Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.


    (Sections older than 5 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.)

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
    470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
    480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • RfCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

    RfC: Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and other Mediacorp-affiliated media

    [edit]

    Channel NewsAsia (CNA) is one of two major news outlets in Singapore, the other being The Straits Times. How should we consider its reliability?

    channelnewsasia.com Links Spamcheck

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

    ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (CNA)

    [edit]
    • Option 1: Given some growing consensus to elevate The Straits Times to WP:GREL similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, I will consider it a reliable source, though with considerations similarly applied for The Straits Times given Singapore's limited press freedoms. In fact, CNA, being a mediacorp news outlet, could be considered a state-owned news outlet given Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings - the investment arm of the Government of Singapore. However, compared to The Straits Times, it's considered more reputable particularly due to its documentaries. It was considered broadcaster of the year at Berlin World Media Festivals and New York Festivals, global gold for Best News Website at Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022 and having outstanding reporting on climate change at Asiavision Awards. A Reuters survey in 2024 also showed that CNA remains the most trusted brand among Singaporeans. Also from accessing its usage across Wikipedia, it seems CNA has been used for various topics. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: CNA should be WP:GREL. While owned by Mediacorp, CNA has demonstrated a greater degree of journalistic independence than The Straits Times. It has positioned itself more as an international news outlet rather than a local one, similar to NHK World-Japan, BBC News, France 24 and Deutsche Welle (DW). Its international coverage is widely regarded as reliable, balanced and professional. While some caution may still be advisable when evaluating CNA's domestic political coverage as with any national outlet, its international reporting is fully reliable and on par with established sources with international recognition for its credibility. Aleain (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Per above. I have personally always found CNA more neutral than ST, especially with their international reporting. By extension, I have also found Today to have similar levels of neutrality to CNA. For some context on Today, it is also owned by Mediacorp and was merged into CNA in 2024. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 I still have doubts about this RFC, but will add a comment anyway. The situation in Singapore remains the same, as noted by Reporters Without Borders[1], and especially given the passing of the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill[2]. CNA is a trusted and respected news organisation[3], but editors need to take into account the local situation when dealing with anything related to the government or ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Singapore's media landscape may not mirror that of countries with a freer press, but that does not make CNA unreliable. Option 2 suggests that CNA spreads false statements like fake vote counts or baseless attacks on opposition figures, which is simply untrue. CNA has earned international recognition for a reason, and there is no evidence of it engaging in outright disinformation. While CNA is highly cautious on local politics, it does not cross into the kind of state propaganda seen in fully authoritarian countries where reliable sources such as SCMP and Al Jazeera are based in. Aleain (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Option 2 doesn't suggest they spread false statements or anything such, it states that additional considerations apply which is the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:MREL, which Option 2 refers to, alludes to a grey area between sources that are generally reliable and those that are not. Has CNA engaged in consistent patterns of poor fact checking, inaccuracies or widespread errors in its areas of expertise that would exclude it from meeting the standard of a generally reliable source under WP:GREL? Aleain (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a grey area when it comes to the situation in Singapore, and shown by the sources linked. In those areas additional considerations apply as per my comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC. Rather than how should we consider its reliability, we should consider the reliability of a source (which is not just the publisher), in a context, for a Wikipedia article, if disputed, with no check-one-of-four forms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • RfC Close/Withdraw No WP:RFCBEFORE here. Adding the comment that I doubt the GREL status of this for anything to do with the govt. Mediacorp is a monopolistic broadcaster directly owned, controlled and funded by the sovereign fund Temasek itself mired in controversy around appointments of close relatives of the top Singaporean political brass. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems you may not be fully informed on the topic and are making a quick remark without engaging meaningfully with the discussion. While Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings, a government-linked investment firm, that alone does not compromise CNA's editorial integrity. CNA has its own editorial team and regularly produces journalism that is regionally and internationally recognised. It covers a wide range of issues, including those critical of government policy. Dismissing it purely based on ownership reflects a shallow understanding of media ecosystems and ignores CNA's track record of factual and balanced reporting. Aleain (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      My vote for this was mainly a procedural one to close neither in affirmation nor in disagreement on the basis that RfCs need a prior infructuous discussion which isn't the case here. A remark/comment was appened, and labelled as such, but neither was it rash, shallow nor made on mere analysis of ownership. Your assumption in that regard is incorrect. I am well aware of the Singaporean media environment, its self-censorship, PAP presurres and intransgencies [I lay the same in the Straits Times discussion above]. Neither the CNA nor the Mediacorp are alien to these.
      Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention by Stephan Ortmann (2009, Routledge):

      Finally, unlike Hong Kong, Singapore's ruling elite controls nearly all of the major external means of communication. The leading English-language newspaper, the pro-government Straits Times, is owned by the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which is closely linked to the government. The other major media company. MediaCorp, a government-linked corporation, has a monopoly over freely available terrestrial television stations and owns the only freely distributed daily tabloid, Today. There are virtually no alter-native voices in Singapore's media landscape, which means that the govern-ment possesses a strong ability to control the masses. Prominent party members have, furthermore, published autobiographies, monographs, and other commemorative books, which are widely available in Singapore book-stores. This stands in contrast to the opposition, which has difficulty getting its books and magazines published. The PAP has also used the mainstream media to broadcast documentaries which are biased in favor of the ruling elite.

      Fake News and Elections in Southeast Asia: Impact on Democracy and Human Rights by James Gomez, Robin Ramcharan (2022, Taylor & Francis):

      Control of broadcast and print media has also been achieved through the total control of Mediacorp via Temasek volding a government investment firm headed by the prime minister's wife, Ho Ching - as well as via the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), where government approved management are given "200 times the voting power of ordinary shareholders", leading to pervasive self-censorship, and the use of domestic media to orchestrare "coverage [that] clearly favors the PAP and "misrepresents[s]" its opponents. In 2021, Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 160th in terms of press freedom, only 17 places alove China and 19 places above North Korea.

      But what about CNA itself, let us turn to the enwiki article on it:

      CNA has been criticised for its pro-government bias in Singapore. In its 12th biennial report released on 2 September 2009, Pace stipulated that "the broadcaster was adopting a conservative and careful approach in its reports and programmes", while being labelled as the "voice of the Government".

      Broadcast media is also generally less reliable than print media. Even if we were to rate CNA GREL, I don't see why we should anyhow, that would come with a giant caveat of exempting that status for any local or political coverage.
      PS: Comparisons between Singaporean government controlled media and other outlets such as Al Jazeera and SCMP have been made in the Straits Times discussion above. But I ask those making such comparisons to read Al Jazeera Media Network#Editorial independence. Though I also believe there is evidence for a revisit of SCMP's status at RSP. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 CNA fits into the "soft approach" broadcasters Martelanc et al identified [4] in the typology of state-backed external services built for their UNESCO study in the 1970s. The state affiliation, therefore, shouldn't be questioned in its reporting on matters external to the home country and we should default to simply determining if it crests some basic standard of USEBYOTHERS which, as far as I can tell, it does. Insofar as its reporting on the home country goes, the state affiliation itself shouldn't be questioned unless there's evidence (beyond ownership) to support such questions which, as far as I can tell, there is not. It may incorporate or exhibit unique framing in its reporting but that, by itself, is insufficient to question the veracity of the underlying claims. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC - I'm agreeing with Peter Gulutzan on this one. All news organizations are motivated to get things published quickly, which leads news organizations, in general, to making mistakes. With online publishing and a 24/7 news cycle taking over... it's perhaps gotten worse because it's no longer "get it done before the morning paper is published" and there is a push to get it out the door immediately, so editors should always take news reports with a hint of skepticism, and know that news stories evolve as more information becomes available. In order to review this source, we need to know what the conflict is. What is it reporting, how is it being used, what's the disagreement? Denaar (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Chetsford said it well. A source with proper editorial review and all the other hallmarks of a reliable source shouldn't be listed as anything less without evidence of actual issues, which I have yet to see. Yes, CNA is somewhat more favorable to the SG gov't than some other newspapers in other countries, but my evidence for this is purely anecdotal and they (as far as I know) do not make things up to further potential biases.
    To push back on the RfCBEFORE arguments: CNA has been discussed at RSN several times before [5][6][7]. Even if that weren't the case, there has been a long-running saga around SG state-backed sources spanning many discussions here and on article talk pages, FAC pages, and elsewhere. Having extremely similar sources called into question justifies an effort to confirm the reliability of CNA by RfC. Toadspike [Talk] 03:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (CNA)

    [edit]
    • In truth, I thought RSNs/RfCs are for discussions for all widely-used sources being used, and I opened this RfC more to also add CNA on the RSP list following the re-evaluation of Straits Times reliability. But an admin off-wiki pointed out to me, if there hadn't been issues, please don't bring them up. So, honestly, I apologise if this is out of process or anything. Let's say I misunderstood the assignment.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Both the noticeboard header and the edit notice explicitly ask you not to do this. Unless there has been prior disagreement and discussion this should proby be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think this should be closed. The discussion about The Straits Times and CNA is closely linked since they are part of the same country and media environment. CNA is widely used in articles relating to Singapore and the greater Southeast Asian region, and its reliability was already raised on this noticeboard here. If we don't deal with this now, when will we? The same debates are bound to come up again soon so it's better to get everything cleared up. Aleain (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is that noone who may object to CNA's use can know to comment in this RFC, because they have yet to raise any objection. This feels uncomfortably like pre-approval. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I had previously attempted to ascertain CNA's reliability more than a month ago on WikiProject Singapore, but unfortunately there was little response. I believe there had been sufficient visibility on both the WikiProject and this noticeboard for a reasonable amount of time to allow for a range of perspectives on CNA. Aleain (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Simple Flying

    [edit]

    Is Simple Flying [8] from 2024 and later ...

    • Option 1: Generally reliable
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

    Is Simple Flying prior to 2024 ...

    • Option 1: Generally reliable
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

    Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Simple Flying)

    [edit]
    • Option 4 (all years)changing !vote per RickyCourtney's reasoningOption 2 (2024+), Option 3 (2023-) ... Recent reporting seems to be fine for non-BLP content on aviation-related matters that doesn't make extraordinary claims or assert information inconsistent with other sources; older reporting may be problematic. Simple Flying passes WP:USEBYOTHERS as it's widely cited by, for example, The Kansas City Star, [9] the Miami Herald, [10] WBOY-TV, [11] USA Today, [12] CNN, [13] WJLA-TV, [14] Fortune, [15] The Week, [16] and scores of others. It has multiple reporters, indicating a gatekeeping process, and it hasn't been negatively checked by fact-checking websites like PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. On the other hand, their reporters all seem to be generalists without specific expertise in aviation journalism, almost all of the USEBYOTHERS has occurred in the last two years, and some basic factual errors were noticed in the years immediately after it went online (2019-2022). Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC); edited 20:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 (2024+) I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. In lack of a specific edit and specific cite, I can only say I would tend to not use it on a basis of low WEIGHT of readers . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Option 4 (all years) - If WP:UBO is the only evidence that Simple Flying's reliability may have improved, then I'm going to have to oppose any change at this time. - ZLEA T|C 05:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to option 4 per Avgeekamfot. - ZLEA T|C 20:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 (all years) - Based on AndyTheGrump's research, this is a churnalism outfit that makes schoolboy errors and who's links by other sources can probably be attributed to journalists in a hurry.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 (all years) - My experience with SF is that, while some factual information may be buried in their stories, much of it is just farming content for social media consumption. Announcements of new routes, etc., might be factual (even if they're just re-prints of corporate press releases), but there are too many instances of factually incorrect statements included in their reporting. Considering this, it's best that they be considered "generally unreliable" and articles should avoid citing them, especially if other sources exist. I think it's also a bad idea to apply the rubric that reliable sources cite SF here, considering the authors of those otherwise RS are likely not aviation specialists and might be inclined to believe whatever they read on sites like this. nf utvol (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 (all years) - I've consistently reviewed additions of Simple Flying as a source since the prior consensus emerged and support fully depreciating it. It is not currently used on Wikipedia but it is added a few times a week. I'm interested in aviation so I often read articles from Simple Flying and often find inaccuracies. It's only really useful as an aggregator of events but completely useless for facts. Depreciating would save a lot of time. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, all years, support deprecating As both a working journalist and journalism professor—and an aviation geek personally—I find this outlet reads like classic churnalism aimed at engagement farming. While a few authors demonstrate expertise, their work is diluted by articles from others who publish articles with factual errors or only trivial observations (without the purpose of making complex topics accessible). The problem is that many of these mistakes are subtle enough to pass unnoticed by a general audience (or hurried non-specialist journalists), but stand out immediately to those with subject-matter expertise. To me, that reflects either insufficient editorial oversight or a lack of editorial sophistication—shortcomings that, in my opinion, are inexcusable for a publication that presents itself as a specialist source or for a reliable one for Wikipedia. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, all years, support depracating I actively review simpleflying links before removing them and I have not seen any that stack up against more reputable aviation sources. There's just to much in there that's wrong to trust that someone might actually find and link to something that is factually correct, so on balance I'd suggest we're a much better of place without it. 10mmsocket (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Simple Flying)

    [edit]
    Why is this RfC distinguishing between '2024 and later' and 'prior to 2024'? Has something of significance changed? If so, we need to be told what it is, and be given evidence that it matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same question. I am unaware of any changes after 2024 that would impact their reliability (which, for the record, is not exactly stellar). nf utvol (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. What changed in 2024 that might change its reliability? - ZLEA T\C 17:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, virtually every example of WP:UBO I can find is 2024 or later. Why that is I can't say, but it probably doesn't matter. Wikipedians generally don't have the capacity to engage in correct evaluation of the veracity of online sources; a best practice would require evaluation of at least two constructed weeks of content for every six months evaluated. In the absence of this individualized ability, we do (or should) rely on on what RS do to ascertain the reliability of any given source. RS, in this case and as far as I can tell, seem to have adopted an observable pattern of use that preferences 2024 and later. (Perhaps others will notice a different pattern or no pattern at all, though, in which case they can normalize their opinions between the two time periods.) Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained below, UBO isn't enough to evaluate the reliability of a source. In addition to the factual reporting problem, WP:Simple Flying states that the source has engag[ed] in plagiarism and churnalism. Therefore, I'm going to have to oppose any change in its reliability rating unless and until it can be shown that all of its issues have improved. - ZLEA T\C 23:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I'd take a look at what content Simple Flying currently has on its website. An article entitled How Many P‑47 Thunderbolts Were Built? [18] has just been published, and since I know a little about the P-47, that seemed worth further inspection. And I have to say, I'm far from impressed. The article is repetitive and badly written (e.g. "Thunderbolts destroyed upwards of 7,000 Axis aircraft, with around half of that number being on the ground and more than half being in air-to-air combat." which requires rather unorthodox mathematics) and gives a distinctly unfinished impression - assuming that an LLM wasn't involved somewhere, which seems at least possible. If this is at all typical of Simple Flying's output, I'd have to query why we'd want to cite it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of sloppy writing, from February this year: "Supermarine built a number of seaplanes, including the Seafire (a naval version of the Spitfire)" [19] Either the writer doesn't understand what a seaplane is - a float-equipped aeroplane operating from water rather than land - or he has done zero research into the Seafire, which most definitely wasn't equipped with floats, being instead a modification of the Spitfire design, equipped with a tailhook etc for operation from aircraft carriers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably nominate this bit of insightful writing for the annual internet stating-the-obvious prize (I assume there is one. If not, there should be.), From Why The Boeing 747 Has Four Engines (published 4 days ago) .[20] "The Boeing 747 has four engines because that is what it was designed with. It was designed with four engines because, in the 1960s, four engines were considered optimal given the engines available, the need for power, and the range requirements." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have much familiarity with aviation but I have to agree with Andy here. This site to an outsider looks like a bit of a content farm, even if it isn't necessarily written entirely by AI. The sheer volume of articles being put out per day by the same contributors, as well as the SEO-bait content Andy highlighted is cause for concern. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't presuppose any knowledge or ability to judge what sources are reliable. I can only go by what reliable sources indicate are reliable. Chetsford (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Evaluation of the reliability of sources (in general, or for specific content) by Wikipedia contributors is a routine process - it is the purpose of this noticeboard. One does not require any particular specialist skill to recognise bad writing, and only minimal knowledge to recognise the sort of obvious error that a legitimate aviation journalist shouldn't be making. And no, WP:UBO isn't some sort of trump card for negating such assessment. It is evidence to take into consideration, alongside other considerations, that is all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I started an essay which some other editors have helpfully contributed to on this outlet which may be helpful for editors as they participate at WP:Simple Flying. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Meduza

    [edit]
    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

    Over 3,000 citations on en.wiki. Run by Russian dissidents, considered GREL on ru.wiki (ru:Википедия:Часто используемые источники). Previous discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4

    meduza.io Links Spamcheck

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

    Numberguy6 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Meduza)

    [edit]
    one of the most robust independent Russian news sources[31]
    Flagship independent Russian media organization, at least looking at readership[32]
    Extensive article here[33]:
    • Meduza began as mainly a news aggregator but evolved rapidly into one of the leading Russophone news portals, providing extensive analytical reports about social, political, and cultural life in the RF and the wider world to audiences living both in and outside of the country. Its revenue is not based on subscriptions, but advertising, and it is therefore freely available to all users. Mixing news with lifestyle advice, Meduza models itself on The New York Times, a Western liberal media outlet, not Fox, the Daily Telegraph, or similar conservative networks available in the RF online.
    • the distinctiveness of Meduza’s position lies in it being simultaneously and in an intertwined way ‘Russian’ and ‘global’.
    • Meduza’s own developmental strategy is to extricate itself over time from its reliance on handouts from oligarchs, whatever their agenda, and to become economically independent ("oligarchs" e.g Khodorkovsky)
    • In group of outlets critical of the Kremlin, especially of its political authoritarianism and illiberal social policies...but that are not involved in political mobilization as such...their critical stance in relation to what goes on in the RF politically, socially, and otherwise is first and foremost a professional rather than a political position
    • Meduza is to some degree distinctive in that it pitches its own opposition to false, biased, and prejudiced information not only in the context of the RF itself, but also as a response to the global crisis of quality journalism
    Etc and etc Placeholderer (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, per Alaexis and Placeholderer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grnrchst (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, per above. One of an increasingly smaller handful of outlets in Russia that isn’t directly under Putin’s thumb. The Kip (contribs) 05:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Piling on here to say that it is clearly a reliable source per Placeholderer. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per all above. Helpful Cat {talk} 17:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, piling on, per Placehoderer. its WP:SNOWing Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options 2 or 3. This is generally an OK source, but it has been correctly criticized by Proekt for publishing, on a number of occasions, unverified claims (read disinformation) coming from unnamed officials from the presidential administration of Putin [34] ("Это была далеко не первая заметка «Медузы», основанная на «близких к Кремлю источниках». В какой-то момент редакторы издания решили не только агрегировать новости, но и предоставлять читателям эксклюзивную информацию. И в 2019 году «Медуза» наладила невиданный доселе конвейер — сначала стала выпускать по два внутриполитических эксклюзива в месяц, а после нападения России на Украину и вовсе по восемь в месяц"). My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Meduza)

    [edit]
    Has there been any prior discussions? Per the header and edit notice RFCs shouldn't be opened unless the source has been previously discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There are links to four previous discussions. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry not sure how I missed that, apparently I need better glasses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: encyclopedia.com

    [edit]

    Is encyclopedia.com ...

    • Option 1: Generally reliable
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

    Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (encyclopedia.com)

    [edit]
    • Option 3 Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator. It may be a good source from which to identify sources, but in no case should it be used to directly reference content. A cursory review of some of their entries exposes deep problems if we simply port them over directly as references:
    • This entry [35] on UFO enthusiast Jenny Randles we're using to source her biography. It is based off four books by Randles herself, and a fifth book by ghost detective Jerome Clark.
    • This entry [36] is merely a reprinting of the Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained. If we use it as a RS we will be greenlighting the introduction of assertions into Wikipedia like "[once] a necessary degree of telepathic affinity [occurs] ... a real ghost can appear".
    • This entry [37] makes the factual assertion that "Reiki is a gentle and safe technique, and has been used successfully in some hospitals."
    • Their article [38] on Uri Geller makes the factual assertion that "As a boy he performed feats of stopping the hands of watches through paranormal means."
    • Their article [39] on Lemuria is sourced to three books by noted crank James Churchward.
    And so forth. Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford, just a heads up that right now your survey response appears along with the RfC question at WP:RFC/A, as you posted them together (i.e., with only one signature under both, instead of separate signatures for the question and your response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - thank you! Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like saying we can't use any Gale database (which we have access to through the Wikipedia library) or we can't use JSTOR because some of the sources they reprint aren't reliable. Jahaza (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If an encyclopedia.com article is sourced to Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, wouldn't it be better to just source Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia? Chetsford (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I did, but I used the encyclopedia.com URL and put "via encyclopedia.com" at the end of the reference. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/1ish. Encyclopedia.com is perfectly fine to use when and if it is simply republishing other reliable sources as Hemiauchenia says above. For example the 1911 encyclopedia, JE, etc. Andre🚐 19:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of its articles aren't simply republications. They're compilations of content from multiple sources and the specific content in an article drawn from each source isn't identified. So some articles are a mix of crank sources and reliable sources and the content is stirred together into one big bowl of slop. For instance, its entry for Chiropractic [40] is sourced to two references: The Oxford Companion to the Body (good) and Dynamic chiropractic today (bad). Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree but isn't that an argument to make it Option 2, not 3? It is sometimes OK, but not always. Andre🚐 19:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "isn't that an argument to make it Option 2, not 3" Well, right now, you're leaning to Option 1. "It is sometimes OK, but not always." I could see a 2 argument narrowly constructed so that single-source republications where the single source is itself RS are usable, whereas multi-source aggregations are unusable. It's probably not an argument I'd support as my experience has been encyclopedia.com generally is not used in a GF way and the presence of an insane source republished on encyclopedia.com is used to rehabilitate and legitimize that source. But I could understand the argument at least. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 is generally reliable. I have not perused the whole of encyclopedia.com and I could concede that the % of reliability is unknown to me, but all the times I've used it for e.g. JE or 1911 type topics, I haven't seen a problem with it and it cites its sources and they are occasionally high quality academic sources. Which is why I am leaning 1ish because even an option 1 close is not a blanket endorsement as even gold standard sources often commit errors. as to your comment that it generally is not used in a good faith way, could you give any examples that would help? Because I am coming from the opposite type of familiarity with it as a source in different areas, ie old history stuff not chiropractors. Andre🚐 20:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have not perused the whole of encyclopedia.com" A very high standard to !vote anything but one, indeed.
    "even gold standard sources often commit errors" I sort-of don't feel we're risking unduly maligning a "gold standard" source in this discussion of "encyclopedia.com". But I digress. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say encyclopedia.com was a gold standard source. I said that even clear Option 1s are not perfect in all respects, and it therefore follows that a mediocre source that occasionally is unusable, could still be a 1ish. Are you saying that more than half of the content on encyclopedia.com is junk? I've seen it used a nontrivial number of times in a good way. Andre🚐 20:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Are you saying that more than half of the content on encyclopedia.com is junk? " I would !vote 4 if I thought "only" 49% of the information being pumped out by a single source was junk. Ainsi va la vie. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but like 4, 3 is tantamount to almost never or rarely using it, or presuming by default it should not be used for any purpose, including weight. Whereas in my experience it is a good guide for weight as a tertiary source that often cites other academic sources. An option 3 would trigger a mass removal of it for many benign things. Do you have an example of a problematic usage of it (as opposed to problematic content that nobody ever used because it was obvious junk)? Andre🚐 20:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is correct. The Oxford Companion to the Body entry seems to be citing Dynamic chiropractic today in its bibliography, but there is not an entry on encyclopedia.com that is drawn from the text of Dynamic chiropractic today. There are also other entries in the encyclopedia.com article drawn from The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health: A Guide for Seniors and Their Caregivers and Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3rd ed. You can very clearly tell which reference work the entry is drawn from by looking at the very bottom of the entry under the thin grey line, just above the coloured line and cengage rating of the next entry (if there is one). Again, I think we should be citing the underlying source, and then using encyclopedia.com as a freely accessible link to the reference material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, every single entry on encyclopedia.com is from one encyclopedia. The citations are the encyclopedia entry's original citations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, further, disregarding the specific source, the entry on Lemuria and Mu would obviously be sourced to primary source works by cranks. What else would you expect? Is there non-crank primary research on Lemuria? If it was citing secondary sources, those secondary sources would be citing the same. When you get into research on fringe topics the primary sources will obviously be what they have written. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemuria was suprisingly originally a scientific hypothesis back in the 19th century, so yes, but your point stands for Mu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Lemuria as in the equally notable esoteric concept of Lemuria, which is so basically and baselessly divorced from its scientific origins that it is effectively a whole other thing; I meant in covering its esoteric conception. But yes I see your point haha. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lemuria and Mu entry, and several others previously mentioned, are from Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained. It is the Gale encyclopedia that uses Churchward, rather than encyclopedia.com. Whether cited via encyclopedia.com or just from one of the physical editions I don't think we should consider Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained a reliable source.
    Also some of the webpages at encyclopedia.com actually have entries for multiple different encyclopedias on one page. For instance the chiropractic webpage has entries for Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine Turner, Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health, The Oxford Companion to the Body, and College Blue Book (as well as four entries for dictionaries). Each of these is a superate entry, not just one source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care or know whether that book is or isn't, it probably isn't, but any source that talks about the esoteric conception of Lemuria or Mu at all would cite primary source claims by people like Churchward, because that is inherent to the concept. No non-fringe writer has ever believed in Mu. I would expect any RS to refer back to the primary claims they analyze. And yes, that is why you should specify the encyclopedia you cite in the ref, it just sort of stacks them. But they are clearly separated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So some articles are a mix of crank sources and reliable sources and the content is stirred together into one big bowl of slop. For instance, its entry for Chiropractic [61] is sourced to two references: This is not correct. The page has a number of different sources on it (more than two), but they are separated and labeled by source, not mixed together in a "big bowl of slop". Jahaza (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 encyclopedia.com is a collection of encyclopedias, some of which will be reliable while others will not. When referencing material on encyclopedia.com you should cite the original source, and include the URL to encyclopedia.com as a courtesy link noting that you've done so with |via=encyclopedia.com. This is the same way of doing things as MSN or YahooNews when they aggregate news sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at the supplied examples I don't think Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained should be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we sure of the integrity of encyclopedia.com in its republications? I've been leaning to moving to Option 2, but on further examination I don't think the re-publication integrity / accuracy of encyclopedia.com can be assumed. The entry on Jenny Randles [41] is sourced to Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. A review of the original source, however, finds no such content [42]. So, were I to adhere to the evolving principle here (attribute the quoted source and link to encyclopedia.com), I'd be introducing content cited to a false source. What am I missing? Chetsford (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you checked the other editions, perhaps? Andre🚐 21:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Might be due to differences in edition between the one encyclopedia.com is drawing from and the edition archived at archive.org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Insofar as I can tell from Worldcat there is only one edition. This is made problematic a bit by the fact encyclopedia.com provides no other information on the provenance of its sources (i.e. author, ISBN, publication date, etc.) just a title that may or may not be shared by multiple publications. But as of now I have no idea where the content currently on encyclopedia.com for this entry is coming from. Randles is mentioned in multiple places in this volume, she just has no standalone entry. Is Cengage aggregating content into forms that don't exist in the original work (maybe by AI)? I don't know. This problem is putting the standard that's evolving here in tension with WP:V, in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This amazon.com book cover [43] says "fifth edition", implying there have been at least that many editions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe she was in early editions but was then removed from the 2000 edition that's present at archive.org. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Academic encyclopedias do this all the time, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So yeah, I agree that if they are somehow distorting in their publication I'd go down to a 3, but let's determine what happened there. I do not think Cengage uses AI, they are simply a republisher AFAIK. Andre🚐 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "let's determine what happened there" I've tried running ten different, unique phrases from the encyclopedia.com entry through Google and each time I only get the encyclopedia.com entry. This level of ambiguity about the provenance or verifiability of a source seems extremely problematic for something we're rubber stamping through for a BLP. I'm extremely uncomfortable. It's entirely possible I'm missing something; encyclopedia.com's decision not to provide any information on the origin of their content other than the book title does create the potential for omission in a check. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you type "Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology" "randles" into Google Books you get back the 1991 and 1994 edition as others have noted below. So far, I still believe Gale and Cengage are reputable academic publishers, and encyclopedia.com leans to 1ish, but strictly speaking it is aggregating other encyclopedias and similar types of work that are mostly OK to use, so it is perhaps a 2 in that it can occasionally republish something not great, such as "Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained" as noted above. But a 3 is overkill as it would effectively force some reliable material to be made less accessible. Andre🚐 04:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford There were multiple editions of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. She only had an entry in the 1991 edition, not the 2003 edition which is on archive.org. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see the top of it here [44]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that makes sense then. This experience with the level of ambiguity and confusion that arose due to the paucity of information encyclopedia.com provides on the sourcing they're using has been deeply troubling and, for that reason, I think I'll rest at a 3 for now. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Randles entry in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (2001, 5th edition, Vol. II) is found here and here and here. A simple text query of "Randles, Jenny (Jennifer Christine)" in Archve.org reveals multiple copies. Surely we haven't forgotten basic query skills. Note also the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology is edited by J. Gordon Melton and others. Wikipedians shouldn't quibble if those editors use "bad", biased, or primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Option 1 as reliable as whatever the source book is, which is reliable 99% of the time since it is only sourced from academic books, but even in the world of academic books there are a few weird ones. It does not alter the content at all, but very annoyingly it never specifies which edition of the book it is sourcing from, and sometimes one edition will have something and the other will not due to content updates. But a free link is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, I personally avoid citing encyclopedia.com copies, for the sole reason that I prefer sources that have page numbers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I would not trust it, given that quality control issues are uncertain. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: It's a web-based repository run by Gale of mainly originally print encyclopedia articles, including Encyclopaedia Judaica, Dictionary of Women Worldwide and Contemporary Authors. The fact that some encyclopedia articles may be less reliable than others, or that Wikipedians may dislike encyclopedias about fringe beliefs does not mean encyclopedia.com in its entirety is an unreliable source. In cases where a single entry consists of multiple articles (e.g. Chiropractic has 9 distinct entries), more care would of course be needed to ensure the intended article is referenced. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 or 2. Basically per Animal Party. There is no claim they are not doing what they are doing, giving entries from various published encyclopedia. Did you actually look at how to cite it? Press the cite tab on the page for its suggestion. Any cite is going to cite to the the material via encyclopedia.com, and you can argue over whether that material belongs and it is going to vary (medical claims are widely different from other claims, for example, and exceptional claims are too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 or 2. Also, we need to re-write these categories, so that "3" sounds a lot more like "Routinely gets lots of facts wrong" than "Contains some claims that I disagree with", because it's actually true that "Reiki is a gentle and safe technique, and has been used successfully in some hospitals". Altmed techniques that do nothing are safe. Nobody has ever been harmed by having another person quietly hold their hands next to them, and when the medical problem is that the patient feels lonely and uncared for because the doctors and nurses are always rushing off to the next patient, or that the patient is feeling touch deprivation, then reiki is probably not only one of the safest nothings you can do, but it might also be effective at making the patient feel like someone's finally paying attention to them. Maybe someone should do a study on reiki for hospitalized patients in restraints. Having a hospital sitter say "Hold still so I can fix your aura" might be more pleasant for a confused patient than "Hold still. No, you're not in jail. No, you haven't been kidnapped. You're in the hospital. Do you want to watch some TV?". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 with the | via=Encyclopedia.com parameter when applicable, as in this simple one-author book template: <ref>{{cite book |last1= |first1= |date= |title= |url=[put encyclopedia.com article url here] |location= |publisher= |isbn= |via=Encyclopedia.com}}</ref> 5Q5|✉ 12:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably shouldn't be listed, Option 1 otherwise. As others have noted this is simply an aggregator which publishes no original content. Most of the content is sourced to academic publishers of well borne credentials such as OUP, CUP, Columbia, Gale and the like. Personally haven't come across any fringe sources in my extensive usage of the site. It's an electronic encyclopedia, so it not giving page no.s or editions is not really an issue as the online version of the data (from OUP, Gale etc.) it cites likely lacks those in the first place. Not going for option 2 as no broad usage of a fringe database has been shown despite some instances shown of the paranormal etc. being covered from the POV of its proponents, that is an issue with the sources themselves (academic publishers when compiling such topics in the form of encycs etc. also tend to do the same); here the fringe policy already applies to even the academic sources undergirding this aggregator. We really needn't list this at RSP though (as good as listing Google Books or The Free Dictionary), the issues with the underlying sources (mostly academic) can be considered separately. Option 3/4 will deprive us of much value, option 2 may lead to discoruaging users from citing academic content as such I cannot support any of these. Gotitbro (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No rating but add a note along the lines of "it's preferable to cite the original source of information. The reliability of information is inherited from the original source." Alaexis¿question? 20:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per Chetsford. Also, its a Wikipedia:TERTIARY source, there should be actual secondary sources for any bit of verifiable data in the article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TERTIARY does not say that tertiary sources are unreliable or shouldn't be used. Andre🚐 19:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      agreed, but if there is info we wanna cite to encyclopedia.com, we can just look up the secondary source it cites, and evaluate reliability of the secondary source. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You said that there should be secondary sources for every bit of verifiable data, and I don't agree. Primary sources may be used carefully, and tertiary sources may explicitly be used for analysis according to policy. Read again what it says about tertiary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source Policy doesn't lay out what to do when information is in a tertiary source but contradicted or absent in a secondary source. There are some situations where tertiary sources are less reliable than secondary sources, and some situations where tertiary sources are basically as good as a secondary source. For example handbooks and compendia where reliable academics write shorter treatments of their books or journal articles as chapters of a different work, the reliability goes with the author. Or some reference encyclopedias such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which are just fine to use for anything and are generally reliable and go toe to toe with journal articles, and provide detailed bibliographies. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. There is nothing in the policy that says you must replace tertiary sources with secondary sources for every single fact or analyte, as long as the article itself has secondary sources in general. Andre🚐 19:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Encyclopedia.com doesn't primarily cite secondary sources, it reprints tertiary sources, so you can't easily trace what it reprints back to secondary sources, even if you wanted to. You could trace what it reprints back to the original tertiary source, but it would still be tertiary (and in many cases, we'd still be using an electronic Gale reprint of a tertiary source that is originally a print source.) Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ^ This. If Encyclopedia of Whatever is a traditional encyclopedia, it is a tertiary source, and it remains a tertiary source no matter how many times it gets scanned/uploaded/photocopied. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      “You must buy a 200 dollar out of print book if you want to cite it, rather than use a free version from the publisher”. Also, most encyclopedias do not do that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: The only way I can read Option 2 is that in some circumstances it could be ok to cite encyclopedia.com directly, without including a reference to an underlying source - which I do not support. However, I see a few !votes for Option 2 that include language like "When referencing material on encyclopedia.com you should cite the original source" - which I do support. Hopefully the closer can synthesize these Option 2 and 3 votes to reflect this overlapping perspective NicheSports (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      When you are citing databases/aggregators like encyclopedia.com, the expectation is always that you cite the underlying source (the database can be mentioned in via/website parameters). We don't, for example, expect editors cite the Internet Archive but not the book/work itself! Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 encyclopedia.com is an electronic copy of encyclopedias from some generally reputable publishers. Of course there may be a few bad apples or outdated books but usually you wouldn't go wrong using them as a reference material. Editors should remember to cite the actual book as the source and only use encyclopedia.com as the courtesy link as per WP:SYNDICATED. I disagree with any other option because that starts implying that Oxford University Press, Columbia University Press, Cengage, and Gale books are unreliable, which is clearly bollocks. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2 Ah the good old days. I think on some topics they are reliable. On others, less so. Encyclopedias on niche topics are often all that is readily accessible for constructing an article. It is preferable to dig deeper into the sources used, but that doesnt necessarily rule out the encyclopedia in question. They generally have strong standards and editorial review, even if certain topics may be sparse.Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: Encyclopedia.com only hosts encyclopedia articles of varying quality. It is not a source in and of itself. The underlying encyclopedia should be judged. I would give the same rating as WP:ACADREP. ―Howard • 🌽33 09:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/3 I see no reason to ever cite Encyclopedia.com when there are sources to cite directly instead. In my view, it's similar to citing a Wikipedia article that's referenced. Particularly if Encyclopedia.com has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources they themselves are utilizing. That should be an instant non-starter argument for ever citing Encyclopedia.com. Cite the references it uses directly, particularly since you should be confirming what Encyclopedia.com is claiming is stated in those sources in the first place. SilverserenC 01:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I know, nobody has provided an instance of encyclopedia.com ever distorting a source that it cited. So I don't see why people should generally be verifying everything printed in it as long as the source it cites is a reliable one. Andre🚐 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because it's free and accessible which academic books are not? Generally sources that people can read are preferred if they are free, legal, and identical in content. It is a 1-1 mirror of reference books, mostly from Gale Research, Oxford University Press, among others. That's like banning any digital source acquired through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library because we can't be sure it's the same as the print original. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per ActivelyDisinterested and Howardcorn33. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 I think it's reliable but acts as an aggregator. It mainly publishes articles from other sources. It can be used along with supporting references. I would not cite it as the main ref.
    Definitely not Option 3 or 4 as I have not seen any evidence of them fabricating info.
    Overall, I think it can be used as a quick reference but the cited sources on their entries should be used as the original sources. Frankserafini87 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (encyclopedia.com)

