Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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, 489
490, 491, 492

Additional notes:

• 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.

Start a new discussion

---

Reliability of WION

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)

Seems like an easy 3-4. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Bit shocked it's so heavily used. Definitely 3+. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Same as above. Mildly/notionally shocked (not really). Certainly alarming. 3+—Alalch E. 23:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

What do other sources say about them? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

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 [1][2] are definitely within the overall perception of peers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

While it's hard to ascertain what's going on with WION editorially, the site has been indispensable for English-language reporting on non-US topics; see, for instance, current events in Nepal. Might be a site that ranges from 1 to 3 depending on topic. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC below, so make sure to add your input if you want to do so. NotJamestack (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: WION

How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?

• Option 1: Generally Reliable
• Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable
• Option 4: Must be Deprecated

NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey (WION)

Option 4. Considering the amount misinformation given by WION during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it's safe to say that I wouldn't be surprised if this was immediately deprecated. NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Not generally unreliable. I don't think the COVID coverage issue is severe enough to make the source wholly unreliable. One fact-checked article was revised to repeat the statement from Portuguese health ministry that “no evidence of a causal relationship between her death and the vaccine she received.”, and clarified that the COVID vaccine was not linked to the death. (compare old version and new version) A news outlet responding to fact-checkers is sign of reliability. Some of its wordings like the antifa example above should be less wishy-washy, but that is not sufficient sign of general unreliability. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

So, which option? NotJamestack (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with this source so I don't have a specific stance. But I am unconvinced by the evidence given. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 1. As I noted above, I've relied on WION for English-language news about Asia, which is often superior to Western reporting on the same topics. It's a new discovery for me and I can't speak to past misdeeds, but everything I've read has been solid and corroborated. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I added some examples in a reply to Bobfrombrockley. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 3: I am not super familiar with this source, so wouldn't want my !vote to be too heavily weighted but it seems to me to be primarily a clickbait/churnalism site, that scrapes "news" from agencies and the web to generate as much content as possible and therefore engagement and ad revenue. I don't think it is an active disinformation site (which would merit option 4) but occasionally indulges in misinformation due to sloppiness and engagement farming. It was listed as one of the "Modi-aligned" media platforms accused of amplifying biased narratives in Canadian domestic politics in 2024, but with no details and no specific evidence of actual disinformation as opposed to partisanship. There are the various COVID sensationalist stories it has published discussed above: the Hantavirus sensationalism factchecked by AFP, the Portuguese vaccine story and another dodgy vaccine story. This is enough for us to consider it not generally reliable, and probably enough to consider it generally unreliable, but not enough for deprecation. On non-Indian topics, I see absolultely no reason to use it when anything it reports will have a better source. Why I'm hesitant to make a stronger case for a stringent 3 is that I don't know enough about Indian matters to know whether it might be usable for domestic Indian stories. I notice that many of our uses of it are for topics that aren't Indian-specific, and shockingly even include the COVID-19 pandemic article, where it is used to make a claim about an Indian contact tracing app, so I think it would be good to systematically flag its uses with better source tags. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley thanks for providing specific examples. I read the AFP report but I'm not sure I agree with it. Their debunk the claim that Hantavirus is a new virus, but in the WION video they refer to the host said that the virus is new but then in the next sentence said that the virus itself is old but the scare is new (it's in the first 15 seconds of the video). Or have I missed something in the video? Alaexis_¿question? 18:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 or 2. I'm judging based on the evidence provided in this thread and the Wikipedia article. There are indeed some sensationalist pieces but no evidence of deliberate lying. Adding corrections/clarifications is a positive sign. I'm open to changing my !vote if more evidence is presented. Alaexis_¿question? 18:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 — Bobfrombrockley said it well: low quality, high volume churnalism that is not concerned with quality as much as with engagement, leading to all the obvious consequences. While I have been familiar with WION for some time, I had not considered that it might help fill a vacuum for some South Asia specific news; however better source tags would indeed be welcome in this context. I would support getting rid of the source for everything else (option 4 being a step too far, but still preferable to option 2 in my opinion). Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

For your consideration:

• Indian government blames Sonam Wangchuk for violence in Ladakh protest: 'Provocative mentions of Arab Spring, Nepal GenZ protest'
• From teachers agitation to pro-monarchy march: What led to deadly Nepal protest and REAL reason for GenZ's frustration
• Thailand–Cambodia conflict: What is martial law and how is it different from emergency rule?

This is some of the best analysis on these topics I've seen. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah those are not bad. Maybe I was too harsh. They’re not typical though. Maybe articles by sub-editors are higher quality? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't see the pattern, and some of this stuff is really good. It would be a shame to see it 3ed or 4ed out of usability because they blew some other reporting. Unless it was obvious that they were on a campaign of malfeasance, I'm inclined to weigh the above more heavily than their mistakes, particularly if they corrected them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 as there were corrections issued and this is usually one of the single strongest signs of reliability on Wikipedia. No one says that a source must always get all the facts right, but what we do say is that you must correct for them when you get them wrong. This is the core tenet of reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 2, echoing the points made by Bobfrombrockley and Choucas0. While I oppose the deprecation of this source, as some of the reporting presented does appear to be of good quality, I find option 1 unacceptable given the medical misinformation and high output/seemingly lax editorial standards. While I am seeing some good reporting on their website, I am also seeing no small amount of churnalism. It's not that everything coming out of WION is bad or unreliable, but rather, that I don't feel we can rely on their editorial team to ensure the reliability of everything they're putting out. It seems to me that they employ some very skilled and hard-working journalists, but are also perfectly content to churn out low-quality clickbait, and that's my concern.

Something I personally check for when looking at the reliability of Indian sources is how they report on Hindu nationalism, conflicts between Indian Hindus and Muslims, etc - WION does not appear to be overtly partisan in this regard, but some of the reporting I would consider somewhat lacking in merely parroting the statements of nationalist officials without any critical analysis. Note this article on Modi's praise of Mohan Bhagwat, the current leader of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary organisation that Modi himself was once a part of that is credibly accused of anti-Muslim terror attacks. While the article is short and fairly straightforward in discussing Modi's statements, it does not mention Modi's affiliation with the group or anything about the RSS's long and ugly history. This may be due to a presumption of knowledge on the part of the reader, or intentional omission. This article, by comparison, is longer and lists some criticism of Hindu nationalism. I also found two articles discussing demographic change in India, with the first simply reporting on statements by an official with no discussion or analysis, while the second fact-checks a statement by politician Yogi Adityanath. From the research I've done over the past half hour or so I don't believe that the editorial team at WION is necessarily particularly biased or attempting to control the narrative, but their standards aren't high enough for me to consider WION generally reliable at this stage. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

What you're describing here sounds like neutrality. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Side-note, this is RSN not NPOVN. DN (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3. The coverage above simply does not support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And the arguments made in its defense aren't really policy-based; "well I rely on it" or "looks fine to me" or "I think these article are really cool" aren't how we assess the reliability of sources. We assess reliability based on reputation, and those arguments don't touch on its clearly poor reputation. Likewise, the argument that they're not deliberately publishing falsifications isn't an argument for their reliability - deliberately publishing falsifications would of course require full deprecation; but if the best that one can say in their defense is that they're not doing that, then that's damning them with faint praise, because their reputation is still not what we'd expect for a WP:RS. And while it's good for a source to issue corrections, that can't cure the fact that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  Where do you see reputation documented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 - use with extreme caution, if that makes sense - after reviewing some of the above evidence, I'm not quite comfortable with GUNREL, as they seem to sometimes have solid articles and issue corrections. However, their prior COVID misinformation and churnalism makes it quite blatantly obvious that this is a typically low-quality source that shouldn't be anywhere close to GREL. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 per Ethmostigmus. It's basically TOI-tier. KnowDeath (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 > 2. The evidence for unreliability provided so far is simply way too lacking for 4 or 3, marginal even for 2. Unless we have coverage in other secondary sources of wide-ranging deliberate misinformation, i.e. a documented pattern (documented by an RS of similar repute), I do not see how the source could be 4 or 3 at all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Naked personal bias without concern for Wikipedia policy or guidelines, that is how. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Try to keep comments to content not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4 - The outlet is mainly known for either publishing something that has been already published by another source, or for publishing fake news. There is no need for this source on Wikipedia. Wisher08 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 It works as a propaganda outlet for India (in geopolitical affairs, especially with regards to Pakistan) and at home, works as a propaganda outlet for the current government of India (BJP). The concerns about misinformation are also noteworthy (one example). If blacklisting is not possible I would prefer Option 3 as next best alternative. Zalaraz (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Deprecation (option 4) is not the same as blacklisting. KnowDeath (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 Whatever I wanted to say has been in the detailed and excellent analysis by Ethmostigmus. The source appears to be slightly pro-government (for domestic matters) and mostly neutral otherwise. Failing some fact checks some years ago does not really reflect on the source as a whole. Disregarding unsubstantiated claims of propoaganda et. al. Not outright 1 due to clear usage of churnalism here and there. Gotitbro (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Your claim that it is mostly neutral on non domestic matters is demonstrably false , their reporting on Pakistan, especially with regards to the recent conflict, it is undoubtedly pro india website. Some examples; [3][4], the tone , title of their articles and everything in general, reeks of state-sponsored mouthpiece. Zalaraz (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Of course involved sources would dither when coming to intractable (and present) conflicts such as ARBIPA here. This is true even of veritable sources like Dawn or The Indian Express. That doesn't impeach the validity/integrity of a source in toto. And that is domestic stuff as well (directly involving the home market), what was meant was uninvolved coverage which from what I can see appears to be mostly fine. All of the objections regardless can be sustained under considerations with Option 2. And it should be noted that bias as such has no bearing on reliability (case in point WSJ) but factual reporting, unless a source has a sustained track record of fake/fabricated news (this shouldn't be conflated with Politico style failed fact checks). PS: We've had a discussion about completely barring domestic/involved sources for all current armed conflicts here at RSN and at Village Pump but that made no headway/was clearly opposed. And as I said then, editorial judgment is enough to stem the tide of problematic reporting from such sources. Gotitbro (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that a source that cannot report neutrally in geopolitics affairs (significant pro India and pro Russia bias), cannot report neutrally in domestic affairs (pro-incumbency reporting), their articles concerning other topics cannot be used because of significant churnalism along with having a long term history of COVID-19 misinformation should be not be declared unreliable? It is defacto unusable. Zalaraz (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  NPOV applies to article content and editing not sources. What we expect from the latter is factual reporting. Pro-Russia (itself questionable per the discussion below) or pro-India et. al. doesn't really have a bearing on whether a source is RS.

  The reason we barred Fox News for instance wasn't for its conservative bias rather a poor and regular record of mis/disinfo, and recordes as such by major academic sources. Certainly RS from the Western media aren't also barred from ABPIA for the regular recriminations of pro-Israel bias either. Take also the case of WSJ, it isn't without its regular pro-Israel/conservative bias but is a solid RS nonetheless.

