plus side, it also includes a lot of recent scholarly publications from especially the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.

Although I must say that their introduction has great caveats, I'm not sure if this either supports or undermines the reliability of the genealogy in general:

• As pointed out by Franklin & Shepard[2], the extant manuscripts of the Primary Chronicle which date from the 12th century should not be taken at face value as they must have been compiled from patchy sources of information. It is likely that the compilers exaggerated the role of Rurik's family in the 9th and 10th centuries, in order to establish a lengthy, credible history for the Russian principalities which were flourishing by the 12th century. In particular, the alleged establishment by "Oleg" in 882 of the principality of Kiev should be treated with caution.
• From the time of Grand Prince Iaroslav I, the genealogy of the dynasty can be considered more reliable. However, there are still many gaps and uncertainties, particularly relating to the female members of the family.
• Bearing in mind the background to the establishment of Scandinavian settlements in Rus as discussed in the Introduction to the present document, any reconstructed genealogy of the Rurikid dynasty during the early years, as well as all dates and even names, must be viewed with caution. The detailed genealogy for this early period set out below may be of little factual significance but is reproduced by way of interest.

Especially that last sentence worries me, because there are serious scholarly disputes about whether Rurik, the supposed "founder"/"progenitor" of the so-called Rurikid family (fmg.ac's own words, not mine), even existed or has been made up, so that the whole term "Rurikids" may be a misnomer (see Ostrowski, Donald (2018). "Was There a Riurikid Dynasty in Early Rus'?". Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 52 (1): 30–49. doi: 10.1163/22102396-05201009.). So if especially the early period may be of little factual significance at all, but has just been interest[ing to reproduce] for whatever user(s) made this genealogy ( WP:USERGENERATED?!), I think this is pretty damning for its reliability. Especially because in practice this web page is invoked on English Wikipedia to claim that this or that person descended from another person who may never have existed in the first place, which fmg.ac readily admits, but just reproduces anyway because it's interesting ( WP:IJUSTLIKEIT?).

I'm not sure if this problem extends to the entire website, but unless I've overlooked something, at least this page is one we should probably 'blacklist' (or something) as an unreliable source. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't say about fmg.ac in general but Medieval Lands has been discussed before and is not a reliable source. The author "is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh that's a good point, I hadn't checked out the subdomain's homepage http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm. I guess that settles it? I'll try and look it up in the archives. (I had looked in the archives of WikiProject Genealogy, but not here. Guess I should have dome that too). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about deprecating or blacklisting, but it does appear to be generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I now see that Medieval Lands / Cawley / fmg.ac / Foundation for Medieval Genealogy has been discussed time and again at this Noticeboard, especially in 2012 several times, again in 2014 (by which time it was clear that it was unreliable), but in a 2016 discussion ( Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Historical sources in Zeno, señor de Vizcaya) people seemed to be unaware of the previous conclusions and were invoking Cawley again as possibly reliable. It seems quite ineffective to me to be having the same discussion all over again. I could have saved myself the trouble if it had an entry at WP:RSP (the other place where I looked before I submitted thus inquiry). It is still extensively used on Wikipedia despite repeated conclusions that it is unreliable. I think it's time we purged Cawley / Medieval Lands / fmg.ac everywhere instead of letting this unreliable source linger in the corners of English Wikipedia. As long as we allow it to stay up, withno easily findable rule or precedent anywhere that it's unreliable and shouldn't be used, we could be having this discussion for another 11 years while misleading our readers and fellow editors alike that it might be reliable. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD you can remove the references without needing approval. If anyone objects then it may be time for an RFC and add it to RSP, it has come up often enough that I easily spotted MedLands as part of your link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 23:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Is there a way to let a bot do it or do I need to manually remove all 123+ references to fmg.ac and replace them with [citation needed]? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's likely something AWB could do, but I generally do these things manually so I couldn't help with automation. I would suggest at least verifying the links are to MedLands not another part of fmc.ac, as the older discussions give a suggestion that other parts could be reliable (although even then they could be replaced with the sources used by fmc.ac). If they are removed then {{ citation needed}} would be the correct template to mark them with. One thing to look out for is the use of refnames, as each instance will need to be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 00:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'll just remove the refs to https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/RUSSIA,%20Rurik.htm for now I guess. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ ActivelyDisinterested @ Horse Eye's Back The Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley is in use (often as the redirect Template:MLCC). It is currently used 576 times on English Wikipedia. This is a much larger problem than I thought. Even though it carries a standard warning [self-published source][better source needed] as a result of discussions at the Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley#Medieval Lands is not a reliable source, this seems like a really weird compromise-like option to me. WP:SELFPUB states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. ActivelyDisinterested already indicated that Charles Cawley "is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research". That doesn't seem to be a "relevant field".

Why doesn't Cawley have to abide by WP:SELFPUB? Is there some special pleading going on here? I think we should treat Cawley the same as all other WP:SELFPUB sources. No ifs, no buts. If Cawley cites a reliable source, then cite that source. Don't cite Cawley. Simple as that. I think it's time that we really blacklist this, otherwise this just keeps on being a problem for yet another 15+ years. And I'm sure not gonna manually remove this template from 576+ pages, let alone all other pages that cite Cawley but do not use this template. This is a bot's job, isn't it? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_25#Template:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley I've nominated Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley for deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 06:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It's truly daft that a comment on the templates talk page was made in September 2012 stating This template allows a breathing space for editors to come up with reliable sources for the same information, and yet over a decade later we are still using the source. That's not breathing space, for a decade the template has {{ Self-published inline}} and {{ Better source needed}} tags as part of the cite. It's way beyond time these references were removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad I brought it up here, and that I am not the only one thinking this. This has turned out to be a much larger problem than I thought, than many other people seem to have realised for way over a decade. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been, rather slowly and intermittently, trying to replace Medland "sources". Also, it would be better to verify the source(s) Cawley uses than simply take Cawley's "word" for it. There have been a number of instances where I checked Cawley's citation(s) and they failed to support what had been written. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 12:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Kansas Bear Thanks for doing your part. I initially tried to do the same (06:28, 24 May 2023), but given the sheer number of Cawley citations across English Wikipedia, gradually manually replacing each Cawley is IMO no longer a viable option. Every day Cawley stays up across c. 700 articles (576 through the template, 123 outside the template minus the c. 10 that I manually purged already), we are potentially misleading more readers into a false sense of security that certain claims made by Cawley are somewhat reliable, and giving the impression that only a "better source (is) needed" to what Cawley has already "proven". I'd rather move from unreliably-sourced to unsourced statements; readers will treat the latter with more skepticism, and editors will be more motivated to fix the problem. Let's just Purge Cawley from Wikipedia completely, once and for all. I don't want future readers to be misled, nor future Wikipedians having to deal with the same shit over and over. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)