    [edit]
    • Comment. Considering that it's a tertiary source that specifies the source of each article (see examples in the voting section), why do we need to assess the reliability of encyclopedia.com itself? Alaexis¿question? 20:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have over 15,000 references to encyclopedia.com Links Spamcheck, so some kind of RSP entry telling people to cite the underlying reference and how to clearly locate what the ultimate source of the text is would probably be helpful, but given that it's come up before at RSN I don't think we need a full and complete RfC to do that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Something similar to WP:YAHOONEWS perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's WP:NEWSAGG but the language is tailored to news aggregators. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, Alaexis that's long been my thought as well. But increasingly, and just again today, I've encountered situations in which the mere presence of an encyclopedia.com entry is being used to justify content even if it's just reprinting utterly insane, bonkers sources. Relitigating this matter every time that occurs becomes an incredible time sink that could be remedied by a simple, clear, and concise entry on RSP. An indexed statement as straightforward as User:ActivelyDisinterested's !vote above would be welcome (I prefer a 3 conclusion simply because encyclopedia.com seems to hoover up content in an automated fashion via Cengage, as opposed to the more deliberate way Yahoo News does, but would be fine with a 2 explained in the way they've laid out). Chetsford (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Alaexis. This is a bit like saying we should vote on whether Google Books is a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We (I) should get back to the idea that RSP needs a "platform" category, so that we can easily say "Don't look at the URL – look at the actual source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, the website has always been a particularly useful reference work for me to see the general overview of a topic. I have always looked at what and who was being cited, the url is immaterial as a content aggregator. Gotitbro (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Journal of Scientific Exploration

    [edit]

    Is the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

    Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (JoSE)

    [edit]
    • Option 3 or4. This Q4 journal [45] publishes the latest research into haunted houses. It has a well-referenced summary in our corresponding article about it that justifies this option. Contributors to the journal include a person [46] whose website we recently deprecated (WP:THEDEBRIEF). Some recent articles draw conclusions such as:
    —"ghostly episodes are best conceptualized, researched, and addressed through a biopsychosocial lens and phenomenological approach, irrespective of the potential contribution of putative psi" [47]
    —"A survey of modern-era field Egyptologists reveals a very high incidence of unusual deaths consistent with symptoms of haematopoietic cancer ..." and that this may be due to an "ancient curse" [48]
    —If you cast a magic spell on water (AKA "informed water") there's a possibility those who drink it can be cured of COVID-19 [49]
    Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC); edited 15:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC); edited 18:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks more like an argument for option 4 than option 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might have some utility for social facts on the fringes but, you're probably right, and I have no particular objection to an Option 4 close. Chetsford (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (JoSE)

    [edit]
    • JSE has previously been discussed a few times here (1, 2, etc.) and is occasionally sourced across the project. I bring this up as there is currently a 1:1 AfD on a BLP (intentionally unlinked to avoid the perception of canvassing) in which one party is more-or-less insisting the non-listing of JSE at Perennial Sources makes it usable. While a RfC here may have immediate relevance, the occasional use JSE still gets across the project may give a definitive consensus more holistic utility as well. Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Leaving the AfD unlinked is probably a good idea, but if you haven't already you should notify the AfD of this discussion - so any participants there have the opportunity to have they say here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have done. Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you shouldn't link the AFD, but there's no reason for anyone to have to repeat the few seconds' work that it took me to find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (3rd nomination). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though leaning 3 per the nom. But to choose between any of the four options, I need some clarifications. Studying fringe science itself obviously does not mean that those studying it are themselves fringe or publish such content. The current lede for the journal's publisher notes this to be the case as did the now redirected article for the journal (that it studies the subject) not that it promotes it. But from comments here I gather that this is the case. So is the majority of it devoted to the promotion of such stuff or it makes up only a small part of it and it actually does study fringe phenomenon in earnest? Gotitbro (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we set aside for a moment whether we believe the fringe theories or think they are important, the question is whether the journal is reputable. But reputable to whom? It:
      - has a long history of publication
      - is searchable through university library websites, Google Scholar, etc.
      - has an editorial board which includes professors at accredited universities (of which more below)
      - claims to be peer-reviewed, and I can't find anything saying it's predatory or lying about peer review
      - publishes contrary views and responses to criticism
      I was looking at the professors who have signed on and found this article about Idaho professor and bigfoot researcher Jeff Meldrum[52]. It shows the value of engaging with people who have ideas we might think are crackpot, as long as they show their work. A solution that leaves them completely out of the conversation is not good for the encyclopedia.
      In this AfD of an author, one question we have to ask is whether she is respected as an expert in her field. If we declare that the most reliable source in the field (I know, that says a lot) is not admissible to talk about her impact in that field then we can't have that conversation. Oblivy (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com

    [edit]

    discussion is mostly about piratewires, which is affiliated with michael solana.
    previous discussion here: [53]

    appearing to be cited in a few other articles, but hasn't been used much yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Obviously not a WP:RS; they don't seem to have any editorial policies, but beyond that they clearly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They're a personal website usable only for WP:ABOUTSELF description of their own activities. The only in-depth coverage I could find is here and here. The Atlantic piece describes them as eg. participating in something with the trappings of a classic pump and dump. Also note the description (there and elsewhere, including on its own site) as a "media company", which is very vague in a way that seems to specifically avoid anything that might claim an actual responsibility towards fact-checking. Business Insider describes their outlook (in a quote) as "information warfare of one tribe versus another." Trae Stephens, a partner at Founders Fund (where Pirate Wires' founder works at his day job), described Pirate Wires as a kind of daily affirmation for Silicon Valley. None of this suggests that they are actually doing any fact-checking or that they care about accuracy, and certainly not that they have a reputation for either of these things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a previous discussion in archive 465. Personally, publishing Soros conspiracy theories disqualifies a source from being generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not a reliable source, per consensus in previous discussion. Their reports might be noteworthy though where there is reliable secondary coverage of it, eg "'Wikipedia editors colluded to delegitimize Israel'". JNS.org. 2024-11-03. Retrieved 2025-09-04. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pirate Wires' reporting on this story has corroborated other reporting, has been corroborated by other reporting, and has been widely cited by reliable sources. Editors should consider it WP:RS both on this topic and in general.
    The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.
    Since then:
    While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.
    I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting.
    Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 498 days ago and Bluesky 304 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 288 days ago, also without apparent contention.
    Consequently:
    • To the criticism that they "don't seem to have any editorial policies" and related, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The notion that neither does any other news outlet listed above would be absurd.
    • Pirate Wires in fact does "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as evidenced by the citation and corroboration above.
    • "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors for commentary and reporting.
    • The Atlantic article cited above as criticism suggests that Pirate Wires may have become unwittingly involved in a crypto pump-and-dump. Even reliable sources sometimes act on a bad scoop. The Atlantic's characterization, assuming that it's correct, it is not disqualifying given the realities of journalism.
    • Wikipedia describes The New York Times as "a mass media corporation." "Media company" means that the company works in a range of media. It is not a suspicious label.
    • The Business Insider quote cited above as criticism indicates only editorial slant, which does not contradict a positive assessment of Pirate Wires' reliability.
    • The suggestion that the site is "publishing Soros conspiracy theories" is unfounded. Pirate Wires published another report by Rindsberg, How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Wikipedia, on 6 Jan 2025. I am unable to find a RS characterization of this report as a "conspiracy theory"; judgment to that effect constitutes WP:OR.
    Pirate Wires has accomplished WP:RS-quality reporting here and deserves due credit for it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't constitute OR, as that deals with article content. It's literally in the first sentence of that page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'evidence' the give is that there was connections between Soros and people at the WMF, but absolutely nothing to show that Soros actually backed them to get into those positions or that those people acted in Soros' interest. The typical connect the dots even if there is no prove of anything that comes from conspiratorial thinking. So again that they published such an article should disqualify them as a reliable source. That they might be right at times is beside the point, even a stopped clock. Sources are meant to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Publishing what amounts to lots of connected pins in a notice board is hardly a good sign of that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unfamiliar with the policy which says that if a media outlet publishes an article about Soros that you believe unsound, then none of their reporting on any topic should be regarded as reliable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy would be WP:V reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I described the issue with there reporting and showed why it shod be considered conspiritorial. If you agree with it you should show how the source has the reputation that policy asks for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, documented overhead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion should have been linked on the T4P talk page so the people discussing there could have had the opportunity to comment here. Anyway, as far as I can tell there has been a lot of opinion expressed about PW not being viewed as reliable by some editors, and even some opinion saying essentially, "Look! They said a thing I disagree with about Soros" or some similar expression, but no real evidence of other reliable sources discussing Pirate Wires in such a way as to deem them unreliable. The extremely detailed review above on the reliability of PW I believe would serve to place PW in an RfC as GREL or at the very most they might need attribution. PW is doing some excellent reporting in the truest journalistic sense, and it seems as if that makes some uncomfortable, but until it is demonstrated that PW is actually unreliable, with specific evidence from a reliable source, then PW is reliable and can be used and cited without attribution. Lastly, bias in a source, if there is even such bias here, does not constitute unreliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I disagree with what they posted about Soros, I said it was conspiratorial rubbish and then gave specific reasons why it was. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, posting conspiracies whether that's about Soros or Trump (and whether we personally agree with it) isn't an indicator of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking other sources disparaging such a reputation, we cannot come to our own assumed opinion that such a reputation is unreliable, especially not based on one story. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first and most important check of a sources reliability is an editors own good judgement. Blindly restating everything you find online is the thing that would be against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The default is no reputation; as RS says, anyone can create a website and claim to be a reliable source - that doesn't make them one. None of the sources provided above really establish that Pirate Wires has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; most of them are WP:BIASED and aren't WP:RSes themselves, and some of them don't even mention Pirate Wires. A single brief story in a hot-button cultural dispute that was picked up by a handful of friendly outlets and blogs is obviously not enough to establish that a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The default is not GUNREL. As I've said, I think I could be persuaded that attribution should be required for PW, but other than that, there is no evidence of unreliability beyond some WP editor's opinions expressed in this thread. What PW has said might hold bias as well, but there is no reporting on their having been factually inaccurate or failing in terms of proper fact-checking. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The default for websites with no reputation is indeed GUNREL; anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Do you genuinely believe that a random website with no reputation could be cited for anything? We don't usually take the time to formally categorize every non-WP:RS, of course, but most webpages are non-RSes, and certainly Pirate Wires is unusable. The fact that you feel that you might be persuaded that a low-quality website with no reputation, no indication that they have any sort of editorial controls, and a single story to their name that most mainstream press dismissed as more back-and-forth allegations between partisans might require attribution falls under WP:SATISFY. They're a low-quality partisan blog who has done nothing but flood the zone with unverified allegations, a single one of which was picked up only by similarly biased sources. That's not enough to satisfy WP:RS. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and every discussion has clearly indicated that they're not an RS; I will, obviously, remove them instantly on sight any place I see them cited directly. If you disagree and somehow think they pass WP:RS, start an RFC, but you'd be wasting your time - you would be better off looking for actually usable sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already addressed all of these criticisms, having mapped out the corroboration and citations between Pirate Wires and several other news outlets, including two green WP:RSPS and others deemed acceptable. I repeat that no one has challenged Pirate Wires' reporting on this story, which should be part of the context required by WP:RS considerations. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already said, a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources isn't really an indicator of WP:RS. And one of the sources you listed there does in fact challenge it; Bloomberg covers it as follows: Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider. Note two extremely important points. First, they frame it as unproven allegations (and they put it in the context of back-and-forth allegations between two sides accusing each other of misdeeds on Wikipedia); that is, in fact, a challenge. The wild disconnect between the way it's framed there and the way it's framed by Pirate Wires itself is what a challenge looks like. And second, note that they studiously attributed it to Jewish Insider, which implies that they do not consider Pirate Wires itself to be a legitimate source. WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about whether other sources are discussing a source, but who is using it, and how they frame it. And finally, of course, the lack of a published editorial policy is still fatal; we do, in fact, have to assume that it lacks one, especially given the lack of any real indication that they have a reputation otherwise. Lots of topic areas have these low-quality partisan blogs that flood the zone with sweeping unproven allegations; I think that we should take the perspective that Bloomberg has, as the most high-quality unbiased / independent source that has covered this, and only touch things from them via secondary sources. Even then, it is important to contextualize any allegations they make according to the bias of the sources reporting them - again, actually read the Bloomberg piece. Try reading it from the perspective of someone who is seeing it as the only source on this topic. It doesn't say or support what you're implying at all - it covers it as one of a list of unproven allegations pumped out by squabbling partisans. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was cited by Aish, Jewish News Syndicate, The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Journal. Unpacked cited The Algemeiner. Describing PW reporting on this as "a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources" hinges on all of those outlets being WP:BIASED and indifferent to PW's supposed lack of substantiation. This is not a responsible description of either the initial or subsequent journalism.
    Several others picked up on the Jewish Insider material, one of them being Bloomberg, and a couple more drew from both. This establishes that the account of T4P's abuse is WP:DUE. Between the confirmed reliability of Pirate Wires' reporting and the DUE nature of the story, it should be included in the T4P article at substantive length and Pirate Wires given deserved credit.
    Regarding the "lack of a published editorial policy," again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not only is it not "fatal," it's not even relevant to determining reliability. WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies."
    Repeatedly calling PW a blog will not turn it into one. Rindsberg is obviously not self-publishing. The site lists Harris Sockel as "Lead Editor," which implies the existence of subordinate editors. The site describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture," emphasis mine. They have made a strong case for accepting that description at face value. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pirate Wires is a blog, and not a very good one at that. It should only be considered for use in line with the restrictions of WP:SPS and frankly its writing staff has no great expertise in anything so WP:EXPERTSPS is unlikely to come up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:USESPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Pirate Wires employs multiple reporters, and the author of the reporting in question is not the editor. Pirate Wires describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." Even The Atlantic article cited overhead as criticism of PW concedes that the editor aspires to hard-hitting journalism. The citations and corroboration documented overhead indicates that they have succeeded. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      According to this logic all I need to do is get a friend of mine to write some guest posts for my blog to make it a reliable source. Pirate Wires isn't hard-hitting anything. It's ideologically motivated twitter-churn. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That would only establish that your friend wasn't self-publishing. How much of the reporting in the Rindsberg article under discussion was sourced to Twitter? Also, how are you privy to his motivations? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, since this has dragged on off-and-on for a while now, perhaps we should just have an RFC. --Aquillion (talk)
    I'm usually the one telling people not to open RFCs, but I can't see the two sides of this coming to any consensus through normal discussion. The perspectives are just too dissimilar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. I'm not convinced by arguments above defending the site's integrity or prominence, & despite previous attempts to explain what a conspiracy theory is, refusal to see one as such does not change the reality of the case. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You neither established that the reporting on Soros sunk to the level of "conspiracy theory," nor explained why, if it did, that would disqualify unrelated reporting that was cited by multiple WP:RSs and a couple of solidly reliable WP:RSPS. If there was a RS describing Pirate Wires reporting on Soros as a conspiracy theory to put up against its solid and cited work on T4P, that would be something. But your opinion versus that work is not persuasive. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Butterscotch Beluga should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF and via reliable secondary coverage (e.g. their interview with Jack Dorsey which was rereported elsewhere) but probably not reliable for much else.
      I used to listen to their podcast, though haven't for probably a year or thereabouts. They clearly have some form of editorial controls and a gatekeeping process, though I'm unclear if there are conventional firewalls between the owner and the reporters or the reporters merely function as scribes for the owner's ideas. I see no evidence they have been specifically identified for uncorrected errors in reporting, which is to their credit. That said, their approach seems to be a style of quasi-gonzo journalism which is probably not appropriate for use as referencing for the limited purposes of our encyclopedia. That fact is not a slight on them, just a point of observation.
      Most importantly, however, searching Google News for the unique phrases "according to Pirate Wires" and "Pirate Wires reported" I don't find solid examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS outside of a very small handful of instances. (For full disclosure, their "senior editor" has cited me by name to make unflattering and, in my opinion, erroneous representations of my actions on WP in his writing in other publications so this should be taken into context in weighing my comment.) Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      i suspect consensus for piratewires would find it somewhat reliable, but have concerns about establishing dueness.
      at best, they probably should just be attributed if they need to be used. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with @Bluethricecreamman that attribution should likely be required, but otherwise I think PW has been well documented in this discussion to be generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Reliability of Pirate Wires

    [edit]

    Relevant WP:RFCBEFORE: The section above, Talk:Tech_for_Palestine#2025-08_Pirate_Wires, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires?

    What is the reliability of Pirate Wires?

    1. Generally reliable
    2. Additional considerations apply
    3. Generally unreliable
    4. Deprecate

    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 2: making this per aquillon. editorial controls for PirateWires is mostly the wealthy benefactor/Silicon Valley investor Michael Solana, and the Soros story seems concerning. I think this is an SPS source regardless, and usage should be by attribution only. In general, PirateWires by itself cannot establish dueness, and relevant policy WP:BLPSPS should apply if they do any gonzo-style hit piece on a person. When it is cited by other mainstream sourcing, that could indicate dueness, like in the TechForPalestine canvassing coverage, but only as much as the mainstream sourcing is mentioning it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1: @Tioaeu8943 made a compelling argument for its reliability here, and I endorse it. The arguments against its reliability lack substance or actual claims of factual inaccuracies, and seem motivated by ideological differences (which shouldn't guide reliability discussions). Jcgaylor (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 Publishing Soros conspiracy theories is not the sign of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep repeating this line. What, specifically, in the article is a "conspiracy theory"? Jcgaylor (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained this in the section above, you're free to disagree with my assessment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that above discussion (and the archived one discussed in it). You did not articulate specifics about what made the article conspiratorial. You asserted a similarly conclusory statement. Even the bare bones you do provide isn't accurate, though. The article lays out, in-depth, how leading figures of the WMF and Wikipedia have received funding from Soros and his many ventures throughout their careers. That substantiates its headline. The article also argues, using direct quotations from Soros and WMF/Wikipedia executives, and fact-based research on events, that the governing philosophy of these executives aligns with the policies openly-championed by Soros.
    Whether one agrees with the comparison between WMF/Wikipedia ventures and the governing/political philosophy of Soros is a matter of personal opinion. It simply isn't true, however, that the article is "conspiratorial" or fails to explain how key WMF/Wikipedia leaders have received financial support from Soros.
    If the basis for labeling PW as unreliable hinged on this one article being "conspiratorial", it lacks a strong or objective foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said you can disagree if you want, but nothing you've said changes my mind in the slightest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal isn't to change your mind. As part of this RFC, I'm making the case for finding that PW is reliable, and explaining why arguments against a finding of reliability lack credibility or foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in the before discussion I think opinions on this source are so dissimilar that we basically talking at odds with each other. Your argument showing how all the little lines add to to something is the exact issue I have with the article, but for you it's why it's reliable. If you wish to add anything more to your own comment please do, but I don't see anything useful coming from further discussion happening under mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the above discussion, you claimed the PW article failed to demonstrate how WMF/Wikipedia executives received funding from Soros. A simply read-through of the article demonstrates that isn't true. Therefore, your argument that PW isn't reliable because this specific article is "conspiratorial", doesn't hold water.
    This discussion, while not aimed at persuading you or I to change our positions, does contribute and is germane to the larger purpose of this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does hold water because it is quite self evidently true, any simple reading of the article shows that to be the case. This is my point - are opinions are so wildly different and to make discussion pointless, we both look at the same thing and see something quite different. Nothing I say will ever be satisfactory for you, and nothing you put forward will change my opinion. No, in your opinion my description doesn't hold water but you arguments only serve to firm up mine. So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show. That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow, or that they have been corrupted by the bad money man maybe? Absolutely nothing in the article shows that they are "Soris operatives" or operatives of any kind. Nor does it show that Soros backing is the cause of any of the initiatives at the WMF that the source is so ideologically opposed too. What it does do is hold up connection between those individuals and Soros and than say that other things are e because they are his operatives. That's conspiratorial thinking, the exact issue I have with the source. You see this very different, and will dismiss and diminish my comment but I will find your points as unconvincing as you find mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show[?]"
    "That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow . . .?"
    As I stated earlier, one's viewpoints on the value of the similarity between these executives and their ideological/philosophical alignment with Soros' views is a matter of personal judgment that you are improperly attempting to elevate to a matter of Wikimedia policy. Your personal views on the matter do not negate the fact that the article substantiates the factual allegations of its thesis: that people who have received financing from George Soros now work in leading roles at WMF/Wikipedia. That is indisputable, and, based on your reply, a point you concede.
    As defined by Merriam-Webster, an "operative" is "a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest". The article, using the own words and actions of these executives, demonstrates what these individuals are working to achieve: various DEI initiatives, the Knowledge Equity principle, etc. Again, one's views on the author's condemnation of these efforts does not diminish the reality that these executives are working toward their own stated goals.
    All of this to say, your and other's opposition to a finding of reliability for PW is not rooted in the lack of fact-based reporting, but in your opposition to the judgments of this one author of this one article the outlet published. In other words, it does not hold water under the policies and guidelines that are supposed to guide these reliability determinations. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my opinion, just an observation of the nature of the article they published and how it doesn't substantiates anything unless you consider guilt by association prove of wrong doing. But this is going nowhere we're just repeating arguments, and adding nothing to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the article about Soros, could you address the following points?
    1. And the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by falsely labelling it the product of Russian disinformation. Is it really appropriate to outright call it false? Surely, the overall effect was very small, but it still could be large enough to flip a few battleground states.
    2. Maher’s emphasis of ... word — “open” ... was about making “the world” an open place. ... Soros built a global political machine ... on the concept of openness I guess, Rindsberg tried to tie Maher to Soros via the word "open", but this is a post-WWII concept whose prominence is hardly related to Soros. Ngram
    3. Another attempt at the same connection is done via Maher → Minassian → Clinton → Soros. This is standard conspiracy thinking.
    4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid, giving nearly $10 million — has played a leading role in her ability to pursue this ideological platform. Per Open Secrets, Clinton received $770M in total, including $22M from Paloma Partners and $17M from Pritzker Group.
    5. Democracy Alliance, a mega-donor fund co-founded — and primarily funded — by George Soros. I failed to fact-check, but I suppose it is very dubious that at least half ("primarily") of the contributions came from Soros. For instance, in this Politico article, it says, "The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members."
    6. Zack Exley is framed as a Soros operative, but the article failed to mention that he was the Director of Online Communication for the 2004 Kerry campaign.
    7. The article claims that the WMF endowment is connected to the Tides Foundation, stating, Since Tides is a donor-advised fund, Soros could have used it to funnel money to the Wikimedia Endowment without any trace. The context is that the organization is a mainstream progressive one that spent $620M in 2020, which is far more than the $10M yearly from Soros.
    8. We get to the direct link, Soros doubled down on his commitment to the Wikimedia Endowment with a direct $2 million donation. But Wikimedia received $120M that year.
    9. But Soros’ statement spoke loudest. “My gift represents a commitment to the ideals of open knowledge — and to the long-term importance of free knowledge sources that benefit people around the world,” he said. Looks like an empty platitude to me.
    10. While her repeated echoing of Soros’ language of openness may seem coincidental, in truth Maher has nurtured deep ties to Soros’ views Buried at the end of the article.
    11. More on Maher, Her first real professional experience in NGOs began around 2008. The Wikipedia page about her said she worked at UNICEF from 2007 to 2010, at the National Democratic Institute (which got 97% (p.9) of its funding from the government in 2024, so she was akin to a civil servant) from 2010 to 2011, and at the World Bank from 2011 to 2013. Hardly a career of a professional NGO activist.
    12. Ethan Zuckerman is also framed as a Sorosite, but the article failed to mention that he headed the MIT Center for Civic Media. The MIT isn't a Soros organization. Among other people mentioned, there were Melissa Hagemann, Eileen Hershenov, Rebecca MacKinnon, and Cameran Ashraf. Maybe some of them are professional Soros types; I don't know.
    13. WMF recently noted that Wikipedia is among the most important content sources being ingested by LLMs, with one analysis showing that the site is one of the three most important sources for training data and among the highest for reliability. Doesn't explain that content ingested into the LLM is written by the editors, while the Foundation has relatively little control. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There is no evidence to support Clinton's assertion that Russian disinformation determined (in a fashion required for the presidency to "be a product of" such interference) the outcome of the 2016 (or 2024) presidential election. The DOJ, Mueller's report, and the Senate report on the subject all agree that Russia did make efforts to influence the election, but did not find evidence of such success, and did not make that conclusion (1.). Some experts have said that it would be impossible to make such a determination, due to the countless variables that drive voter behavior and election results. We do know, per an NYU study, that despite the complexity of Russia's online disinformation efforts, its impact was very limited to highly-partisan right-wing citizens (2.).
    2. As I stated in earlier responses on this thread, one's views on the nature of the parallel or similarities between the rhetoric of WMF/Wikimedia executives and Soros is mainly a matter of personal opinion. However, No one here is disputing the facts of what they said or the quotes the article uses. That is all sourced and verifiable.
    3. Or, it is context to substantiate the professional proximity of the article's subjects. Again, you're discussing the bias or merits to the reporting, not the factual accuracy of the connection.
    4. I'd note you cited organizational donors, not individual donors. Other sources cite Soros as the highest, or the near-highest individual donors to Clinton's 2016 election efforts, depending on how they associate donations between hedge-funds and other groups. (3. (corroborating the "nearly $10 million" claim and that this makes Soros a leading donor) ; 4. (this source places Soros' contributions at $25 million); 5. (noting that Soros and Sussman, founder and Chairman of Paloma Partners, donated roughly the same amount)) In any case, the amount claimed is corroborated, while the claim that Soros was the "biggest donor" is used by some other sources, depending on how they count and organize donations.
    5. I, too, was unable to source the "primarily" portion of this claim, mainly because the clique is so opaque about its funding and donation history. The rest of the quoted portion is verifiable and widely corroborated.
    6. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
    7. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
    8. An irrelevant observation as to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. This fact does provide context to the association between WMF/Wikipedia and Soros (the premise of the article).
    9. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
    10. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
    11. Started working at UNICEF in 2007 --> "experience in NGOs began around 2008". Seems like a fair claim. If I was being nitpicky, I'd want to know what month in 2007 she started working at UNICEF. She has worked in the NGO sphere for 17 years at the time of the article's publishing. Calling her a "professional NGO activist" has a sensible foundation (though the article doesn't call her that). I'd dispute calling her a civil servant, though, but (like most of your points) that is a matter of personal opinion.
    12. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. That he worked for that center has no bearing on the factual claims the article does make about him, nor would the addition of that piece of information substantially alter the information that is included.
    13. Missing context. The article is discussing the implementation of Wikimedia's "Movement Strategy", which aims to alter Wikipedia's (among other WikiProjects) policies, guidelines, and practices. The author asserts that the Strategy is a manifestation of Maher's (and Soros') focus on concepts like "equity" (like altering notability guidelines to remove "barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities" (6.)). The author then highlights the impact the Strategy would have by referencing the increased importance of Wikipedia itself. The author uses the WMF quote you cited to demonstrate the importance of Wikipedia in the modern world, not to say that WMF makes editorial decisions over Wikipedia articles. But your comment misses the crux of the article's (and the Strategy's) point. The MS, sponsored by the WMF, openly aims to alter the policies and guidelines that determine what makes it into articles (and all Wikimedia work product) in the first place. You may feel the Strategy and its goals are positive developments. But, the article doesn't make any factual errors on the subject.

    In sum, none of your comments undermine the factual accuracy of the article's claim, which is what we're hear to discuss. Again, if the only argument against a finding of reliability is the canned line of "peddled Soros conspiracy theories", then that position lacks any credibility or foundation.