  What I would be expecting here, or for any labelling of unreliable, is either support by academic sources/other RS stating as much or solid evidence to show regular fake news. What raised my eyebrows here wasn't bias as such but COVID misinfo but as Ca notes above that was a minor infraction mostly rectified since (what we would expect an RS to do). Churnalism can also effect our RS rating, the reason I degraded to Option 2, but while that is slightly the case here it is not really a major case of non-factual content. Gotitbro (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2.5, per The Kip. A read of votes here shows handwavvy, unsupported allegations of deliberate misinformation peddling, arguments that being WP:BIASED is enough for deprecation, or labeling as a propaganda outlet, which I don't see supported by the sources presented here, by a review of its coverage, or from similar arguments on this noticeboard. Happy to reconsider if actual sourcing is presented. One example of sloppiness in 5 years is jus tnot enough to label as GUNREL. Longhornsg (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Based on what I read and looked at on the website it seems to be best to use this source with discretion. If there would be another more reliable source contradicting a claim from WION then it would make sense not to use it in an article. But I don't think we need to completely discard all use of it. Swirlymarigold (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 - There are far too many problems with this outlet to allow it on Wikipedia. Not only does it function as a mouthpiece of the Indian government (Godi media), it has also spread misinformation on many instances. Koshuri ^(あ!) 13:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: A source's editorial stance is not a legitimate reason to deprecate a source on Wikipedia, but that is what has been driving many !votes here. I evidence against the source is flimsy at best. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 - For churnalism, a record of spreading misinformation and extremely biased coverage (to the point of being considered a state affiliated media)[5] on various issues, such sources should not be used on Wikipedia. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, on a thousand articles editors found it good to use. While criticism pointed to some wild ones (I'm inclined to say where is there a source that doesn't have some of those...), this seems to have a value of covering some topics best. I think for major topics there will be more prominent/larger and less churnalism sources that will naturally be used so feel no need to even give this an evaluation unless some TALK cites are shown that show it is a perpetual issue and otherwise it just does not belong in WP:RSP or to have an evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 - It may be not good to consider it as one of the mainstream reliable source for any exceptional claim. But can be used as a source for general information or for any attributed primary claim. King Ayan Das (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3: Considering the sheer level of misinformation and bias in WION, option 3 seems like the only appropriate choice. However, I would not be opposed to it being deprecated per Option 4. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Use with care, but certainly use for non-controversial coverage/fact. It can be editorially 'purple', certainly patchy and definitely Hinglish and at times almost hysterically nationalist. But, in these things, it's no outlier... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (WION)

This news source has been discussed multiple times. If you take a look at the noticeboard archive, you can see a lot of discussions talking about WION, so I don't think this will be considered a bad RfC. NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a rewrite site. The "bylines" are generally not bylines, but "Edited by", which to me implies simple rewrites of wire service copy, but without acknowledging which wire service (though PTI - Press Trust of India - is mentioned in some stories). On that basis, it's a judgement call whether the articles are worth referring to. It's basically churnalism. There ought often to be better-resourced RS which would do the same job. It doesn't necessarily look unreliable (3) but I'd say additional considerations (2) and more are needed, so a 2.5 per @The kip and @Longhornsg., Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's definitely not reliable then. NotJamestack (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Aquillion, Bobfrombrockley, Alalch E., Horse Eye's Back, Iljhgtn, The Kip, Alaexis, Darknipples, Choucas0, Tioaeu8943, Newslinger. Pinging participants from the discussion before the RFC was started, as many had already expressed opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  It seems rather quick to open an rfc right when someone brings this up.

  I get that its used 1k+, but is there a repeated pattern of it having been brought to discussion and editors disagreeing ? At the very least would have made sense to see where this discussion was heading and if rfc was necessary User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  There has been repeated discussions in the archives, including a prior RFC that wasn't closed, and editors had already started to make numbered comments. So I just made sure it was formated correctly and past participants were aware, no person opinion on the RFC itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with @Bluethricecreamman. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still leaning close to 3 at the moment. I'm keeping an eye out for more details and or links to the alleged corrections this source has made in relation to Russia / Ukraine, COVID-19, vaccines etc...Cheers. DN (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I can’t see any particular slant on Russia/ukraine. They got kicked off YouTube for platforming Lavrov, so I assumed they’d be pro-Russian, but their current reporting seems neutral. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Voice123

Hello. While we have often used Voice123 as reliable sources for biographical information and roles for voice actors, I wonder if an individual actor's profile as a whole should be used where necessary (i.e. Emily Neves, Wendee Lee, Julie Ann Taylor, or Michele Knotz)?

Also notified the relevant WikiProjects and courtesy pinging @Geraldo Perez, NatGertler, Teblick, and AngusWOOF for their thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Emily Neves specifically in regard to birthdate. If we look at the entry for her, we see such carefully presented information as Emily Neves is well known as the voice of . -- that's not me editing something out, it really is just a blank form result. This is clearly not a carefully edited presentation of data. I find no notes on how the information was gathered, but the site is a commerce site, and Neves does not appear to be one of their clients (contrast that page with this example.) So, it is hard to see reliability for non-clients. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Using the search bar, this link for Neves will automatically redirect to her page, which lists the full details: Emily Neves (born in Jul 28, 1982) is an American voice actor. She has been actively working as a voice actor since 2007. Emily Neves is well known as the voice of Elise in Sakura Wars the Animation, Nozomi Nakamura in Tamayomi, Undine in Black Clover, Lilith in The Demon Girl Next Door and Momoka Momozono in Super HxEros. She is also recognized for working with several relevant brands in the industry. Among her more important clients are companies like Sanzigen, Studio A-Cat, Pierrot, J.C.Staff and Project No.9. Emily's voice over range covers these voice styles: female child, female teenager, female young adult, female adult and female senior, her preferred voice language is english - usa and canada. That way, the blanks NatGertier mentioned have been filled in. However, if one inserts this link directedly into a web browser, it will cause the blank forms, leading to confusion amongst other editors wanting to use this as a source for certain roles, which are listed below her profile(s). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

So that version of the page is more detailed, but :

1. still does not appear to be a client's page; and
2. when I got to that page, click the link for finding voice actors like her, then click on the link for one of those actors, i then find low on their page a listing of pages I'd recently visited... and that page is listed as "[TEST] Emily Neves".

That would seem to describe a dubious source for this BLP. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It's possible this could a bit of a confusion on the site's part. I could be wrong. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, @sjones23. I had not heard of Voice123 until I read the posts above, but now that I have looked at it a bit I agree with @NatGertler that it seems to be a dubious source. I didn't see any indication of efforts to verify the biographical information on the site. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Here from Lord Sjones23's neutral ping: Voice123 is an agency for contracting with voice actors, but they do not appear to have a contract with Neves, and they programmatically generate these pages with no indication of human oversight (each I've checked has the same well known as ... recognized for ... important clients, etc. format). As such I find Voice123 to be a dubious source at best, and considering that as a source it entirely concerns WP:BLP, I'd say it's unusable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

So, I can say I have no argument that Voice123 can be considered a dubious source for a WP:BLP. If so, we can replace them with other reliable sources per the relevant policy at WP:BLPRS (such as the timing of a show's official ending credits, BTVA, official Twitter/Instagram feeds, news reports, press releases, and so on) and possibly use the Voice123 link itself as an article's external link where necessary (like, uh, IMDb?). sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

We have no argument that it's a dubious source for non-clients, which is what is being addressed in the Neves matter. That does not mean that they could not be a reliable source for clients, who presumably have some control over their listing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't (and didn't mean to) argue that Voice123's a dubious source for WP:BLPs of non-clients (especially Neves), but I do agree that it certainly wouldn't suggest using it as a reliable source for their clients. A potential B-class, GA-class or even an FA-class article on a BLP for any voice actor who's a non-client of Voice123 shouldn't include their profile as a source. We can try looking into this site further; if there are any non-client profiles used as sources, we can simply replace them with other reliable sources as I previously mentioned. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As a general reference, the history of the Voice123 website can be found here and here, as well as a listing of the site's team members, if anyone's interested. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Voice123 looks dubious. We do not know who, as an individual, wrote the information about the actors, and Voice123 does not appear to have a transparent editorial process. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, while I'm still investigating into this site as a whole, I found a link to the terms of use here and a list of FAQs for Voice123 creators (i.e. voice actors) here. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun Once Again

I think an RfC is required for the Toronto Sun. I am unfamiliar with the process so I figured I'd start here.

The Toronto Sun has been brought up previously on this noticeboard but the discussion was not conclusive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Can_the_Toronto_Sun_be_used_as_a_citation_in_Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_448#National_Post,_Toronto_Star,_Toronto_Sun

On Talk:Yves_Engler, we have had robust discussion about The Toronto Sun with no consensus (there are two in favor of it's usage, and two against, although the offending section of the article was removed for other reasons).

I have contributed to other articles on Canadian politics (including biographies of living persons) and never run up against claims that The Toronto Sun is disallowed. As far as I know, so long as WP:NEWSORG is followed there's no issue with this source. But as this has appeared now three times on this noticeboard, it appears to be a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Andwats (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Specificaly Andwats is seeking to use the Toronto Sun to include attributed statements calling a BLP a genocide denier. The Sun has massive reliability issues. Here's a few links about it:

1. [6] This is a good starting point. Basically leaked memos indicated that, beyond reporting or even spinning news, Toronto Sun aimed to manufacture it.
2. There's also extensive records of accuracy complaints at the National Newsmedia Council [7].
3. Here is reporting on one such complaint [8].
4. Here's another example of reporting on their accuracy issues. [9]

I've said, recently, that I would like to do away with WP:RS/P because of people assuming anything absent from it was good enough for all use-cases. In the case of the Toronto Sun I'd be willing to treat it as reliable for sports scores and the weather in Toronto. That's about it. It should never be used for any BLP information and certainly not to call a BLP a genocide denier. I would also argue that, if the notoriously awful Sun is the only source to pick up on an issue, then it's most likely WP:UNDUE. Canada's most notorious mainstream tabloid is not a good benchmark for encyclopedic relevance, especially on its own. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Also one of the example links to past discussions appear to be broken. This does not exist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it was a typo or something. this link should work. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That is an incorrect assessment and actually a biased assessment, the article simply quoted from the biography subject's own blog.

Here is the article:

https://torontosun.com/news/national/rwandan-groups-denounce-genocide-claims-by-ndp-leadership-hopeful

Nowhere in the article is there a claim that anyone denied genocide. Andwats (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

As to your other points:

1. Press progress is not reliable.

2. There's more complaints against National Post which is WP:GREL https://www.mediacouncil.ca/?s=national+post&post_type=decisions. Also the presence of complaints means nothing, the assessment by NNC in general was in many of the decisions in favor of The Sun. For instance a decision filed by someone associated with Engler's current election campaign ruled in favor of the Sun: https://www.mediacouncil.ca/decisions/2018-42-lascaris-vs-toronto-sun/ Moreover, the Sun is a member of the NNC

3. Not a reliable source either.

4. Also not a reliable source. Andwats (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about Canadaland is actually more respected, by far, as a journalistic outlet than the Sun in Canada and while CPJME is an advocacy group there's no reason to doubt their reporting on the Sun here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Canadaland is a blog. I don't think it even pretends to be anything other than muckracking. You have ignored the core point which is that the Sun is not only a member of NNC but that the NNC has in fact ruled in many of the decisions that the Sun upheld journalistic standards. Andwats (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of the National Newsmedia Council complaints against the Sun.

The majority were dismissed.

