Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Are books published by Facts on File, Inc., considered reliable for use as sources in Wikipedia articles?

On a related topic, does Wikipedia have a list of book publishers with reliability indicated (something like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts on File is an established textbook publisher. Generally with book publishers a lot of reliability depends on the author but I wouldn't look at a book with that imprint and consider it any sort of red flag. Just keep in mind standard Wikipedia guidance about textbooks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Simonm223. I appreciate your response. The one I have looked at seems reliable to me, and I feel better about it after reading your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually archived a couple of sections, as the page was over 500kb again. The first should have been archived on the 4th and the other would have been archived tomorrow. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually archived a couple more sections due to size issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a third round of manual archiving, but that has only just brought the board under 500k. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe archive all the obvious threads that have been around a few days and got like one clear answer and no further responses... I know they're individually short but there are a fair number of them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting to reopen discussion on allsides.com reliability. Previous discussions came to a non unanimous decision and counterpoints not addressed.

The major critique is their methodology. It was brought up how methodology is rarely questioned for primary sources and this was never addressed.

The crowd sourced bias ratings are brought up but this is only used for the initial rating and states the website has low confidence in that ratings, it will then proceed to give its professional analysis given by its independent fact checkers at the bottom if they have independently verified or will state they have not independently verified the crowd sourced poll.

Allsides will also cite examples of articles and the exact reasoning for the achieved rating.

The only inaccurate part of the website is the public opinion polling which described by the website as a “low confidence rating” doesn’t seem like a valid reason to discredit the organization

• Methodology

(Copyright violation removed)

2001:1970:4AE5:A300:24C0:85AE:4701:D1AE (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the large amount of text that was copied and pasted from the AllSides website, because it is a copyright violation. Please note that content on Wikipedia pages must either be freely licensed content that is compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 or the GFDL license, or satisfy fair use requirements if the content is non-free. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don’t know what I dust did 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:24C0:85AE:4701:D1AE (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it looks like you made the same edit twice on this page. I've merged your comment into this discussion, with the copyright-violating content removed. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this as answered, as the page is no longer protected. If you want to raise you question you can go ahead, less the copyvio obviously (try including [links] to what you want to discuss instead). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with how to reply to the conversation with Nat Gertler and Photos of Japan in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard under the subject "Pegging" posted yesterday here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-RubyRyder-20250123051500-Pegging This seems to be the only avenue I can find to reply.

Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/

Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/

Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.

With respect, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment and move this conversation to the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think she wants that comment added to the thread "Pegging" as the page was ECP'd because of MAB. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see § General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed. Thought I'd drop a notice here (and also at WT:RSP) since there's a comment wondering why it's not at WT:RSN. Since it's at VP already though, probably best to keep it at VP to avoid forking. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]