    Jcgaylor (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your dismissal of several points with "An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims", misunderstands what constitutes a conspiracy theory.
    A collection of technically correct, but misleading statements are the connective tissue of conspiracy theories. The article's content is mostly stringing together a web of guilt by association - Someone worked for someone that Soros has given money to, therefore "[S]oros-linked operatives have spent the past eight years embedding themselves in top roles at wikimedia foundation and transforming the site into a tool for radical social engineering".
    It recreates several hallmarks of other Soros Conspiracies, such as being behind a migrant crisis, globalism, attacking various NGOs as part of his "global political machine", & general fearmongering about progressivism & DEI.
    If this is their "Editor-at-Large" &/or "Senior Editor", I fundamentally mistrust the quality of their editorial process & certainly consider them a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe the "points" raised above show the article to be misleading. Take number 6, for example. The fact that the article "failed to mention" that this individual was a comms director for the 2004 Kerry campaign has no bearing on the information presented, and would not substantially alter the context or meaning of the information that was included. It is an irrelevant aside that was, correctly, left out. If anything, its inclusion would have aided the author's point, considering that Soros spent roughly $27 million on Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush spending that election cycle (1.). Likewise with 7 and 8. Those claims were included to demonstrate that Soros has spent significant capital on WMF/Wikipedia. The amount of money Tides or the WMF raised/spent is irrelevant to that claim. Points like 9, 10, and 13 are personal gripes the commenter has with the article, not examples of misleading statements.
    I think your dislike for the factual claims the article makes doesn't elevate the article to a conspiracy theory. If the article didn't mention specific quotes and initiatives from these individuals that are aligned with the governing philosophy of Soros, then, yes, it would be merely a string of guilt-by-association arguments. But, lays out specifics for the association, from the subjects themselves. This isn't a claim of a secret plot by powerful individuals. It is an article detailing the public statements and efforts of WMF/Wikipedia executives.
    Likewise, citing Soros' open and proud support for wide-scale migration, global connectivity and interdependence, and his well-documented and significant funding of NGOs from across the globe does not make someone a conspiracy theorist. It merely means they did research to find his position on those topics.
    One may not agree with the author's views on progressivism or DEI. One may not like that they cited Soros' support for migration and globalism. Neither of those positions have any bearing on the factual reliability of this article, let alone PW writ large. Jcgaylor (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The article claimed "falsely", while your links support only a "no evidence" claim, adding that it "would be impossible to make such a determination". Hence using the word "falsely" is factually inaccurate.
    4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid. None of your sources corroborated the claim of Soros being the biggest donor. Two out of three named S. Donald Sussman as such. Calling Soros the biggest donor is factually inaccurate.
    13. With the concept of Knowledge Equity shaping not just Wikipedia but the LLMs that shape our future, there’s little doubt that the Movement Strategy has been a success. Based on the context of that paragraph, I interpret this "success" as an ability to significantly influence the content of Wikipedia articles. I don't believe this is factually accurate in the sense that the content would have been significantly different if the strategy had never been adopted.
    In terms of people and funding, the issue is a framing which highlights the connection to Soros and downplays the connection to other people or organizations. For instance, misleadingly implying that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies by donating less than 2% of its total revenue. However, the claim is never made outright so the author maintains plausible deniability. While not outright inaccurate, I don't consider such reporting appropriate for WP:RS. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Exactly. That is why it is false to for Clinton to claim that Trump is president due to Russian interference. We typically call claims that have no factual support "false".
    2. That isn't right. The second source you cited clearly states that Soros gave me to Clinton and her election efforts than Sussman. $25 million > $13 million.
    3. As I laid out above, the Movement Strategy does and has impact the content included in Wikipedia articles, just not in the way you ascribe only to try to dismantle.
    No, the author does not misleadingly imply that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies. The author does state that executives with a financial connection to Soros are driving Wikimedia policies in a direction that mirrors Soros' political ethos, and cites specific quotes, initiatives, and histories to substantiate this claim.
    When you take away the strawmen, there is no reason to not support PW as appropriate for WP:RS. Jcgaylor (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As seen by the linked article, Hillary Clinton never "claim[ed] that Trump is president due to Russian interference", she said that there is an "epidemic" of fake news (PirateWires' exact quote of "fake news epidemic" is not found in the article they're citing), referring to an incident involving the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The way the article presents the matter though misleadingly implies she was referring to election interference, as seen by your assumption that she was.
    2. You are misreading the number from the CNBC article, it says $2.5million, not $25 million .i.e. $2.5 million < $13 million.
    Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. That is incorrect. I did not "assume" she said that; I know she said that. Clinton has repeatedly claimed that Russian interference, like the server hack, cost her the election. Here is one instance of her making that claim.
    2. Perhaps you need to re-read the article. Here is the exact quote, "Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle." Again, $25 million > $13 million.
    Jcgaylor (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. In the context of rape; There is a difference between a false report and an unfounded report. A false report refers to someone intentionally making up and reporting an experience of sexual violence ... An unfounded report means that a victim makes a report to a criminal punishment system, yet the system does not find enough evidence to support the claim So the article should have used the word "unfoundedly", not "falsely".
    2. The top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman ($20.6 million)[54] and Among Clinton’s most devoted backers, Sussman, who has given $13 million to Clinton’s Priorities USA PAC, according to data from the FEC and tallies from the Center for Responsive Politics, has emerged as perhaps the biggest.[55] Context for the 25M: Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle.[56] So this includes causes other than Clinton's presidential bid. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try to keep to discussing the source and not each other. Unless editors have prove they want to submit to the appropriate venue let's drop the "all these arguments are ideologically motivated" comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am discussing the source, while challenging the asserted arguments against its reliability as ideologically motivated. Jcgaylor (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Jcgaylor, this was a reply to my original comment about the general conduct of the RFC. I didn't mean to direct it towards you personally. But I stand by what is said either evidence should be posted at an appropriate forum or such personal comments should dropped, otherwise they could be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3: As I said above, I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day (Thank you Kelob2678 for the in-depth analysis). - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that the site promotes Soros conspiracy theories or critiques Soros's influence is not an uncontested fact. Please substantiate your claims with an example of the latter if possible from an RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having issues finding anyone discussing Pirate Wires at all, besides themselves & a single interview with their founder & editor-in-chief Mike Solana from The Atlantic.
    As most reliable sources haven't even acknowledged their existence, let alone analyzed their output, the best we can do is argue over their quality. Arguments for if their coverage of Soros reaches the point of conspiracy theories have already been laid out in detail in this RFC & above, so if you are unconvinced by those, I don't believe further discussion of the matter will be very productive in determining Pirate Wires' reliability. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 There is very little daylight between ownership and editorial and it functions effectively as a personal blog with a small clique of guest authors rather than a news site. It also tends to blend news and opinion freely. In addition to this it's sensationalist trash. I don't think deprecation is necessary but this is a generally unreliable source for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF statements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point to anything to substantiate the claim, "there is very little daylight between ownership and editorial"? Does the fact that it has two staff editors alter that? If not, why not?
      The site has staff writers, and a long list of regular contributors. These are the trappings of a news outlet, not a personal blog, as other commenters noted in the above discussion when you brought up this point. Jcgaylor (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I've no qualms about an organisation being called a 'media company' and there isn't a problem on WIkipedia with news services being owned by billionaires (or we'd have very slim pickings). However, there's no mention I can see of an editor or editorial board, or standards. There's no explanation I can see about how content of Pirate Wires is generated. More so, their terms and conditions scream in capital letters "WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICES' CONTENT" - clearly 'read/use this content at your own risk', Pirate Wires is dodging the responsibility of fact checking. All that being said, their content is clearly followed and reported by undoubtedly reliable news outlets, in which case it's fair enough to use it. Certainly in the Tech for Palestine article there was a tendency towards over-reliance on one Pirate Wires article, which I wouldn't see as balanced coverage. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair to Pirate Wires the "We make no warranties..." text is standard boiler plate legal text, it just means "You can't see us for being wrong". Most websites have something similar posted somewhere, for instance the disclaimer at the bottom bofnthis page. It doesn't make a source reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most websites", like Wikipedia, aren't fact checked. Wikipedia is written by any Johnny/Janey-come-lately that fancies editing it. One would expect a journalistic news site to have fact checking and stand by the content ofits articles. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AP has the same language in its TOS (§4.4). Like AD said, it is boilerplate language you'll find in most news outlet's TOS and shouldn't be considered in this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to link similar language on nytimes, wapost, etc. Not really enough to dismiss reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is at least an Editor-in-Chief and a Lead Editor. The existence of a "Lead Editor" implies that it is highly likely that there are more editors under the "Lead". What, according to you, is necessary for you to understand 'how content of Pirate Wires is generated'?
    Do similar norms exist for another site to which we could refer? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1.5/2 The source appears to have the correct parts to be a RS. However, it is also a rather new source so I would be careful how it's used. As a relatively new source we should be cautious about it's use and evaluate things on a case by case basis. In particular we should see if the evidence the source provides supports the claims being made. We should be cautious about conclusions, especially in cases where the presented facts could reasonably support a conclusion that is different than the one claimed in the article. Of course such caution should be used with many sources that include a lot of information interpretation/processing in their reporting vs just the facts news. Also, as a new source we shouldn't declare the site to be "unreliable" simply because we feel there isn't enough evidence or we dislike one of the relatively few articles they have published thus far. It appears it has a small amount of used by others thus is moving in the correct direction to become a RS. But, let's not kid ourselves, it's still a small, new source so it's probably best used as a supporting source or as an acknowledged dissenting view without that view being given Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 1 as just about every argument against reliability does appear to be "motivated by ideological differences" as user:Jcgaylor pointed out in an earlier comment. The factual accuracy and reporting integrity of Pirate Wires appears to be top notch, and has not been questioned by other reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to question this, just aspersions and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. The "Soros conspiracy" claim for instance could not point to any actual evidence of wrongdoing or reported factual inaccuracies on the part of PW, such weak arguments simply attempted (sloppily) to state that this was part of some broader false argument (again with specific evidence against anything specifically claimed by PW). I'd consider possibly requiring attribution, as I don't think there is much harm there, but otherwise as a source generally speaking, PW appears to be exactly in line with any other "Generally reliable" source as listed in the RS/P list. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 1 for reasons I cited at the noticeboard discussion, which I recapitulate here with adjustments to account for the topic turning to the reliability of Pirate Wires per se rather than the WP:DUE character of its reporting.

    Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was extensively cited by reliable sources

    The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.

    Since then:

    No one has contradicted the above or subsequent reporting

    While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.

    I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting. Not even editors seeking to deem Pirate Wires unreliable seem willing to point to any fault in their reporting on this topic.

    Pirate Wires has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past without argument

    Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 498 days ago and Bluesky 304 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 288 days ago, also without apparent contention.

    Addressing criticisms

    • The above citations constitute a reputation for accuracy as expected by WP:SOURCE, pace editors insisting that it has not established one.
    • To the criticism that editors cannot find stated editorial policies, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies." The aforementioned citations constitute adequate editorial judgment on their own parts and of Pirate Wires.
    • The criticisms that Pirate Wires is a personal web page or blog do not comport with WP understanding of what those designations mean. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors engaged in a wide variety of reporting. Blogs, with respect to WP, are associated with policy regarding WP:SPS. Rindsberg obviously is not publishing himself. Moreover, one of the staff at Pirate Wires is listed as Lead Editor, implying the existence of subordinate editors and an editorial review structure. WP editors can confidently regard Pirate Wires as a news organization.
    • Several challengers to the reliability of Pirate Wires have invoked its reporting on George Soros, characterizing it as "conspiracy theories." I have three objections to this.
    1. The characterization is not convincing. Rind'sberg's reporting on this topic is sourced, credible, and moderate in tone. I might ask for examples of long-form, sourced criticism of Soros's influence that they regard as non-conspiratorial upon which we might base a comparison, except that...
    2. The criticism is not salient. One can find examples even among solidly reliable WP:RSPS where editors acted on bad scoops and pushed untenable editorial angles as opinion journalism. Even if the reporting by Pirate Wires on Soros was unsound, and as far as I can tell it's not, I don't see the rationale for dismissing all reporting by any reporter on the site as unreliable as a consequence. I concur with the remark overhead by Jcgaylor that some editors are improperly trying to elevate their opinions about this subject to the level of policy.
    3. They are, after all, opinions. It would be another matter if a WP:RS had analyzed Pirate Wires journalism regarding Soros and deemed it conspiratorial. But none exists, so there's nothing to put up against the track record described above except the disputed judgments of these WP editors.

    I maintain that Pirate Wires has demonstrated reliability and editors should regard it as WP:RS. It may be a relatively recent project and the editor may not be to everyone's taste, but it exemplifies everything that one would want an independent media company to accomplish. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tioaeu8943, could you please re-format your post to better comply with conventional talk page layout? The pseudo-section headings disrupt the flow of threaded discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 14:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was trying to create clarity, not disruption. What formatting changes would you like me to make? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not include any bolded text other than your stated !vote, and would generally follow the format of other editors, who have been much more concise. If you need to make extended arguments, consider summarizing them in your !vote statement, and then either start a Discussion section for more detailed back-and-forth, or utilize {{hat}} templates to collapse details on the page so that the flow of discussion is easier to follow. As a lot of this appears to be re-stating the arguments you presented in the pre-RfC discussion, you could also just point to that section, or link to the diffs where you first presented the arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I unbolded the bolds. I'll study hat templates for use on another occasion; thanks for the reference. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These references all seem to be opinion pieces complaining about Wikipedia's documenting of the genocide in Gaza. None of these speak to Pirate Wires as reliable - merely as ideologically convenient. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a wholly incorrect reading of the articles in question. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I went and double checked. No. It is not incorrect in the slightest. Some of the editorials are also in contextually non-reliable perennial sources such as the Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Contextually non-reliable perennial source" is an interesting way of describing WP:JERUSALEMPOST. Is this one of those contexts? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is. Claims about anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia are extraordinary claims about the Israel/Palestine conflict. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. When I said that the Jerusalem Post was contextually unreliable what I meant was that it was unreliable in this context as this context is closely related to IP conflicts. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance on WP:JERUSALEMPOST says it "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia is not an extraordinary claim. Just look at what's happening in this RFC to responsible reporting that found it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2.5 Appropriate to directly cite for WP:ABOUTSELF, to cite with attribution for non-extraordinary claims about uncontentious matters that are not BLPs, and to indirectly cite via secondary coverage (for instance, coverage of their interview with Jack Dorsey could be used to the extent that it's covered in a conventional RS).
      A Google News search of the phrases "according to Pirate Wires", "Pirate Wires reported" and a few other variations finds limited WP:USEBYOTHERS. A search of Snopes and all the other usual places finds no instances of what it publishes being cited for errors or omissions. It has a one-year or greater publication history, a gatekeeping process, and a physical presence by which it can be held responsible for what it reports. Those three factors would generally put me at about a 2. However, I can't ignore the fact that I've heard (in listening to their podcast) some statements that cause me to question whether their reporters are pursuing unfettered reportage or merely acting as scribes for the site's owner's ideas. Moreover, it practices a novel style of digital gonzo-like journalism that, while fine, may not mesh its output well with the different needs of encyclopedia writing. Chetsford (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per my arguments above. They don't have a published editorial policy, they've published conspiracy-theories and other clearly fringe material, and most importantly, they simply don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They've published only one story that attracted any attention at all, and based on the links above it was only really given credence in WP:BIASED sources, which is not a good way to establish a strong reputation; while biased sources can be used, we have to take their biases into account when considering how much weight to give them. Partisan blogs like this pump out poorly-vetted stories that are then picked up in slightly more reputable press that agrees with their biases; but if all they've managed is one story, and it isn't treated seriously outside of that bubble, that doesn't really speak to enough of a reputation to outweigh their clear limitations. Note that in eg. Bloomberg, the story is given only a brief mention, which clearly treats it as an unsubstantiated allegation that forms part of a back-and-forth partisan allegations from both sides - and crucially, Bloomberg doesn't even credit Pirate Wires as the source, suggesting that Bloomberg doesn't consider it reputable enough to even mention; the story there is that the biased secondary sources picked up on it (and it is still treated as an unsubstantiated allegation.) This isn't how high-quality sources handle a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, even before we get to the fact that source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would presumably have more than one unsubstantiated story to its name. --Aquillion (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/2.5 per Bluethricecreamman and Chetsford. Some reports might be due if enough decent secondary coverage and we don’t have enough RS criticism or failed fact checks to consider it generally unreliable, but it’s a hyperpartisan source that has not established a reputation for fact checking or editorial rigour. I have read the Soros article carefully as someone with some familiarity with the issues discussed there and I see several factual errors and a conspiratorial frame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. After examining USEBYOTHERS, both the links here and in-depth searches online, it's clear to me that PirateWires isn't widely cited by reliable sources, and it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, it's quite the opposite, as the publication is prone to pushing conspiracy theories and is mostly cited by other unreliable sites. I suppose we could use it for ABOUTSELF claims, but we have to seriously consider whether they are DUE. Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please indicate which of the sources mentioned including The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, Aish, Jewish Journal, and Unpacked are not WP:RS's? Please also indicate where they are "pushing conspiracy theories"? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No need to bludgeon. Other editors have indicated at least one article many editors classify as conspiracy theory. Aish is not an RS for news; it’s a Jewish culture site. Re Unpacked: “The organization says its mission is to increase support for Israel and Zionism among the Jewish diaspora and "explore [Zionism's] complex history and achievements so that young people will recognize that Zionism is a story that every Jewish person can proudly embrace and cherish."” So at best a highly partisan source. RSP urges caution re the JP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was only aware of Pirate Wires via their article How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. I don't see the article marked as opinion and yet it seems to be purely conspiratorial/fantastical, alleging without evidence that "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors has worked to delegitimize Israel, present radical Islamist groups in a favorable light, and position fringe academic views on the Israel-Palestine conflict as mainstream". So I'm surprised people are here suggesting it is a reliable source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, as this seems to be effecivly a WP:BLOG with little obvious "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per others above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, Pirate Wires is a reliable source per WP:RS and particularly under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which requires an editorial team "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing," which Pirate Wires has.[1] There are objections on the RFC that say it should not be reliable due to the publication's biased viewpoint and framing (like the Soros piece), however, under WP:BIASED a certain political slant is allowed as long as the publication asserts, "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering," which applies to PW. Therefore, I would say that PW should be generally reliable for non-extraordinary claims and I think it would be reasonable to attribute when their bias comes into play per WP:BIASED but the default assumption should be that they are reliable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/2.5 per above, in particular Bob and Bluethricecreamman. Far too partisan/opinion-based and not enough editorial oversight to be GREL, but seemingly enough USEBYOTHERS/attention to their reports and interviews to not quite be GUNREL. The Kip (contribs) 15:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/1.5 I am seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT here. Its important to be cautious and a little lenient in sources evaluating or criticizing Wikipedia. The Soros article, from what I skimmed, does not strike me as factually incorrect, altho I did not look into each claim. It is somewhat insinuating, but is it wrong to point out that A worked for B and B also contributes money to As new employer? Soros like many wealthy people does do shady stuff, even if it is ostensibly well-intentioned. There are legitimate criticisms of Soros, and there are bat guano insane conspiracy theories of Soros. I find it a bit ironic that there are complaints about a website backed by a billionaire(?) influencing it, which is itself complaining about a website which has received money from another billionaire.
    From what I can see, Pirate Wires is not perfect, but they seem to be trying to be an independent outlet for investigative journalism that they feel mainstream media is not covering. This cannot be tucked into SPS, but isnt fully out there yet, which is unfortunate. They have work to do, but I cant entirely dismiss them as unreliable. And given the profile, it seems no RS has contested their work, albeit few have cited it either. But as a comparison, a newspaper in some random country would not be dismissed out of hand unless they have showed a continuous case of being unreliable. RS being evaluated by RS is somewhat circular. Much of their reporting should be attributed, however.
    And its worth noting that much of the work in question to be used is that of Ashley Rindsberg, who previously worked for Internet Archive, and seems to be for open information access. He has contributed elsewhere with more clear editorial review, and been more widely cited than Pirate Wires. So he has been subject to editorial boards. He has been taken seriously by a number of sources, altho mostly yellow classed ones. So in that case, I would say his work is 1. Solana and others may be different: looking at the last discussion, the site is all over the place, but impossible to GUNREL. Metallurgist (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you mentioned it, I was interested in what he'd done with Internet Archive, but, besides helping build a bookmobile in Egypt (which was great) I'm having issues finding much else. (I'm not saying he hasn't, I'm just curious if you know of a way to see what else he's done for the Archive & when/if he stopped working with them)
    All I can find when I search his name on the site is his book, archived appearances of him on a variety of conservative libertarian podcasts (The Rubin Report, The Andrew Klavan Show, & The Libertarian Institute) & a few videos he did with PragerU. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I read he did a little more than just the Alexandria one, but I cant find it now of course. Metallurgist (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or Option 1.5; it is extremely juvenile to punish sources with derankings for saying we suck. It's obvious that they have an editorial bias, and that they think we suck, and on this basis I would contest them being used to source in-depth analysis in the voice of the encyclopedia. Pirate Wires should not be taken as gospel for everything it says, and its claims (especially if they sound strange) should be verified. But this is a pretty basic part of competent editing; you should be doing this anyway. jp×g🗯️ 00:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per Aquillion. Like Woodroar I also looked at the sources cited for the use by others claim, and they all fail RS or are very questionable. For example: the Jewish News Syndicate was cited multiple times to argue PW is option 1 or 2, yet JNS is primarily funded by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Adam Milstein, who is tied to Canary Mission, also funds it, resulting in positive coverage of him in the outlet in an apparent quid pro quo, as noted in that Intercept piece. It also has an exclusive publishing deal w/the Adelson-funded Israel Hayom, which is set up to advance Netanyahu's political interests per RS reporting. Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News which is routinely reposted by the CAMERA Israeli censorship operation, and worked for the far right Tucker Carlson founded Daily Caller and Ben Shapiro founded Daily Wire before he took up this gig. Others that have been for some reason cited to make the use by others claim are all in the same orbit of hawkishly pro-Israeli billionaire funded outlets of dubious reliability. I don't know why other editors are listing these names under the pretence that they are legitimate RS citing and using PW's reporting when that's not the case, and this is not a good basis for a use-by-others case. For that we would require RS reporting from credible RS outlets, and only Bloomberg fits this description, but they only made a vague general reference to Pirate Wires w/o validating its claims. This is clearly a WP:BLOG funded and run by Silicon Valley tech billionaires, and should be deemed GUNREL. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      These allegations make the ones by Pirate Wires of Soros look like they came out of Reuters. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opt 1 - quick question - was this forum and/or process for determining what is or isn't a credible/reliable source ever formally adopted by the community? It's possible that I missed out on that discussion, but I think it's important to know, especially now that there are word limits. Link please? Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC) Apologies, I forgot to iVote before asking my question. Atsme 💬 📧 17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not a vote. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ^^^ This user's comment is out of order. Of course my vote is an iVote. We don't have to keep repeating the same convincing argument. I made my choice. Atsme 💬 📧 00:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The criteria for determining whether a source is reliable or unreliable adopted by the community are whatever is written in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources. The primary criteria would be reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with each of those words presumably taking the plain dictionary definition. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no question about the criteria laid out in our PAGs, which were properly adopted and accepted by the community. Historically, we had WP:RSN created and maintained per our PAGs for this very purpose. This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will. The arguments here are based on he said/she said and not rooted in factual, corroborated facts, but on individual opinions, an approach that stands in contrast to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the long-standing principle that reliability must be evaluated with respect to specific content, not by dismissing an entire publication outright. Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility, which inevitably rest on subjective epistemological assumptions, political leanings, and personal beliefs. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that the page that you are on is, in fact, RSN, the three letters of which stand for "reliable", "sources" and "noticeboard", and has done so since 2007, I fail to see how the community could adopt its replacement with itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The header makes clear While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. So if there is disagreement between editors over whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (per policy WP:V) this is one venue that can be used for consensus building. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of the reliable sources guideline, that helps explain the WP:SOURCE part of the verifiability policy. Context matters is an important point, but it doesn't mean any source can be used just because one part of it is doesn't appear to be junk. The point of sources is that we can trust them without double checking their content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the clarification, but WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS require source reliability to be judged in relation to how it is used, not by deprecating entire publications. Consensus discussions are valid, but per WP:CONSENSUS they must remain consistent with policy and cannot substitute for it. Using this forum to eliminate sources wholesale shifts us away from case-by-case evaluation toward blanket bans, which neither policy nor past community practice supports. Atsme 💬 📧 19:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Deprecation has had community support in widely advertised and well attended RFCs. Policy follows practice, if what you say is true then policy needs updating. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Atsme may i ask, did you make this reply with an LLM? I know we are not supposed to test texts with gptzero due to the high false positive rate, but this text is unintelligible enough i checked, and its triggering a hit.
    • per alpha3031, WP:RSN always pointed to here.
    • this complaint about RSP process being made by shifting community consensus is literally applicable to every process here on wikipedia
    • " Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility" - what? that sounds like AI.
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't dignify your question with a response, adding that your talk page and editing patterns ironically resemble the work of earlier stub creating bots and early phases of AI, which speaks volumes to your question. Atsme 💬 📧 13:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop sniping about this. Neither of you appear to be contributing machine generated glurge. Atsme's arguments are incorrect with regard to past practice and deprecation but in a very human way. As far as credibility we have multiple instances of PirateWires engaging in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (the article originally in question and the Soros dogwhistles). It doesn't take an expert to make a determination that conspiracy theories are not credible. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opt 2-3 Where is their editorial oversight? Mike Solana, seems to consistently allow "blogish and sub-stackian" opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments. Are their news reports from accredited journalists, or venture capitalists? There was also some controversy over their reporting on the launch of Trump-Token DJT. Not a great look. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. Fwiw the atlantic [57] seems to indicate PirateWires evolved and continues to act as mike solanas personal newsletter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I read the piece you just shared from The Atlantic and it says, "[Mike] Solana stresses that the site is separate from the investment firm—[and that, Peter] Thiel has no editorial control". I think if anything, we should consider that Solana pieces might need far more scrutiny. However, other writers for Pirate Wires would appear to be perfectly reliable and we have not seen reliable sources countering that claim. The Atlantic does admittedly question the degree to which editorial independence is entirely happening in the case of Solana, "Whether [Solana's editorial independence is possible] while conducting friendly interviews with allies and taking orders from Thiel by day is an open question." Though again, even then they say "...is an open question", not simply "is not possible" or something more affirmative.
      Solana's background in helping Peter Thiel to get his book Zero to One published may show some conflict of interest directly when covering Peter Thiel or Thiel owned companies or ventures (See Palantir at the very least). So I would likely restrict Pirate Wires (Solana or otherwise) from being able to cover those directly, most especially when supporting sources do not exist. Solana does express resistance to the more typical right-wing Trump adulation though, "Solana was never exactly a Trump fan", so I think Pirate Wires just appears to offer a more "Libertarian" flavor of reporting here which, while biased, ought to be welcome and does again seem to be generally reliable when not reporting on Peter Thiel owned businesses or investments.
      As for bias in other ways, one factor that might be beneficial is that Pirate Wires does not take advertising dollars. We do not talk about this enough, but what if a source takes a lot of money from a big fossil fuel company for example, might they then go a bit softer when covering some climate change related reporting perhaps? I think it is certainly possible, and worthy of consideration at the very least. In the case of Pirate Wires though, again according to The Atlantic, Solana explained that, "news organizations went from comfortable businesses subsidized by classifieds to click-hungry digital-content machines reliant on display advertising" to far less relevant and even began going out of business or becoming consolidated into central behemoths because, "[social] media companies turned down the traffic spigot". In other words, their distribution channel was cut. Pirate Wires on the other hand has, "Paid subscriptions [which] are $20 a month or $120 annually—fairly steep".
      Lastly, "What makes Pirate Wires distinctive, [Solana] says, is its point of view, which leads it to report stories that liberal-leaning outlets might not." I hope we would not label a source less than "Generally Reliable" due simply to bias. That would not be right, nor aligned with the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", and I hope that the above demonstrates why at least when not coming directly from Mike Solana, or covering Peter Thiel for the COI reasons already stated, that Pirate Wires is generally reliable as a source. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • reliability comes from the editorial structure. there are dozens of NYTimes scandals and misinfo printed, same for any traditional paper with a long enough history. But we say its reliable because it has a well-established editorial structure. When we point out Solana is the editorial structure, we mean there is no real editorial structure, author=editor, suggesting WP:SPS
    • if PirateWires is biased, its biased. that would probably go into option 2, where we note that they can be biased and piratewires coverage won't determine if it is WP:DUE. If they cover a story/slant nobody else covers, then its probably not due for inclusion in a wikipedia article.
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 FYI; Ashley Rindsberg has called me a "pro-Hamas" editor(!) in a Pirate wires article [58]. I have never supported Hamas in my life. I am a non-believer and firm feminist, I find the claim that I am "pro-Hamas" highly libellous, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Are personal attacks against Wikipedians a factor for deprecation? Im legit asking, i think i recall someone saying breitbart did similar stuff and i know its deprecated. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I vaguely recall reading through the Breitbart stuff at somepoint but IIRC that was due to doxxing an editor, not simply disparaging one. The Kip (contribs) 16:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ludicrous. And suggesting huldra is canvassing is a personal attack Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:COI doesn't forbid participating in RfCs or other behind-the-scenes activities on Wikipedia. In fact, it encourages them: adding suggestions and sources to Talk pages, or using their COI to get quality photos and media. There's nothing wrong with Huldra adding her perspective here, especially since she's mentioned her connection. Woodroar (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Taking a step back, an unsubstantiated attack piece by a third party does not give an editor a COI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If we designated this situation as COI it would be a licence for sources to attack personally editors in order to neutralise their voices in discussions like these. While it is proper to inform the community that they’ve been personally attacked by the source (as Huldra did), we must give them the right to defend themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At least they're being very open and honest about it. It's up to the closer how heavily to weight their comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I certainly has not taken part in off-wiki canvassing/TfP, but that article I linked to claim that I do. They have simply looked at how many articles I have edited in common with certain other wiki-editors. But that only shows we are interested in the same field! You could easily contruct similar charts with other groups of editors, say people interested in railways, mushrooms or castles. Or overlap with pro-Israeli editors. In fact, I have a huge overlap with....Icewhiz. Funnily enough, Rindsberg doesn't mention that. Rindsberg makes a lot of serious allegations, but shows absolutely zero proof. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's remarkable that @Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved. I am not surprised that some editors are now retaliating against being exposed in this way and appear to be trying to silence Pirate Wires reporting through deprecation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved." This isn't true at all. You should probably strike/retract this comment and I'll remind you that competence is required to be editing in this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately there was a lot of bad reporting (as with so much of the reporting about Wikipedia) and hyperbole about the Arbcom case, so there is a lot of misunderstanding about the outcomes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's generally not advisable to respond to criticism of a conspiracy theory targeting people with whom you might later be collaborating by saying "but it's true!" Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article barely mentions you, only in passing related to Nableezy and Onceinawhile, plus the table. It doesnt accuse you of being pro-Hamas, or even really insinuate it. Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not. If you think Rindsberg libelled you, have you pursued action against him? The article only uses "pro-Hamas" in the headline, while using "pro-Palestin(e/ian)" 13 times, so saying he libelled you as pro-Hamas is quite a stretch. Metallurgist (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It says so in the head-line "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"; and I am not going to violate WP:LEGAL (and earn myself an instant ban). As for "Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not" that is exactly my point! (hence my example that I have a lot of articles in common with Icewhiz). Btw, he calls us the "gang of 40" ..google it (+ wikipedia, pro-Hamas). He writes things like "To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason" Huh?? I think most wikipedia-editors will see it for what it is: people interested in the same field happens to have a lot of overlapping articles. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Pseudonyms are used to protect one's identity. I'm not aware of any libel cases filed by a pseudonym; please enlighten me. This venue is used from time to time to eliminate sources that go against WP's systemic bias, specifically conservative sources, be they on the left or right. All it takes is one article or two to start what I observe to be a logical fallacy downgrade in a forum that was never approved by the community - the proof is in the pudding. All the misinformation published by liberal mainstream media or legacy media is overlooked, like the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. What happened to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Atsme 💬 📧 15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Where does the headline or body label you as a pro-Hamas editor? WP:LEGAL is about internal threats. How does it prevent you from pursuing an external libel case? Who is "us"? Metallurgist (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it is not. Read WP:LEGAL, it is for any legal threat. And it is clear from the article, that it labels all 40 of us "pro-Hamas editors", and the "gang of 40" has become a fixture among pro-Israeli "twitterati", like Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir [59], Huldra (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is getting off topic, @Metallurgist, @Huldra, @Atsme. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe my comments are relevant to the discussion on source legitimacy. The core issue is whether this forum’s process for deprecating or downgrading credible sources risks unfairly dismissing them due to a dominant consensus, potentially sidelining valid perspectives. This raises concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and conflicts with our PAGs. I'm focused on how we address this to ensure objectivity in our selection of sources. Atsme 💬 📧 14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes this forum has community consensus, and in particular deprecation has had at least one major RFC if not more. If you have questions about any particular source you can raise them here, but if you have questions about the validity of the noticeboard I would suggest the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Huldra, did Pirate Wires ever contact you for comment before publishing "How Wikipedia's Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"? — Newslinger talk 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Newslinger Of course not: And the "sneaky" thing Rindsberg does, is that he
      A: list the most active "non-Israel-friendly" editors he can find, and how's that we edit lots of the same articles (so does a lot of "Israel-friendly" editors, but he doesn't list those), And since most of us have edited for years -we have lots of edits.
      B: list the off-site collusion by "Tech For Palestine" (TfP)
      C: combines A +B to make it appear as if there is a massive off-site collusion. But, as their own "investigation" showed, on p. 3 (out of 244): "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles.(link) (bolding in the original)
      The simple, boring truth is that there is no major "off-site collusion" to edit wikipedia in an "anti Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" way. The one exception is TfP, and they managed a whopping 260 edits, before they were all banned, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:QUACK Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 (2nd choice Option 2, 3rd choice Option 4); with no evident editorial policy, a lack of sources discussing the reliability of its output as a whole, and an apparent willingness to publish conspiracy theories and inflammatory accusations with little evidence, Pirate Wires falls squarely into the generally unreliable category. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2.5 - they're clearly biased but at the same time seem to be doing relatively serious journalism on some topics. But they're mostly a magazine of opinion articles, the closest example on the Left I can think of would be something like Current Affairs, so I'm not really sure how much they could be used in an actual article. Ideally Wikipedia would have some sort of proper policy on these sorts of things, because it feels like the real question about them is "are their views notable", and their reliability isn't really relevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am disinclined to consider valid an RFC the preceeding discussion(s) of which fail to provide the context required by the editnotice, more specifically, the part where it says and the claim it supports. That said, in general, we require positive evidence of both structural elements (non-SPS) and reputational elements, rather than the lack of evidence to the contrary, and in quick overview said evidence seems singularly unimpressive. For example, one article referenced above says the following: The existence of the TFP channel has previously been reported by Jewish Insider (JI), "The Wikipedia Flood" blog and a Pirate Wires piece that went viral. The publication is placed in the same sentence as a news organisation. It is also placed in the same sentence as a blog. Unfortunately not being psychic, I cannot say for certain why the Journal chooses to mention PW, the simplest reading in my opinion would indicate the 4 words following that mention give a clue. There are plenty of news organisations that mention subreddits with posts that go viral, I hope those proposing a GENREL RSP entry do not suggest that is the standard for "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" we adopt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 PW functions more as a pro-tech, anti-establishment opinion platform than a neutral news source. Its coverage often targets high-profile figures and institutions, often in inflammatory terms, framing its mission as a rebuke to "modern publishing giants" and what it portrays as ideological conformity in legacy journalism.[60] The outlet began as a Substack newsletter before becoming a venture-backed site with a small staff. Editorially, it remains centered on Mike Solana, who has no background in journalism or editing yet retains near-total control. A Founders Fund partner has said the site largely mirrors Solana's personal views, with its content described as like "being inside [his] brain". Editorial independence seems minimal.[61] Instead of following conventional reporting standards, PW tends to push narratives opposing regulation, progressive movements, and liberal institutions. The Guardian has referred to it as a "conservative newsletter".[62] Media Bias / Fact Check rates its factual reporting as "mixed", citing reliance on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments instead of consistently well-sourced journalism.[63] PW drew scrutiny last year when it published an unverified claim that the Trump campaign was launching a cryptocurrency. This was posted directly to social media, included a contract address and was presented as a scoop but lacked corroboration. No RS confirmed the story, and PW offered no sourcing transparency. Solana later admitted that he had not spoken to anyone in the Trump campaign and characterized the post as merely sharing information "via sources". This kind of reporting falls well short of basic journalistic standards.[64] As for Ashley Rindsberg, the author of several cited pieces, he also fails to meet RS standards. His claims about a supposed "Hamas network" running Reddit and Wikipedia are demonstrably false, as are many others across his blogging output. He has repeatedly pushed fringe narratives, including far-right talking points on COVID-19 and its origins, and has amplified anti-vaccine rhetoric.[65][66][67] He is also closely tied to PragerU and other fringe right-wing outlets. Combined with his frequent use of culture-war terms like "woke", his work clearly lacks journalistic objectivity. Neither PW nor Rindsberg should be treated as reliable, with the exception of WP:ABOUTSELF. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Primarily due to WP:USEBYOTHERS (Berliner Zeitung, TechCrunch, NDTV, Gizmodo). A lot of !votes above do not mention any inaccuracies and imo should simply be dismissed. I've carefully reviewed the list of issues u:Kelob2678 posted above but I find u:Jcgaylor's arguments convincing. Note that the (rather unsympathetic to the Pirate Wires) Atlantic article does not accuse them of publishing falsehoods. It's definitely biased but I found no reasons to doubt its reliability. Alaexis¿question? 11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The conspiracizing about a "gang of 40" is obviously false reporting on its face. Not only would the inclusion of this as a source be repeating such falsehoods, it would be enshrining, in our articles, WP:ABF statements about other Wikipedia editors in good standing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume you're referring to this investigation which has been mentioned in other sources that I linked. Which part of it is a lie and what makes you think so? Alaexis¿question? 12:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding WP:ABF, how is it relevant? Are you suggesting that our sources should abide by Wikipedia guidelines? Alaexis¿question? 12:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The arbitration process exonerated many editors on that list of the collaboration and collusion that PirateWires accuses them of. WP:ABF is relevant because we would have to both assume that Arbcom got it wrong and we would have to be assuming bad faith in our colleagues in order to treat the assertions made by piratewires as factually correct. We have competing sets of facts. It ultimately comes down to a matter of trust. I trust my peers on Wikipedia more than I trust Ashley Rindberg. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The Arbcom, as a subset of Wikipedia, is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Even if it were, it didn't (and couldn't) "exonerate" anyone. The lack of evidence and the evidence of absence are different things. Alaexis¿question? 13:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well there's no evidence of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" other then editors existing that the author ideologically opposes. While sources don't have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, you certainly do. So regardless of your personal opinions, I hope you can at least WP:AGF & give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence exists. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I give my fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and follow WP:AGF. However this is WP:RSN and not AN and the idea that our assessment of sources should depend on what they wrote about Wikipedia strikes me as unserious. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not arguing that we should dismiss sources because they're critical of Wikipedia/its editors, but their coverage should be accurate & well supported.
      The claim of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" is simply not true, their assertions are built entirely of the fallacious idea of "correlation = causation". An investigation without proper evidence to support their conclusion is nothing but an accusation, something unbecoming of supposedly reliable sources.
      So we return to @Simonm223's point above, PirateWires accused these editors of conspiracy without actual evidence, but you are defending the article's accuracy. I'm having issues parsing the idea that you can give editors the benefit of the doubt, while also defending an article that attacks those same editors authenticity with unsubstantiated claims. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Pirate Wires)