Mixed 3 (news article 0/opinion 3)

Complaint upheld 5 (news article 2/opinion 3)

Complaint dismissed 7 (news article 2/opinion 5)

Corrected prior to review 4 (news article 3/opinion 1) Andwats (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You should notice that as many complaints were upheld for news articles specifically as were dismissed. A 50% ratio of upheld complaints is pretty lousy. And you're still trying hard to discount anything any of the other sources had to say. Your characterization of Canadaland, for instance, is just wrong. Your assertion about PressProgress is also just a blanket dismissal without evidence. Why do you believe PressProgress is unreliable for leaked memos from the Sun? Are you suggesting they fabricated them? Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

2 dismissed complaints is pretty much nothing considering the Sun publishes thousands, maybe ten's of thousands of articles a year. The majority of the complaints are on opinion pieces, the Sun for sure has bias in it's columns and editorial sections. I bet if you compared the complaints to the National Post one, you'd see the same thing. So I don't think the presence of complaints is a point either way. I think it's sort of Wikipedia:Source counting. Yeah, Canadaland may break stories like they did with Ghomeshi but I wouldn't use it in BLP even in that case until the story is picked up by conventional media. Canadaland is explicitly a podcast and media company, it is not a WP:NWSRC. And, as such it lack verifiability, it's literally one guy. However, there's examples where Canadaland is appropriate since it has a large audience, it's opinion reflects a certain view. PressProgress (even though I happen to personally agree with it) is even worse, it was literally started to sway voters (and that's according to Canadaland Broadbent_Institute#PressProgress). In respect to BLP, I would remove PressProgress. Generally, speaking I would never use it on Wikipedia just like I would never use North99 or Ontario Proud. If you are suggesting that PressProgress is fine "because how could they lie about a fact" then I think you must also agree that the Sun is fine so long as it is reporting accurately on facts. Andwats (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In fact, I spent a good deal of effort not long ago removing North 99 from an article and replacing it with better (though not perfect) sources, and I would do the same had the source been PressProgress. Andwats (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No I'm saying that PressProgress has a much better reputation than the Toronto Sun. I'm also saying that the standards for WP:DUE inclusion are more stringent for BLPs than for publications. As such, even if you could demonstrate PressProgress was unreliable for BLPs it might still be reliable for its exposee on the Sun. Frankly this sort of sums up part of the locus of our dispute. You seem to think reliability discussions stop at GREL/GUNREL where I think GREL/GUNREL is an impediment to actually reviewing sources in context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That's close. I certainly think that in this case GREL/GUNREL is useful because I think many editors (see previous noticeboard discussions) and most people see the Sun as WP:NWSRC and we need a general instruction to exclude it or allow it (even if that results in Additional considerations apply) because it is clearly a point of confusion. In respect to PressProgress I actually think WP:NWSRC and WP:NEWSORG is sufficient. The difference is the Sun is WP:NWSRC, it is part of the NNC (which in it's many decisions describes it as news), unlike PressProgress, and The Toronto Sun article describes it as news. I also think the view that PressProgress (which again Canadaland compares to Ontario Proud) is more reliable and less biased than the Sun is simply wrong, it has a quantifiable bias for the NDP which Canadaland demonstrated (which is why I don't oppose the use of Canadaland in Broadbent_Institute#PressProgress). In general, news writing is a collaborative professional process and answerable to organizations like NNC, while blogs are not answerable to any professional organization. Particularly in Canada, where we tend to be less litigious than in the US, for example, and avoid defamation cases. For stuff like Ontario Proud, North99, and PressProgress these are factually WP:SPONSOR as well as WP:PARTISAN (again PressProgress was started and is owned by a partisan organization). A better source should always be sought out instead of using them and this is inline with WP:NEWSORG which also suggest for even news sources scholarly sources are better when available. For WP:PARTISAN, we do not need GREL/GUNREL because the guidelines are clear, they should be treated as WP:RSSELF and so it should not be used when it makes claims about third parties as per WP:SELFSOURCE. Andwats (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If the decision here is GUNREL, I will be the first to change the tag on The Toronto Sun from Tabloid format to Tabloid journalism. Andwats (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I am just waiting for a question to be answered on the RfC talk page, before I put in the RfC. Andwats (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As sketchy as Englers stance on Rwanda (among many other issues he takes up) is, we should not be using Toronto Sun to make those claims, or indeed any contentious claims about a BLP. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This is precisely where I am on this. I don't have any great fondness (or honestly any great feelings of any type) for Engler. But the Sun is absolutely inappropriate as a source for BLPs. We need other secondary sources to show Engler's views on Rwanda are encyclopedically due. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

If anything, I'd prefer to highlight his stance on Russia/Ukraine (which is very pro-Russia), but I don't think anyone's reported on his latest Twitter ramblings.

But yes, I am consistent with my view on Toronto Sun, regardless if it's Engler, Carney, or anyone else being reported on. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

If the source reports on facts than it is appropriate according to WP:NEWSORG. Unless there is an RfC, I don't see why there should be a general ban against a source simply because it is Tabloid_(newspaper_format) (see The Toronto Sun) as apposed to Tabloid_journalism. Andwats (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There does not need to be a formal RfC to say a tabloid with a bad reputation shouldn't be used for BLPs when literally every person who has commented, other than yourself, agrees that it should not be. Even in your own links to past discussions: only one editor was advocating for the reliability of the Sun, all others opposed, and most of the discussion centered around people not realizing the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star were different papers and this discussion is pretty much unanimous that the source is unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have an RfC if only to formally get Toronto Sun listed at WP:RS/PS ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have stake in the outcome, it's just obviously in need an RfC. Andwats (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Well then please draft one; I guess it won't waste too much time to say, one more time, "look at all this evidence that this tabloid is unreliable." As much as I hate contributing further to the GREL/GUNREL mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Later today.

Please provide that evidence. Andwats (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You are asserting there was unanimity, but as asserted repeatedly in that discussion (which is also true here): "No policy-based evidence that these two newspapers are unreliable has been presented here."

Secondly, again you have mischaracterized the talk page discussion. There are two editors for using the Sun there, and two against.

The reason why an RfC is required is that it is a perennial source. Andwats (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record, Engler's position is objectively consistent with claims made in Rwandan genocide. I believe in his blogs, which were quoted in the section that we rightly decided to remove, he is basically in line with "most scholarly estimates suggest between 500,000 and 662,000 Tutsi died, mostly men." from the Wikipedia article. Andwats (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Having actually read the discussion on the talk page, this is clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING on the part of Andwatts, as the talk page discussion did not end in their favour. Feel free to start an RfC, if would make me very happy to see Toronto Sun finally be for ally recognized as generally unreliable, or better yet, deprecated, but I don't see any other outcome happening.―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

If that's the outcome, I am fine with it.

My perspective is that the other user who proposed using the Sun on that article was told it was not allowed as though there were some general ruling, which I do not think is the way to resolve disputes. As with @Simonm223 you have ignored that there are 2 users who were for and 2 users were against. Andwats (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, I have cited the previous discussions on The Sun in this noticeboard, so to me it's pretty clear it's a perennial source. Andwats (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no opinion on the reliability of the Toronto Sun (in general or in this specific situation), however… I will say that having two discussions about it - over 10 years apart - hardly counts as “Perennial”. I support holding an RFC to resolve the immediate question, but oppose adding the result (whatever it might be) to RSP. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the Yves Engler talk page item Toronto Sun, the dispute is about citing a Toronto Sun article Rwandan groups denounce genocide claims by NDP leadership hopeful. The Sun's article says that some organizations such as B'nai Brith accuse Yves Engler of genocide denial. That's true they do, it's easy to confirm by looking at B'nai Brith's page B’nai Brith Canada, Rwandan-Canadian Organizations Jointly Condemn Appalling Genocide Denial. Since the source is correct, I see no reason to disallow it in this case. Mr Engler denies the accusation in a post B’nai Brith and Zionist smear mongers care nothing about truth and denials should always be reported when accusations are reported, per WP:DENIALS. As for an RfC, I think that's okay if it's about what I see as the "immediate question" i.e. allowing citing this Sun article in Wikipedia's Yves Spengler article, but think it's not okay to have an RfC with an option to ban the whole newspaper. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Attributed statements at Chloe Cole

So, there's a discussion going at Talk:Chloe Cole that I wanted to bring here about whether to attribute in text things for which our only source is Cole herself.

For those unaware, Cole is a detransitioner who has used her detransition story to build an extensive career of political advocacy for restrictions on transgender healthcare. But most of the details of that story, which are at her page, are only attributed by sources to Cole herself. Thus, until yesterday there was in text attribution of these statements as coming from Cole. Now that's been removed because it Implies Cole is Not Credible. Hence why I'm starting this discussion, because imo there is a very clear conflict of interest here regarding her being the only source of the story on which she has built a massive right-wing advocacy career. Snokalok (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @Pincrete @Springee @Doric Loon @GorillaWarfare@Some1 Snokalok (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific statements in our article, and the specific sources we're using for them? Basically, we should say what our reliable sources are saying. If reliable sources generally say "Cole did X", and there aren't similarly reliable sources saying "Cole did not do X", we should say "Cole did X". If reliable sources generally say "Cole claims X", then we shouldn't make a stronger statement than that. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The statements were modified in Special:Diff/1318104003; the article originally said

Cole says that she began transitioning at 12, having undergone treatment which included puberty blockers, testosterone, and a double mastectomy at age 15.

and now says Cole began transitioning at 12… This is cited to The Economist, which says:

Ms Cole decided at the age of 12 that she was a boy, was put on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and underwent a double mastectomy at 15, before changing her mind and detransitioning at 16.

Given this, I think the main problem with the original revision is not implications about her credibility but factual inaccuracy – not everyone considers transition to start when you "decide you are a boy", and even if we choose to define transition that way, we shouldn't attribute the results of that definition to her. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That looks like an important difference and should be changed in the article. Springee (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The original version ("Cole says...") is a bit problematic too as it's unclear whether "Cole says" applies only to the first part of the sentence or to the second part too ("having undergone..."). The Economist article says that Cole got puberty blockers and underwent mastectomy in its own voice. Alaexis_¿question? 14:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, but I do think that if we have only one source using their own voice instead of attributing, we should still attribute Snokalok (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any suspicion that is the only source? It took me 20 seconds to find the Spectator [10] and the LA Times [11] saying much the same thing in their own voice. I rather suspect there will be many more. The Economist is probably the better source here, but we don't need to start multiplying citations when there is simply no doubt about the truth of the claim. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if we had just one source, I think we would need some clear reason why we should cast doubt on the claims before we would be justified using attribution as if the claims are disputed or questioned. If Cole is the sole source for her date of birth we wouldn't say, "Cole says her birthday is July 1" unless we had reasons to think it was false. If an editor found tweets where she claimed her birthday was April 20th then we could use OR to argue for attribution. In this case sources are accepting her claims as true facts and we don't have information suggesting her claims should be viewed with suspicion. Given that some of the claims are based on her lawsuit filings it's likely they were supported by medical records. Additionally, if there was evidence that the facts were false this almost certainly would have been an issue in court. That "she is an activist" is a good reason to view her statements about "correct treatments/policies" as her opinions. It is not a good reason to doubt the claims in this discussion. Springee (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it should still be attributed either way. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's the link to the full talk page discussion: Talk:Chloe Cole#Strange Langue Use that Implies Cole is Not Credible. Some1 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Cole's very high profile advocacy for laws outlawing pre-adult transitioning, Cole is suing her medical care provider. What exactly for I'm not sure, failure to follow best practice or on the principle itself of prescribing puberty-blockers and undertaking surgery to remove her breasts when she was a teenager? At present only Cole has spoken about the details of her transition, how she presented to her practitioner, what advice was given to her or her parents etc. (her parents presumably gave permission for the surgery). Both her parents and her practitioner and the care provider have all been notably silent AFAIK. The core facts of when medical and surgical intervention took place are relatively indisputable and verifiable, but the details are both the subject of legal action and the information available is wholly reliant on Cole's memories, which given her regret, would not be at all surprising to find were coloured by her subsequent regret. I am very sympathetic to what happened to Cole, certainly the outcome for her, I don't doubt her sincerity in the least, nonetheless feel we should unobtrusively attribute her story as we previously were doing as the sole ultimate source for it.Pincrete (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I like Springee's statement, that unless we have specific reasons not to accept her statements about facts, we should. If the core facts are not in dispute, we should state them as facts. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Geoffrey Parker, *Compact History of the World* — numeric area for Portuguese Empire including Brazil (1815–1822)

Seeking input on whether the following is a suitable RS for a numeric territorial figure.

Claim to source: A total land area (~10.4 million km²) for the Portuguese Empire when Brazil was a co-kingdom (United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, 1815–1822).

Proposed source: Geoffrey Parker, *Compact History of the World* (Barnes & Noble, 2001), p. 119. ISBN 978-0-7607-2575-7. (Atlas-style reference by a reputable historian.)

Context: The article currently cites Taagepera (1997) for ~5.5 million km² (c. 1820) based on “effective colonial administration.” I’m not proposing to replace Taagepera, but to include an alternative figure from a respected historical atlas that counts the pluricontinental realm including Brazil (1815–1822), with a short scope note.

Question: Is Parker (2001) acceptable as a reliable source for stating a Brazil-inclusive total area in km²? If acceptable, any advice on wording to present both figures with scope definitions?

LusoAtlasEditor-Hist (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Are we talking about this source? Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I don't see where it says that about the area? TompaDompa (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a different edition than the one the editor was using, but I checked the 2001 edition and nothing changed. Katzrockso (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The claim on page 119 is for the French empire being 10.4 million km² in 1914, I don't see anything for the Portuguese empire. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, unless you can explain where you are seeing the claim on page 119 the answer to your question is no. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this is that list of largest empires article? Which has been a nest of OR for ages. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there it is: Talk:List_of_largest_empires (scroll down to "Portuguese Empire incorrect area") FOARP (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Jewish Insider reliability for Graham Platner

Not seeing much in the WP:RSN archives about Jewish Insider, so wanted to bring a question here from Talk:Graham Platner#Former acquaintance Totenkopf tattoo claim. Is Jewish Insider a useable source to include that an (anonymous) acquaintance of Graham Platner said that he had previously called his skull-and-bones tattoo a Totenkopf and knew of its connotations? There are other sources mentioning this claim, but all are just re-reporting the JI story and I don't see any that have independently verified.

My gut feeling is no, given that JI seems to be heavily slanted when it comes to Israel–Palestine, and Platner has been vocally critical of Israel's actions in Palestine (including describing them as a "genocide"). JI has previously described Platner as "anti-Israel" ([12]). I also notice the Totenkopf article describes Platner as "far-left", which is not how he is typically described by other RS. My feeling is that it is probably not reliable for an extraordinary claim about a BLP's alleged antisemitism, which the subject has denied.

If no, should the statement be a) removed entirely or b) retained, but attributed? I see another editor recently edited the article to clarify that this was an anonymous source, and seems to be suggesting the quote/identity of the source itself could be in question ("an anonymous former acquaintance allegedly told Jewish Insider"), though my feeling is that if we're that skeptical about the source it should probably be removed entirely. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Calling Platner far-left seems a bit of an indication, at the very least, that this piece is wading into WP:RSOPINION territory here. My understanding is that he did have a brief Reddit Communism phase a few years ago but has calibrated toward a pro-small-business centrist-with-a-few-progressive-policy-plank position with his campaign run. I don't know... my gut tells me that Jewish Insider is probably correct that Platner knew what that image meant since he is a military history buff but "probably correct" isn't necessarily sufficient for WP:V. I guess what I'm saying is that I can see why you're conflicted because, looking at the situation and what I know of it, I'd be conflicted too. I guess the question would be whether there's any supporting refs here. If it's just JI alone then maybe WP:UNDUE is the best approach. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't the only source for this information: Platner knowingly having an SS tattoo

• “Graham has an antisemitic tattoo on his chest. He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff,” she wrote in a post on Facebook. “Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means.”
• “Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and he should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means,” Platner’s former political director, Genevieve McDonald, wrote on Facebook. McDonald, a former Democratic state lawmaker, resigned from the campaign last week after revelations about Platner’s numerous controversial posts on Reddit.

I find it quite beyond the real of credibility that Platner didn't know what this was. Absadah (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Absadah: To be clear, the question here is specifically about the sentence: "However, an anonymous former acquaintance allegedly told Jewish Insider that Platner had called the tattoo a Totenkopf and knew what it represented back in 2012." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Why include the anonymous quote, when there is a named associate (Genevieve McDonald) who says the same thing in more reputable sources? Andwats (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that McDonald is essentially saying she doesn't believe it's possible Platner couldn't have known the symbol's meaning earlier than he says he did, whereas the anonymous source is claiming he definitively knew its meaning in 2012. Fine with me if the choice is to use what McDonald has said, but just wanted to clarify they are fairly different claims. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you're saying. I think what it comes down to is that pretty much everyone who is aware of the circumstances agrees it strains credibility that he didn't know. The problem is that we cannot use WP:SKYBLUE for something like this no matter how obvious the connection is. I would suggest that we stick with the better-sourced McDonald comments for now. If someone else substantiates JI maybe we add that later. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

JI is a reliable source for statements published in JI. I would not cite JI for a definitive statement like "Graham Platner is a far-left, anti-Israel political candidate" but it's OK for the current wording in the article. The line in our article is carefully worded as an attributed statement. I may comment other thoughts on how the content is presented at Talk:Graham Platner#Former acquaintance Totenkopf tattoo claim. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 19:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I would not put a highly contentious statement sourced to "an anonymous former acquaintance" in a BLP. That's a pretty clear violation of WP:BLP. --GRuban (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• there is now a 2nd source that shows Platner wasn't entirely truthful.[13] Andre🚐 23:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  In which he describes himself as "pretty radically left," FWIW. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  The CNN source definitely bolsters the Jewish Insider citation. Why can't both be used together? Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The case against JI seems to be that it is biased, which might lead us to attribute but means it’d be fine to use and not to overly caveat with “allegedly”. Is there any reason to think it’s unreliable rather than biased? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Any discussion yet on whether the current US Executive branch is a reliable source?

I don't know what the general practice is on this: logically, some sitting governments would seem to be patently failures on most any WP:RS scrutiny. The name of the country, I'd imagine, is irrelevant, versus the folks currently at the helm.

I'll get to the point. Are statements from the current iteration of the USA's United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a reliable source for anything, including statements about it's own activities? There are weekly expanding stories of constant false statements from the White House admin to US courts.

Usage in question as one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Detention_and_deportation_of_American_citizens_in_the_second_Trump_administration&curid=79875383&diff=1318434678&oldid=1318363873

What do? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We are still in a "wait and see" period. We clearly should have doubts if reported info differs significantly from known reliable sources. In that instance we are using a quoted attributed statement correctly, that is, known RSes are reiterating what the spokesperson said, with our in line attribution., so that they made that statement meets verify ability. Whether it was true or not, we shouldn't be the ones to determine that. Masem (t) 21:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

In that example, we are not using ICE as a source. We are using a reliable source to say that ICE said something... and importantly, we are not putting what ICE said in our voice. It's a perfectly fine usage. We could even use an ICE source as a source for that something was said in that specific source (with the major caveat regarding BLPs; even if ICE said "that non-notable person rapes poodles", WP:BLPCRIME would discourage us from quoting.) But yes, it would be problematic to take what ICE or the DHS as a whole says as a statement of fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Goverments and governmental institutions are reliable for their own opinions and statements, they should not normally be used for statements of fact. If ICE say that Pluto is a planet they're reliable for the fact they said that, but not for the status of Pluto in wikivoice. So they're reliable for claiming they weren't at the park, but independent sources should be used to say whether or not they actually were there or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ask yourself if the Gestapo ICE is reliable for statements? And the answer is the Gestapo ICE is only reliable source to back what the Gestapo ICE claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• For any high level executive department stuff, I feel it should be limited to attributed statements. One thing I'm curious about is how far down the unreliability goes; the Forest Service and National Parks Service for instance put out a lot of quality reports that I've used for articles about geographical subjects in the past. But it seems like these might become less reliable if the agencies become mismanaged to a low level. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Governments and their subsidiaries are not reliable sources except for their own official viewpoint. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That works as a general statement, but not as a blanket one. The World Factbook, produced by the CIA, gets used by respectable sources and likely meets our reliability guidelines. — Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to sound the alarm about this, but there is a current dispute about the reliability of maps made using updated versions of the factbook. Two discussions on Geography[14][15] and at least one on Map [16] GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about US agencies, a better example might be a government agency like StatsCan which is probably one of the most reliable sources for statistics in general in Canada. Andwats (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The source used in that link isn't ICE, it's the LA Times citing ICE. Cortador (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Most of the time, governments are not WP:RSes anyway; they're, at best, WP:PRIMARY sources for their own attributed opinions, nothing else. ICE is obviously not usable for unattributed statements of fact under any circumstances, but that isn't because they're unusually unreliable (though I'd say they are), it's because that's the default. Your typical government org has no editorial controls, no fact-checking process, nothing that would make them a WP:RS - it's no different than citing a statement by a random business in that regard. A few government organizations do have those things and manage to achieve both a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and WP:INDEPENDENT status such that they're not just government mouthpieces, but it's rare and even then the status could be quickly lost after a change in governments if their independence seems to have been lost, in the same way a news channel could lose its reliability quickly after changing owners. Now, secondary sources that cite those government bodies can be used if they're WP:RSes, but it's important to be cautious and only report what the secondary source says, including reflecting any attribution or skepticism in the sources. And WP:DUE weight applies; especially if they're making WP:BLP-sensitive accusations against a named individual, it might be best to wait until multiple high-quality sources cover it. Likewise, if a quote from them isn't given much weight in a source, it might be a sign that we shouldn't give it much weight, either. (This is also an unusual situation where BLP is actually on the side of WP:MANDY, ie. it's a given that ICE is going to defend their actions; not everything they say in that regard is automatically due, especially if it's BLP-sensitive and is accorded limited weight in sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• One thing that may actually be worth considering is that any reporting coming from the Pentagon press corps should probably be considered primary from now on, as any journalists remaining have agreed to only published reports that have been pre-authorised by the Pentagon. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is a very good and factually non-contestable point. Do we know which sources signed the Pete Hegseth deal? Anything of theirs covering the United States Armed Forces from that moment forward fail WP:INDEPENDENT. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  The sources known to have signed the agreement weren't reliable in the first place (e.g., Lindell TV, Gateway Pundit, Just the News, Tim Pool’s podcast). Here's an incomplete list, perhaps there's a more complete one somewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  There's one here, published by the WaPo: https://archive.vn/JFYa1

  No frequently used and reliable source is on that list as far as I can see. Cortador (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that this may have immensely severe implications for WP:MEDRS since the CDC and NIH are major WP:MEDORGs. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Nick Pope

Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Nick Pope ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)

Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged at WP:RSP?

• Option 1: An independent entry for Nick Pope.
• Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
• Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
• Option 4: Other

Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Nick Pope)

• On Q1 Option 3. Nick Pope is best known for dozens of appearances in UFO documentary-style entertainment films,[17] as emcee of "Ancient Aliens: LIVE on Tour!" (part of the Ancient Aliens entertainment franchise which posits that Martians used ray beams to build the pyramids),[18] his numerous quotes in tabloids commenting on UFOs, and his non-critical, popular texts on UFOs (see Amazon author page: [19]). Across numerous past discussions (see below) it's been made generally clear that he presents the 20th Century UFO Shared Fiction storytelling versus factual reporting or scholarship.