    [edit]
    • Notice: This discussion is covered by the 1000 word limit on formal discussion in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. If you're at or near that limit then you're done.
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish Is that per RFC discussion, or per comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that as of this comment, the participant word counts for the RfC are as follows:
    signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Revised count for Kelob2678 given their amendment. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jcgaylor, you may want to trim your comments then down to 1,000 words or less in order to be in compliance with this, also I'm assuming this comment in its entirety is not counting for me towards my own 1k word limit? And any questions that are purely seeking clarification etc? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, somewhat bizarre question, but I think that Jcgaylor made some great points. Given that I made only 157 words of argument, in essence I have 843 words "left", could I "gift" him some of my "words" to be able to use towards the limit so that he does not need to cut back as much or anything depending? Otherwise, in theory, I could copy and past his replies in some cases, and just give him credit for the point, and effectively get to a similar result anyway, but I just wanted to see what the best course of action is in that case. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that most of Jcgaylor's comments have already been responded to and that they are significantly past the word limit, I would suggest that trying to cut them down at this point would do more harm than good and Jcgaylor should just step back from this discussion. The closer may choose to address this discrepancy of one editor having been afforded the opportunity to speak more than the rest however they see fit.
    The question of gifting word count to another editor should probably be addressed to ARBCOM as an amendment/clarification of the word limit restriction. My gut inclination is that we probably don't want to go down this road as a community: having participated in formal debates outside Wikipedia where this was allowed, it introduces a lot more bureaucratic overhead, drama and gamesmanship, which I think would be counterproductive to the original intent of the word limit, which is to keep discussions focused and to the point. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, it had honestly not occurred to me until now, so I thought it would be prudent to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, realizing I hadn't answered your other question: As for word count methodology, I've been excluding signatures and procedural questions. That having been said, I'm not aware of any ARBCOM- or community-mandated methodology, so I can't make promises about how other admins (or ARBCOM) will review counts when asked, although I expect that most of us will look to the spirit of the sanction rather than bean-counting words over the line (and this has essentially been the existing practice for AE word limits: no one gets sanctioned for going a bit over the line, but repeatedly and/or excessively going over the line does become evidence of a pattern of disruption if together with other problematic behavior). signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine especially after having been warned or notified. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Current word counts for Tioaeu8943 and Iljhgtn? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ignoring the procedural responses, Tioaeu8943 is at ~1002 words.
    Iljhgtn is at ~796 words. using the "~" because the word counter is slightly off and might be slightly overestimating based on formatting
    admins likely won't care about going slightly over, but will get pissed off if there is a 500 word response that goes way overboard. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you, but do you have a link to the 1,000-word cap policy so I can read up on it? I don't see it at WP:ARBPIA. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Word limits (1,000 words) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to bank my remaining ~800 and exchange them for the gift card, if no one minds. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References (Pirate Wires)

    [edit]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.piratewires.com/authors

    WIRED admitting to publishing stories without fact checking them, knowingly doesn't publish a retraction until outed months after the fact

    [edit]

    This May WIRED published an AI-generated article by a fictitious journalist about the rise of virtual weddings in the post-COVID era featuring 5 named people, all of whom were fake. Despite being non-existent WIRED reported direct quotes that they were told by them:

    • “We’d log on almost every day after school,” Nguyen tells WIRED.
    • One couple, who met in a Discord server dedicated to indie game development, tells WIRED ...

    One of the non-existent people claimed a prominent online presence which would have been easy to verify:

    • JESSICA HU, 34, an ordained officiant based in Chicago, has made a name for herself as a “digital celebrant,” specializing in ceremonies across Twitch, Discord, and VRChat. Since launching her virtual wedding services in 2020, she has officiated over 40 ceremonies in online spaces.

    This article bypassed WIRED's entire vetting process and was published for 9 days until they tried to pay its pseudonymous author, but couldn't because they weren't using a real name. During this time other sites wrote stories about the people WIRED said it interviewed.

    A reliable source, once realizing it had published misinformation, would correct it and not let others keep repeating it. Instead WIRED just quietly took down the article and issued a vague statement that:

    • “After an additional review of the article, ‘They Fell in Love Playing Minecraft. Then the Game Became Their Wedding Venue,’ Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed.”

    This statement does not clarify to everyone who copied the story that WIRED did not actually interview these people.

    It wasn't until 3 months later when Press Gazette published on article about it being AI-generated that WIRED finally published a retraction verifying that the story was written by AI and admitting "This story did not go through a proper fact-check process or get a top edit from a more senior editor."

    A source that publishes an article without fact-checking, and once realizing its error tries to hide it instead of publishing a retraction and setting the record straight, cannot be relied on. At minimum WIRED should not be considered reliable for statements that it is the only one that has published them and which are disputed by others. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The process that they followed seems to be how a work that had editorial controls would go about identifying an article that slipped through the cracks and are working to resolve that. Unless we know they have allowed multiple articles to slip through, this seems like a good corrective action by an RS. Masem (t) 02:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that you interviewed people that you did not, and not correcting that until another news source outs the interview as AI-generated 3 months later is not "good corrective action". ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What, exactly, do you think a retraction is? Replacing an entire article with After an additional review of the article … Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards is a retraction. They did that within weeks, not months later. It attracted little attention until the Press Gazette drew attention to it months later because the article itself had little impact (partially because they were so quick to act and retracted it so rapidly), but that's a good thing, not a bad thing. But beyond that, reliability is about a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For an established source, one incident is only going to change how we view them if there's an indication that it has actually impacted their reputation in the long-term. If you look at eg. the Guardian coverage of the incident, it doesn't have the same breathless framing you use here, and broadly treats the way Wired handled it afterwards as appropriate. If anything, Wired, who retracted the story relatively quickly, comes across better than Business Insider, who didn't discover the issue or retract it until they were informed by someone else. But either way the question from our perspective is whether it impacted their overall reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how WIRED being fooled into publishing an AI generated article by a pseudonymous trickster could invalidate the entire corpus of work published by them. I would need to see evidence of repeated or systemic failures to vet submitted content to agree that this is a reflection on the outlet's overall reliability. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "fooled" by an article that a simple Google search can disprove is a red flag. More so because an unknown "journalist" should be even more heavily scrutinized. Regardless, an honest publisher, when they realized they've been fooled, posts a retraction stating which parts of the article are not true and which parts they are unable to verify. WIRED chose to hide their mistake until they were outed by another publication. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really agree with this approach to source evaluation in general. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing the others. It's a regretful one time incident, but they reviewed and offered a retraction. And it's not enough to change the standing of a long-term usable source. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The mistake is to assume anyone is pristine, they all have incidents. The question is trends and reputations and quantity and quality of the problems. You can't determine that from one incident. -- GreenC 04:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even we are failing with artificial intelligence content detection (artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects), the thing that matters is that they issued a quick and clear retraction. Unless it has become an entrenched problem, we should be fine. Gotitbro (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reality is a lot of media nowadays have the unfortunate habit of editing and pulling stories without bothering to properly note why they did what they did. We still use many of these sources. So if they at least replaced it with "After an additional review of the article .... Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed." that's actually better than many sources we use. Could it have been better? Sure but at least it's a retraction. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WIRED confirms it does not generally fact-check its online content

    [edit]

    Per Columbia Journalism Review "Magazines find there’s little time to fact-check online" (archive)

    Wired, another publication with a storied reputation for fastidious fact-checking, has a similar strategy for checking stories in print, says Deputy Managing Editor Joanna Pearlstein. “It’s important to us that we back up every assertion that we make with a source and that we feel good about that source.” The reporters Wired hires as fact-checkers go over each story line by line, underlining and verifying facts with the use of transcripts, recordings, data, and other primary sources, and watching for errors of interpretation and missed lines of inquiry. “It’s definitely a re-reporting process,” she says.
    But original content posted online generally isn’t fact-checked. “We don’t have the staff for that, and we operate usually very quickly on the web—you know, stories that are pitched in a meeting this morning will be live by this afternoon or tomorrow morning, which is very different than working on the print magazine,” Pearlstein says. The only exceptions are online stories that might be legally sensitive, which are given “not a fact-check per se, but a review for accuracy.”

    ເສລີພາບ (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You left out some parts:
    At Wired, online stories are mainly written by trained fact-checkers who have “a natural attention to detail,” Pearlstein says. In other words, triage systems offer some protections from errors on magazines’ websites.
    That Wired has professional fact checkers writing stories puts them above the crowd in this space, even if still not high enough. It reinforces what we already know, print media is typically more reliable than online-only media. -- GreenC 04:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The "triage systems" comment inclusively refers to the entire paragraph preceding the one line about WIRED. This also means that the articles that WIRED accepts from outside sources (like the phony AI writer) are not generally fact-checked. The article even ends with:
    • Editors generally agree that the best corrections practice is transparency: Correct the mistake, and append a time-stamped explanation.
    Which WIRED does not do when they make retractions. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) magazine presents this as an industry-wide pattern: "But what happens online, where there’s no time for this process? In our conversations with research editors at more than a dozen award-winning national and regional magazines, we found this same pattern: Print gets the full-on fact-checking process; online content gets at most a spot-check. (Editor’s note: CJR follows a similar model, with extensive fact-checks for print stories and spot checks for digital.)" It's not clear to me why you are targeting Wired specifically instead of magazines as a class.
    After arguing with a CNET employee on this noticeboard about the unreliability of their sponsored content less than two months ago, just to see their parent company lay off 15% of their employees less than two weeks later, I can discern that Wired is a couple of echelons higher in terms of reliability than the average technology publication, despite the entire industry slipping due to economic pressures that affect journalism as a whole. — Newslinger talk 10:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our standards at WP is the overall editorial process. That they fact-check what they can ahead of time, and make timely corrections/retractions if they learn of a problem of an existing article. Those all contribute towards strong editorial control. To contrast, we consider Forbes Contributors as unreliable because Forbes does no fact checking and minimal oversight before those are posted.
    Wired, like most other sources, are not going to review every fact line by line due to the speed at which things have to go out the door, but they do quickly admit to faults. And that's what we want to see. Masem (t) 12:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing about this that worries me even a little bit is that it's apparently news to some Wikipedia editors that fact checking is not a common thing. So, once again, from the top:
    • Reputable news outlets normally engage in post-publication fact-checking. Post-publication fact-checking looks like a "Corrections" department for a print-only publication, or a note on an webpage saying that they've corrected the spelling of someone's name (one of the most common errors), or removing an article from their website. It does not usually look like self-flagellation or providing a detailed analysis of all the ways the article was screwed up.
    • Most sources don't get any pre-publication fact-checking. When pre-publication fact-checking happens, it's usually for a small portion of an article (e.g., to make sure they got a technical description correct; to make sure the shocking thing the politician said is quoted accurately). The method is usually just a magazine/newspaper editor saying "Let me see the e-mail message the spokesperson sent you" or "You've got a recording of him saying that?" The use of a professional fact checker is uncommon, and even then, the fact checker may not need to contact anyone directly.
    • Peer review does no fact-checking. The peer reviewers are looking for whether the study seems sensible and replicable; they're not looking for proof that you did the work that you claim to have done, aren't outright fabricating your data, plagiarizing Wikipedia, etc.
    • Book publishers, including textbooks, do very little fact-checking, and AIUI most of that is aimed at risk management (i.e., you hire a fact checker if you think the person you're writing about might sue for defamation).
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seemingly goes against Wired's Deputy Managing Editor stating that their print articles have fact-checkers going over them line-by-line and backing up every assertion with a source. There seems to be a chasm of difference in how much fact-checking is done depending on the source, and which presently isn't appreciated.
    Many newspapers that conduct investigative journalism have internal legal teams that review articles for defamation concerns (the bulk of which aren't from the main subject of the article, but from random side-characters who are mentioned in a single passing line). But editors misassume that Wired does this too.
    The biggest problem with retractions though is the misconception that such a process is quick. A Rape on Campus by Rolling Stone took 5 months to be retracted. Even after the Washington Post largely debunked much of the story, it took over 2 weeks for Rolling Stone to post a note online stating "there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account" and saying that it will continue investigating the events that took place. It takes a long time to investigate serious defamation claims, editors shouldn't expect an immediate retraction. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    List of poorly researched online WIRED articles

    [edit]

    I will be growing this list tomorrow, feel free anyone to add to it.

    What is going on at Wired Magazine? A few years ago, the magazine went on a bit of a binge with some articles that completely misrepresented Section 230. While I felt those articles were extraordinarily misleading, at least they seemed to mostly live in the world of facts.
    Its latest piece goes so far beyond all facts that it’s on another plane of existence, where facts don’t exist and vibes rule the world. Wired has published an article that either wasn’t fact-checked or edited, or if it was, whoever is responsible failed at their job
    • 2023 WIRED publishes an article stating Google replaces search terms with commercialized versions. The article was written by the former CEO of Duck Duck Go (a competitor of Google) who has previously battled against Google, and the heart of the entire piece rests around his claim that Google takes terms like “children's clothing” and replaces them with terms like “Nikolia kidswear”. However this is just a simple mistake as he read a slide from Google's trial backwards (it takes commercial terms and searches include more broad terms as well).
    Writer for The Atlantic Charlie Warzel Spoke to Google and the author, and confirmed the issue at the heart is false and contacted WIRED, but WIRED did not reply and took down the article with no correction. WIRED's article rapidly spread across the internet and they give no explanation to anyone looking for one about why they removed the article or what the mistake was.

    ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The impact of Section 230 on contemporary online platforms and whether the legislation should be amended have been widely debated in the past decade, and Wired's reporting on the topic is within the Overton window of mainstream views. Techdirt is an opinionated self-published blog that strongly supports digital rights and, consequently, advocates for the preservation of Section 230 in its existing state, which allows online platforms (including Wikipedia) to be immune from liability for their user-generated content under certain conditions. As such, Techdirt also expresses a mainstream view in its criticism of some of Wired's reporting on this topic. I do not see Techdirt's disagreement with the views published in Wired as a good reason to consider Wired unreliable, as the mainstream discourse around Section 230 accommodates more than just Techdirt's positions.
    The DuckDuckGo/Google op-ed was clearly retracted with the message "Editor’s Note 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, 'How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet,' and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed." While it would have been better if Wired did not publish the op-ed in the first place, its retraction was properly communicated. — Newslinger talk 09:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have a discussion with someone without establishing basic facts first. Techdirt is an award winning blog which specializes on the legal side of technology and is published by an established expert in the field.
    Mike Masnick correctly points out that WIRED is factually wrong throughout its piece. It is a fact that:
    • Section 230 does not treat websites as common carriers. It’s literally the opposite of that. It’s saying (correctly) that they’re not common carriers
    When you respond here with baseless claims that factually incorrect information is "within the Overton window" then it makes it impossible to have a discussion with you. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wired article in question actually says, "Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today's social media companies are common carriers like the phone companies that preceded them, but they are not". This Wired article and the Techdirt response article are both opinionated analysis pieces, and we don't consider sources unreliable solely because they take a stance that you don't like. (I don't like it, either, but that's beside the point.) — Newslinger talk 18:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't need to look up the WIRED article: Techdirt quoted that exact quote before responding to it. Section 230 gives websites the ability to moderate user-content which is the opposite of common carriers like phones which can't moderate your speech. Nobody outside of this WIRED article argues that "Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today's social media companies are common carriers". It is the opposite: people oppose or support Section 230 because it stops websites from being treated as common carriers.
    • "Even when data ought to be protected or prohibited by copyright or some other method, Section 230 often effectively places the onus on the violated party through the requirement of takedown notices"
    Section 230 explicitly states that it does not cover IP claims (including copyright). As Techdirt correctly points out " This is the sort of thing that a fact checker would normally catch." The entire article is just a rambling on things the author doesn't like about the internet somehow attributed to Section 230 even when its completely unrelated. This isn't part of the "Overtone Window". ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's an opinion piece and should only be used for attributed statement, not in wiki voice facts. Opinion pieces for most RSes embrace hyperbole and exaggeration to make their point, that doesn't make the work unreliable. Masem (t) 19:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the problem that I have is "in theory" WP:RS states that the reliability of a work is dependent on the claim it is being used to support, but in practice people simply determine that a source is reliable and ask that you come here to prove otherwise.
    Wired recently underwent a large expansion into covering politics. An online Wired political article written by an outside party should not be treated the same as a technology Wired print article, but in practice I don't see how you can differentiate them unless you specifically qualify what they are reliable for.
    As stated in my original post I don't think such an article should be considered reliable for statements that it is the only one that has published and which are disputed by others, but this discussion has only drifted into a discussion of general reliability which cannot be settled as its reliability is conditional. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technology is a very wide field that covers online platform regulations (such as Section 230) and social media influencer campaigns (such as the Sixteen Thirty Fund's Chorus Creator Incubator Program). This discussion is only a general reliability discussion because your original comment was phrased as a question about Wired's general reliability. If you want to discuss the reliability of the article "A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers", then you need to ask that explicitly. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that is my misunderstanding then. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without getting too far into details, one may note that "being within the Overton window" in the year 2025 does not really do a lot to prove a statement's correctness or sanity. jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, based on the discussion at Talk:Sixteen Thirty Fund § Removing misinformation, wait for facts to emerge before writing further on this, is your dispute with Wired as a whole, or just one particular article? I'm asking because this entire discussion so far does not even mention the one article related to the edit you proposed. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, its starting to look more like someone has an axe to grind with Wired... Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. This editor signed up a few days ago on August 28 with only a handful of edits, mostly attacking Wired or editing Sixteen Thirty Fund, a controversial political lobbying group. I think they should do something else for a while, give this a rest, or it will come across as COI/SPA/Bludgeoning/Disruption. It is certainly not a Wikipedia newbie. — GreenC 17:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is much more time-consuming removing technical misinformation that has lingered on this site for years than it is to make minor formatting changes.
    My edits on the Wired article have only inflated due to the discussion occurring on them, no one has replied to any of my talk page comments on the non-political articles (except for at Positron emission tomography. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers"

    [edit]

    Is the Wired article "A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers", authored by Taylor Lorenz, reliable for the information it is used for in the Sixteen Thirty Fund article, including the 2025 spending section? — Newslinger talk 20:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: Talk:Sixteen Thirty Fund. — Newslinger talk 20:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion the article is not reliable.
    There are multiple contradictions in the article itself:
    1. Lorenz writes that the contract forbids creators from independently working with lawmakers or political leaders, but at the same time says they’re required to notify Chorus about such independently arranged events. How can both statements be true at the same time?
    2. An anonymous creator says his lawyer wasn’t allowed to red-line the contract, yet the article begins with several creators discussing red-lining their contracts. Why were they allowed, but the one anonymous creator wasn't?
    3. There’s a quote from Elizabeth Dubois suggesting groups as Chorus can be used to bypass individual spending limits for creators, but the article also states that program funds can’t be used to support or oppose political candidates. That restriction seems designed to prevent exactly what Dubois is concerned about.
    In addition to the contradictions Taylor Lorenz walked back several of her claims in multiple interviews:
    1. Her original claim in the article was According to copies of the contract viewed by WIRED, creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus. In the interview on Destiny's channel[1] she said that creators had to only "loop in" Chorus for bookings with political leaders (around 1:45:00 in the video).
    2. Another claim in the article was Creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or opposes any political candidate or campaign without express authorization from Chorus in advance and in writing, per the contract.. Same claim on content restrictions is made in the subtitle of the article "All they have to do is keep it secret—and agree to restrictions on their content." In the same interview with Destiny she admits that creators were not given specific talking points and were not prevented from producing content on any specific topic (around 2:59:00 in the video).
    3. The subtitle of the article "An initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line." implies a connection to the Democratic Party. However, both in the interview on Destiny's channel and in another interview with Glenn Greenwald[2] Lorenz explicitly acknowledges that Chorus is not linked to the DNC.
    Further claims of the article were disputed by participants of the program:
    e.g. subtitle of the article "All they have to do is keep it secret—and agree to restrictions on their content." claims that creators have to keep their relationship with Chorus a secret. However, multiple content creators have publicly disclosed their affiliation with Chorus prior to the publication of the article:
    - Chorus Newsroom event[3] on Instagram tagging BTC, PoliticsGirl, Bookersquared, thezactivist and Adam Mockler
    - Bookersquared has "CHORUS" listed on her linktree (can't link, since linktree is on Wikipedia's blacklist)
    - Chorus forum on YouTube featuring PoliticsGirl, Adam Mockler, BTC, Bookersquared and others[4]
    Given these inconsistencies and the fact that key claims were walked back or reframed in her interviews, I don’t think this article should be treated as a solid or reliable source on its own.

    References

    1. ^ https://kick.com/destiny/videos/50755be6-ff36-4dd8-84c3-7bf3941760eb
    2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEZcdyi8tOE
    3. ^ https://www.instagram.com/p/DEyFJaxhvnl/?hl=en
    4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg5qJh378HQ&t=722s
    Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad to see the conversation has diverted from discussing the article to discussing the character of Lorenz. I would prefer to focus on the article itself, but if her general credibility and reliability as a source is under discussion, there are several points that raise concerns as well:
    1. Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Glenn Greenwald described Lorenz as a "journalistic tattletale" and a liar.[1] Lorenz publicly accused Marc Andreessen of using the r-slur in a Clubhouse discussion. Multiple participants, including the moderator, stated this was false. Lorenz deleted her posts but did not acknowledge or correct the accusation.
    2. What she sends in her private Instagram is a private matter, I agree, however as it was reported the matter became public and her public response is relevant for the assessment of her credibility. Lorenz initially claimed that her post had been altered, which was later shown to be untrue. Journalist Jon Levine (New York Post, CNN, The Atlantic) called her out and stated that she has a long history of lying about things like this.
    3. Following the Biden picture controversy The Washington Post conducted an internal review of her work for bias following the controversy. Even though the outcome was not made public, Lorenz did not publish further at the paper.[2] Journalist Dylan Byers (Politico, CNN, Adweek) reported that The Washington Post determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her.[3]
    4. On top of that, her own public comments don’t exactly scream impartiality. She posted about Biden’s health saying Hopefully he rots in hell and rests in piss, and called Luigi Mangione, a morally good man. Comments like that have been widely criticized and makes it hard to see her as a neutral or reliable source especially if it comes to reporting on her political enemies.
    Overall, she’s left multiple major outlets under controversy, has been called a liar (sic!) by well-known journalists, and has a track record of inflammatory attacks on Democrats. That makes it hard to take her reporting on Democrat-leaning influencers at face value.

    References

    1. ^ https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship
    2. ^ https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/taylor-lorenzs-plan-to-dance-on-legacy-medias-grave
    3. ^ https://puck.news/does-brian-williams-return-offer-a-future-for-cable-news/
    Fennecfoxxx (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I do share some awkwardness around the idea of an RSP discussion examining an individual reporter's biases, here it does actually seem at least somewhat germane to note Lorenz's tendencies toward this sort of thing. I do remember when this Marc Andreessen thing happened, and it was very silly -- I think that, in general, maybe we ought to have some general principle that news media reporting in close proximity to Twitter beef among individual reporters should be taken with a grain of salt. jp×g🗯️ 18:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this article is being used in a section titled "2025 spending", however, the Sixteen Thirty Fund rejects any spending on Chorus. Lawyer and content creator associated with Chorus Elizabeth Booker Houston has said the Sixteen Thirty Fund doesn't fund Chorus, but is their "fiscal sponsor", arguing Lorenz misunderstood what that meant and has blocked her on social media from replying. Separate from its lobbying, 16-30 runs a program where they act as fiscal sponsors, allowing groups to function as non-profits within their framework to rapidly launch without having to wait potentially months/years for IRS approval. The programs 16-30 is a fiscal sponsor for source their own funding, with donations only passing through 16-30, but 16-30 does not spend its own money on them.
    But no mainstream source has picked up Lorenz's story (which content creators are talking to lawyers about launching a defamation suit against), leaving only tabloids like the NYPost covering 16-30's statements:
    • The Sixteen Thirty Fund told The Post that it is a “fiscal sponsor” of Chorus and that the group “receives donations on Chorus’s behalf and provides operational and administrative support for Chorus” — though it states it is “not the original source of financing.”
    The current text (and its placement) make it appear as though it is a given that 16-30 funds Chorus, and that WIRED's article is making claims about how the funds are used. However, the 90-something content creators across social media reject that they receive money from 16-30, and believe this is being used as a smear attempt against them by Lorenz who is more far-left than them to depict moderate liberal content creators as backed by dark money.