On Q3 Option 2. For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Pope, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

On Q1, Option C per @Chetsford

No opinion on Q2. Dw31415 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Q1 Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. He is not a scientist, nor an expert in politics, he is a fringe exponent, and as such cannot be used for statements of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Q2 Option 4: Whilst Option 2 would be best, that needs a seperate discussion on the general concept. and not taged as being about one author. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have a few thoughts. First, this seems a little narrow in scope. I agree that we should consider UFO content creators more broadly. Secondly, it seems like these people could reasonably be used as a source for information about the disclosure movement itself (e.g. this UFO conference happened, there were these speakers, and these topics were covered), but obviously not reliable for claims about secret government programs, extraterrestrial contact, etc. Lastly, I'm not sure these discussions are perennial enough to be added to the table. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• On question 2, I oppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to be perennially discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time in reference to one AfD and the resulting discussions, and we barely cite him onwiki and for nothing of real importance. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can always just link to this RFC it ever becomes a problem again. As for Q1, while I don't think appearing on a stupid TV show is itself evidence of unreliability, his books push fringe theories and so I would not cite him on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the RSness of the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books so that should be fine and helpful, and even necessary. (Where else to find writings on UFO reports other than books like this author's ?) Come back with an actual entry and cite in question and -- likely it is fine. Cheers part 1
• Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it seems not a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there. WP:RSP is not supposed to be a list of every single author, just a list meant for sources frequently discussed. In this case, discuss at any article or coming to RSN with any individual issue is the way this should proceed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Q2 – Option 1: An independent entry for the individual iff there is consensus about a reliability rating here. As noted below, we've done this with WP:JEFFSNEIDER. If an individual publishes widely and makes appearances in a variety of shows and publications, is frequently cited on en-wiki, and is a frequent topic of discussion here then this makes sense. I specifically oppose Q2 Option 2. A blanket entry for "UFO content creators" is too broad and is unnecessary since most of this content is covered under the general reliability standards and WP:FRINGE. This also becomes problematic if individual authors/creators end up with different reliability ratings and may inappropriately imply that the rating applies automatically to creators who have not been discussed. "Paranormal content creators" is an even broader category and therefore more problematic than "UFO content creators". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Nick Pope)

• We have previously and extensively discussed Nick Pope (e.g. [20] [21] etc.) and his various writings and other commentary are currently used as a source across the project (e.g. Ilkley Moor UFO incident, Ilkley Moor, Flying Saucer Working Party, Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, Narrative of the abduction phenomenon, Time-traveler UFO hypothesis, etc.). Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Seems to me that if a "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" row is created, people will start proposing other categories of content creators (e.g., legal content creators). Do you envision that over time, we'd just have a bunch of rows for different categories of individual content creators? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's possible. In the case of law, I'm assuming we're talking about pseudolaw content creators, like sovereign citizens. For the most part, we haven't had, in practice, a lot of disagreement about excluding the legal theories of Freemen on the Land or Sovereign Citizens to the point that there would be much benefit in indexing them in a single place to avoid endless argumentative repetition. If that started to be a constant and unending point-of-contention, however, I could imagine the dynamic might then justify a single and concise entry to index the most prolific and frequently discussed SCs and Freemen. But as of now, I don't see any extant record at RSN of these types of discussions. Chetsford (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I was actually thinking much more generally (e.g., any legal content creator, or at least those who self-publish, not just those who create pseudolaw content). The reason I asked is because I don't see how to bound the scope of Q2 if consensus is for option 1 or 2. That is, you're asking specifically about Nick Pope, but editors raise questions about lots of individual content creators here: "Is Paula Person, author of Work 1 and Work 2, a reliable source?" What would distinguish the content creators who merit some characterization at RSP from those who don't? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the case of Pope, an RfC is realistically justified as his name comes up repeatedly and he produces huge tracts of information in books by different publishing houses, appearances in different programs and documentaries, etc., and there are demands to relitigate each excision of his content which RfCs were designed to prevent (in the interest of time economization).
  I think that's qualitatively different from someone who asks "is John Smith's 1982 book about the Third Zulu War RS" ... that said, if there were an entire subculture of authors who create huge volumes of fictional content about the Third Zulu War, sure, I think that'd be fine. I just don't know it's something that would happen, in practice. Chetsford (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Do we have any other listing on RSP for an individual person? Not that that impacts my answer (which I am thinking about), but I can't think of another. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't checked. Chetsford (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  There's WP:THENEEDLEDROP, which is one person's YouTube channel, and The Skeptic's Dictionary is also listed. -- Reconrabbit 14:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Then it sounds like this would be different in the sense that it's source=creator rather than source=publication. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't find any entries on RSP that otherwise refer to a creator rather than the publication, with the exception of WP:JACOBIN which says "the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable." I don't see an easy way to mark a person as being more reliable or not with the current system (list) in place? -- Reconrabbit 15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• There is some precedent with Jeff Sneider at WP:JEFFSNEIDER. The facts are a bit different but the entry notes that Sneider's reliability rating does not extend to his podcast co-host; thus the reliability is based on the speaker/"author" and not the show. If Sneider writes a piece in a different publication or is interviewed on a different podcast, I think it would be reasonable for an editor to apply his personal reliability rating to such sources, absent other reasons to doubt the suitability of the source and with all the usual caveats. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The New York Post? Fox News versus MSNBC?

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.

---

Trying to avoid any sort of partisan bias, I see no good-faith reason for the New York Post to be deemed "generally unreliable" when Mother Jones is green and Jacobin is yellow. That suggests clear bias within the platform, and I'm not remotely arguing that all of the Post's coverage is high-quality or notable (to the contrary, a lot of it is shoddy). But the Post is regularly cited by other ("reliable") news outlets and U.S. elected officials themselves, so deprecation feels like a bridge too far. Similarly, there is no good-faith justification for National Review being yellow while Mother Jones is green. Left-leaning or right-leaning, they can both be classified as "partisan sources" by this logic, so make them both green or both yellow, but the discrepancy is a double standard.

Ditto for Fox News versus MSNBC: The former is red (for politics) while the latter is green with no caveats? Both sources are deeply flawed, but we shouldn't be dealing in double standards. I mean, come on...

Just trying to call balls and strikes, and always open to feedback! Thanks y'all Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Both Mother Jones, Jacobin, and MSBNC, while they may make errors, show journalistic integrity and editorial control to issue corrections for their errors and the like. Both the Post and Fox News are notorious for not correcting errors in reporting, which makes them unreliable. Masem (t) 13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You are confusing reliability and bias. Cortador (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what Masem and Cortador said. Imagine we are talking about the sky. Reliability is "the sky is blue." Bias is "The sky is beautifully blue!" or "The sky is blue and it's terrible!"

Fox News and New York post are known for saying things like "The sky is not blue, it's green and terrible, those people who are saying it's blue are terrible people who should die!" Mother Jones and MSNBC are known for saying things like "yesterday, we erroneously reported that the sky is green. That was an error, it is blue. We stand by the rest of our reporting, that the sky is wonderful and the crazies who disagree with us are crazy."

See the difference? Both are biased. One shows indicators of reliability by correcting its errors. The other does not. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The bias of a source has nothing to do with it's reliability, see WP:RSBIAS, and sources are not judged against each other but on their own merits. As to making oppositely biased sources the same colour, this would require judging sources based on their political leaning that would be against policy.
I'm not a fan of MSNBC but any arguments about it's reliability need to be based on its own reporting, not how it compares politically in it's reporting to Fox News. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Does MSNBC make stuff up? Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There's at least four points noted in MSNBC_criticisms_and_controversies where they made stuff up. Probably the least hot topic one there is MSNBC_criticisms_and_controversies#2011_Tucson_shootings. Andwats (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Quote where we (or anyone) says this was in fact lies? Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. If you look at the above linked article you will see in the following subsections MSNBC is noted as "making stuff up".

• 2011 Tucson shootings-- they made up motivation.
• Mitt Romney video-- they showed a doctored video.
• Romney-Ryan chant video-- they misquoted
• Coverage of the 2020 Democratic primary-- they used bad sourcing

Those are just some of the examples from MSNBC_criticisms_and_controversies but overall, I wouldn't want to use them for BLP so to me they should be WP:MREL based on that wikipedia article alone. Andwats (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

As part of news reports? Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

At least, these three according to the article linked above.:

• Mitt Romney video-- they showed a doctored video.
• Romney-Ryan chant video-- they misquoted
• Coverage of the 2020 Democratic primary-- they used bad sourcing

Andwats (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Err, even if we accept these were new reports (our article is not clear whether they were), using bad sourcing is not lying. Also Morning Joe is an American morning news talk show (an opinion piece, not a news broadcast). Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, you've shifted the goal post there a bit. They are False statement which is what "making stuff up" means to me. The logical difference between intention and incompetence is irrelevant in evaluating the quality of the source. Moreover, as a news organization, they should have people vetting their sources and this indicates that their vetting process is not great, which means they are not a great news source. Andwats (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No its not, as the goal, posts are "why is fox deprived and this is not", that is the reason, Fox lied on news broadcasts. So =as this is apples to oranges, I am out of here with a NO, untill some evidance is produced they are as bad as Fox NEWS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That sections talks about "MSNBC commentators", which falls under WP:OPINION anyway. Cortador (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This is the first sentence of the article:

"MSNBC is a news and political commentary organization that has been the focus of several controversies." Andwats (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Note the use of the word "and" in that quote... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct. The article cites problems with their news reporting and their political commentary. Andwats (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The latter point is an opinion stated by Matthews that was challenged by Levin. We would never use Matthews' opinion as a fact we could state in Wikipedia's voice. But we could cite the opinion expressed by a NY Post columnist as that person's opinion. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Andwats (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the justification in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for Mother Jones is more or less valid. But also that justification implies to me that it should actually be WP:MREL instead of WP:GREL because we are advised to consider how to use it on political topics and then to use attribute usage on those topics. If it was WP:GREL then thinking about how to use it shouldn't be involved. Andwats (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at a lot of these sources recently, I don't see how a source with any political bias can be WP:GREL. It must be WP:MREL by definition because some kind of special consideration must be given to it's usage. Andwats (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that line of reasoning (and part of the reason WP:BIASED exists) is because anyone with strong opinions on any subject at all is going to claim that every source that disagrees with their views is biased. This is an actual issue with eg. Creation-evolution controversy or Anti-vaccine activism or Climate change or Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election - people will say "well all those sources you're citing are biased, because they believe in evolution / believe vaccines are safe / believe climate change is real and caused by humans / believe Trump lost the 2020 election." Especially in the modern news environment (where misinformation is common), there are many things that individual editors might personally feel are controversial but which there is a clear agreement on among the highest-quality sources, and in that case we have to reflect what the best available sources say rather than engaging in WP:FALSEBALANCE by treating all sources that take a clear position as equally unusable. --Aquillion (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I understand your point. First let me clarify, I am only referring to WP:NEWSORG. There is an instruction in WP:NEWSORG already that better sources should always be sought. In the first three examples you have, using news sources is undoubtedly going to be dicey. I would not expect to see MSNBC, Fox, MotherJones in the reflist for those, and it is in fact not (unless ctrl-f fails me). In the last one, I think there's probably also better sources available at this point than news sources; but, I believe that MSNBC is used there as one would if it were WP:MREL so I don't see the benefit to MSNBC being WP:GREL based on that example. Looking at the titles of the MotherJones articles, my gut is the inline citations should be more like the MSNBC ones in that article.

But anyway, the argument I am making is that the justification for MotherJones to have WP:GREL includes a comment that it is biased, and so should be contextualized particularly in the type of articles you've listed anyway... it's just confusing to have it be WP:GREL instead of WP:MREL. For MSNBC, there is a wikipedia article on it's bias, and therefore it should be used following WP:BIAS (as it is in the articles you've listed) and therefore should not have the automatic protection implied by WP:GREL. Andwats (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to find an academic study of US media sources, but sadly unlike other countries there's a real lack of oversight it seems. The best thing I could find was Ad Fontes Media tool. My take away from using that tool and comparing these to, say BBC, is that none of the sources mentioned here deserve to be have WP:GREL and thus regarded as well as, say, BBC. Pew also notes that MSNBC is overwhelmingly dominated by opinion and (in the full report) that their news coverage is mixed with opinion coverage [22]. I don't buy that it's news coverage is as bad as Fox since it is accurate on some topics [23]. So I really don't understand what it was not ruled as WP:MREL. Maybe all US media should be WP:MREL (joking, but not joking)? Andwats (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect to some extent MSNBC does have the same issues Fox has. The difference is they are generally aligned with the majority of RSs and likely don't get the scrutiny Fox got. So let's assume, for argument sake, they are exactly the same as Fox. What we don't have is a lot of sources pointing this out. Absent the sources reporting on the issues what evidence do we have to say they get the facts wrong? Not much thus we presume they are reliable but biased. The fact that they are biased means we should be cautious about giving their views UNDUE weight but that would be true of other strongly left sources as well. I do agree with Andwats comment about bias and being GREL. Springee (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It's always critical to separate reporting from opinion. Opinions shouldn't be used as RSs. Factual reporting that's subject to bias can be useful. Factual reporting that's actually factually incorrect is actively harmful.(MSNBC vs the NY Post, for example.) Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The challenge is that the justification, for e.g., Mother Jones says it should be treated as WP:BIASED for political topics in general. My point is that that makes it incoherent as WP:GREL and that by definition it should be WP:MREL. The statement in the justification for it's WP:GREL does not say "it's opinion pieces should be blah blah" it says (my highlighting) "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed." Andwats (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

There's plenty of right-wing stuff we cite with no issues at all. It's not a political thing, it's a WP:NYPOST thing. There's plenty of left-leaning stuff that's deprecated too. That's not partisan either. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, this isn't true. There's a dearth of right-leaning sources because most of them have been downgraded below usability. If you look at the discussions, it's often because contradictions of progressive narratives have been declared false when biased differently or even unbiased would be more accurate. Even centrist publications, such as Quillette, were bludgeoned into WP:GUNREL via discussions that were astonishingly petty.[24][25][26] WP:GREL sources based in Israel such as WP:JERUSALEMPOST have carveouts for WP:PIA that effectively make them unusable for their chief use case, and the related RSN discussions, for the most part, fail to explain why. Whereas WP:ALJAZEERA, designated GREL, has been demonstrated to botch and fail to correct major stories, and criticisms of it were dismissed because outlets reporting on AJ's incompetence or malfeasance were accused of, you guessed it, bias.[27] Per WP:RSP: "Some editors consider [The Free Press, WP:MREL] a self-published source with biased reporting," even though bias and reliability are supposedly separate issues, and there's an open item on RS/N about how WP:CBS should be downgraded because Bari Weiss runs it as of last week. No doubt there are exceptions, but as a rule on WP, bias only disqualifies rightward. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess that right wing sources should be more careful to avoid making stuff up then. Basically you're putting the cart before the horse by assuming right-wing and centrist sources are equally reliable and that the apparent difference with how Wikipedia treats right-wing and centrist sources is editorial bias rather than something to do with the right-wing media infrastructure. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Also besides making stuff up, misrepresenting or trying to factually place doubt on well-established scientific and medical conclusions, like climate change, etc., whereas WP follows the broad consensus of scientific and medical communities, and generally reflected in what we list as reliable news sources. Masem (t) 18:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That does not explain why Al Jazeera is GREL and The Free Press is MREL. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how many times this has to be said sources will never be rated by comparing them to similar sources only their own merits, and sources will never be rated by comparing their political positions. If one source is considered one way and another source is considered another way that is because they're different sources. If anyone thinks that a new discussion should be had about a source they can open one, and see if their arguments can persuade other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If one source is considered one way and another source is considered another way that is because they're different sources. Exactly, and as a rule, bias only disqualifies rightward. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You keep saying that, yet for this to be true you would have to produce examples of (a) right-leaning deprecated sources that shouldn't have been deprecated, or (b) left-leaning sources that should be deprecated. Please feel free to list those here. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The difference, to be clear, is between sources that reinforce progressive narratives and sources that challenge them. Referring to my comment overhead, Quillette, TFP, and implicitly, Jpost were deprecated for the latter. (So it seems was the NYP.) Al Jazeera, which does the former, should be deprecated. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Different sources are different in their behaviour and so have been seen differently based on their own merits. If you believe that Al Jazeera should be considered less reliable start a discussion on it, but the behaviour of other sources is irrelevant. Again that different sources are different doesn't show bias against any source. You would have to show that in the discussions about those sources that right leaning sources were held to different standards, noone has ever shown any evidence of that happening. Your argument only works if different sources all behave in the same way, something that reality shows isn't true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Quillette is pretty much purely an opinion magazine. JP routinely publishes disinformation regarding the genocide in Palestine. TFP is also mostly opinion and does a terrible job separating opinion from reportage. AJE should be treated about the same as any other state-controlled media outlet such as BBC, CBC, NPR and, frankly, China Daily. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I have seen what happens when people start discussions about Al Jazeera. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Since Different sources are different in their behaviour and so have been seen differently based on their own merits, it is impossible to show that in the discussions about those sources that right leaning sources were held to different standards. I suspect that you know this already and it is by design. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

These insinuations and calling editors petty for having the temerity to voice the opinion (in 2) that maybe we shouldn't treat a publication that publishes intentional fabrications alongside mostly WP:RSOPINION as "able to be relied upon" is really getting tiresome. Why not just loudly proclaim exactly what it is that you mean by that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

No it's doesn't, there even policy to say that not a valid reason to consider something unreliable (WP:RSBIAS). Noone has shown that bias has been the reason for sources being considered reliable or unreliable. The idea that because 7 right leaning sources are considered unreliable, and only 4 left leaning sources are considered unreliable, means that there is some bias against right wing sources is not a fact based idea. It's just the result of treating each source separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware that any of the sources to which I referred, with the exception of Al Jazeera, involved reporters "making stuff up." Please indicate where that's the case. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not out job to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing and left-wing sources listed as reliable or unreliable. That's classic false balance. Cortador (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It's our job to assure that we're applying policy equitably. We are demonstrably failing at it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No we're not, not in anyway that anyone has has shown any evidence for. That different sources behave in different ways and editors have different opinions based on the merits of the source is how it should work. We should absolutely never take their political leaning into account when making those decisions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Evidence was provided here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not evidence of any sort of bias against right leaning sources, it's just comparing the political leaning of sources - something that has no place in discussing the reliability of sources. Even the comment on CBS is completely wrong headed, as reading the discussion is mostly just editor after editor saying a change in chief editor has no effect on the reliability of a source and any discussion will have to weight until their is any change in the behaviour of the source. The CBS discussion shows you are wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Correction: You're saying that it has no effect, and thank you for being sensible. Otherwise it's editor after editor saying that Weiss leading CBS is obviously terrible and already distorting CBS's coverage - citing the most normie centrist reporting imaginable - but they need more evidence before they downgrade CBS as a source. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

When a Wikipedia editor calls basic journalistic concepts like fact-checking and editorial integrity "normie centrist reporting"? Hmmmm. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

There are many editors saying the same, and Weiss is very far from centrist - but again that doesn't matter. Bias isn't reliability. If CBS continues to published accurate and well fact checked reports it will be considered reliable. If there are changes to those factors, especially if failings are reported in other sources, only then would revalution be necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a dearth of right-leaning sources because most of them have been downgraded below usability. No, that's not how it works. Many right-leaning sources have downgraded themselves below usability; perhaps if said right-leaning sources didn't make up fictional stories, which is usually the reason any source is deprecated, that wouldn't happen. This is not rocket science, and neither is it bias. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

See this reply to Simonm223. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Which appears to be WP:OSE. We don't deprecate sources at a whim, you know - even the deprecation of the Daily Mail, a newspaper which has been fictionalising stories for a long time now (usually with a side of some random bigotry), has been through 3 RfCs now. The thing is though, as many people pointed out - in 99% of cases, if something is in the news enough that we want a newspaper to source it, there'll almost certainly be one that isn't deprecated, whether that be left, centre, or right-leaning. So the loss is ... minimal. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion makes perfect sense, as long as we interpret "neutrality" to mean that we should be neutral between truth and lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I would love to see us develop consensus to close discussions that start with this sort of comparison between sources. We always end up with maximum heat and minimum light. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I would support that, as they're a complete waste of time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Support closure per WP:NOTFORUM. A discussion on this noticeboard about the political orientation and reliability of multiple unrelated cherry-picked sources is not going to result in any action. Any editor who wishes to evaluate any individual source in the context of new evidence can do so by starting a focused discussion on that source. — Newslinger talk 19:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I am going to exercise my perogative to complain that this thread lacks the latter two elements required by the editnotice (the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.) in my comment supporting this motion to close. (Which is precisely this comment right here). Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I see no good-faith reason for the New York Post to be deemed "generally unreliable". Not sure if serious. I just finished a review of the 2024 United States drone sightings. The day before I completed it, the New York Post published a "sorry, our bad" story about how an anonymous military contractor claimed responsibility for all of the sightings. There were no sources mentioned, and frankly, the entire article read like they had outsourced it to someone in another country who didn't speak English and had spent the afternoon huffing gasoline. The piece was so amateurish that basement dwellers on Reddit who hadn't seen the Sun in a year were laughing at them. This was last week. I think that says it all. The New York Post isn't a reliable source, it's some kind of parody of itself. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe if those redditors saw The Sun more often they would be used to that kind of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

That was my first thought too! Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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: Richard Dolan

Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Richard Dolan ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)

Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged at WP:RSP?

• Option 1: An independent entry for Richard Dolan.
• Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
• Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
• Option 4: Other

Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• On Q1 Option 3. Dolan has appeared dozens of times on Coast to Coast AM, [28] has written numerous non-scientific books exclusively about UFOs,[29] and appears at UFO festivals like Contact in the Desert. [30] He presents himself as a serious academic, self-styled as the "UFO historian", however, matter-of-factly claims things like: a breakaway civilization is operating flying saucers,[31] and that "the existence of underwater UFO bases is likely". [32] His writings include forewords by such luminaries as 9/11 Truther Jim Marrs [33] and he was previously, it seems, proprietor of an indie publishing house called Keyhole Publishing that produced books like Richard Sauder's Hidden in Plain Site [34] that makes the case that The Matrix (apparently a scifi movie from the 1990s) is real. He currently has a YouTube show that discusses things like the Bermuda Triangle. [35] Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

On Q3 Option 2. For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Dolan, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• no Q1 Option 3. for question 2 its "An independent entry for Richard Dolan. " Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• On Q1 Option 3 per Chetsford. As for the second question, Q2 Option 2 would be my preferred choice, though option 1 could also work if he's cited frequently enough, which doesn't seem to be the case so far. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• On question 2, I oppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to be frequently discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time as far as I can tell? He is not a perennial source by any means and we barely cite him. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can just point to this discussion going forward. As for Q1, his own reliability, he doesn't seem reliable, and furthermore all his books appear to be self-published or published by publishers only in the business of publishing wonkiness. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books or media content per se so that should be fine and helpful, and seems a general source for the field. Cheers part 1
• Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it has not made the mark of a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there. It is not supposed to be a list of every single author and every single corpration or media entity, just a list meant for thigns frequently coming up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Q2: Option 1 (individual entry) or Option 3 (no RSP entry). Oppose Option 2 ("UFO/paranoral content creators" entry). What I wrote in the Nick Pope RfC applies here. If Dolan publishes/appears widely, has consistent reliability issues, and is a recurring topic of discussion, an individual entry makes sense. "UFO content creators" and is too broad; "paranormal content creators" is even more so. Dolan doesn't appear to have been discussed often enough to be considered a true "perennial" source so option 3 (no entry) makes sense. That said, if there if a reasonable participation here and consensus about a rating, memorializing the discussion at RSP is acceptable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Richard Dolan has been previously discussed (e.g. [36], etc.) here and his voluminous writings are cited across the project where they're used to subtly weave-in UFO frames on mainstream topics, such as the biography of U.S. Navy ADM Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, etc. His writing is currently the only source to support the claim in the biography of Philip J. Klass that Klass masterminded a defamation campaign against Stanton Friedman. Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• I mentioned this above in the Nick Pope RFC but there is precedent for an individual author reliability rating with WP:JEFFSNEIDER. That's the only example I've found. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 23:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Communist Party of Austria youth wing affiliations only available on KPO's Instagram account

Basically the title. An IP who says they are a member of the Communist Party of Austria posted an edit request (please help with COI edit requests backlog, it's HUGE) to update youth wing affiliations of the party. Right now the article has the Young Left (Austria), and that checks both with the KPO and the Young Left's profiles etc., but they also claim that the Communist Youth of Austria joined the Young Left to become the second youth wing of the party. KJO does not seem to advertise this anywhere, the WP article says that they used to be together but are no longer so on a federal level, and the only indication is that KPO's Instagram profile mentions the Communist Youth profile in its bio as a youth organisation.