    Fundamentally, Chorus states it is grassroots-funded by 5,000 individuals while Lorenz states they are funded by 16-30's dark money pool. For this reason I believe Lorenz's article is not reliable to state, as fact, that Chorus is funded by 16-30, and the article should make it explicit that the claim that 16-30 is funding Chorus is a claim by Lorenz. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe that the August 28 Taylor Lorenz article in Wired is reliable for our purposes in building content based on it in the Sixteen Thirty Fund article, such as in the 2025 spending section. There has been some back-and-forth on the Sixteen Thirty Fund talk page about whether our summary of the Lorenz article was spot on or not, as there should be. But her article (and her journalistic bona fides such as her lengthy history of work at the NYT and the WashPost) are more than adequately reliable.Novellasyes (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      From NPR
      • Lorenz’s professional fate at the paper was in doubt even prior to her announcement
      • Three people at the Post with knowledge of events tell NPR that Lorenz lost the trust of the newsroom’s leadership both by posting that selfie with the caption about Biden and then by willfully misleading editors in claiming that she had not done so.
      • After NPR verified the post was authentic, Lorenz changed her account of what happened, acknowledging to editors she had shared the image.
      • The Post kicked off a formal review
      As NPR describes, following the posting incident: "Lorenz, a frequent and often divisive presence online, never wrote for the paper again."
      Lorenz has a reputation as a provocateur, and left her last journalism job at the Washington Post following an ethics scandal before the formal review against her ended. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The reliable sources guideline does not disqualify journalists for what they say in "a private social media post" that was sent to "friends". Taylor Lorenz labelling Joe Biden a "war criminal" in a photo that she sent to her friends a year ago, regardless of whether she was serious or joking, does not reduce the reliability or the due weight of her article for Wired, as this noticeboard is not a human resources department that patrols what journalists say in their private lives. — Newslinger talk 12:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not about what she said privately. It's about how when the NYPOst shared screenshots of her post she publicly replied “You people will fall for any dumbass edit someone makes.” and told editors that someone else had added the caption to the photo. Only after NPR confirmed they were real did she admit she posted them. This wasn't an HR department issue, she lost the trust of the editorial staff for "willfully misleading editors" about posting it. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter if the Generally unreliable New York Post (RSP entry) publishes Lorenz's private social media photos, or if Lorenz defends herself in public afterward. The reliable sources guideline does not require a journalist to be on good terms with a former employer. — Newslinger talk 14:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      NPR says she lost the trust of her editorial staff, that is obviously relevant to her reliability. While we're on the subject of journalistic integrity, while at the Post, Lorenz had one of her articles retracted after it said two Youtubers she wrote about had been contacted but did not respond (they had not been contacted). The New York Times reported that she tweeted out that the line was a result of a miscommunication with the editor, but NYT reports that 3 sources at the Post confirmed she had discussed and agreed with the editors before publication, and that she was being criticized for trying to pass the buck. NYT reports after this incident she had to have all of her articles reviewed by her senior managing editor.
      This is directly related to her Wired article because the article states Elizabeth Booker Houston had been contacted for comment, but hadn't responded. However, Houston states that although she has previously communicated with Lorenz, and that Lorenz has her phone number, that the only attempt to contact her that Lorenz made was a DM to her public Instagram account (half a million followers) where it got buried under the high volume of DMs from the public it receives. Standard journalistic practice is to attempt to contact someone multiple ways, especially if you have previous lines of access to someone and direct access to their phone which you can text. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your comment (diff) is a misleading representation of the New York Times article, which actually said, "Taylor Lorenz, a technology reporter lured to The Post from The New York Times this year, had tweeted that a miscommunication with her editor led to an inaccurate line in an article. The tweets were discussed and agreed on by Ms. Lorenz and multiple editors before she posted, said three people with knowledge of the discussions. The tweets prompted an outcry from critics on Twitter who accused her of passing the buck." The reliable sources guideline does not judge journalists based on what people on social media say about them, or whether the people they used to work with think less of them after they defend themselves in response to a tabloid publishing their private photos.
      The Wired article that is supposed to be the subject of discussion is not retracted, and is now supported by additional reliable sources, including "How the Democrats keep copying the MAGA influencer playbook (and failing)" from Generally reliable The Verge (RSP entry), "A Small Army of Overpaid TikTokers Is Not Going to Save the Democratic Party" from Generally reliable Gizmodo (RSP entry), and "Inside Dem Dark Money Behemoth Arabella Advisors' Failed Attempt To Create an Astroturf Influencer Army" from Generally reliable The Washington Free Beacon (RSP entry), adding a significant amount of due weight to the original Wired article (which is also reliable). Any differences between the content of these reliable articles can be explained in the Wikipedia article they are cited in with in-text attribution. — Newslinger talk 16:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What is misleading is characterizing "willfully misleading editors" as "defending herself", and describing sources as "reliable" when they are specifically stated to be reliable for technology (and other non-political content).
      The discussion surrounding the Washington Beacon appears to be mostly about their original reporting with many editors finding them unreliable. I do not think a hyper partisan site like this which vilifies Democrats as the "enemies of freedom" and seemingly rehashes volumes of negative content about them as adding much weight. It is also dubious how you just argued back in May that "I have a hard time considering the Washington Free Beacon generally reliable" but are now citing it as a reliable source. I understand that is what the "consensus" says, but it is clear its use should be considered on a case-by-case. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't care if Lorenz denied to the editors who work for her former employers that she shared private photos with political messaging to her friends after a tabloid published them, as it is not related to her actual reporting. I treat it no differently than someone saying they are not accountable for any other kind of personal matter. We are not evaluating Lorenz's suitability as a job candidate for a newspaper company, or as a politician. I still stand by my critical comments in the Washington Free Beacon RfC, but the consensus of the discussion differed from my view, and editors tend to respect and apply the existing consensus until it changes. — Newslinger talk 12:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there any original reporting in the sources you listed or are they just quoting Lorenz's article? If latter is the case I don't see how it helps our discussion. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel it is somewhat 🚨corrosive to the conversation to 🛑sprinkle our 🚫posts with ❌emojis next to ⛔the names of media outlets (essentially, the kind of 🚨reductionist pigeonholing that RSP tells us 🛑not to do). jp×g🗯️ 18:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a concise way to convey the information I wanted to show in my comment. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like a lot of such things, this is probably more a due weight issue than an RS issue. We're devoting a lot of text (an entire fairly large paragraph, making up most of the section) to that one source, with the only other source being a WP:MREL source cited for a brief denial. If no other sources have picked up on this, I would suggest trimming it down to a single sentence. Although, the entire article could use more sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That section is barely larger than the 2022 and 2023 sections which are also sourced to only one source. Seeing as the Wired piece came out only about a week ago, it will take time for other newspapers to do their own investigations and publish something if that is in process. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The other sources are about who they fund though. 16-30 is primarily known for the hundreds of millions of dollars they pump into groups, we only have a single sentence on their fiscal sponsorship program, and we don't mention a single other group they fiscally sponsor but Chorus. This shouldn't even be in the 16-30 article because it is barely relevant to what they do, they just give Chorus their non-profit status. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Taylor Lorenz article in Wired is reliable for use at Sixteen Thirty Fund. She's an established journalist and Wired has always been considered "generally reliable" and I see no reason why this article should be treated any differently than other articles from the publication. ເສລີພາບ is a new account who seems to really not what the info from the Wired article to appear anywhere on Wikipedia and seems to be using a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach to having it removed. Marquardtika (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes. Avoid addressing the NPR article I linked about how she left her last journalism job following an ethics scandal and attack me instead.
    WP:perennial sources also only states Wired is generally reliable "for science and technology". They only created a political column in 2023, and just expanded it following the election. She's a freelance contributor with a checkered history to an online version of the politics section of a source not known for politics, that's why it shouldn't be treated the same as all of their other articles. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to the circumstances that led to Taylor Lorenz leaving the Washington Post with the WP:Label "ethics scandal" is not supported by WP:RS. I'd appreciate it if you stopped doing that, considering WP:BLP. She violated that newspaper's social media posting policies by posting the Joe Biden war criminal selfie. Reporters can violate the social media posting policies of their employers without this calling into question the reliability of their reporting. Novellasyes (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NPR is an WP:RS, and confirms that she lost the trust of her editorial staff for telling them she didn't add the caption to the post and publicly stating it was an obvious fake before NPR confirmed they weren't fake. Frankly, you are simply making up that she "violated that newspaper's social media posting policies" and describing this as an issue with HR when her editorial staff launched a formal review against her for "willfully misleading" them, “Our executive editor and senior editors take alleged violations of our standards seriously" . ເສລີພາບ (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than questioning the motives of the editor and age of their account, I think it’s better to look at the arguments. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it takes time for the story to gain traction we can update the article whenever the story becomes due. There is no need to do it right now it it’s not due Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't Sixteen Thirty Fund acting as a "fiscal sponsor" a big part of what concerns people about them? They've been set up a way the enables them to take money and find political causes with little to no disclosure of who is funding any particular cause. Causes may or may not share funders I don’t think that's the big concern, instead it's the intentional lack of transparency. There may very well be 5000 "grass root donors" but no one can verify much or any of that because of their set-up. Perhaps 4999 of them are middle or working people who rarely give to political causes and 1 person gives 99% of the money and also donates to a lot of causes (whether Sixteen Thirty or something else) or perhaps all 5000 people are middle or working class who don't donate much, no one can verify any of it. This may be legal but since the American left has been rallying against the American right for doing it for many years it's only reasonable that some question on the left question those on their siteside embracing the same tactics. Even more so if they're pretending it's not what they're doing rather than at least acknowledging it (whether they say it's necessary because of how things are in the US or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC) 12:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that since I'm not an American, I'm not intimately familiar with their politics but Brian Taylor Cohen and David Pakman are two people who's content I watch and find useful so technically I might be biased. But it doesn't stop me seeing there might be reasons why others might be concerned with what Chorus and Sixteen Thirty Fund are doing. I do agree with Aquillion that with only one source we should limit what we say per WP:UNDUE, but since it's still fairly early, the story might develop and I don't see any reason to consider the source a non RS at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed regarding RS status - nothing here indicates she's unreliable for her comments in that article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on skimming the article rather than a close read, there are two things that I question:
    • It's unclear whether she got a copy of the final version of the contract or only (an) earlier version(s) while the contract wording was still being negotiated. She didn't make this clear.
    • The Chorus FAQ says "creators are free to post what they want, when they want. This includes their affiliation with Chorus," contrary to her claim that the contract prevents disclosuring the affiliation.
    Ultimately we have no way to judge the reliability of most of the article itself, only of Wired and Lorenz. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Isn't Sixteen Thirty Fund acting as a "fiscal sponsor" a big part of what concerns people about them?"
    No, and this is why the article is misleading. No one criticizing Chorus mentions them being fiscally sponsored, and instead just assumes they are being funded by 16-30. 16-30 is famous for receiving hundreds of millions from anonymous (and self-disclosed) donors and pouring them into groups, but this is separate from their barely talked about incubator program that requires groups they fiscally sponsor to source funding for themselves. It is true that like virtually all non-profits (like the ACLU), Chorus does not disclose the identities of their donors, but there is no indication that Chorus has any large donors (once they've filed their first reports to the IRS you'll be able to see how large their donations are even if they are anonymous). Wired stating that 16-30 funds Chorus, however, is fueling rampant speculation about how the big donors to 16-30 are influencing the content creators associated with Chorus under the mistaken assumption that Chorus is funded by 16-30's dark money pool. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I question your claim the distinction is what matters to those concern. E.g.

    After decrying big-money Republican donors over the last decade, as well as the Supreme Court rulings that flooded politics with more cash, Democrats now benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars of undisclosed donations as well." According to Politico, the Sixteen Thirty Fund's activities are "a sign that Democrats and allies have embraced the methods of groups they decried as 'dark money' earlier this decade, when they were under attack from the money machines built by conservatives including the Kochs". Because it is a nonprofit, the Sixteen Thirty Fund is not required to disclose its donors, even though it spends significant amounts on politics.

    This is using sources from 2019 and 2021 so well before the current kerfuffle. What it talks about is how Democrats are taking advantage of Supreme Court rulings to flood Democrat and allies politics with anonymous cash. It doesn't talk or concern itself whether it's one big pool of money or lots of individual causes each technically funded separately. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More evidence the claim is questionable. [68]

    Tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam, disclosed earlier this year that they were responsible for the $45 million gift, which went to Civic Action Fund, a fiscally sponsored project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

    and

    Yet more money flowed directly through the fiscally sponsored programs housed within Sixteen Thirty Fund. Demand Justice, one of the most high-profile, has spun off into its own distinct organization, Kurtz wrote in her Medium post. But others, like Paid Leave for All Action, have been actively campaigning for policy changes and conducting issue advocacy. Sixteen Thirty Fund’s tax filing does not break out how much each fiscally sponsored group spent.

    Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing here contradicts me. Money that the programs 16-30 fiscally sponsor they source themselves. People donate specifically to those programs, the donations are only passed through 16-30. This is separate from the money 16-30 raises on its own and spends on groups of their choice.
    Your own quote even showcases the point of their incubator program

    Demand Justice, one of the most high-profile, has spun off into its own distinct organization

    It's a program for non-profits to rapidly begin under 16-30 while waiting for IRS approval and establishing their own structure (or for short-lived programs that only exist for a brief election cycle, for instance).
    I will show you what a nothing burger your Omidyar quote is:

    Tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam, disclosed earlier this year that they were responsible for the $45 million gift, which went to Civic Action Fund

    Chorus gives creators $250-$8,000 a month for a 6-month cohort.
    Omidyar's Reporters in Residence gives reporters $8,000 a month (and $2,000 travel expenses) for a 6-month cohort. Taylor Lorenz is currently in that program. Her program is funded entirely via the Omidyar Network foundation and LLC. The LLC can also receive donations that it does not disclose (although it is primarily funded by Omidyar's family).
    Yes, the Omidyar who donated to the Civic Action Fund (which went through 16-30) also created the program that financially sponsors Lorenz in an almost identical manner to Chorus. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with those saying that this is more a due weight issue than anything else... The view is signficant even if mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is reliable. I believe the "fiscal sponsor" vs "funder" distinction is not very relevant, because it doesn't change the underlying issue of dark money. Sixteen Thirty Fund is a 501(c)(4) so does not have to publicly disclose its donors. Similarly, any groups that they fiscally sponsor (like Chorus), do not have to disclose their donors. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The core of her report is that the content creators are being influenced by the same big donors who donate to 16-30, arguing that the creators must be getting influenced to spout DNC talking points because they are funded by the people who bankroll many DNC candidates. Look at this hyperpartisan conservative site talking about 16-30s biggest donors: Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, George Soros, etc., in relation to Chorus.
    But there's no connection. As for the Wikipedia article Sixteen Thirty Fund, it only has one sentence about their fiscal sponsorship program (because it is so irrelevant). 16-30 has fiscally sponsored over 100 projects and we don't mention any of them because 16-30 letting a small group act as a non-profit under them is largely irrelevant. Every section is about the 100s of millions they spend on different groups, and Chorus currently makes up the entirety of their 2025 Spending section despite the fact they receive no money from them. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand how fiscal sponsorships work, and I don't believe you have any special or reliable insight into whether the money that flows through to Chorus from 1630 does or doesn't come from billionaires who are known to give money to 1630. But it doesn't matter what I think because, like you, I am just a WP peon and not a WP:RS. Before long, if your beliefs are correct, the many, many influential people who surround or are in the orbit of 1630 and Chorus will get a WP:RS like the New York Times or the Atlantic to advance a different way of thinking about what happened here. Novellasyes (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Taylor Lorenz wrote an article about Chorus five months ago where she depicts them as a floundering startup which exploits its content creators, providing "little to no support" and expecting content in exchange for travel fee reimbursements to minimally planned public events.
    Despite being around since November they've only managed to host (from what I've seen) two events, and it wasn't until now they raised enough money for this 6 month funding of their creators. Despite the contracts requiring creators to participate in bimonthly Chorus Newsroom events, they haven't held a single one, seemingly due to lack of funding.
    You can say what you want about the anonymity of their donors, but at the very least I am sure they don't have any billionaire backers. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable. Wired is a RS whose tech reporting is still good when extended to political matters as seen through their DOGE reporting. It's the type of outfit where pieces like this would have legal review. The sources found by Newslinger show that other RS took this story at face value (WP:USEBYOTHERS) and that inclusion wouldn't be WP:UNDUE. The criticisms seem like nitpicking that don't challenge the core revelations of the article (e.g. the distinction between 1630 funding Chorus vs. Chorus receiving funds through the opaque financing structure of 1630, creators not being allowed to publicize vs. disclose the funding because the contract defines "disclose" in a particular way). If someone without privileged knowledge of the subject can determine that the reporting is so obviously untrue that it should be removed for WP:BLP considerations, one would expect that it would have already been reported upon given that it has already been over a week and a half since the report. If those sources do show up, they should of course be used. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      It's the type of outfit where pieces like this would have legal review.

      The problem with this discussion is it is filled with people making presumptions about things that simply aren't true or have no basis.
      Wired has no lawyers or internal legal division. Wired outsources its legal matters to its parent company's centralized internal legal department, which handles legal matters as they arise to their 20+ magazines (Vogue, Vanity Fair, Glamor, etc.). The only magazine they have (that I can see) which has its own internal legal department is The New Yorker. It is easy to find past and present counsel job openings at The New Yorker ([69], [70]). There's a general counsel of The New Yorker magazine: Fabio Bertoni. You'll find no such job offerings or positions at Wired, despite both magazines sharing the same parent company. The New Yorker regularly breaks stories and has to deal with issues related to privacy laws and defamation, so it makes since they have an internal legal department. Wired does not.
      As I pointed out earlier, Wired already confirmed back in 2017 that the online articles they publish aren't generally fact-checked, and that even online stories that might be legally sensitive are given “not a fact-check per se, but a review for accuracy.” And there is nothing to indicate things have gotten better, things have gotten worse for many online publications due to competition with alternative media outlets.

      one would expect that it would have already been reported upon given that it has already been over a week and a half since the report

      This is another presumption that lacks grounding. Houston's attorney sent a letter to Wired's parent company demanding a retraction on September 2 outlining roughly 15 acts of defamation. That's about a 1 week time-frame of the article being published and Houston securing a defamation attorney, and researching and collecting evidence to build a letter to send. Wired's parent company has zero reason to issue a correction right now. There's no reason they won't spend at least two weeks researching the claims of defamation, determining what they think is defamation or not, and then responding.
      Houston says she has texts messages with Lorenz that show Lorenz knew she was part of Chorus. Lorenz's article says she contacted Houston for comment before publishing it, but the only proof she has since offered is that she sent a message to her public (half million follower) Instagram account where it got buried under a sea of messages, instead of sending a text to Houston's cell phone as they have previously communicated. (and Lorenz has a history of publishing articles claiming she contacted people discussed but that she didn't)
      No mainstream publisher is going to touch this story until the facts become made clear which will likely be in a few weeks, which is why it is so dubious that a tertiary source like Wikipedia is treating this article as reliable and covering on it. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:V means that Wikipedia presumes reliable sources to act in the ways that make them reliable. In this case, it doesn't particularly matter if Wired uses its own lawyers or those of its parent company. If Conde Nast allows Wired to run political articles that are obvious potential defamation magnets without any legal oversight, that's an extraordinary claim that shouldn't be presumed. I'm also not sure a source from 2017 when the online site was very different (a politics section doesn't even exist and many of the articles are obviously fluffier) about material that "might be legally sensitive" is particularly relevant to a 2025 article that is clearly legally sensitive in a time when it has done extensive political investigative reporting (i.e. DOGE).
      As for the stuff about Houston, my point was that if the alleged inaccuracies in a RS are so complicated that it has to be litigated as opposed to being plain and obvious (I'll note that the article has still not been further updated or retracted), we're not under any WP:BLP obligations to remove the content as long as it is attributed (WP:INTEXT) and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines are met (e.g. WP:UNDUE). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey @ເສລີພາບ: you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. You're WP:BLUDGEONING, taking pages to say what you should have only said in a few sentences, and you're an obvious WP:SPA or someone's WP:SOCKPUPPET. 73.115.149.253 (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      DROPTHESTICK is such a strange thing to link to someone who hasn't posted here in nearly a week. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Major Concern

    [edit]
    [edit]

    In relation to flying saucers (sometimes also called "UFOs", "UAPs", "USOs", etc.) are online-only (versus print) articles by Popular Mechanics:

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

    Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (PopMech)

    [edit]
    • Option 3 Online-only articles by Popular Mechanics should never be used to positively reference articles about flying saucers due to its tendency to use clickbait headlines and its penchant for sourcing material from fringe figures it falsely promotes as mainstream experts. Print issue articles don't appear to suffer this same issue and both print and online coverage could be used for critical reporting of the topic.
      Popular Mechanics promotes WP:FRINGE topics by selective contextualization in which the most outlandish claims of their interview subjects are omitted as a means of legitimizing their supposed expertise. Once they've legitimized their interview subjects in an article, they then repeat the claims of those subjects as fact.
    • In an August 2025 article, writer Stav Dimitropoulos provides extensive, uncritical quotation of the UFO theories of Tim Gallaudet, a retired NOAA Corps admiral. Dimitropoulous never notes that Gallaudet also famously claims his daughter is a powerful wizard who can talk to ghosts and ethereal spirits from beyond the grave (see an interview with him here [71]).
    • Just two months earlier a different writer, Elizabeth Rayne, pulled the same stunt with Gallaudet [72], burnishing him as a sober and skeptical naval officer who reluctantly came to the topic of flying saucers.
    • Eight paragraphs of John Scott Lewinski's November 2024 article on UFOs is an extensive, flowing quotation of a guy with a master of arts degree who consulted for Star Trek (which is, apparently, a sci-fi TV show of some kind). This then seamlessly flows into an analysis of theoretical physics based on the ideas of the MA degree guy. [73]
    • John Scott Lewinski's March 2025 article has the clickbait headline "Copying Alien Tech Would Be a Mind-Boggling Reverse Engineering Project. ‘The Physics Get Weird,’ Experts Say." [74] but 90% of the article talks about more conventional reverse engineering of mundane, human technology.
    • Elana Spivack's January 2025 report uses the clickbait headline "Aliens From a Parallel Universe May Be All Around Us—And We Don’t Even Know It, Study Suggests" [75] to report on a relatively sober and interesting [76] thought experiment, but one that makes no claim anywhere within the same universe as what the headline suggests.
    A Google News search suggests Popular Mechanics has published at least 40 articles on flying saucers just in the last 12 months [77]. Unfortunately, I can't describe each of these due to practical considerations of brevity, except to say they're all absolute bonkers insanity. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 In relation to UFOs, UAPs, USOs, supposed alien technology, etc. the magazine has been pushing fringe nonsense in recent years as noted by Skeptical Inquirer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per Chetsford.—Alalch E. 15:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 0 -- this is a goofy premise for an RfC. The fact that they run eye-catching headlines isn't relevant to anything: headlines are already not citable as sources (even from RS). The rest of the complaint basically adds up to them publishing stuff about UFOs where the reporter doesn't turn to the camera at the end and say a big walltext disclaimer that they aren't real. I don't think sources are obliged to do this. It is hard to imagine any outrage at a magazine for, say, writing an article about some hypothetical event and then not explicitly spelling out huge caveats:
    • "Could World War 3 Be On The Horizon?"
    • "Expert Says Mars Travel Could Be Coming Soon"
    • "New Drug Could Cure Parkinson's"
    These are all the sort of thing you see all the time, and in none of them would we require an outlet to stop and say "By the way most miracle drugs that work in mice never do anything in humans". The answer is, as always, that we have to use some basic amount of intelligence and wisdom when we write articles. jp×g🗯️ 19:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, PopMech is a cutesy pop-science publication, and I think this type of source is basically the lowest rung already: if you have the option to cite a paper or a book, for some scientific or technological fact, you should always prefer that over "I Freaking Love Science". The main scenario where they are useful is when they are, say, interviewing some inventor, or talking about some thing that was just released, or covering some event that occurred -- not to establish basic facts like how a combustion engine works or whether we have established contact with aliens. jp×g🗯️ 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (PopMech)

    [edit]
    • The reliability of Popular Mechanics has been extensively discussed at RSN and, specifically, in relation to its flying saucer reporting here [78], and other places. It is extensively cited across the project for general reporting and flying saucer-specific reporting. In the case of WP:UFONATION we've previously retained some reliability for News Nation while preferencing against their flying saucer reporting. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: headlines, clickbait or not, should not be used to assess reliability, per WP:RSHEADLINES. We already don't regard headlines as reliable themselves, regardless of the outlet. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A good and valuable reminder. Chetsford (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly would deprecating, an edit filter that prevents you from citing it anywhere, work restricted to one topic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would. That's the only thing keeping my !vote at 3 instead of 4. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LuckyLouie @Yesterday, all my dreams... you have both voted 4. How do you expect/want an edit filter that removes all mentions to work restricted to this one topic? Because we cannot deprecate the source for one topic without impacting its use on all other topics, which is not in the scooe of this RfC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The preface of the RfC stated topic specificity followed by all 4 options, but I understand the practicalities, so I'll change to Option 3. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted 4 because thers was no option 5. I think all material from that should be ignored. Can I vote 6, or 7? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanna toss this RfC out and have a general RfC on the past 120 years of Popular Mechanics, sure. But an RfC for one topic cannot be used to ban its usage on all others because the RfC did not cover that. And if we're having an RfC on all of Popular Mechanics, I would vote generally reliable for that, because this topic area ignored this is an established magazine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out a legitimate UFO-related use of a print Popular Mechanics article from 1965 [79] in The Spooklight. It's my understanding that this RFC is very targeted and applies to online-only, contemporary, UFO-related articles on popularmechanics.com, and that this RfC won't have any bearing on Gannon's article. Geogene (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Haaretz, Jerusalem Post for claim that Ramy Abdu is Hamas affiliated

    [edit]

    There's been somewhat recent edit warring over the last two months at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor about whether claims that founder Ramy Abdu is Hamas affiliated based on assertions of Israeli intelligence services should be included in the article. I've looked the claim up, and aside from a couple of examples, most mainstream media does not mention this claim when talking about Abdu. Sources that I found mentioning the claim were mostly strongly partisan pro-Israel advocacy sources such as NGO Monitor, UN Watch, Honest Reporting, etc, which I don't think are usable. The two exceptions that people have cited are pieces in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post[1][2] Personally, I'm somewhat leery about the Jerusalem Post, WP:JERUSALEMPOST says that it should only be used for basic facts regarding the conflict, which I don't this claim is. With the Haaretz source, I am unclear whether Haaretz is objective stating that Abdu is affiliated with Hamas, or merely stating that is what Shin Bet have stated to them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that this is a BLP and the claims are that the subject is affiliated with an organisation regarded as a terrorist one by many countries, I would be very reluctant to include that information based on only Israeli-based media, regardless of how reliable they may be considered (which, in this case is effectively only Haaretz). At the very least it should be attributed (and I suspect it should be attributed to Shin Bet, with a note). Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think Ha’aretz being Israeli-based should trump its reliability. Ha’aretz is known for independence, for not accepting the Israeli government line. We can’t not use it simply because of its nationality. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed. if haartez says it, its probably enough to say he is hamas affiliated
    someone points out the originator of the claim is Shin Bet, and that Haaretz attributes the claim. we should attribute it to shin bet if we include it as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But then the claim is not being made by any of those sources, but by the Israeli intelligence, right? A page that points that is merely reporting other's assertions, not making their own. Cambalachero (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Israeli newspapers being vague about when they're reporting what Israeli intelligence told them vs when they're reporting reality is basically just any given Tuesday. I agree with Black Kite that, as he's a BLP we should be very cautious about including unfounded accusations of terrorism on his biography. And, frankly, I would not consider Israeli news media sources alone sufficient for inclusion here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "X is a member of Hamas" is not an opinion, but a disputed fact (either he is or he isn't). If newspapers cite it as a fact it would be just because they consider the Israeli intelligence to be authoritative enough to settle that, I don't see anything wrong there.
    And what about Abdu? Does he deny being a member of Hamas as reported by the Israeli intelligence, or is he just silent over it? Cambalachero (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    News sources cite lots of things said by governments and organisations as facts when they aren't, which is sometimes why we deprecate them. But in this case at the least we should not be taking anyone else's word that Israeli intelligence is telling the truth. Per BLP, we say "According to news source X, Israeli intelligence claims that Y is associated with Hamas". Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that Wikipedia is after Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes precisely, we can verify that "news source X says that Israeli intelligence claims that Y is associated with Hamas". What can we verify further than that? Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Black Kite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be the one to answer that. You said, and I quote, "News sources cite lots of things said by governments and organisations as facts when they aren't". And how do you know what is and what isn't a "fact", if not by trusting in reliable sources? Wikipedia may question the methods of a source and then decide that it is not reliable, but that train of thought, "X is the absolute truth, and sources that refuse the truth can not be considered reliable" is original research of the highest magnitude... regardless of X being actually true or not. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Haaretz is stating it as fact; I think they're attributing it to Shin Bet. Note that this secondary source summarizes them in that way (ie. they attribute to Haaretz and say that Haaretz is attributing to Shin Bet.) I think it's reasonable for us to follow that in its entirety, ie. report it as something that Haaretz says is the conclusion of Shin Bet or something along those lines. But there's also a potential WP:SYNTH issue (see below.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Jerusalem Post source as quoted states it as fact without any reference to Israeli intelligence. The problem with the Haaretz source is that there appears to be a typographical error, if you look at the original source [80] in the relevant section it says The Shin Bet security services replied that CEPR has in fact recently been declared an illegal organization, in light of the fact that it is Hamas’ leading organization in Europe, which carries out its activity under cover of being a pro-Palestinian organization. The organization is headed by senior Hamas activists, including Arafat Shoukri and Rami Abdo." there appears to be a closing quotation mark but not an opening one. The obvious intepretation is to take the part beginning with CEPR has in fact... as the beginning of the quote, but I'm not sure if that would be considered WP:OR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more sources that mention Abdu's connections with Hamas. Abdu used to head the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) which The Independent described as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. Abdu is mentioned in the article too as "Rami Abdo." Alaexis¿question? 19:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if true, an organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Gazan government is not necessarily run by members of Hamas. So again, not the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    at best maybe we can attribute claims of connection Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be cautious even with this. I mean Jerusalem Post said that having a conscience was Hamas. Should we be putting that attributed claim under Conscience? I'm being a little facetious here, but only a little. I have absolutely no trust in the Israeli state nor its sympathetic press to make true statements regarding any advocate for Palestinians.War propaganda is a helluva drug and it makes for an inaccurate encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d hardly call Haaretz “sympathetic press” for the Israeli government. The Kip (contribs) 14:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was clearly and explicitly referring to Jerusalem Post thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn’t seem particularly clear to me given the context, but you do you. The Kip (contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, you're right. My point was that it's not a particularly far-fetched claim. Even if he isn't a card-carrying member he's been associated with Hamas. Alaexis¿question? 14:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d personally hold off on using JPost per previous discussions here that they’re not the best for contentious claims, but Haaretz seems fair to quote, albeit as mentioned above it’s not entirely clear whether they’re attributing it or putting it in their own voice. The Kip (contribs) 14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both seem to be attributing. Haaretz neglected to put an open quote mark, but put a close quote after the attribution to Shin Bet. JPost also sounds like it is attributing to an Israeli government source. They are also using activist and operative respectively, which seems less closely affiliated than a member. What is reliable for establishing affiliation? Does Hamas even exist or is it Israeli imagination? Metallurgist (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • If it were just The Jerusalem Post, it is probably not usable for BLP-sensitive things related to the I/P conflict (the RSP entry says It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited.) Haaretz, though, is usable, if potentially WP:BIASED, so it could be used with attribution... my reading is the same as Metallurgist's, though, that they are quoting the Shin Bet security services in that paragraph but neglected an open-quote (that is a pretty serious typographical error!) Possibly this source might be worth using / following; note that they attribute to Haaretz and say that Haaretz attributes to Shin Bet. There's another potential problem here, though - this discussion seems to be talking about how it should be covered at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, and Haaretz (and that other source I noted) doesn't actually make that connection, so relying on that source would potentially be WP:SYNTH. If the Jerusalem Post is the only one making the connection then we should probably hold off and see if any other sources pick up on it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ive seen articles have such types of connections, but others there was more pushback. Probably all correlated with BLP and contentiousness. I think its preferable to have sources mention both topics in question, but if they are both independently established, it can be ok. I mean generally, not just this. Dont have another example on hand. Metallurgist (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only source for this claim is indeed the Shin Bet, and as @Aquillion and others have correctly noted this is stated in the source (The Independent). The piece repeats the allegation while also including its denial by the CPFR. I see that @Alaexis was the one one who added this allegation to Ramy Abdu's page and in a way that leaves out this context and sourcing, imo falsely attributing to The Independent a verification of Abdu's affiliation by cherry-picking a single line from it and ignoring the context provided. Why did he not also include the denial of the allegation by the CPFR leadership in a way that disregards BLP and NPOV? A single throwaway line in an article repeating an intelligence service's allegation (unverified, not followed up) is far from sufficient for a BLP and I have removed it. Alaexis has long been trying to deprecate the EMHRM, so as my parents used to tell me, I'm not surprised but I am disappointed. I also agree with Aquillion that the claim fails WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH and should not be included in the Euro-Med article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not true. The Independent did not repeat "an intelligence service allegation" but characterised CERP as a "a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government" in their own voice. There are no quotation marks.[81] Alaexis¿question? 21:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read this article already, no need to be snide. Especially when you're selectively taking a quote from the lead of the article while ignoring the body of the story where they explain their sourcing. The Independent did not independently verify these allegations, they say it comes from Shin Bet via Haaretz, which also states the sourcing. Not only that, but the head of the org disputed it which you left out as well (not very WP:DUE), seemingly to tie someone to Hamas based solely on Shin Bet allegations, misrepresenting it as well by attributing to The Independent. IMO that's not appropriate for a BLP and it should be removed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion would appear to be ongoing, so before major reversions are made of the version prior to this discussion starting (or not notifying those involved? I am not sure), we should establish a firm consensus for why these sourced pieces of content should absolutely not stand, or not even in the body (if not in the lead). Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit in the Euro-Med article restored recently added content that has been challenged by another editor and myself, and that I reverted. This ignores WP:BRD, which should be followed especially re BLP content. I was restoring the stable version of the article. The edit also includes a serious BLP standard violation that would need consensus before it could be included. Please do not restore it again until there is consensus for this change.
    I also see now that you separately tried to include (in the lead of the article) not once but twice the allegation that Ramy Abdu is linked to Hamas, not even bothering to say alleged, and citing a clearly non-RS source. You were rightly reverted for that, but I have to ask: why are you adding non-RS BLP violating content to this article, and then violating BRD to have the same claim restored? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alleged would have been a better term, do you want to add it back with the sources in the body? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would belong in a bio of Abdu, not necessarily in the article like that Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    [edit]

    References

    1. ^ Levinson, Chaim (31 December 2013). "Defense Minister Ya'alon Outlaws NGO Representing Hamas in Europe". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 15 October 2024. The Shin Bet security services replied that CEPR has in fact recently been declared an illegal organization, in light of the fact that it is Hamas' leading organization in Europe, which carries out its activity under cover of being a pro-Palestinian organization. The organization is headed by senior Hamas activists, including Arafat Shoukri and Rami Abdo." In reply to the question as to whether the Shin Bet intends to take steps against the four MPs if they arrive in Israel, they said that "The Shin Bet does not usually discuss activities in which it engages for the purpose of fulfilling its mission."
    2. ^ "Gazan journalist accused of working for Al Jazeera, holding hostages | The Jerusalem Post". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2025-08-27. Ramy Abdu, a Europe-based Hamas operative designated by Israel who heads the Euro-Med Human Rights monitor, may have unintentionally revealed that one of those related or in charge of keeping Israeli hostages on behalf of Hamas had worked for a US-based 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization.

    Reliability of sources describing Bilour family’s tribal origins

    [edit]
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Hello all, I’m looking for your input here at RSN regarding a current content dispute on the Ghulam Ahmad Bilour article. The disagreement concerns several sources used to describe his ethnic and tribal background. Below are seven sources, each followed by a question. I’d appreciate input on whether these sources meet the standards of WP:RS and/or WP:SCHOLARSHIP for routine, non-controversial BLP claims. The underlying content reflects that:

    • The Bilour family is described in several sources as hailing from Bajaur Agency, a region associated with Pashtun tribes.
    • They belong to the Kakazai (Mamund) Pashtun tribe, while also being Hindko-speaking residents of Peshawar.

    I’ve tried to keep all reliably sourced perspectives, including the description of the family as a “Hindko-speaking merchant family” — while also adding sourced material on their Bajaur and Kakazai background. However, the opposing editor has repeatedly removed these additions, labeling them as "blogs," "obscure," or "non-scholarly" without providing detailed sourcing policy justification.

    1. The News (Pakistan) – Syed Inayat Ali Shah (2008)

    Title: Personifying the Art of Politics

    Quote:

    “Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)...”

    Publication: The News (Jang Group) — mainstream Pakistani daily

    Archived URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20110728060105/http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2008-weekly/nos-11-05-2008/pol1.htm

    Use in article: To support Bajaur Agency origin of the Bilour family.

    Question: Is this considered a reliable source for basic biographical information?

    2. The News (Pakistan) – Sabir Shah (2018)

    Title: The Unending Tragedies of Peshawar’s Bilour Family

    Quote (first paragraph):

    “The Hindko-speaking Bilour family of Peshawar, hailing from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)...”

    Publication: The News (Jang Group) — mainstream Pakistani daily

    Archived URL: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/342321-the-unending-tragedies-of-peshawar-s-bilour-family

    Use in article: Supports a dual-heritage framing — as Hindko-speaking Peshawaris of Bajaur tribal origin.

    Question: Is this considered a reliable source for basic biographical information?

    3. Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) Podcast (Pashto) – “Olassi Adalat” (2014)

    Quote: At timestamp 01:40, Senator Ilyas Ahmad Bilour, brother of Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, says:

    “Our family originates from Bajaur Agency...”

    Source: Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) — independent think tank

    Language: Pashto

    Audio: https://archive.org/details/03-03-2014OlassiAdalat

    Use in article: As a narrowly scoped primary source, attributing the family’s tribal origin to a member of the family.