The IP admits that the party did not issue a press release and they cannot find any source apart from Instagram but that the party can confirm the information if reached for comment.

WP:ABOUTSELF allows such claims but I'd expect at the very least some confirmation from KJO also. I'm not sure how the party handles the youth wings but I'd be screaming something along the lines of "Welcome back, comrades!" and generally trying to make a massive push for the youth to join. The way the party handles it is just weird so that's why I'm asking for your advice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

See these interviews:

• https://www.kpoe.at/guenther-hopfgartner-solidaritaet-ist-unsere-aufgabe/
• https://www.kpoe.at/der-weg-zum-parteitag-gespraech-mit-guenther-hopfgartner/

GordonGlottal (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the KJO website hasn't had news posted since December 2023, so I'm not sure if they actually have anyone managing their media stuff, but I don't think asking them to post something there is overly onerous if that would be the kind of source you're comfortable with. WP:PRIMARY limits us to can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. after all, if the statement isn't clear then it's not our job to interpret it or make it clear, and we can only use published sources so no email confirmation on our end. You can always go {{not done for now}} or {{partly done}} instead of a flat out {{not done}} if you want to make it clear you'd do it once they actually announce it, or if you remove the no longer so on a federal level part (without adding the "yes, they're definitely back now"). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Still somewhat weird behaviour from the party but I believe that the second link from KPO's website, combined with apparent lack of media management from KJO, solves the issue for me. Thank you for your replies Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

While that is true, is this really due for inclusion without any coverage from other sources? Cortador (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I approved part of the request because just having it in the infobox as "there exists a relationship" doesn't really hurt, doesn't seem like an outlandish claim and appears not to be something they would make up. The youth wings have their own articles. Now if we wanted to write the relation between the KPO and its youth wings using just the interview with the leader of the Communists in those articles, I would not be very happy about that. But that was not what the IP requested. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Where is a central view of this backlog? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person User:AnomieBOT/PERTableHeader Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:AEROROUTES

From the previous RFC on the source AeroRoutes, i am restarting this discussion because i am feeling out that there are some few things missed out in the previous discussion that declared it as unreliable and theres too less people that were in the discussion that voted it as unreliable while the source has been already cited in many airport articles and airlines destinations articles,the source itself was dependent on reliable sources and much of the time the routes it announces are not only true but also backed by other sources, the source also isn't a blog as it clearly doesnt mention anything about the owner's experience or stuffs with the exception of the about tab which isn't announcing new routes,it also has new routes, frequency changes, etc summarised in shorter words with the schedule which makes it easier for readers to read and should be recommended, i feel like there should be a new RFC to see if its unreliable. Metrosfan (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I seconded this and vouched for this. As much as you can say it is his independently owned by one person, He did stated which sources he took and true to what he wrote, some airlines route were postponed or outright cancelled if the flights are indeed was cancelled. Plus, he sourced his route progress based on OAG, GDS and Individual Airline Websites. The first two are surely not easily accessed by common folk or someone who cannot even pay for it and the latter is primary source which as we certainly known - avoided due to conflict of interest or bias. and also, Metrosfan already said that the information is concise enough to make readers understand. Plus, I do know they do not publish sources in a rush and carefully looked into the announcements. This is one of the proofs where MH launched Chengdu resumption:

- https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/769468 - The press happened on 5 September and this article published on 5 September

- https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/250908-mh1q26tfu - This post about Chengdu resumption was on 9 September

If we indeed straight up saying AeroRoutes are unreliable because it was WP:SPS and in form of WP:BLOGS, it is kind off harsh judgement. I even read back in the earlier discussion that there are points that said OAG and GDS are unreliable which IMHO, sounds elitist there because they are data aggregator for the commercial aviation industry for so long. OAG got so many recognitions from airline and airports and GDS allow so many travel agencies to work together in figuring put the schedules, routes and even prices for the routes. They are definitely credible enough because if these organizations are deemed unreliable, it means all routes and services provided in this wiki which sourced by them - considered as fraud.

I know we are trying as hard as we can to prevent misinformation (and indeed we try to curb it as much as we can). But to take out the whole categories of informations that are meaningful for common explorer here to get the first gist what airport serves what airlines and what routes they go from one airport to another - is just autocratic and rash decision. So, I humbly request the decisions made to be reconsidered again. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @FOARP, @ActivelyDisinterested, @WhatamIdoing, @Canterbury Tail, @SunloungerFrog, @JoelleJay, @Blueboar and @Gjb0zWxOb as participants in the previous discussion that haven't been notified. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Still an unreliable self-published source - It's an WP:SPS. It straight-up says it's an WP:SPS. That it's relaying data directly from airlines and from data-websites that you have to pay for access to (whose information ultimately also comes straight from the airlines) doesn't fix this, that only highlights that even if it wasn't an WP:SPS it would still not be independent per WP:SIRS.

I know airline fans really, really needs this source to be legit because, in as much as any of the airline-service articles are cited at all, they're cited to this blog and airline websites, but that doesn't make it not just some guy's website. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If we are gonna talk about how it isnt a independent source because it depends on the airline or other sources that receives the information from airlines that would mean that many or even every sources are not primary because every sources that talks about these things rely on the airlines themselves or other sources that also rely on the airlines, i would understand why editors dont want the airport or airline's website or social media posts to be cited, but AeroRoutes depending on OAG/GDS should be counted as secondary because it analyses the information from sources that also analyses and interpret the information from the raw information (the airline), besides given with how the airline obviously are the ones that know the most on will they start a new route, increase frequency,etc, why are we supposed to use sources that dont directly or indirectly come from it? I understand your concern but it wouldnt make sense if we are going to see how much of dependency it needs on whether its from the airline or not Metrosfan (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Where did FOARP say anything about independence? WP:SPS isn't about whether it's first or third party (which is what independent sourcing is), it's about the fact that the site is a one-man operation without editorial oversight. Quote from WP:SPS: Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. If we were able to ascertain where the information on Aeroroutes came from (ie the original source), then we could use that if it was in itself reliable. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• I will ask again: “Who is Jim Liu” (the author of the website) and “Why should we consider him reliable”? So far, no one has been able to answer these two questions to my satisfaction… so I have to deem his website unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  1. I don't understand what do you mean with who is he, he is the person who writes those posts

  2. He has an experience on reporting this, he used to own Airlineroute from 2007 to 2020, and now he is writing AeroRoutes since 2022, a total would have been for 17 years, and with how he has been looking at schedules for 30 years, he has also established a reputation of trustworthiness, many AeroRoutes posts have also been used on many other websites and has been a leading source for many to find information on new routes, frequency increase, routes discontination and Codeshare updates, the source also depends on OAG/GDS for updates and as mentioned on the website it says they don't publish too quickly until additional details are available and also frequently makes updates, most of the time I have also seen that the publishments on new routes commencing are also majority correct where routes did launch (unless if there's a update) Metrosfan (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  We need to know what makes him an expert that allows us to ignore the SPS part of Areoroutes. Just being the one that ran these sites for years is not sufficient. We want to know what other third-party reliable sources think of what work he's done to elevate a one-person blog to a reliable source, and to that end, there is practically no coverage of him as a person that we can find. Masem (t) 12:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Metrosfan - "most of the time I have also seen that the publishments on new routes commencing are also majority correct where routes did launch (unless if there's a update)". To be clear here, Aeroroutes is a live feed of things that Jim Liu spotted in various systems, including revisions of previously-announced schedules (which there are quite a lot of). This includes tentative preliminary plans, relatively minor changes in frequency, changes in dates when the schedule will change - and this is just looking at the three most recently-published reports on his blog. That is, these plans change all the time.

  Not only is this straight up WP:SPS, you also have to answer the question of why it is you even want to use this source when it is made up entirely of what any normal editor would say is indiscriminate trivia. FOARP (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

"Mainly based in Vancouver, Canada, Jim is an airline schedule nerd, started collecting airline timetables since 9, and has been staring at flight schedules via various platforms for almost 30 years, including nearly 18 years of experience of documenting airline schedule/network changes. Literally Jim is always working (staring at flight schedules) when not working." - per his blog. FOARP (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that comments like it's relaying data directly from airlines and from data-websites that you have to pay for access to (whose information ultimately also comes straight from the airlines) confuse people.

If the source is unreliable because it's self-published, then how it acquires information is a red herring, an irrelevance, a distraction. Maybe if opponents would quit mentioning this, it would be clearer to supporters that their policy-based objection is that the website is a small business run by one person instead of a major publishing outfit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

"their policy-based objection is that the website is a small business". No, it isn't that it's a small business. Firstly because there's no evidence at all that it is even a "business", but secondly because WP:SPS is very clear what the issue is: Wikipedia should only be using sources that employ fact-checkers of some description, and Liu doesn't employ anybody at all. FOARP (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Not reliable - I think that the only time that we could use it, per WP:SPS and expanded here Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works § Acceptable use of self-published works is if The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. I would not personally consider the author of Aeroroutes to be an established expert. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This really didn't need a RFC to begin with, it's a selfpublished sources by someone who hasn't been previously published in the field by other reliable sources. That's covered by policy, see WP:EXPERTSPS. Separately republishing primary information doesn't make it independent or secondary. If I were to copy a book and republish it I wouldn't become it's author, and it would still just be the original book. So even if this wasn't selfpublished, and was reliable, it still wouldn't be useful were most editors want to use it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I've also got to say, just finding, I don't know, some news piece where they interview Jim Liu, would not do this. You'd need to show that a book or similar by Jim Liu was published through a reputable, independent publisher (not just some article in trade-press), on the topic of airline routes, and even then you're required to be careful with such sources (which I would say precludes citing thousands and thousands of airline schedule-changes to his blog). FOARP (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is any about that as I don't know, he has his own Instagram account but he doesn't post anything about Aeroroutes there (or atleast rarely), as for then SPS case I will agree it is one but my claim on why it can be reliable despite of it is mentioned above Metrosfan (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• The previous discussion was closed at 11 am on 20 October; this was opened at 6 am on 27 October. The consensus in the previous discussion was clear, and the opener of this one didn't give any concrete examples that I can see of relevant information which they claim was missed. Why are we relitigating this already? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not reliable I really don't see the point of re-opening this discussion. It's a self-published source and I don't see any evidence of Liu being an expert. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment @Metrosfan: please stop your blatant canvassing on this topic to user's talk pages. Comments such as "if you want the source to be counted as a reliable source again id recommend you to join" is very much in violation of the guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Just a note, I did tell them it would be worth informing those users that were part of the original discussion that this discussion was taking place - however, I echo CT’s comment - inform the users that the discussion exists; nothing more. And I believe everyone in the original discussion has already been alerted, so really the only other place it should be posted is the relevant WikiProject(s). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I apologise for that, before this comment was made i did not know that existed. Metrosfan (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• I have two thoughts, neither of which fits neatly inside a simple bold-face vote.
  • The first is that the difference between a legitimate small press (which usually has between one and five employees) and a self-publisher can be a fuzzy line. One key distinguishing point is whether the press's owner publishes his own work or books by other authors. To that extent, what I call a "red herring" above, of where the website's owner–publisher gets his information, actually does matter, because it suggests that it's not a self-publishing outfit. Jim publishing Jim's stuff is self-publishing; Jim publishing the airlines' stuff is not necessarily self-publishing.
  • The second is that the community has never agreed on a definition of a reliable source. Instead, we have a list of characteristics (e.g., the list in WP:NOTGOODSOURCE) that are usually associated with reliable sources. Having thought about this for many years, I suggest that the definition of 'reliable source' is this: A source is reliable for statement X if the community accepts it as a citation to support statement X. WP:SPS is not a hard requirement for supporting a statement in an article. SPS sources are largely not acceptable, and we codify a rule that says SPS sources from an expert may be considered reliable – but we don't actually have a rule that says and non-expert sources are not reliable and must not be used under any circumstances.
• It is possible, therefore, that if this source is being used widely, that it actually is a reliable source despite being at least quasi-self-published. See also discussions about Quackwatch: being self-published is not necessarily a bar for being used, even in far more contentious subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Part of the issue in my eyes is that because this is a one man project, there’s no editorial oversight. There’s no way to verify what is lifted directly from whatever source he’s using that day, or whether he’s WP:SYNTHing the contents of his source to make the article. That’s not an accusation - it’s merely an observation that because the oversight isn’t present, it’s impossible to verify either way. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree with both cautions about selfpublishing and what constitutes a reliable sources but there was a RFC about this very sources, and these aspects in relation to this source, to determine what the community thought about this specific in the last few weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is Jim publishing the airlines' stuff? I'm not seeing anything that suggests a commercial relationship between this publisher and the airlines. What are you seeing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Liu tells us where his information comes from: "All data sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website.". OAG is a flight-information outlet whose flight schedule information comes from the airlines. GDS is the ticket-booking system run by airlines.