    Question: Is this appropriate under WP:PRIMARY for non-controversial first-party claims?

    4. Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust Website (Archived)

    Archived Team Page: https://web.archive.org/web/20190515022345/http://afghankakezai.com/team.php (Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust team page featuring Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour and other members. The site also includes a dedicated "Kakezai" tab in the community directory, and states its mission as: “We work to improve the living standards of the identified displaced and underprivileged Afghan Kakezai communities through interventions such as quality education, vocational & skills training, protection, legal aid, health, enterprise development, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic development initiatives.” Ghulam Ahmad Bilour is listed as Chief Patron, indicating formal affiliation with the organization and the community it represents.)

    Source: Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust, Peshawar

    Claim: Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour as Chief Patron, describes the family as part of the Afghan Kakezai community.

    Use in article: Narrowly, to support the claim of community affiliation via a non-controversial WP:PRIMARY citation.

    Question: Acceptable under WP:PRIMARY for confirming an individual’s participation in and endorsement of a community org?

    5. Book - پښتانه قبیلې وپېژنئ ("Know the Pashtun Tribes") - by Dr. Latif Yaad

    Language: Pashto

    Original Publisher: Khyber.org (now offline)

    Archived PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20230407013034/http://www.khyber.org/books/latifyada.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20191113085102/http://www.tolafghanistan.com/app/download/5806295390/latifyada.pdf (Page 261-262 / 116 کاکازي)

    Quote:

    Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour under the Kakazai (Mamund) Pashtun tribe. (Page 261-262 / 116 کاکازي)

    Additional Notes:

    • Dr. Yaad is a published author with other works (e.g., here)
    • Bio available here: Pashtoonkhwa.com (Pashto)
    • The book is not self-published in the ordinary sense; it's a cultural/tribal reference work by an academic figure.

    Use in article: To support Kakazai tribal affiliation.

    Question: Is this acceptable for uncontroversial genealogical claims, particularly in the absence of formal peer-reviewed literature?

    6. Khyber News (YouTube, 2020)

    Title: Eight Years have Passed Since the Death of Bashir Ahmad Bilour

    Quote (video description):

    “Bashir Ahmad Bilour...belongs to a prominent political and social Kakazai family of Peshawar,” — referring to the Bilour family's ethnic affiliation.

    Source: Khyber News — Pashto-language regional news broadcaster

    Platform: Khyber News YouTube (official channel)

    URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scDB9fkk25E

    Date: 20 December 2020

    Use in article: To support the Bilour family’s identification as part of the Kakazai Pashtun community, based on a mainstream regional news outlet’s description.

    Question: Is this source appropriate under WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS for routine, well-attributed BLP claims regarding ethnic affiliation?

    7. Essay "Peshawar Blues" by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad - "Pakistan?" – Volume 4 of Critical Muslim (Oct–Dec 2012) - Published by Oxford University Press (OUP), in association with Muslim Institute & Hurst Publishers

    Quote:

    “The Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family...”

    URL: Link

    Page: 77

    Concern:

    While the book is published under the imprint of OUP, this essay is:

    • Polemical in tone
    • Lacks citations or footnotes
    • Literary/Impressionistic, with a focus on personal narrative and commentary
    • Missing the scholarly apparatus required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP for making ethnographic or biographical claims.
    • Part of a hybrid series ("Critical Muslim") that includes advertisements for the Muslim Institute, the British Museum, etc., as well as satire, memoir, and non-academic reflections.
    • Published under the OUP imprint, which includes both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed content; this essay appears to fall into the latter category.

    Question: Does this essay, though published under an OUP imprint, meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP standards for ethnographic or biographical claims in a BLP? Or does its lack of citations and scholarly structure limit its appropriateness for that use?

    I kindly request community input on the following:

    • Are Sources 1–6 reliable or acceptable for limited, well-attributed use regarding tribal and ethnic background?
    • Is Source 7 appropriate for use in BLP-related ethnographic claims, despite its tone and lack of sourcing?

    My goal is to represent both perspectives fairly, not to remove one in favor of the other, but to make sure that all reliably sourced content is allowed to remain in the article in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

    Thank you for your time and thoughtful feedback. McKhan (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @McKhan, #7 isn't perfect but neither are #1-6, on the face of it all of them could be used with due care. I wonder what are the arguments against using 1-6? Do other sources exist claiming that he's not Pushtun/Kakazai/from Bajaur? Alaexis¿question? 17:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Thank you very much for your comment. I haven't seen any sources claiming that he is not Pashtun/Kakazai/from Bajaur. Please review this table, which includes the arguments.
    Author / Title Source + Type Live / Archive Link Excerpt Use in Article Policy Basis + Direct Link + Quote Misuse Rebuttal Policy Assessment
    Syed Inayat Ali Shah / Personifying the Art of Politics The News International - Pakistan (Mainstream newspaper, Secondary) Live / Archive "Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)..." Supports Bajaur Agency origin WP:RS / WP:BLP News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Mislabeling as "tabloid" contradicts WP:RS; source is reputable for routine biographical facts. Reliable for basic ethnic/geographic origin - aligns with WP:RS and WP:BLP standards for mainstream news reporting.
    Sabir Shah / Tragedies of Peshawar’s Bilour Family The News International - Pakistan (Mainstream newspaper, Secondary) Live “The Hindko-speaking Bilour family of Peshawar, hailing from Bajaur Agency..." Supports dual identity: Peshawar + Bajaur origin WP:RS / WP:BLP News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Blanket dismissal contradicts WP:RS Reliable for dual identity assertion - supported by reputable source and WP:RS guidance.
    CRSS / “Olassi Adalat” – Ilyas Ahmad Bilour (Interview) CRSS (Think Tank, Primary – self-attribution) Site / Archive "Our family originates from Bajaur Agency..." (Timestamp ~1:40) - Pashto Attribution from Ghulam Bilour’s brother, Ilyas Ahmad Bilour WP:PRIMARY / WP:BLPSELFPUB Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field.. Misapplied WP:FRINGE; this is not a fringe claim. Acceptable for self-described family origin - complies with WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB for non-contentious claims.
    Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust Archived Site (Primary – organizational) Archive Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour as Chief Patron Supports Kakezai affiliation WP:PRIMARY Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Incorrectly labeled WP:BLOG; it’s an org site, not a blog Valid for named public/community affiliation - fits WP:PRIMARY allowance for organizational attributions.
    Dr. Latif Yaad (bio / published author with other works / books) / پښتانه قبیلې وپېژنئ Khyber.org (now offline) Tribal Genealogy Book (Secondary) - Pashto Archive Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour as Kakazai (Mamund) Pashtun (Page 261) Supports tribal affiliation WP:RS / WP:CASTE / WP:BLP Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field... Cultural/tribal source; not self-published Valid for ethnic/tribal identification - supported by recognized cultural sources under WP:CASTE and WP:BLP.
    Khyber News / YouTube (official channel) Khyber News Regional TV (Secondary) Video - Pashto “Bashir Ahmad Bilour... belongs to a prominent Kakazai family...” (video description) Supports Kakazai identification WP:RS / WP:BLP / WP:CIRCULAR News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Circularity claim not shown with diffs Generally acceptable unless shown to be circular - meets WP:RS but subject to WP:CIRCULAR scrutiny/evidence.
    Muhammad Idrees Ahmad / Peshawar Blues (in Critical Muslim, OUP, in association with Muslim Institute & Hurst Publishers) Cultural Essay (Secondary, not peer-reviewed) Link “The Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family...” Used to assert urban identity WP:SCHOLARSHIP Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.. WP:NPOV Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Not peer-reviewed or citation-supported; cannot override stronger RS May be cited for context but not to override genealogy - appropriate under WP:NPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP weight guidelines.
    Cumulative Policy Assessment: These sources, collectively, meet WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLP, and WP:CONSENSUS standards. Objections have been rebutted with traceable policy excerpts. Misuse of WP:FRINGE, WP:BLOG, and WP:CONSENSUS noted.
    I hope it helps. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're using an LLM then please disclose it per WP:LLM.
    Now I see that the editor you had a discussion with (@Sutyarashi - it's common courtesy to tag them when you request outside input) raised some valid concerns about your sources.
    Still, The News and CRSS appear to be reliable source for such a claim. Alaexis¿question? 19:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    @Alaexis, I appreciate your input. In the above table, I have provided my specific responses regarding the reliability of each source. In light of WP:RS, WP:BLOGS, WP:DEADREF, and WP:PRIMARY, I find it difficult to understand why the opposing editor is treating the archived website of the Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust, based in Khyber Bazar, Peshawar — which remains active and relevant, a fact that can be confirmed by directly contacting the Trust — as a "blog." Furthermore, why is this important fact being overlooked: Would Ghulam Ahmad Bilour publicly appear as Chief Patron of a welfare trust, complete with his photo, if he had no connection to the Kakazai community? Similarly, Dr. Latif Yaad is a published author, and his book remains accessible as a WP:DEADREF despite the hosting site (Khyber.org) now being defunct. Both of these sources are compatible with WP:RS, WP:DEADREF, and WP:PRIMARY, and should be included to adhere to WP:NPOV. The opposing editor has repeatedly rejected these arguments, without directly addressing the WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, or WP:DEADREF reasons, which might indicate a pattern consistent with WP:IDHT. I hope that with broader input, a consensus can be reached based on the sources' merits and their compliance with Wikipedia's content policies.
    McKhan (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RT exception

    [edit]

    (moved from talk page) Can there be an exception to using RT and Sputnik such as in the Arab-Israeli conflict? See for example here. If we rely on Israeli sources and the NY Post to make claims like these [82] [83], I don’t see what’s wrong with using RT. Either that or we should also say that Israeli sources are unreliable. In the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict, I say that they can be treated equally. Not only that it's also a BLP violation. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We should not be using NY Post or RT for anything, and should not be using Jerusalem Post for IP articles. An exception for RT is not required but your deletions were appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that would be a helpful exception. It would likely only enflame an already contentious topic area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the deletion but (a)“Israeli sources” should not be seen as equivalent to RT; Jerusalem Post, for example, is a generally reliable source but tends to uncritically accept its Israeli government claims, whereas RT is the mouthpiece of the Russian government and actively promote falsehoods; (b) NYP is an unreliable source but for different reasons RT is; it is more kin to the Daily Mail (sloppy, sensationalist, hyper-partisan); (c) apart from topics directly connected to the Russian government, this is a topic area least suited to any exception for RT; it’s one of our most contentious topics so requires a higher rather than lower standard of reliability than other topics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RT is a government-run propaganda outlet while NY Post is a tabloid rag that exaggerates at best and reports false info at worst. Neither have any place on this platform.
    Many Israeli sources are deeply biased, but many are also independent (not state-run) and not wholly unreliable, and those that are wholly unreliable/state-run have for the most part already been dealt with here. The Kip (contribs) 14:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some israeli sources can be used with attribution. I think some are basically unbiased, and can be used without attribution. I don't like disallowing a source just because its from israel, without some clear evidence.
    I think RT is just not it, its a russian propaganda outlet that regularly publishes misinfo, and that other sourcing can exist if we need to cite a fact. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on all points. The Kip (contribs) 15:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a participant in the original discussion who argued for making an exception for RT, my point was that since Abu Marzouk made a statement in an interview to RT and this statement was subsequently re-reported by reliable sources, the reader would benefit from having the access to the original interview. I don't see what harm can come out of it.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't advocate for making a general carve-out for IP articles, I think it would be a terrible idea. Alaexis¿question? 14:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes more sense. I might be OK with that. My first thought is that adding a note to the primary source would be fine, but that content should be restricted to what secondary RSs reported about the interview. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the content was based only on secondary sources. Alaexis¿question? 17:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    R(ubbish) T(oday) is not even remotely a legitimate source, altho some strictly attributed quotes like that are probably fine. Metallurgist (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    biyografya.com - Turkish biography website

    [edit]

    This looks more like click-bait than a reliable publisher from what little info they provide about themselves. I've not looked to see if reliable sources cite them.

    It's currently used over 300 times as a reference. Skimming through non-reference uses, I could only find brief comments on it's reliability:

    I'd especially like to hear from people familiar with reliable Turkish-language websites. - Hipal (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (responding to ping) I've looked at this website again. I checked three bios of people I'm familiar with. The info seems at least superficially okay. In one case, the bio cites a long list of solid sources. Another seems to be based only on the person's own personal website, which is obviously a bit concerning. The third cites no sources whatsoever, which is potentially even worse.
    They claim to have a sensible editorial policy, and to employ fact-checking measures. However, the company behind this website seems to be a small creative agency, and I've no idea how much editorial resource they have actually dedicated to this.
    I'd say if a particular bio cites good sources, it's probably okay to use. Otherwise, I'd be cautious. And I certainly wouldn't want to accept this as the only source for any contentious or extraordinary info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still reckon that this source is rather low in quality. While it technically is a reasonable secondary source, it conveys a tone I wouldn't expect from an RS. However, sources are never neutral, and this is why citing it shouldn't be prohibited. Caution is advised, though. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the inconsistency across their articles, it's probably best to treat as unreliable, especially for BLP content. In the cases where their articles actually have sources, those sources should be considered for use as references. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sankei Shimbun

    [edit]

    Someone reach out to the talkpage of WP:JAPAN/RS about the issue about Sankei Shimbun. The discussion is here :Talk:Sankei Shimbun#Use of the term "far right" and Talk:Kurds in Japan#To Mr. grapesurgeon

    For me at least, I personally see Sankei Shimbun as generally reliable for non-controverial stuff as I used it a lot. Sankei also suffers from the same issue other Japanese sources have either they have a somewhat nationalistic bias. As I indicated in the WP:JAPAN/RS, to never use it on controverial stuff like WWII in Japan, Korea-Japan relation, China-Japan relation as they often report it (in my opinion) as biased and even downplaying warcrimes (see article).

    I know that there is also past discussion for Japan Forward, the english language version of Sankei. Discussion Here

    I want to hear RSNs thought on this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging participants from both discussions: @Seefooddiet, AlphaBetaGamma, Saimmx, みしまるもも, and Grapesurgeon: Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Miminity, you just pinged the identical user (Grapesurgeon) twice as he has renamed his account some time ago. That aside, I'm not objecting to grapesurgeon as of now, so literally just go ahead and settle the source as unreliable on that topic. I still see the newspaper as reliable for everything else, and I will object marking the entire source generally unreliable unless anything pops up that kills their reliability.
    Ex. this article about the expo 2025, which has no problems whatsoever, at least for me. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AND by "that topic", I meant their coverage of international politics, especially anything related to East Asia, and coverage surrounding incidents by foreigners. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I have a crappy internet and to save some time loading each userpage, I just copy and paste the name on the signature. Yeah I agree with not just labeling the entire publication as unreliable as their reports on stuffs like non-political events and general interest is comperable to that of other publication Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus having the bot mass remove every single citations to Sankei would friendly fire citations to those uncontroversial topic coverages, which would force me to revise a ton of my edits to non-political topics (I rarely edit political stuff), especially things like Expo 2025 pavilions (cited Sankei multiple times). AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea I agree that for noncontroversial topics Sankei is most likely fine. It does a lot of sports and pop culture coverage and I've not heard of issues with that. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For domestic political coverage that does not involve foreigners in Japan or WW2 disputes, (an example that involved East Asia and WW2 is this coverage about Chinese people insulting the Emperor Showa) like [84], I'd say, "A better source should be used if possible, has the source has a reputation for being pro-LDP in both tone and reporting (which also has problems with WW2 warcrime denial). Overall, a case-by-case evaluation is needed here." (See citations on jawiki article 産経新聞) The reason for this is that, I didn't find most of the articles as blatantly problematic as their international coverage [85], [86], although my political views may be affecting my assessment as a Japanese here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also more than WW2. It also boosts far right South Korean politics. [87][88][89]
    All of the articles I just linked are fringe theories widely rejected in South Korea and abroad. Really we should be skeptical of its reporting on politics in general, given what you've said about the LDP too. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expressed my views about Sankei in those discussions. I think its articles about current politics, particularly controversial social/political issues, should be broadly considered unreliable, similar to how we considered Fox News to be unreliable for politics. Sankei has pushed pretty egregious war crime denialism.
    Also, relevant article: [90]. Sankei publishes misleading stories about Kurdish people, often to boost anti-Kurdish sentiment. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not very sure. According to the Reuters Institute, the Sankei is trusted by people as many as the Asahi and the Mainichi, but somewhat lower than the Yomiuri. It is straightforward for noncontroversial topics, but not sure for controversial topics such as Korean politics. Saimmx (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't comment on the first example as I'm not a big fan of arguing about labels.
    As to the second examples, this seems to me a due weight issue. Considering that it's a major newspaper trusted by many people (see the link published by u:Saimmx), I doubt that they made the story up. Note that the FCCJ piece that u:grapesurgeon posted accuses Sankei of a bunch of things but publishing outright fakes is not one of them.
    Nothing so far indicates that it's an unreliable source. It doesn't necessarily mean that this information should be in the article. Not every individual incident should be mentioned in the article about a certain diaspora. Alaexis¿question? 13:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why your definition of reliability is a line between "outright fakes" and misleading stories that aim to negatively portray ethnic groups. If they consistently try to spin and boost stories that aim to portray an ethnic group negatively, as long as those stories aren't outright fabrications, that's perfectly reliable to you and just needs to be given due weight?
    If they boost war crime denialism and conspiracies theories, that's perfectly reliable and just needs to be given due weight?
    I'm unconvinced by this. I don't think we should be taking a single assessment by the Reuters institute over the other red flags that we're seeing over and over from this organization. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you describe is a bias. Every source has it and the policy is very clear that bias doesn't imply unreliability (WP:BIASED). Alaexis¿question? 13:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Spinning stories to be misleading is not a simple matter of bias. Boosting fringe theories is not bias. We've made WP:FOX unreliable for similar reasons to the above, I don't see why this becomes an exception.
    May ask that others join in on this conversation. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight, I'm not a reader of Sankei so I've based my answers on the examples in this thread. "Boosting war crimes denialism" is a bit vague but if they really deny war crimes, I'd support classifying them as unreliable. Specific examples would help. Alaexis¿question? 13:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sankei Shimbun#Political stances examples given here
    [91][92][93]
    Lot of outright denials here. These are extremely against the international consensus; these are seen as really extremist outside of Japan. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see now, it looks pretty bad. Definitely shouldn't be used for anything related to WW2. Alaexis¿question? 15:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While search to the Japanese wikipedia for Nanjing Massacre, I found this. Even base on the title "（６完）「南京事件」広めた本　著者の豪人記者は中国からカネ貰って執筆した…そんな本が「百人斬り」脚色、裁判をも影響" [(6) The book that spread the "Nanjing Massacre" - the Australian journalist wrote it with money from China... The book also dramatized the "Hundred Killers" and influenced the trial] - this fairly recent article for again about the sino-japanese war. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found another recent one this. I think searching for "南京大虐殺" or "南京事件" into Sankei will yield these type of articles. I personally think while Sankei is reliable for other stuff, as I and AlphaBetaGamma said above, this publication is known for publishing dogcrap and outright fringe articles about WW2. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are Nick Pope books RS?

    [edit]

    A debate has emerged as to whether or not books by Nick Pope are RS, leading to a split !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (3rd nomination). Input from other editors either in favor or not in favor of the usability of Nick Pope might be welcome. Chetsford (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard the correct venue? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry, multitasking and posted on the wrong noticeboard. Please ignore. Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All good, I moved you over. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say not for any theories about UFOs but as if a notable writer in general who passes GNG, fine for basic utitalitarian facts. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not really. I do not believe he has a reputation for fact-checking. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, the question at the AfD (IMHO) is about whether he can be relied upon for factual details about another author's work, and as evidence that the author is well regarded in her field. This is not about his opinions/theories/research on UFO's. Oblivy (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still affected by his lack of reputation for fact-checking. Also, as their field is Fringe science, I am unsure another fringe should be used to establish notability. We would need to see non-fringe sources regarding them as noteworthy (with in depth coverage). Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Under WP:NAUTHOR the question is posed as "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors;". By excluding "fringe sources" (and to be clear I'm happy to classify both of them as fringe) isn't that putting the thumb on the scale? Or, putting it more bluntly, to exclude all fringe author's peers because they are fringe is to ensure that nobody in the field will pass NAUTHOR#1. Oblivy (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One source is not "...regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors;". Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're getting ahead of the argument. @Chetsford is saying it's not a source we can even consider. Oblivy (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRINGE speaks explicitly to notability saying The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. This guidance is being very clear that we cannot use one fringe source to deem a second fringe source notable. So, no, Nick Pope is not RS for this purpose. In fact this is the precise use case for that line of WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "For this purpose..." is carrying a lot of weight. How someone wrote a book, or whether she is well-regarded in the field aren't he same as the underlying ideas in the book or those held by people in the field. Oblivy (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the "fringe theory" in question that is being sourced to Pope? OK, I see, it's not a fringe thing at all, just reporting (barely) on Bruni's background (1 line~) and some data about her research (barely). So not fringe as such but far from SIGCOV. This isn't even really a fringe thing; he's not getting into anything unprovable like that. It's just an irrelevant source in terms of GNG in basic terms. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the Rendlesham Forest incident. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, according to my limited view in archive.org about five full pages in Pope's book, describing who she interviewed, conversations with UK government officials that are reported elsewhere. Not sure where the one line comes from. Oblivy (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article about her, her only published work (and well over half our article thus the only thing she is really notable for). Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    If we don't trust the source how do we trust the source to determine who is or isn't an important figure? The question would seem to be like weighing what content is or isn't due in an article, unreliable sources don't add weight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim at the AfD, which has now been brought here twice by @Chetsford is that we have to disregard the book because Pope believes in UFO's. The question is about a book that describes her IRL activities. Maybe you don't believe that Noah built an ark, but if an Ark-hunter writes a book about another Ark-hunter, do we automatically reject that person. There's a ton of bias in this argument. Maybe people are happy with that but it seems to me there has to be a way to talk about the people without affirming the beliefs they represent. Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of bias in quoting one Ark hunter on another Ark hunter, and it's towards Ark hunting. As an example from news media sites - Russia Today writing a piece about one of the Pravda network sites shouldn't be used for notability purposes of the Pravda Network site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of bias in quoting one Ark hunter on another Ark hunter, and it's towards Ark hunting.
    There are seemingly dozens in the US alone of notable very Catholic centric news services and sites, which we use for RS. I've even added one before (I can't recall where) for basic notability stuff on a non-Catholic subject. It was fine.
    Can we use ten sources that are explicit "Catholic" sources to establish notability of a "Catholic" topic? It's the same thing. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. If those sources where reliable then they would be reliable for how notable a Catholic topic was. Unreliable sources are unreliable for the importantance of a topic. You're address only part of the issue, and so misconstruing the topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy that says a "UFO author" is flat unreliable in totality. That would be non-supported by policies which outrank any guideline automatically. He's not reliable for advocating fringe theories, or for establishing general notability of fringe theories. This is about biographical data and basic biographical notability--not about Bruni's beliefs or Pope's.
    It's super important to be precise with this kind of thing. Note that I very clearly am !delete over yonder on the Bruni AFD. If this a pitched debate about reliability of ornithologists because one bird enthusiast was a crackpot, I'd be treating it the same. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No I think what people are saying is that this author is unreliable, and as an unreliable source is not reliable for what is important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a totally fair question and debate whether Nick Pope is something like a deprecated source or only unreliable in contexts of actual "fringe theories", which is never automatically anything tangentially connected to or adjacent to "fringe" figures. Like on a matter of Bruni's "UFO beliefs" if any? No, not reliable. For basic bio data on Bruni? I have no idea. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a bird enthusiast was a crackpot then their opinion of what was important in the field of ornithology wouldn't be taken into account. The study of UFOs isn't completely the work of unreliable sources, but the work of unreliable authors in that field don't get to say what is important in that field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The study of UFOs isn't completely the work of unreliable sources, but the work of unreliable authors in that field don't get to say what is important in that field.
    I completely agree. I have no idea if Pope is reliable about the UFO topic when writing not about actual fringe theories (which again--not and never the totality of topics associated with UFOs, just the actual fringe subsets/theories). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    VPP - Although I know you have disagreed for a very long time - most UFO types are WP:FRINGE sources and cannot be used to establish the notability of other fringe sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually not disagreeing with the question of using notability standards like that. I know I'd be ice skating uphill today to want that held to the same standards as other cloistered (if the right word) environments like religious news sources (why I referenced Catholic news stuff--I powerfully believe standards should be uniform, with no special animals on any farms ever). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they write about other author who wrote about UFOs then they are still unreliable. Those are not independent subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what the current convention is. I'm saying it's a double standard to not hold for example Catholic news sites to the same doctrine (because it factually is a double standard). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a website were to write woo about about Catholicism then it wouldn't be reliable about what topics are important about Catholicism. Religion is not a fringe believe, but there are fringe believes about religion. If a website said that Jesus was actually an orange, that website wouldn't be reliable for what topics are important in Catholicism. Again your example doesn't work, because it's ignoring the actual issue. Unreliable source are unreliable for what is important in any given subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably all moot since I can't see how Bruni is even GNG, which is the only ultimate metric however we get to it. I assumed I'd at least find something on newspapers.com as she was some society/UK cultural fixture apparently for a while, but nothing really. I can't how this AfD from @Chetsford: doesn't end in a delete. Even I couldn't try to squeeze a diamond out of a lack of coal. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the AfD, it's not a subject for this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested the notion that religion is automatically not a fringe belief might be challenged by the opponents of George Fox and Joseph Smith in their times. William Penn was a believer who wrote extensively about his Quaker belief and was criticised by members of other denominations for his beliefs about Christianity, e.g.[94]. Can we use that criticism to show he was criticised by members of other sects? Oblivy (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Religion is not a fringe believe, this has been discussed many times and I'm not repeating that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why there's a double standard for orthodox supernatural beliefs, but this makes it clear the discussion is about which beliefs we are going to privilege and not about whether writings by people who believe in something are/aren't credible on the subject of their belief. Oblivy (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no double standard, this is not about what beliefs get to be privileged, and whether one sources is reliable doesn't make another reliable or unreliable. If you want to start a separate discussion about religious sources you can. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was unclear. I'm happy to have religious sources used. I don't approve of bias against sources written by folks simply because they hold/discuss heterodox views, and think @Very Polite Person was right to point out the apparent contradiction. Oblivy (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My annoyance revolves around different evidence-free belief systems not being held to duplicate standards. The entire special animals thing if ever found in any policy needs euthanasia as an option, until no more special animals can exist. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that details of UFOs are not factual reports but are instead matters of faith? Because that would be a fringe believe about a fringe topic. If bot there is absolutely no double standard, because the are different topics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the historicity of accounts of people like St. Paul and Jesus, the existence of UFO's and Bigfoot are probably a mix of factual matters, speculation/inference, and belief. We can report on accounts and those who made them, without endorsing their complete truth. Oblivy (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The historicity of religious figures and articles about matters of faith are different subjects. Whether there is prove of St. Paul existance doesn't change someone faith that he did. If someone claims definitely to have found the Ark then tlthat would be a extremely exceptional claims, and likely fringe, believe that the Ark existed is a issue of faith. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are saying that believe in UFOs is a religious matter, I would disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to say we can report on their actions, including the fact they said things, not that we should be able endorse their claims. Policies like WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE would also limit what could be said about their claims or how it could be said.
    I'm sure alien visitation is a core belief for some religions, but no I didn't say it's a religious matter. I do think accounts of religious miracles as fact vs. alien visitation as fact would be hard to distinguish in a principled way. Oblivy (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What fact about her do we solely source to Pope? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be just this:
    As part of the writing process she worked with members of the Ministry of Defence, interviewed a number of government witnesses and was even said to have briefed the prime minister, leading to some suspicion among other researchers.[7]
    The hardback edition was launched at media event held at the Ministry of Defence, alongside fellow UFO researcher Nick Pope.[9]
    So if consensus is Pope is not reliable for UFO stuff (seems to be consensus) then I'd guess the first one (7) is no good, but (9) would be OK as a supplemental second source, but probably needs a different source. If a writer had a book launch at the UK equivalent of the Pentagon, I'd guess there are other sources. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The book launch thing is not attributed to Pope, but to the Independent[95]. There are other factual matters set out in Pope's book which could end up in the article, and the current state of the article is not relevant to whether a source exists which could support notability. Oblivy (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The idea that a sci-fi book by Nick Pope, emcee of Ancient Aliens, Live on Tour!, will ever be reliable for a BLP strains believability. (quote from the AfD) – this is not a BLP since Georgina Bruni died in 2008. Ancient Aliens is an "edutainment" television show. Nick Pope's involvement in an edutainment television show about "ancient aliens" does not by itself render him an unreliable source. There would need to be evidence showing that he is unreliable for presenting factual biographical information about Bruni's life like this paragraph:

      Georgina Bruni led a remarkable life and worked variously as a go-go dancer, fashion designer, and nightclub manager. She traveled extensively and at various times lived in Jersey, Italy, Hong Kong, and America before settling in London in 1992. She wrote poetry, designed a positive-thinking course, and founded one of the United Kingdom's first online magazines, called Hot Gossip. She was a former director of the Yacht Club, where she was involved in hosting social events for MPs, diplomats, and MoD officials. Later on she became a PR consultant and ran a social club, Le Club 2000. It was through her involvement with the Yacht Club that she first began to mix with various MoD, military, intelligence, and diplomatic staff. (Pope, Burroughs & Penniston 2014, p. 175)

      I consider this book published by the reputable publisher Backbeat Books to be sufficiently reliable for this information.

      If Nick Pope is to be ruled an unreliable source, editors should present evidence showing he is unreliable. This should be backed by quotes from him showing he has published false information. Or even better, quotes from reliable sources saying he has published false information or promoted discredited theories. I've reviewed the book's quotes about Georgina Bruni and don't find the information to be promoting fringe theories. I am not an expert in this topic, though, so am open to being corrected by other editors if they notice otherwise. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:V asks for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. He has a reputation for writing UFO books and being an edutainment presenter, that some might ask for something better is hardly surprising. Did Bruni work with the MOD, secret government witnesses, and possibly the prime minister who told her "You Can't Tell the People"? Those are the claims being made in the article using Pope's book. They're exceptional claims, why should they be taken on face value from an edutainment presenter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is biographical information about her in the paragraph I quoted that does not involve her "work with the MOD, secret government witnesses, and possibly the prime minister". I don't consider writing books about UFOs and being an edutainment presenter to be sufficient to make him unreliable. I would like to see specific examples of his having published false information or promoted fringe theories (such as promoting fringe theories about a particular UFO that contradict the consensus opinion of reliable sources) to evaluate how reliable or unreliable he is. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So if Russia Today posted an article about a obituary for a Russian general, that included contentious claims and exceptional claims it would be reliable for other matters? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding Russia Today, editors provided specific examples of why that source is unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295#RfC: RT (Russia Today). I have not seen evidence in the form of what Nick Pope has said or done demonstrating how he unreliable. Specific examples of what he's said that makes him unreliable in editors' view would be useful per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Context matters, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Cunard (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    " This should be backed by quotes from him showing he has published false information. " Sure. Really, you can just grab any random book he's written and flip to any random page, or grab any random interview. Here's a few examples I found when undertaking this exercise using the Amazon previews of his books and YouTube:
    • On pages 1-2 of An Expose of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon [96] he lays out the case that human-beings are being kidnapped from their homes by what he cautiously calls "aliens" but later (in subsequent pages) clarifies could be either marauding space aliens from other planets or ... fairies!
    • In this interview with a local TV stations he repeatedly refers to "the phenomenon" as a factual occurrence and then defines it to mean either visits by marauding space aliens or some supernatural, interdimensional force that is playing tricks on humans. [97]
    Now, to be fair, we don't have RS that definitively state fairies are not kidnapping humans. If editors feel we need that, then I'm going to have to resign my argument.
    Chetsford (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing this evidence. Those fringe statements make him unreliable in the context of UFOs and other fringe theories. Regarding his reliability, I have the same view as Very Polite Person, who wrote, That's a totally fair question and debate whether Nick Pope is something like a deprecated source or only unreliable in contexts of actual "fringe theories", which is never automatically anything tangentially connected to or adjacent to "fringe" figures. Like on a matter of Bruni's "UFO beliefs" if any? No, not reliable. For basic bio data on Bruni? I have no idea. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In Ancient Aliens season 15, episode 9, Pope discusses "shapeshifters" --- beings that may appear in human form but are actually space aliens and can't be distinguished from other humans. Since space aliens aren't real, this suggests Mr Pope might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [98] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling who holds open the possibility that it may not be possible to differentiate the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC); edited 18:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In Ancient Aliens season 15, episode 9, Pope discusses "shapeshifters" --- beings that may appear in human form but are actually space aliens and can't be distinguished from other humans. Since space aliens aren't real, this suggests Mr Pope might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [95] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that.
    OK, this is too far and outright WP:BLP violations. Stop it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a rest. Address this at WP:BLPN if you must, but please stop derailing threads with this drum you've taken it upon yourself to beat. Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You are persistently and consistently constantly running up to the event horizon of BLP violations on multiple BLP's in this "ufo space" to the point that multiple editors have chastised you up to @Jimbo Wales:.
    You need to knock it off. This is grossly inappropriate behavior for an Administrator let alone any other editor.
    You just called a BLP subject "subhuman" here. @J Milburn:, pinging you as one of the above links involves you.
    Address this at WP:BLPN if you must
    Your next stop is likely WP:ANI and afterwards ArbCom if you don't stop. There are receipts for all your BLP violations. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are growing a bad habit of demanding everyone act with academic deference to the most exotic claims of flying saucer believers under pain of you diverting the thread into tendentious accusations of BLP violations. Please simply accept that I have received all your past warnings, admonitions, censures, reprimands, cautions, and disapprobations and there's no need to hijack discussions with any more. If this is dissatisfying to you, request input at WP:BLPN and I'll be happy to listen to whatever is said. Thank you. "You just called a BLP subject "subhuman" here." No, actually, I didn't. If I'm mistaken, please provide a dif. Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI; Chetsford has now forked this to: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_violation_in_article_Talk — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not at all. Not for BLPs, not for anything else. Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally unreliable. (Saw this thread linked on RSN BLPN) I agree that it is not disqualifying if "Pope believes in UFOs". Some believers publish reputable work in other fields. There are also believers who publish work about the experience. However, Pope works in ufology. The distinction is that ufology approaches the topic with the assumption there is a deep mystery causing "the phenomenon" and that at least some UFO sightings are physical objects beyond our current understanding and controlled by intelligent beings. Fringe topics need coverage in WP:FRIND sources to establish notability, and Pope does not meet that bar. More broadly, Pope's work does not meet the standard at WP:QUESTIONABLE for fact-checking. For example, Pope appeared on "Black Knight Rises," episode 4 of NASA's Unexplained Files to comment on the supposed Black Knight Satellite, (which was a blanket). He said of J002E3, "We don't know what this thing is. To this day, it remains a mystery." The object was painted the same color as NASA hardware, and has been identified as part of a specific Saturn V rocket. Rjjiii (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New York Post

    [edit]

    By excluding New York Post as a reliable source, this "consensus" affirms that editors here are biased against a politically conservative news organization, as many people already believe about Wikipedia.

    This policy should be reversed and each New York Post story should be judged on its own merits. After I tried to raise this question in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on September 10, 2025, this conversation was closed on September 11, 2025 by User:Hemiauchenia who advised to discuss it here instead.

    Can someone provide advice on how this consensus can be reversed? Thank you. Queens Historian (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't just demand that Wikipedians bend to your will because you object, that's not how this site works. This isn't the Polish-Lithuanian sejm, and you don't have the Liberum veto. You've been here since 2013 and should know better. Dozens of people voted in the 2020 RfC that found the NYPost to be "generally unreliable" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com), which should be weighted more than your measly single objection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is a non-starter proposal. If a topic is so important that you need it on Wikipedia in some form you will find a better source than NYPost. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because someone isn't a newcomer doesn't mean it's OK to bite them. You encouraged bringing this discussion here, which makes it particularly egregious. (Not that I think this proposal has any chance.) Jahaza (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in my response was a personal attack, merely a strongly worded rebuttal. You can take me to WP:ANI if you'd like, but I don't think it would go anywhere. The time and patience of Wikipedians is a precious and limited resource. People who do not respect other Wikipedian's time or the idea of consensus are not owed the reverence or patience of other Wikipedians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in my response was a personal attack in fact You've been here since 2013 and should know better. is explicit personal criticism. Subsequently People who do not respect other Wikipedian's time... is not assuming good faith in @Queens Historian's request, which is explicitly for "advice" and following your own instructions. Jahaza (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It confirms that editors are against a politically conservative news organization, but that is not because it is politically conservative. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "this 'consensus' affirms that editors here are biased against a politically conservative news organization," no, it doesn't affirm bias. It only shows that editors attend to whether a given source is, in fact, reliable in the sense of "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) and this one was judged to not have such a reputation. If you look through the perennial sources list, you'll find both conservative and liberal sources that are RSs, and both conservative and liberal sources that are not RSs, and sources in the center that are/aren't RSs, and right/center/left sources that are seen as marginally reliable. It makes no sense to make a comment like yours outside of that broader context.
    As for "how this consensus can be reversed," it would be with another RfC. But the onus would be on you to show that there's a good reason to do that, starting with an RFCBEFORE discussion where you show that in the last 5 years (since the last RfC), the Post has changed its ways and developed a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comes up quite often, as it's seems to be a talking point in conservative circles in the US. But there are in fact many rightwing sources that are considered reliable, and many leftwing ones that are trash. The idea that because a source is rightwing, and that rightwing sources is considered unreliable, then editors have a bias against rightwing sources is a non sequitur. It jumps to a conclusion without prove, just because a source is considered unreliable doesn't prove that editors have a bias against that source.
    If any editor believes a prior consensus is in error they can read the past discussions and construct a compelling argument for their position, consensus can change. For instance see the recent RFC on the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative source considered generally reliable by consensus. An example that dispoves the point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Post tends to be sensationalist, but the objections I've seen tend to focus on the style of reporting and the choices they make in coverage, and in practice, I've seen discussions that they aren't reliable for notability purposes. PinkNews as an example of a left leaning tabloid, with sensationalist reporting, clickbait news article titles, so I'd expect it to be treated the same. Even right now, PinkNews main page is sensationalist click bait articles and celebrity gossip. But, if you read the descriptions of those two under WP:RSPS, the difference is pretty stark. Denaar (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Headlines for any media don't matter much per WP:RSHEADLINES. Nil Einne (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I really support this proposal. That said, I have been considering opening a discussion on the suitability of treating Steven Greenstreet as an expert WP:SPS for the subject of fringe and paranormal topics, essentially treating his reporting on this narrow topic as a carveout similar to how we permit the use of the New York Post for entertainment coverage (WP:PAGESIX). I'm not currently prepared to make this proposal here and now, though. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a Post reader so I looked at the 2020 RfC that banished it to the unreliable category. There were both good arguments (like the lack of fact-checking) and bad ones (various evidence-less accusations). Five years have passed since then so if you believe that their standards improved or that there are content areas which are inadequately covered by other sources and deserve a carve out, like the media reporting, then it might be worth running a new RfC. Alaexis¿question? 12:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question I would ask is what, in the world, does the NY Post have coverage of that is not adequately covered by non-tabloids? We shouldn't be bringing back a garbage source for no good reason aside from some fear of perceived ideological bias. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it matters if it does or doesn’t bring coverage of something missing. What matters is if anything has changed since 2020 such that more editors will judge it reliable now, such as an improvement in editorial policy or vindication of reporting previously considered inaccurate. My sense is the opposite has occurred: it’s gotten worse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably be worth reviewing The New York Post again. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your evidence that their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has improved in the last 5 years? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First, please let me note that I have never seen a copy of the NY Post and do not really know what they write about. But I assume they are a tabloid. What I would like to do, however, is introduce the word causality into the discussion. If an editor from that publication gets a ticket for double parking, was the ticket issued due to their views or their parking habits? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, We all have to remember the mantra "correlation is not causation". Neutrality is not achieved by having equal numbers of publications with various viewpoints deprecated in some way, but by deprecating unreliable sources. If many of them happen to lean the same way politically then so be it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, but the WP:RSP is not a random or representative sample of sources. It's simply the sources that people have asked about most often. I'd venture that the vast majority of sources that people ask about here at the RSN are not listed on the RSP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Post has long been a tabloid rag with mixed reliability, as much as I agree with them half the time. Their local news might be less problematic tho. Metallurgist (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I live in Manhattan and have seen the NYP on a regular basis for decades at grocery stores (where I go daily). This has nothing to do with bias. The front pages often make evidence-free claims. I find it difficult to believe anyone takes it seriously. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sometimes they seem to have gotten some things right that no other sources did at the time. That counts for something at least. Attribution should be required. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats tabloidism for you. Sensationalism and puns. The Daily News does it a lot too. Im somewhat surprised NYDN is green. I always liked the format of both, and used to read NYDN daily. The Post is a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes tabloidism. I would say they arent completely unreliable. They are somewhere between a more vetted newspaper and the National Enquirer. But the Times also has made plenty of errors and sometimes doesnt correct them in a timely fashion, but mostly does. Its been awhile since Ive read either DN or Post. Metallurgist (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at the past discussions for WP:NYDN, it seems like the content of the articles is reliable, if not the headlines. Of course, one shouldn't rely solely on headlines for statements of fact.
      As for the NYDN being a tabloid, this refers to the format in which it's printed (i.e. smaller than a broadsheet like the Times). This is sometimes conflated with tabloid journalism, which is sensationalist and not always reliable. Some tabloid-size papers can indeed be tabloid journalism, but tabloids need not be tabloids, in either sense of the word - you can have a reliable tabloid-size newspaper or an unreliable tabloid-style broadsheet, for example. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Im not disagreeing, but the DN does dabble a little bit into tabloid journalism, just not as much as the Post. Metallurgist (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair. I just wanted to point out why the Daily News is listed as generally reliable despite also being considered a tabloid. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the NY Post has a pretty good sports section. Their news coverage is flawed, as said above. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The Sports section of New York Post is well-regarded but here on Wikipedia, the entire newspaper is considered unreliable because of its political leanings. I'd like to see each story judged on its own merits rather than banishing the entire newspaper. Queens Historian (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Wnat evidence do you have for "because of its political leanings"? Isn't it deprecated because it makes stuff up? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No "this "consensus" affirms that editors here are biased against a politically conservative news organization" see WP:RGW...Cheers. DN (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "This policy should be reversed ..." -- it's not a policy. Re "... each New York Post story should be judged on its own merits" -- I agree and some dictionaries (e.g. Britannica allow "generally" can mean "in most cases" or "usually" so "generally unreliable" should allow for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the New York Post's non Culture/Politics coverage should be considered reliable but their political coverage is very obviously biased. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the 2020 discussion where the source was deemed WP:GUNREL, even our other local media often does not cover topics such as real estate to the extent that the Post does. There is convincing evidence that the political coverage is unreliable, and I would definitely keep the Post as "unreliable" at least with regards to politics topics. However, as I said there, I'm not sure this extends to non-political topics.
      Take real-estate, for example. The NY Times (a WP:GREL source) often cites the Post's real-estate coverage when reporting on real estate (see for example, this). The Post's real-estate coverage been cited in various books from reputable publishers as well (e.g. Plunz, Richard (October 18, 2016). A History of Housing in New York City. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54310-1.; Busà, Alessandro (August 7, 2017). The Creative Destruction of New York City: Engineering the City for the Elite. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-061010-4.).
      That being said, @Queens Historian, I would caution against assuming that Wikipedia is biased against conservative sources. For example, The Wall Street Journal, despite being politically conservative, is considered a high-quality reliable source. (And on the contrary, there are many liberal sources that are considered low quality, like Daily Kos). – Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the NYPost has spent the last week peddling what looks increasingly to be a transphobic conspiracy theory. Honestly, in light of this, I do not think carve-outs for architecture or sports is appropriate. It has reinforced that the Post does not issue corrections and, in fact, doubles down upon misinformation when it's expedient to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Help

    [edit]
    CLOSED
    OP can not reply as they have been blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There is an ongoing dispute about the reliability of sources covering Alexander Ziwahatan, currently being debated in the AfD for 2026 Gubernatorial Campaign of Alexander Ziwahatan. Editor DanielRigal has dismissed outlets such as BoldJourney, SuccessXL, Republican Digest, Democrat Digest, and Independent Political Report as “fake” or unreliable, leading to wholesale removal of references to Ziwahatan. However, these outlets have published full articles about Ziwahatan and his work, not just passing mentions. I am requesting input from the community on whether these publications meet Wikipedia’s standards for WP:RS and can be used to establish notability (WP:GNG). LivingWellat50 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm concerned about her possible COI here. Alao the large number of deleted contributions related to this person. The AfC is here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Gubernatorial Campaign of Alexander Ziwahatan. We also have Sakochee Tribe of Native American Descendants promoting same person. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 487#Draft:Alexander Ziwahatan are the 3 sources reliable sources? for previous discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the AfD discussion is doing a perfectly good job of answering your question, so I don't see why we need to have a separate discussion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issue with Numerical methods in fluid mechanics

    [edit]

    Not an editor, hoping this is the right place to post about this sort of thing. If it's not, please kindly direct me to where this would be more welcome.

    I found an article with some issues regarding its sources. Numerical methods in fluid mechanics has sources, but none of them are links, and none of them are inline citations. Also, it seems to have been written largely by a single editor.

    Normally, I see a big warning at the top of the page like "This article could benefit from inline citations", but I'm just a measly reader and I don't know what the proper protocol for adding that kind of notice to an article is. One day, I'll make an account and learn the ropes of it all. One day.

    In any case, if anyone who knows that they're doing could take a look at it, I would appreciate it.

    - Lizzie 66.73.175.231 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can these kinds of questions at WP:Teahouse. They can certainly help unfamiliar editors on how wikipedia works can assist you with such issues. I agree that the page lacks sources and will tag it for citations needed. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a good idea to bring it up at WT:WPM, where you might find editors who know something about the subject. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that sources be linked or online. This is an encyclopedia of human knowledge, not an encyclopedia of internet. Much human knowledge exists in print form. You can find it in libraries.
    That said, the lack of footnotes is an actual problem, typical of older articles that have not been updated to more recent standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The big warning banners are pretty worthless in my opinion. Everyone can already obviously see that there are no footnotes. This article was almost entirely written by one editor in 2013 who has not been back since. –jacobolus (t) 19:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do regularly use the warning banners and tags to find articles for which improvement is needed, when I am looking for something to do. You can find a list of these for mathematics articles, for instance, at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Mathematics.html, and the same bot makes similar lists for many other projects. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Banners are if anything just flagging of an issue other editors have noticed in an article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did WSJ fall for a hoax?

    [edit]

    https://www.advocate.com/news/wall-street-journal-charlie-kirk (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They didn't just fall for a hoax, they refused to retract it afterwards. Snokalok (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More details on the retraction calls.
    There were many discussions on the talk page where editors wanted to include the false information at the time, luckily @Catfish Jim and the soapdish declined to reproduce the misinformation itself.
    It looks like it was discussed already on the talk page a bit earlier.
    The WSJ has now added a small editor notice to the article, though they have not removed the text of the misinformation. Raladic (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "hoax" is too strong... it's probably an issue of competence, both on the part of the ATF and the WSJ. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A hoax that apparently originated with the New York Post based on their claims of an exclusive and earlier publication time. FDW777 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't really "originate" with either of them, they were both quoting verbatim from an internal ATF bulletin. The ATF bulletin was wildly (and hysterically) wrong. The appropriate thing to do here would be to issue a correction, which the WSJ has done and NY Post has not. I think that means our current treatment of both the WSJ and NY Post is probably appropriate. Endwise (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another reason why it is good that we have WP:NOTNEWS. It can take time for even the best sources to sort out fact from rumor. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they cited what they claimed was an ATF bulletin, but which they actually just got from Steven Crowder.[99] The NYT meanwhile said that according to senior law enforcement connected to the case, the document did not match other ATF evidence summaries and had not been verified by the ATF, and that senior law enforcement connected to the case said it wasn't veri.[100][101]
    Based on this, our treatment of the WSJ is not sufficient, and I think we need to downgrade it to yellow. Snokalok (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the sources you cite explain, the WSJ was citing the ATF bulletin. Crowder just got the "scoop" on them. Endwise (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Downgrading it seems a bit like an overreaction, given that we're basing this on a single instance where the WSJ was slow to issue a correction for a breaking news situation. Is there evidence of the WSJ being not generally reliable? Epicgenius (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Epicgenius. jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, interestingly, The Telegraph seems to have not yet added any notice or made any changes to their reporting, which is a bit concerning. Endwise (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the WSJ's and The Telegraph's articles attributed the information to the (unverified, not debunked) ATF report (that the governor “gave no indication that the ammunition included any transgender references” is not definitive denial). (Sources with a different leaning have been given leeway in cases MUCH more egregious than this.)
    The Telegraph does urge caution in the article text.
    There is nothing actionable here; even if there were, you would need much, much, MUCH more robust sourcing to discredit the 40-times Pulitzer-winning WSJ than... whatever the hell The Advocate, The Verge or LGBTQ Nation are. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WSJ may have gotten this report wrong, but it is still generally reliable. The fact that they issued a correction makes it all the more so.
    No news outlet ever gets it right 100% of the time. Reliable sources correct the record when they do get it wrong. Just don’t use this specific report. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RS status is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so one incident only affects them if it has an impact on that. I suppose it's possible that this could, especially if it becomes part of a pattern, but we'd have to wait until we get high-quality sources saying stuff like "the WSJ is no longer as reliable as it once was because it keeps making mistakes like X, Y, and Z" rather than just pointing to a single instance ourselves. (FWIW while they did retract it I feel that they were a bit alarmingly slow to do so for something so sensitive - but that alone isn't going to affect a source's RS status unless it becomes clear it wrecked their reputation or something.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even the most reliable of reliable sources make mistakes sometimes. Much more important is the reaction when they do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This event reinforces that this is a generally reliable source, because it shows that editorial processes are in place to update articles where necessary. It's also worth noting that the updated article isn't being described by the WSJ as a correction. At least, it doesn't appear in their list of corrections here[102]. Perhaps they think they accurately reported what an inaccurate bulletin said. I also think the language of the original claim was so vague and charged that it's hard to work out what it would even mean for it to be true or false. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with several others above that the WSJ is still generally reliable. "Generally" doesn't mean "always" - one of its generally-reliable peers, the NYT, has been accused of far more than what the WSJ just did - and the fact that the WSJ did correct itself doesn't indicate intent to mislead. Yes, it took a while for the retraction to occur, but WP:RSBREAKING news stories are usually not 100% reliable anyway, as they rely on primary sources; this isn't a WSJ-specific problem. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, this stregthens WSJ's reliability. WP:RSBREAKING means initial reporting about fast-breaking events will be wrong. The question is whether the source correctly attributes claims, makes updates as more information comes out, and strives to be reliable and present facts. And one link from a WP:BIASED, chock full of tweets and comments from advocacy groups does not make a strong case for media reliability. Longhornsg (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Rzeczpospolita

    [edit]

    Hello, I am from Polish Wikipedia and I would like to request an RfC discussion on Rzeczpospolita, a centre-right Polish newspaper and its website. Unlike its liberal rival Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita has not been discussed among perennial sources on English Wikipedia (AFAIK), yet it has similar popularity in Poland.

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

    Ironupiwada (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have always thought of it as generally reliable. Is that in doubt? What claim is it making? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant no offence. I also consider Rzeczpospolita to be a reliable source, but from what I can see, there hasn't been any discussion on this topic (perhaps there shouldn't have been?). It might be worth providing some context. Between 2006 and 2011, the newspaper's editor-in-chief was Paweł Lisicki, who is the current editor-in-chief of Do Rzeczy, a publication widely considered to be unreliable. In 2012, a significant part of the editorial team (led by Tomasz Wróblewski, who is also a current columnist for Do Rzeczy) was dismissed following the publication of an article by Cezary Gmyz, which put forward the theory that the Smolensk air disaster was caused by a TNT explosion. The Rzeczpospolita newspaper is reliable now, but that wasn't always the case. Ironupiwada (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RFCBEFORE I don't think we need an RfC at this moment. Alaexis¿question? 15:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasnt been done if it hasnt been an issue. How often has this even been cited here? Metallurgist (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    VOA pronounce

    [edit]

    Can the VOA pronunciation guide be used as a reliable source for American English pronunciations, especially of foreign names and places? ―Howard • 🌽33 16:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They're interesting. They have kinda a Cuban/Hispanic accent mixed with American-ish going on. Cute. CaribDigita (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you pick that up from? ―Howard • 🌽33 06:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with citing this state media source when the American English pronunciation is uncontroversial and due. Most pronunciations in articles are unsourced, so providing some kind of source would be an improvement for verifiability. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does one have to provide a full reference for the pronunciation or is it allowed to just add the pronunciation audio file? ―Howard • 🌽33 09:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the citation, I would link to an actual page on the website instead of directly to the audio clip, since the clip itself doesn't give enough context about what it is. For example, if I wanted to provide a citation for the pronunciation in the Ryan Wesley Routh article, I would cite either this search results page or the United States region page; there does not seem to be a better way to link directly to a single pronunciation. Also, according to c:Commons:Voice of America files, Voice of America media (which I believe includes the audio clips from the VOA Pronunciation Guide) are in the public domain and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons when appropriate. — Newslinger talk 18:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you've mentioned Routh, I've noticed that there's a discrepancy in how VOA gives the pronunciation (/ˈraʊθ/) vs. how Routh pronounces it himself (/ˈruːθ/). Should this be cause for concern given that both are supposed to be American English pronunciations? ―Howard • 🌽33 11:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, I would prioritize Routh's self-identification and cite the AFP clip instead of the VOA Pronunciation Guide, unless there is another available source showing him using or preferring another pronunciation. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So unless there is a direct contradiction with other sources, the VOA pronounce website can be taken as generally reliable? ―Howard • 🌽33 11:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the American English pronunciation is uncontroversial, yes, but its usage does need to be checked for due weight because most of its pronunciations are for non-US subjects. For geographic locations, I would prefer to cite a dictionary entry, if available. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SFist

    [edit]

    The blog SFist is cited 859 times on en.wiki. In October 2024, they reported on a Waymo accident in San Francisco, implying that Waymo was at fault. They even include a supposed statement by a Waymo spokesperson. [Kukura, Joe (2024-10-08). "Tech Bros Try to Help Waymo Entangled With Muni Bus, Leave Behind Stalled Waymo". SFist. Retrieved 2025-09-14.]

    But that's completely false. According to NHTSA data and Waymo's own data, there were no accidents involving buses in San Francisco over the weekend in question (October 4–6, 2024). Instead, I've pinpointed the accident in the video as NHTSA report 30270-6514, which happened on Divisadero Street at Hayes Street on September 1, 2023 (over a year earlier). The time of day, damage report, and Google Street View of the intersection all check out. From the NHTSA report:

    On September [XXX], 2023 at 10:48 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle (Waymo AV) operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving a bus on [XXX] at [XXX].

    The Waymo AV was stopped on the right lane of a multi-lane road when a city bus attempted to pass using the adjacent left lane. The rear right fender of the bus made contact with the left rear sensor of the Waymo AV. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AVs Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. Both vehicles sustained damage.

    Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 2 of Standing General Order 2021-01. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

    Numberguy6 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also an San Francisco Standard article around the same time which covered the incident: [103]. It is more likely that Waymo simply did not report the incident, unless you are saying both sources decided to make up this story? Jumpytoo Talk 23:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if there was no damage, then Waymo wouldn't have to report it. The blog post doesn't indicate that any damage was done to the Waymo or bus. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on that picture and the description, it just sounds like a situation where two vehicles were awkwardly close to each other for a bit, due to what looks like a large crowd of people standing in the middle of the street, and neither of the vehicles hit anybody or another vehicle. I would really struggle to call that an accident. The SFist article is very coy about this, and does say at some point that it sounds unlikely there was any actual collision, so I don't think it is making any false claims. Although I do think it ought to be mentioned that this is a really low-quality article -- the whole content of it is "look at this tweet I found" and then a bunch of derogatory commentary and speculation about strangers who were in a video in the tweet. It is hard to see a world where this article being a citation would improve Wikipedia a whole lot for anything besides the most bare of facts. jp×g🗯️ 18:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem, from the source, like the waymo vehicle stalled in close proximity to a bus such that the combined entanglement blocked traffic rather than that there was any sort of actual collission. It's a very funny little article but hardly encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Dolan's published writings as a RS

    [edit]

    Richard Dolan has the moniker (not sure if this is self-awarded) of "UAP historian". According to this LinkedIn profile he has a master's degree in history. [104] His research, based on an Amazon search, appears exclusively confined to the topic of flying saucers in the form of popular books on the subject, including this one [105] which is a collection of "first hand accounts" of magic owls riding in UFOs or flying alongside them or something (I didn't quite follow).
    Searching JSTOR and Google Scholar I can find no evidence of peer-reviewed articles. I can find no instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS on Google News when I search "according to Richard Dolan" or "according to Richard M Dolan". He is a regular cast member on Coast to Coast AM, a sci-fi radio show [106]. He appears to run an online store that sells pictures of himself [https://the-richard-dolan-store.myshopify.com/
    Currently, we cite Dolan extensively in our flying saucer articles, including in the Philip J. Klass article where he is the sole source for the claim that Klass defamed Stanton Friedman, or our Flight 105 UFO sighting in which one of his books is the sole source for the claim the FBI investigated this event.
    Do we consider Dolan RS for the subject of UFOs? Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No way. He is light years away from reliability. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not at this moment seeing anything which would suggest reliability such as serious sources taking his views seriously. At a minimum attribution is likely due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the research you did shows quite clearly that we should probably get rid of everything coming from him as much as possible, and only clearly attribute whatever stuff (if any) he has said that would be relevant. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it depends on how RS treats him. Most likely we are talking popular publishing houses (I.e. Macmillan, Random House, etc).....as this is not something university/academic presses tend to mess with. But that isn't the end of it there. Plenty of works from major publishers get criticized. Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No; certainly he's not a subject-matter expert as we define the term and cannot be cited directly. There's some nuance when talking about stuff that went through a reputable publisher, but WP:FRINGE concerns would have to be considered, especially when talking about pop-culture books (I would generally categorize such books more as entertainment, not something that can be used for article-voice statements of fact.) At a glance, though, we seem to be citing him in totally inappropriate ways right now - this, for instance, which is obviously just a personal website, is being cited here for an entire paragraph that seems clearly inappropriate. Really, though, that article as a whole has broad POV and sourcing issues (we're also citing a huge amount to his FBI file, in a way that goes way beyond appropriate use of a WP:PRIMARY source.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Aquillion raised a good point insofar as publishing house goes. I'd assumed his books went through a mainstream publisher as the most popular UFO books tend to do. For future record, in case this eventually becomes an RfC, I checked a handful of his books at his Amazon author page and they all listed Keyhole Publishing as the publisher. This led me to this press release that seems to indicate Dolan has more than an author/publisher relationship with Keyhole.[107] The Keyhole website is currently down but the Wayback Machine from 2011 returns a barebones site that has the subheader "Featuring the Work of Richard Dolan". [108] That said, Keyhole has published other authors (all within the UFO genre) so this doesn't seem to be a self-publishing effort per se, however, it does seem to be a specialty publishing house that Dolan himself potentially owns and/or runs. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I couldn't find anything on "Keyhole" either. Of course, sometimes UFO books do get publication from some pretty mainstream houses. (Jim Marrs (for example) had 'Alien Agenda' originally published by HarperCollins.) Compounding this is the fact sometimes this subject is taken so lightly by other RS that it doesn't get any treatment at all.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of WION

    [edit]

    This is a source that we're using on a thousand articles; it came to my attention when someone tried to use it to argue that Antifa was responsible for the killing of Charlie Kirk. Looking at their Wikipedia article, they mostly seem known for misinformation regarding COVID-19 and for briefly being blocked by YouTube over misinformation related to the Russia / Ukraine war. I wouldn't usually go to RSN so quickly but at a glance this looks like a source that actively promotes misinformation, which we're citing on an alarming number of articles. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like an easy 3-4. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit shocked it's so heavily used. Definitely 3+. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same as above. Mildly/notionally shocked (not really). Certainly alarming. 3+—Alalch E. 23:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been discussed before... Probably does need to be discussed again... For a minute there they looked to be getting better but the last year or so theres definitely been some backsliding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do other sources say about them? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets complicated because journalists at other sources have on occasion issues both with WION's factuality and with WION's leadership on issues which are not strictly related to factuality [109][110] are definitely within the overall perception of peers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More than likely a 3 at least. Wouldn't be entirely shocked if common use is due to being mistaken for an American local news station, given the 4-letter abbreviation beginning with W (ex. WTOP). The Kip (contribs) 03:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree with classifying it as unreliable based on the evidence provided so far. I think we are often too quick at classifying non-Western media as unreliable.
    The reason they were blocked by Youtube was that they broadcasted a speech by Sergey Lavrov. This in no way indicates their unreliability, especially considering that they were unblocked in 4 days.
    As to the antifa being responsible for Charlie Kirk's death, their article simply doesn't say it (While no evidence has yet linked Robinson to any formal Antifa group, the symbolism he adopted underscores the movement’s cultural resonance, particularly among younger activists who borrow from its history, slogans, and aesthetics. The problem was with the editor who used the source improperly. Alaexis¿question? 05:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking closer at the source, it's possible it may be closer to a 2 in as far as non-Western sources, I will keep tabs on this thread to see if I feel the need to change my previous rating. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but this very quote is incredibly weasel-y, and definitely goes straight into misinformation territory. They create a completely artificial link throughout this article, very clearly trying to demonstrate an already chosen outcome to verify an editorial stance. The most charitable interpretation of such an article would be considering that this outlet dropped the ball on this article specifically, but since we have more than this I do not see how we could classify it as better than a 3; I do not argue for 4 outright though. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you're setting a very high bar here. A lot of other media outlets, including the greenest of the green, have their editorial stance which determine what they report and how. Alaexis¿question? 12:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of unquoted source regarding sexuality of a living person

    [edit]

    Hi, I’m a new editor and would really appreciate opinions on this…

    This source [111] is the only source being used as a reliable source regarding Craig Parker’s sexual orientation. There are a lot of issues that I personally see with the credibility of this article, but most importantly is that Craig Parker is not directly quoted in the article about his sexuality.

    From my research, other than the source in question, Craig Parker has never publicly discussed his sexuality or personal life, but has been outspoken about valuing his privacy.

    Thanks for any help!

    NicR77 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At a glance, I'm not confident the source is a RS (I've never heard of them and they look a bit strange to me at first glance) but the specific complaint that they don't have an explicit "I am gay" quote is sort of the wrong way to argue that - it's basically you saying you don't like the evidence the source presents and disagree with their conclusions, which isn't really a valid WP:RS concern; RS is about the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the source as a whole rather than how well they substantiate one specific claim. If you have other issues with the source (and I could see why you might) I would focus on those other issues instead; if they were an otherwise legitimate RS, "I don't like the fact that they don't quote Craig Parker directly on this" isn't really a valid objection. Caveat: Even if it is a RS, we can of course only summarize what they say, and what they say is indeed... odd. They seem to be just sort of taking it as a given that everyone knows he's gay, which might make it an awkward source to use. Also, saying things about someone's sexuality is usually WP:BLP-sensitive, which would definitely require a higher-quality source than I'd say this is. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and I agree! After reading WP:BLP and WP:BLPRS I felt that the source was questionable at best for such a sensitive issue but wasn’t sure how to go about challenging it’s credibility. Also, as far as I can tell, the original article from the New Zealand Herald has never been publicly online either, which I would think would be another issue.
    This source’s reliability has been questioned and debated for over 15 years on Craig Parker looking at the pages revision history. Could you please advise me on what would be the best way to go about correctly removing this as a RS? NicR77 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were unable to WP:VERIFY the original interview in the Sunday Herald you could remove it as a poorly sourced BLP issue, and the onus goes to the other side to provide a suitable source or show the reliableness per WP:BLPREMOVE.
    However, I did this source searching for you and was able to find the original source which says You won’t see his Ponsonby home and tropical garden in a woman’s magazine and his love life is another no go area. As a gay man Parker says he doesn’t care what people say about his sexuality “it’s just not an issue for me.”:
    Jumpytoo Talk 17:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did find this source previously, but seeing that it is on PressReader.com I could not read it without paying due to it being locked. I can only read the beginning of the article and can not see the part you have quoted. Since it is not accessible to the public should it really be used as a WP:BLPRS? Thank you! NicR77 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources may be cited, regardless of their degree of accessibility. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I please ask how a source can be determined as reliable or verifiable by Wikipedia standards if it is not accessible to read? Isn’t that like saying "just believe whoever provided the source and what they say"? NicR77 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Under WP:NEWSORG, we generally presume that normal news outlets are reliable unless there are incidents which suggest the contrary. The source is still accessible for anyone who pays, which is similar to citing a non-open-acccess journal article or a book. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:PAYWALL. An editor's inability to personally verify a source does not change its usability. FDW777 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for the help! Just another question:
    If the news outlet / journalist publicly leaked information from the article online before the article was actually published be a good reason to doubt it’s reliability? NicR77 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the situation. In general, singular incidents which the news outlet corrects or apologizes for usually do not significantly degrade their reliability, and I can't see a leak affecting reliability of a source too much. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. The reason I asked was a direct quote from the original article from The New Zealand Herald was leaked and published on Wikipedia a day before the article was released. The publication date of the article is January 20, 2008 but a quote from the article appeared on Wikipedia on January 19, 2008. The User’s IP address who added it is in area of where the journalist, Shannon Huse, lived at the time. There were never any apologies from her or the New Zealand Herald from my research. NicR77 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you account for the timezone? When converted the edit was made at 10:18AM on the 20th New Zealand time. It is also reasonable that a New Zealand based editor would be the one to make the edit as it is a New Zealand paper. Jumpytoo Talk 00:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    New Zealand is 12 hours ahead of UTC, so it is theoretically possible that someone got their issue of the Herald and then made that edit. Regardless, the reference should still hold up for the purposes of WP:BLP. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No I did not think of that, I apologize.
    I am only questioning the reliability of this source so intensely because I personally know that the actor, Craig Parker, does not identify as gay, He claimed this source lied not long after it was published when he was at a convention back in 2009 or 2010 I believe. Of course, I have no way to prove that as it was not recorded. I was just trying to do right by him as a fan of his.
    NicR77 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can take Approach 5 of when sources are wrong and simply omit it under the fact that it is not due weight, since nobody else seems to have reported it. If you can find a source saying that Parker is not gay, it would be great if you put that on the talk page for Parker's article just to prevent other editors from stumbling into the same trap. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Approach 5 sounds like the best way to handle this. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find a source that says he is not or that states what his actual sexuality is. Parker is openly part of the LGBTQ Community, as far as I know. He just does not identify as gay and has never come out so-called publicly, which is the main issue I have with this source.
    Thank you so much for all the help! I am in the middle of a dispute with another user about this source and will have to have a discussion with them about it soon (they are blocked at the moment). NicR77 (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My local library provides a subscription to PressReader which is how I was able to verify the source. If your libraries don't subscribe to PressReader you could also try a local college/university, and if all that fails and you don't want to pay for a subscription you can ask at WP:RX where someone who does have access can provide a copy. Jumpytoo Talk 00:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s jut not an issue for me. I just don’t get why an actor would want to reveal their secrets, hopes and fears to a magazine or newspaper. I know what the magazine gets out of it, but not the person. If you are doing publicity to increase your self-confidence then you are really in trouble. It’s important to keep some privacy. Your friends and family are the people you reveal yourself to. They are the ones who should have real access to you.
    The full quote seems dubious. He outs himself as a gay man to a newspaper, and then immediately speaks against outing yourself to a newspaper?
    This could easily be simple miscommunication, perhaps he said "If a were a gay man" but the interviewer misheard. The fact that we have only one source attesting seems questionable.
    I will say though, I found a video on Facebook of him giving an interview to Gay Calgary Magazine. He doesn't discuss his sexuality, and being so interviewed isn't proof that he is gay, but I thought I would share it.
    What I find most questionable though is how "in passing" the quote is. I know a cross dresser who has told me they aren't trans, yet I see him describe himself as trans to others. I've always assumed this was just for communication purposes, since it is easier to say in a word than to explain he dresses in women's clothes but isn't trans. I wouldn't rely on a label someone uses mid-sentence to accurately describe their sexuality.
    And I know this is a message board for discussing reliability, but we should also consider decency. He is a private person and has avoided discussing his sexuality. We don't talk about the sexuality of 99% of people on Wikipedia. There is no need for us to discuss his sexuality, especially given uncertainty surrounding our information. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Tab

    [edit]

    I've been considering nominating Lancaster University Students' Union for AfD on grounds of notability as the only third party, independent sources are local news stories about a property owned by the organisation being sold, the rest are either primary sources, non-independent (such as the student union's own newspaper SCAN) or from The Tab, a website which publishes news about higher education in the UK. Looking at the bylines on their website, it seems the authors are students at the institutions they write about.

    This has been discussed before but no consensus reached. Is it worth flagging this slightly-obscured lack of independence? It's used as a source in 616 articles. Orange sticker (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Tab may not be reliable, but remember that before nominating an article for deletion you are expected to look at all sources that exist (which are certainly not limited to news reports), not just those in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tab is not something I'd ever regard as a reliable source. It's basically an online tabloid student newspaper that will basically publish anything from junk Buzzfeed-esque lists (remember those) to just regurgitating what's been published elsewhere (with zero regard for the quality of where it was first published). Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While the Tab has many issues, a lack of independence (because its authors are students at the institutions they write about) is not one of them. Good quality student newspapers (eg Harvard Crimson, Varsity) aren’t deemed unreliable because their authors are students at the institutions they write about, any more than good quality local new newspapers aren’t deemed unreliable because their authors are citizens of the towns they write about. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I don't think accuracy is this issue here, rather that this gives WP:UNDUE weight in terms of notability. It's similar to local news in the UK, which isn't really covered by WP:AUD which is very US-centric. Orange sticker (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Huawei Central

    [edit]

    Huawei Central or HC Newsroom is a website covering news and rumors about Huawei and its products. It is used in ~40 entries. However some posts seems to be machine-translated from Huawei's website. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be helpful if you could provide examples. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huawei Central (huaweicentral.com) has an about page listing four staff members, including a "Founder, Editor in Cheif [sic] and Author". The website mostly summarizes articles from other sources, and does not appear to be doing much original reporting. I consider Huawei Central self-published (and generally unreliable) because they have few staff members, and there is little evidence that they fact-check their information. It would be better in most cases to cite the reliable sources that Huawei Central is obtaining their information from, which is often linked at the bottom of their articles. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FoundSF?

    [edit]

    In a previous review for @3602kiva, I took objection to FoundSF as a source. Looking at it again now, I'm no longer sure. Reading their about page, I get the impression that while this is sort of bloggish, there's also a real entity behind it and the two main authors (Chris Carlsson and LisaRuth Elliott) seem to have some claim to being subject matter experts. Any thoughts from the wider group? RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it depends on the entry. According to their about, they have a mix of primary sources, Wikipedia-style pages which seem to be open to editing from the public, and "historical essays" which are written and cited by one person. These are all separate and properly delineated so there's no problem with mixing them up. I wouldn't use the wikipedia-style ones for sure but the historical essays don't seem terrible (maybe depending on author, from what I checked they look to have relevant credentials) and it seems a reliable and not plagiarized archive of primary sources. Sees some use by others [112] PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox dispute at Patriotic Electoral Bloc

    [edit]

    Hello, at Patriotic Electoral Bloc (see discussion), an editor attempted to remove a political ideology from the infobox (Russophilia) [113] that is currently backed by nine sources. In a likely move out of spite so that this wouldn't be the only ideology in the infobox, they then added other random ones ("pro-China, pro-Ukraine, pro-Romania, pro-Europeanism") [114] [115].

    The source they used is the website of one of the bloc's members [116]. They say no secondary sources are necessary per WP:ABOUTSELF. A third user questioned that user's reading of the primary source to back the addition of these ideologies [117], and no secondary sources exist confirming the bloc adheres to any of these ideologies; in fact, secondary sources exist stating that it opposes one (pro-Europeanism, [118] [119]).

    I would highly appreciate other opinions on this user's interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF, on their use of the primary source and on their disregard of secondary sources for backing content they add. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 09:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ABOUTSELF only goes so far, in particular the first point that talks of content that is "unduly self-serving". Articles should be mainly based on secondary sourcing, or more simply Wikipedia is more interested in what others say about a subject than what the subject says about itself. If a group that secondary sources describe as violent communist insurgency wants to be described as a ornithology club that goes flower picking, then their self description can be ignored and the secondary sources used instead.
    Searching for more secondary sources may help to see what weight should be given to the groups self description. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ActivelyDisinterested, while searching for sources to back Russophilia as an ideology, I noticed secondary sources did not really bother describing any other ideology of the bloc, specially English-language sources. After all, the bloc has only existed for under two months, not much analysis on it exists yet. You can confirm this yourself by checking the sources at the list on the (currently) third reference on the article [120], they describe the bloc merely as pro-Russian. I couldn't even find a single source (either in English, Romanian or Russian) describing the bloc's view on Romania, Ukraine or China (and as I said, I found secondary sources backing the bloc's opposition, not support, to the EU). In any case, a user already disputed that the primary source verified the content added by the user in the first place; their rationale is worth reading [121], and another opinion would be appreciated.
    What do you think? Does WP:ABOUTSELF take priority here? I would love it if you could pass by and state your opinion at the discussion. Last time I had a disagreement with this user, it went nowhere to the detriment of the article, so I consider third-party participation necessary. Super Ψ Dro 19:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we can be a bit more creative here. Instead of arguing about the long list of "pro-X" and "pro-Y" which looks a bit weird we could say that the party supports the neutrality of Moldova, which is something that both Moldovan and European sources appear to agree on. [122]

    [123] - a Polish think tank that is definitely not sympathetic to Russia

    We can also say in the body of the article that they describe themselves as X and are characterised as pro-Russian by various sources. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No opposition to adding to the infobox that the bloc favors neutrality from my part. But I don't think the primary source verifies the bloc being "pro-Romanian/Ukrainian/Chinese". Here is the source, I invite you to read it and give your opinion [124]. Theorically we could use this source to add in the main body that the bloc supports good pragmatic relations with Romania and Ukraine, though I'd very much rather have secondary sources for this. Super Ψ Dro 21:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Dromaeosaurus I agree. Alaexis¿question? 20:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your opinion. Since your message was short I am not clear on your stance regarding the inclusion of neutrality, so feel free to argue your position at the talk page (or clarify your position here, so I can send a link of your diff for the participants there to see). Super Ψ Dro 21:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note There is also an open topic about this same dispute at NORN Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As well as noting that independent sources are preferred, I would also point out that most such sources should be expected to write about this in Romanian, not English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation in Romanian-language sources is the same. There are no secondary sources backing the "pro-Romanian/pro-Ukrainian/pro-Chinese" additions. Super Ψ Dro 22:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that an electoral bloc put together for one election can be said to have any unifying ideology. Maybe the best thing would be to get rid of that parameter altogether and just describe the individual parties' ideologies in their articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can see multiple sources in English and Romanian referring to the bloc as pro-Russian on this list [125]. There are a couple other unifying factors, such as neutrality. But there are not many ideologies that sources back for now. Including those first four on my opening message. Super Ψ Dro 21:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    https://militaryland.net/

    [edit]

    https://militaryland.net/ is a website that catalogues various Ukrainian military units involved in Russo-Ukrainian War and their activities. This is a quite comprehensive source for those sorts of informations avilable in English language. My question for the fellow Wikipedia editors, admins and fact checkers is that, is this website should be considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles? As far as my opinion goes https://militaryland.net/ do provide pretty accurate and reliable informations often ahead of other main stream news sources who often site https://militaryland.net/ also in their reporting, which are verifiable through them as well. This website can be very useful source of information particularly for a country's military who is engaged in a large conflict currently and military information is scarce and far between or not available at all due to deliberate fog of war. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Website is geoblocked at where I am. This reduces the number of interested editors who can verify information against the site, and this discussion in particular, whether the source is reliable enough. – robertsky (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been discussed a few times before;
    WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Is Militaryland reliable?
    WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 401#MilitaryLand.net
    WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 403#Militaryland.net
    Most opinions were negative, but it hasn't been discussed since 2023. It has an editorial policy[126] and list of authors[127], but with author names such as 'Jeff2146' it would be good to see WP:USEBYOTHERS to show reliability. There I'm seeing a small amount of use in reliable published work, but not a great amount. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So it do have some credibility and viability on main stream media. Should we use it as a source on Wikipedia articles? If agreed it can be used a reliable and comprehensive source of information regarding the realm of Ukrainian Armed Forces units. Information about which is hard to come by due to the ongoing conflict. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also since 2025, Ukrainian Armed Forces has been reorganizing itself from a Brigade based force to a Corps based force in accordance with NATO standards. Many new units are being created within the Armed Forces to accommodate this transition. The existence of those will not be acknowledged offically anytime soon. https://militaryland.net/ do give a comprehensive and an almost daily update on these new units of Ukrainian Armed Forces. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's use by main stream media is very limited, and being useful isn't a criteria for reliability. There's no deadline so if details take longer to get to more recognised sources that's not a problem. Unless it's challenged it probably a margin source for uncontroversial details, but I would be looking for a better one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've certainly gotten more professional over the years... Personally I think that its their news articles which are more wiki speed and I would actually avoid the cataloguing of military units but your mileage may differ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point noted. So, what are you guys' final judgment on https://militaryland.net/ overall then? Should we use it as a source on Wikipedia? And if yes for what information on which articles? They're both a news website as well as a comprehensive catalogue of Ukrainian military units overall. Which purpose should these be used? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TechRadar publishing AI-generated articles?

    [edit]

    Over at AfD, there is an ongoing discussion of the article for the software pdfFiller. (I had originally supported deletion, but recently changed my position). In the search for sources a review of the product in TechRadar was offered as a piece of significant coverage. The article, published in late 2024, looks AI-generated to me, and the author bio is obviously AI-generated.

    My question isn't whether this review can be used as a source in the article. I'm convinced it can't and would remove it if I found it in the references. My question is about whether TechRadar needs to have some additional scrutiny applied to it? I had always thought this was a solidly reliable source in the tech world (admittedly, that isn't my usual beat), but this review looks sketchy. Other reliable sources have been caught using AI authorship before. Is this another case? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure that Steve Paris is a real person[128], I couldn't say for certain that the the article is AI written. It does have some of the 'flat' feeling of AI, but I don't think it's definitive.
    Are there any secondary sources accusing techradar of using AI? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the author bio is obviously AI-generated: what makes you say that? The one I'm looking at[1] seems very human-written to me and follows the prose style of a 2000s tech blogger. I can find bylines from him as far back as 2010,[2] so this isn't a wholly LLM persona. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That biosketch looks a little better (still somewhat LLM-ish to me, though). This is the author bio, in full, from the article linked in my original post: Steve has been writing about technology since 2003. Starting with Digital Creative Arts, he's since added his tech expertise at titles such as iCreate, MacFormat, MacWorld, MacLife, and TechRadar. His focus is on the creative arts, like website builders, image manipulation, and filmmaking software, but he hasn’t shied away from more business-oriented software either. He uses many of the apps he writes about in his personal and professional life. Steve loves how computers have enabled everyone to delve into creative possibilities, and is always delighted to share his knowledge, expertise, and experience with readers. He doesn't just do this, he does that! He loves sharing pivotal activities and leveraging crucial developments! Perhaps Paris is a real person, but if this is his writing style I'd never run one of his articles on my site if I were an editor.
    If this is a false alarm, I apologize. I have been spending a lot of time on AI cleanup and AfD and perhaps I'm seeing LLM prose everywhere I look. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dan Leonard, to me it also looks like the standard style that bios in tech/review websites tend to have. Always a bit vague and overly positive in outlook and breadth, I understand how it could be sen as LLM text if you have not seen many of these before. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Steve Paris". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2025-08-20.
    2. ^ Lawton, Rod; Paris, Steve; Grannell, Craig (2010-12-06). "Apple iLife '11 review". MacFormat. No. 229. Archived from the original on 2010-12-12.

    Business Insider will now be publishing undisclosed AI-generated content

    [edit]

    According to the media journalist Oliver Darcy, Business Insider has or will shortly begin publishing content generated by ChatGPT without disclosing these articles to their readers. Should this change the way we regard their reliability (currently No Consensus per WP:BI)? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is impossible to tell if an article was generated by AI unless one has a keen knowledge to pick out AI from human writing, then yes we should consider it unreliable for that purpose. It would be if like Forbes didn't disclose which articles were from staff and which were from contributors. Masem (t) 13:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say we should be even firmer and make a point of deprecating it. If there's undisclosed AI use then you can't trust anything at that point so should all be culled. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Paprikaiser (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going to be a problem for sure Echoes of Automation: The Increasing Use of LLMs in Newsmaking (2025). This says that disclosure is/should be the trend. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Actually, AI works both ways. There are AIs that can write articles, and there are other AIs that can read an article (or an image or song) and tell if it was made by humans or AI. We don't need to try to figure it out ourselves. The system is not bulletproof, but it's a start.
    Having said that, the link is not working for me. And isn't Oliver Darcy a self-published author nowadays? May be valid as a standard source, but for important stuff (such as a reveal that would lead to a source being banned) I would prefer if news were confirmed by other news sources. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those systems are very very far from bulletproof indeed. I haven't seen any evidence of an "AI writing detector" that is provably accurate. And I agree, it would be good to get confirmation from a non-independent journalist. Try this link instead; the prior link is to an archive site. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That says "use ChatGPT to generate first drafts", which is very different from "publish".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a strong distinction. How is anyone supposed to know what % of an article's first draft winds up in the published version? It could be 10%, or 95%. The key thing is that they apparently do not plan to disclose use of AI to write articles. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think of it... which would be the problem with a news article being partially or even mostly AI-generated, if it is checked for accuracy before publishing and any potential mistakes are fixed beforehand? The inaccuracy problems with AI are when taking the results as-is, but if a reliable publisher curated them, I don't see where the problem would be Cambalachero (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first draft stage is probably the most dangerous place to insert AI. That's were a human is most needed to define the basic elements of what the story actually is. An AI could put an incorrect or inappropriate interpretation on a story which might persist into later versions even if the AI's writing style becomes obscured by subsequent human editing. That's far riskier than a human writing it first and the AI merely polishing it, and I'm not saying that that would be entirely risk free either.
    I'm not sure how we should handle this. My thought is that if an article has the name of a human author on it then we should treat it as the work of that author and let them, and BI, take the shame if it turns out to be bad. So that suggests that we should consider it as Reliable as we usually consider BI, which might be up for reassessment if their quality falls either due to AI or any other reason. On the other hand, if BI are using to AI to generate anonymous articles then that strikes me as straight-up slop. If there is any evidence of that then I'd say that we should regard any articles not attributed to a named human as unReliable. DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Red Ventures RfC set the precedent that a news organization which "uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" should be considered generally unreliable (i.e. questionable). When Business Insider starts implementing the same strategy, they should be treated similarly. — Newslinger talk 00:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Red Ventures' use of AI seems to be very different from using AI for first drafts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to revise Army Recognition entry – defamatory & unsourced

    [edit]
    Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Request to revise Army Recognition entry – defamatory & unsourced
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Hello,

    I am writing regarding the entry about *Army Recognition* on the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The current text is:

    > "Army Recognition is a site that reproduces press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing 'online marketing and advertising solutions' for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content."

    ---

    1. Why This Is Problematic

    [edit]
    • **Defamatory**: These allegations, if false, damage Army Recognition’s professional reputation. Under Belgian law (where the company is registered), such statements constitute defamation.
    • **Unsourced**: The claims are not properly referenced with reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia’s policies on WP:RS and WP:V require verifiable references for contentious material.
    • **Unbalanced / POV**: The entry presents negative allegations as fact, without balancing context or evidence of Army Recognition’s recognized role in defense media.

    ---

    2. Evidence of Original Reporting

    [edit]

    Army Recognition has been an active defense media outlet since 1998, producing both daily news and exclusive content. Examples of original reportage include:

    These are clear evidence of original journalism beyond reproducing press releases.

    ---

    3. Request

    [edit]

    Per Wikipedia’s policies:

    • WP:RS – Contentious claims must be supported by reliable, independent sources.
    • WP:NPOV – Negative claims must be balanced and fairly presented.
    • WP:BLPSTYLE (analogous, since reputational harm applies also to organizations) – Unsourced or defamatory material must be removed immediately.

    I respectfully request that the current wording be **removed or rewritten**. A fairer and sourced version might read:

    > *"Army Recognition is a defense news website that publishes a mix of press release material and original reporting, including technical data sheets, exclusive interviews, and official media coverage at major defense exhibitions. Some editors have raised questions about the degree of reliance on press releases."*

    ---

    4. Conclusion

    [edit]

    The current version contains **defamatory, unsourced allegations**. I kindly ask editors to remove or revise this entry immediately to ensure Wikipedia’s neutrality, accuracy, and compliance with policy.

    Thank you for your attention.

    — Alain Servaes, Army Recognition Group 2A02:2788:3C4:362:C51C:4B1D:27D:C280 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    While I strongly suspect there may be some AI-writing going on here, I'll comment on a couple of your points:
    The policies etc you mentioned are about WP-articles, RSP is not a WP-article, it's among other things a summary of previous discussions. BLP does not apply since there's nothing BLP in it. This may be your AI:s fault since they don't really get WP and tends to hallucinate, wasting peoples time and getting people who use them blocked because of that.
    The original reporting thing might be reasonable to tweak, but your first example is the site writing about itself, that's less than impressive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: we hate posts written by AI, which this clearly is. We want to talk to a human, please. But having said that, can I prompt my fellow Wikipedians to be mindful of WP:DOLT? The fact that this page is publicly visible means that things we say on it can do harm, and there is scope for us to do some better thinking about that.—S Marshall T/C 08:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked for some sort of about-page, but I didn't find any. The one on FB is [129]. The second example under Evidence of Original Reporting is apparently written by Army Web TV. Atm, I'm wondering if Army Recognition is a WP:BLOG from the WP-pov. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to revisit the 2021 outcomes. I do see a need for someone to deal with the ever-increasing (1,263 at present, up from 900+ in August 2021) number of uses. FDW777 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there's no reason to revisit the reliability of the source. It remains a low-quality outlet that frequently publishes speculation and rumor, often with insufficient attribution. I've yet to see any original reporting, and even were they to have legitimately broken news, there's no indicia of reliability in the traditional sense. As for the growth in usage, I suspect that's a bit of an artifact of the past 5 years being overrepresented with regard to modern conflicts (Ukraine, Israel, India/Pakistan, etc). I make an effort to replace them with better sources as I find them, but perhaps an organized campaign would be better suited for that. Using an LLM to write what is tantamount to a legal threat certainly doesn't help engender trust in their editorial capabilities either - actually in my book, it implies such rampant disregard for editorial controls that we should deprecate them entirely. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I also think it's telling that their examples of what they characterize as "original journalism, not press releases" include:
    • explicitly being designated as the media partner at a trade show;
    • coverage of said event (i.e. doing.... press releases);
    • producing "in-house" technical data sheets -- which as far as I can tell solely come from already published data and contains no original reporting at all;
    • more video interviews of their trade show partner (again, press releases just in video format).
    There's only a single assertion of original *journalism*, for which they neglect to provide a link. This is the actual article; and I don't see a single original, novel claim in there presented as original reporting. Compare with TWZ coverage, which along with the USARPAC press release which they appear to heavily have cribbed from. So if this is their best examples of what they consider "original journalism", that's a glaring red siren saying "deprecate me." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we certainly have another link to add to the RSP-entry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swatjester, media coverage of an industry event isn't "doing press releases".
    A press release is when Bob Business of Big Business, Inc. tells Rae Reporter something. A press release is 100% under the control of the person/business that is providing the information.
    A press release is not when Rae Reporter walks past the trade show booth for Bob's Big Business and decides to write something like "Bob's Big Business had a big blue booth at the trade show" or even decides to interview Bob about his business. Wikipedia:Interviews have a variety of problems, but they're not "press releases just in video format" (except when they really are, e.g., the company pays someone to produce a video that looks like an ordinary interview). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely is a press release when you are the official media outlet of an event that exists solely for commercial promotion of products, in which you are primarily repeating the prepared written statements of the companies involved. That's actually definitionally what a press release is. It would be a very different scenario for an external, independent journalist to attend as a media representative and do original reporting of the product beyond just what the manufacturer advertises (for instance, as TWZ, or Naval News, or similar outlets do). But that's not what's happening here. Take, for example, their announcement of being the official media channel for IDEX [130]. Ignoring for a second that this, itself, is a press release, scroll to the bottom half with the sections "Why Advertising at IDEX/NAVDEX 2025 is Crucial for Your Brand" and "Advertise with Army Recognition: Maximize Your Impact at IDEX/NAVDEX 2025". It is an absolutely disqualifying conflict of interest for a source to simultaneously be contracted with the event's sponsor and be an advertising/marketing channel for a subject that they're explicitly covering as a "journalist". And yet, this is how they describe their editorial team: Exhibitors at IDEX/NAVDEX 2025 are invited to leverage Army Recognition’s comprehensive suite of advertising options to boost their presence. With our editorial team on-site, we can offer tailored advertising services, such as banner ads, featured product showcases, sponsored content, and video interviews. This ensures that your company gets maximum visibility both during and after the event. Again. Big blaring red warning sirens. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My working definition of press release is anything you intentionally send to a journalist.
    I distinguish between "information sent to a journalist" and "information that the journalist sought out". Bob might send an e-mail message to the local paper, saying that Bob's Big Business hired their 500th employee on Monday; that's a press release. Alternatively, the journalist might be curious enough to read the corporate website or in a LinkedIn thread, and discover there that they now have 500 employees; that's not a press release.
    "Official media sponsor" means a lot of different things, in my experience. The official media sponsor for non-profit fundraising events often means that the local media outlet has agreed to provide free advertising for the event. That doesn't make your local media outlet have a conflict of interest over the symphony's opening night. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Army Recognition is a low quality source. Most of its content is press releases or the like. I wouldn't consider it to be a reliable source. There are lots of much better sources on the topics it covers. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The complaint focuses on the summary in the WP:ARMYRECOGNITION entry instead of the generally unreliable classification, so we should focus on the text of the summary. I believe amending the first sentence from "Army Recognition is a site that reproduces press release material without any original reportage." to "Army Recognition is a site that primarily publishes content based on press releases." is the minimum change needed to address the complaint. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the complaint indicate an actual problem necessary to address? This is about a summary of editor discussions in project space, not factual assertions in article space -- the cited reasons of RS, NPOV, and BLP would not apply. With regard to being a summary of the original two previous discussions, the first sentence appears to be an accurate summary of those discussions. If any clarifying edit would be necessary, I'd think it'd be sufficient just adding "A consensus of editors agrees that..." prior to the existing text. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at the website. How difficult is it to determine whether a given page is a press release (for which we would {{cite press release}}), a paid advertisement or advertorial, or independent reporting? Are they consistent in sticking a "Press release" or "Advertisement" label on those pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do we say is publishes "defamatory & unsource" content? Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the AI-OP considered the content of the RSP-entry defamatory & unsourced. It's certainly uncited, but that's because we don't cite those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we need to know what (specifically) is defamatory (uncited is irrelvant, as we link to the discussions, and that is the cite). As (however) there have been no charges (let alone a legal finding) NLT may come into it. It's not defamation unless the courts say so. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    theviolinchannel.com suitable as a reliable source for "perfect pitch"

    [edit]

    Years ago an edit filter was created to block coordinated efforts from fans adding Eddy Chen to List of people with absolute pitch. The addition was rejected on the grounds that there was no reliable source to establish that Chen had perfect pitch beyond his self-identification. I recently reverted an effort that included a reference to this article from theviolinchannel.com. The site itself may meet RS guidelines given that they have an editorial team. As to the article itself, it's just a list of responses from musicians to the question "Do You Have Perfect Pitch? Were You Born With It?" The author of the article is simply tagged as "The Violin Channel." As to whether this establishes that the subject has perfect pitch seems a little borderline here. Ideally we'd have a source where an authoritative third-party confirmed that the subject had perfect pitch. This particular source is a bit borderline in that regards. I'd appreciate additional opinions as to whether this citation is suitable for adding Chen to that page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about the site, but that article is certainly not independent, so would not be usable even if published by the most reliable of reliable sources. All it confirms is that Chen answered the question in that way, not that he actually has perfect pitch. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this type of claim falls under the "unduly self-serving" clause of WP:BLPSELFPUB. At best, it may merit attribution if there is sufficient weight and consensus to include it. Left guide (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lexikon der Wehrmacht

    [edit]

    Apparently the German wikipedia deprecated the Lexikon der Wehrmacht as unreliable (see the lexikon's own website which archives the account). Perhaps we should do the same? I see it is used on articles on Nazi German generals and other military figures on the English wikipedia (see this search).4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Peacemaker67 started a discussion on the village pump a few years ago, that led to a request to blacklist and a RSN discussion, but nothing came from it.
    It seems to be a personal passion project, but the author is unclear. Maybe some kind of collaborative project, although not strictly WP:UGC. Interpretation of historical documents is something best left to people trained in how to do it, so I would at least be dubious of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My practice is to delete it whenever I see it used. There is no evidence it has proper editorial oversight. It is an enthusiasts site, and the qualifications of the site operator are unknown. My view is that it is another fanboi site and should be blacklisted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If I were a researcher in this area I might find it useful but in a use with caution and need to fact check everything kind of way. I don't think it can be viewed as reliable.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. @ActivelyDisinterested: @Peacemaker67: I think at the very least we should place it under the WP:GUNREL designation because it lacks an editorial team, is self-published, and presents user-generated content. It therefore clearly falls under the GUNREL description. If I understand rightly, we wouldn't have to have an RFC to label it a GUNREL unlike moving to WP:DEPRECATE or BLACKLIST. I would support deprecation if someone wants to go to the trouble of starting an RFC. 4meter4 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    World of Reel

    [edit]

    This website currently appears only occasionally yet is actually rather routinely cited in film-related articles, being frequently removed or replaced. As suggested by Trailblazer101 at User_talk:PepGuardi#World_of_Reel, "we ought to have a more introspective look into the source and its history of credibility before saying if it is definitively reliable or not". There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_83#World_of_Reel by MikeAllen, who has thankfully removed the site from several articles:

    This site World of Reel is being used as a source for budget figures (the original source appears to have originated from here in July 2023; who got the budget for Beau Is Afraid wrong). The website is owned by Jordan Ruimy and the about me page says he has written for The Playlist (last post in 2020), Awards Daily (2018), IndieWire (2019), and The Film Stage (2017?). This site seems similar to WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED, which they have also written for. What are other editors thoughts on this website being a reliable source (and even for reviews)?

    Having regrettably cited this source myself on more than one occasion, I agree that a proper RSN discussion is needed. I now recognise that World of Reel is a blog that functions primarily as a rumor mill, frequently posting unconfirmed reports or early scoops without clear sourcing or attribution. It is cited when covering rumors surrounding a film's pre-production, production, and post-production. The site's coverage features rumored production dates[131], rumored castings,[132] questionable budget figures,[133][134][135] industry rumors,[136] festival rumors,[137][138] supposed runtimes,[139] early reactions,[140][141][142][143] awards speculation,[144] blather[145], and rumors rumors rumors[146][147][148][149][150][151]. Maybe someone else can help post more examples, but I vaguely remember several of Ruimy's scoops had later been proven inaccurate (or at least unverifiable), which is precisely why I personally chose to disregard the source altogether. Previous uses of the site as a source on Wiki have raised flags on talk pages, often being removed or challenged under WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:FRINGE concerns.

    The one example I can remember is for Liarmouth, for which World of Reel extrapolated rumors of very very tentative plans. The Guardian picked up this World of Reel rumor, but later deleted their article. This was even reported by the BBC[152] Plans for the film were never solid:

    The filmmaker John Waters issued a statement Wednesday quashing recent rumors about a film project being developed based on his 2022 novel, “Liarmouth: A Feel Bad Romance.”

    In the past 24 hours, several news outlets picked up an unattributed article posted Tuesday on the online film website, World of Reel, stating that actress and comedian Aubrey Plaza is scheduled to star as the novel’s protagonist, Marsha Sprinkles. The website also reported that filming would begin this summer in Baltimore, where parts of the novel are set. Not so fast, according to the filmmaker. “While I am thrilled and excited at the idea of Aubrey Plaza starring in my new movie ‘Liarmouth’, the announcement that the film is ready to go in Baltimore, which was printed in an article in World of Reel and then the Guardian, is pure speculation,” Waters wrote in a statement. “Neither writer talked to me or anyone officially involved in developing this movie. We have no start date or green light to begin production but are working to, hopefully, make that happen.” Waters told The Sun that he would love to work with Plaza, who starred in the NBC sitcom “Parks and Recreation” and more recently, in HBO’s “The White Lotus,” but that any talk of casting is premature.

    https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/02/28/shut-your-liarmouth-john-waters-quashes-those-rumors-about-his-new-movie/

    Given how frequently I now see this site's reporting touted around both on and off Wikipedia, I think it is overdue we make a wider ruling on its usage. I have no doubt about the connections Ruimy has and he is certainly not 100% incorrect, but you can only traffic in rumors and leaks for so long and still remain a credible source. Sorry, but the guy's an inveterate grifter and bullshitter. Fun to read I suppose, but not a serious RS for Wikipedia.

    https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/5/28/alfonso-cuarn-no-longer-directing-bond-26

    • "im hearing its not happening"
    • "not sure exactly why, --maybe a deal fell through."

    Seriously, is this what passes for journalism nowadays?

    And apparently he is a Reddit plagiarist as well?[153] Οἶδα (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Glad to see a full discussion has been started on this matter. Expanding upon my earlier comments, as the OP mentioned, Jordan Ruimy and World of Reel fall under WP:SPS as his site is a blog with no editorial oversight aside from Ruimy himself. For transparency, I do follow his posts and he did address and link to my own (since defunct) self-published Substack newsletter in at least one of his blog posts, though I was admittedly surprised by this because I am by no means a reliable source for information myself and that did raise some eyebrows for me. Most of Ruimy's blog posts are more speculative or unconfirmed details and nothing that meets the criteria of an established news organization or a trade reporting website. I tend to remove Wold of Reel information added to articles because they have been covering unconfirmed rumors or just reiterate what other reports have said (WP:FRUIT). These appear to be the main focal point of the blog's posts. Being an SPS would be an automatic flag as being a generally unreliable source. While Ruimy has written for some more reputable websites, his track record is not as reliable as others. Referring to the mention of my suggestion for a wider discussion on the use and application of Ruimy and World of Reel, that stemmed from an erroneous budget report by Ruimy claiming the latest Captain America film would cost over $300 million due to reshoots, which clearly was not the case considering most reliable sources accept that film's budget as $180 million, per sources at the Captain America: Brave New World article. That, alongside the Beau Is Afraid budget report (which traced to another SPS WP:JEFFSNEIDER), Ruimy and World of Reel show a clear track record of reporting on more rumor mill territory. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How would I go about starting a discussion about whether a source is reliable for BLP purposes?

    [edit]

    Hi all, and sorry for the very beginnery question. I was recently involved in the deletion of Sergei Makhlai (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Makhlai - Wikipedia). When I was reviewing the sources on the page, I noticed that Rossiyskaya Gazeta has articles written strongly from a Russian governmental point of view. I would therefore be concerned about its use in BLP articles, particularly for people who have fallen out with the Russian government. How would I start a discussion on whether Rossiyskaya Gazeta should or should not be used in BLP? Red Fiona (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's literally Russian state media. I would question its reliability for discussing Russian political subjects. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you have found the right place to start such a discussion, Either here or WP:BLPN would do, but not both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay on genealogy sources

    [edit]

    The Teahouse and Help Desk often get questions about genealogy sites like Ancestry.com and Find a Grave.

    I have started drafting a guideline (currently tagged as an essay) at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Please feel free to chip in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1312238295"