  TL;DR - all of Liu's information comes from the airlines. Not independent. FOARP (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Of course the information is ultimately sourced from the airlines. Where else would any journalist source it from? Do you expect someone to stand outside of an airport and conduct an independent exit poll to verify that the flights are really going where the airlines advertise that they’re going? 74.244.23.110 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I expect people to follow our PAGs, which explicitly exclude compiling non-notable lists of company services based on non-independent sourcing. The point where the people on the airline project realised that the only source they could use to fill out these lists is a literal blog should have been the point when they stopped doing it. Not just carrying on for years and years until we have literally thousands and thousands of cites to it on WP, all of which now need to be removed (or better yet, the articles based on them deleted/redirected). FOARP (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is an SPS by an amateur. That should literally be the end of the discussion because policy says we cannot use such sources. This should be speedy closed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Takes a massive hit from a herbal cigarette: "Yeah, but, like ... what even is a reliable source when you think about it maaaaaan" FOARP (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Not reliable This is just blatantly obvious per all of our long-standing policies on what constitutes a reliable source. Silverseren^C 23:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Are Nişanyan Dictionary and Nişanyan Names considered user generated?

Nişanyan dictionary Nişanyan names I'm interested in the etymology of the Turkish language, so I contribute and edit content on this topic to Wikipedia. I mostly use these two sources. Today, user:KhndzorUtogh wrote the following about the sources I use: "Haydi123 continues to use user-generated sources like nisanyansozluk and nisanyanyeradlari." They claimed that both "Nişanyan Yer Adları" (Nişanyan Place Names) and "Nişanyan Sözlük" were user-generated. The link they provided only discusses the Nişanyan Place Names source, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't say "this source shouldn't be used, it's not reliable." Furthermore, I've never used the Nişanyan Yer Adları; the sources I use are Nişanyan Sözlük and Nişanyan Adlar. This person didn't provide any sources on whether Nişanyan Sözlük is user-generated, but they claim it is. Therefore, I'd like to ask: are these sources considered reliable? Are these resources considered user generated? Can I use these resources on Wikipedia? Haydi123 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

They also reverted the edit I made on this page, they claim that it's "not WP:RS". Haydi123 (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they're user generated, you can suggest additions but you don't seem to be able to make them yourself. However they do appear to be selfpublished, per Google's translation of the "What is this dictionary?" page:[37] "The Nişanyan Dictionary is Sevan Nişanyan's individual work". So it's reliability would depend on Sevan Nişanyan other works. You can read the policy for selfpublished sources here (WP:EXPERTSPS), but basically it would be considered reliable if other independent reliable sources have previously published Nişanyan in the field of etymology. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I've read your previous comment in this RSN discussion [38] that nisanyanyeradlari is user generated hence non RS. nisanyansozluk is a sister project of nisanyanyeradlari. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

That was about nisanyanyeradlari.com, a separate website. I don't see anything to suggest that the names or dictionary website offer the same function.
There are two prior discussions about these[39][40], but they were some time ago now. They do show the source is at least contentious, even if they don't have a definitive answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see, but the websites looks very similar. As far as I know, self published sources are not WP:RS and you noted as such by yourself. The user has not shown wide usage of this source in etymology reliable sources so we can’t say now it’s RS like you said below. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Note I'm not saying it's reliable, anyone wanting to use it should show that it a reliable selfpublished sources per WP:EXPERTSPS, just that it doesn't appear to be user generated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I read the article you linked, and these two sources seem to meet the guidelines. Nişanyan's work on etymology is generally considered good, having been used on many wiki pages before. I'll continue using these sources, and if there are any issues, I'll move the topic to the talk page or back here. Thanks for your response; it was very helpful. Have a good day! Haydi123 (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The policy is not about whether his work is generally considered good, it requires that he has been previously published by reliable sources in the field of etymology. From the prior discussions I linked it seems his work is at least contentious, so I would suggest more solid proof. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for your answer. Haydi123 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Just to note I've left a notification on the WikiProject Linguistics talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

FYI: wiki has an article on Sevan Nişanyan, where previous print publications on etymology and linguistics are listed. (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you think these are good etymological sources?

@KhndzorUtogh gave me two sources while discussing the etymology of the word Dolma. We were discussing the sources they gave under the "William Pokhlyobkin and Armenian origin"Talk:Dolma discussion page, but I want more people to see them and participate in the discussion. This is the first source they gave. Please read pages 262-263 very carefully. Let's discuss whether this source is a good one: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=PY33EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA262&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The second source they gave:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11780856/ Haydi123 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I will share the summary I wrote about the second source here again: The topic of this article is "Bridging past and present: exploring cannabis traditions in Armenia through ethnobotanical interviews and bibliographic prospecting.[41]" As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong? Nor is the topic the etymology of "dolma". The author states in the article: "The etymology of the Armenian denomination comes from the old Armenian root toli, which means 'grape' (Acharian 1926)[42],[43] whereas the similar word dolma, even if used also in Greek, means 'stuffed' in Turkish, which can be referred to both the wrapping leaves or their content (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2024)[44] [45] " In other words, they claim that the Armenian word for the dolma is Armenian and the Turkish word is Turkish. The first source they cite is an old source from 1926, while the second is a current source from 2024. Moreover, the link to the first source doesn't work; I couldn't access it. The second source is available online, and the link works. I'll wait for others to comment on this source as well; That's my summary. Haydi123 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This comment has been spread 4 different times, 3 times on the article talk page and once here. I'll respond here for the sake of consistency, spreading the same discussion in 4 places is not helpful.

As far as I understand, the author isn't an etymologist, am I wrong?

First of all, there are several authors not just one, they are scholars, the source is WP:RS, what policy or guideline says authors cited for etymology statements need to be etymologists? As long as the source is reliable and is reputably published (peer-reviewed journal), it can be used and is definitely WP:RS. When it comes to the footnote, its online unavailability doesn't make a peer-reviewed journal unreliable, and offline sources aren't less valid. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

No, neither of these are good etymological sources. See however Grapes and Wine in the Balkans (1998) pp. 157–161, and note 62 which cites Български диалектен атлас IV. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia

I'm already seeing people ask on talk pages for changes, to be made, sourced to Grokipedia. Should we put an edit filter in place, ASAP? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeet into the void Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

obvioidly wary of anything like this a but I can see a AGF request to add material from it if it includes an external reliable source ref that we dont lready have covered. Very unlikely given what grokipedia changes around, but still in the realm of possibilities. Masem (t) 15:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit filter on article and draft space, but allow comments on talk pages? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages should be more free to include things, obviously, but I'm having trouble imagining a legitimate need to link to or cite Grokipedia on a talk page here. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Having looked at a couple of pages where I know the subject matter, the problem is that the source doesn't necessarily support the content it's cited for, and unless someone reads the source, they're not going to know this. It's a mess of accurate and inaccurate info, and a casual reader isn't going to know which. And if someone checks the original source, then they should use that as a source (assuming that it's an RS, etc.) and there's no reason to cite Grokipedia. I'd say that it's even less reliable that a WP mirror. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

"I'd say that it's even less reliable that a WP mirror."

Exactly what FactOrOpinion said. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also looked up some pages that I am familiar with. What I found was some pretty clear factual errors, but sometimes it was able to dig up a fact that I had missed where the sourcing checks out.

While a conscientious editor could certainly check the grokipedia versio of an article after they finished working on it to check whether it managed to dig up any extra facts that can be tracked to reliable sources that they might have missed, we should not view this as a reliable source as the editorial process isn't transparent, and it is controlled by one man who has been known to change his AI's parameters on a whim[46] Giuliotf (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We'll probably need a special entry for Grokipedia on WP:RSNP: 'Utter garbage, fails every test for reliability. Not to be cited. Not to be read unless you have access to a Men in Black neuralyser. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes.

All AI generated sources should be considered Not Reliable, since there are no human editors, no accountability etc., to say nothing of the risks of "AI hallucination." If they have valid information that is sourced, people should cite the original sources.

Grokipedia goes a step further, it's not just AI generated content - it's AI generated content where the AI is designed to be biased, often in the form of cherry picking information and sources. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It also plagiarises Wikipedia, relentlessly. Sometimes with acknowledgement, sometimes without. On this basis alone it cannot not pass WP:RS, even ignoring the multitude of other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it active? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes it's live. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Well then, our policies should already cover it,. if it's a wiki it's not an RS, if it's AI-generated, it's not an RS. If it is being cited a lot, yes it needs a notice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not an open-editing wiki; users can suggest changes that then need approval. But that doesn't make it reliable, and since much of it is just a copy of Wikipedia, that material is obviously subject to WP:WINARS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not a wiki. —Alalch E. 13:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR or LLM generated, not a reliable source. Given how much of a issue it's likely to be an edit filter is probably a good idea. I would suggest one similar to the deprecation filter, as there could be instances where links are valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• As articles over there are for now created, edited and fact-checked by the Grok language model I find it unlikely that a source not knwon until know will appear at Grokipedia....LLM/AI isn't really good with sourcing as it is. Lectonar (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeet Block with extreme prejudice. Edit filter and list on WP:RS as hard fail. It's an LLM encyclopaedia, largely rewording WP - so inherently unreliable and also WP:CIRCULAR. On the off-chance it does offer up some genuinely useful citation, then that cite should be used directly. It's basically never going to be appropriate to directly cite Grokipedia as a source (except possibly in the Grokipedia article itself, e.g. referencing some controversial hallucination. Although we'd need third party cites as well anyway). Hemmers (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeet what else is there to be said? Someone should make the edit filter soon User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

An editfilter for mainspace is a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support mainspace edit filter. I do think we should allow more flexibility on article talk, notice boards, etc. I'm not saying I think it has a lot of good use cases on these other pages but maybe wait and see if it becomes a problem outside of articles before applying a total block. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Also support deprecating at WP:RSP. I understand that (1) its unusability is already obvious per applicable P&G and (2) we have not yet had a problem of widespread use but I think we can make an exception and preemptively add it. The fact that existing standards preclude its use supports deprecating Grokipedia as a reasonable, non-arbitrary move now, if there is consensus to do so. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Blacklist - under existing P&G there is never any legitimate reason to link to this pile of LLM vomit, and preventing edits that add it will likely save recent changes patrollers lots of time. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Blacklist that pile of crap. If you need AI to write an Encyclopaedia for you, you're clearly incapable of writing anything worthwhile yourself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously unsuitable to be used as a source in any case - it’s AI-generated garbage intentionally manipulated to be “anti-woke” while plagiarizing a wide number of sources (including Wikipedia itself). Support an edit filter + deprecated on RSP. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Might also be considered for an addition to WP:SPB? - Amigao (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support a mainspace edit filter. There's no reason we should ever be linking there. The one singular exception would be the external link on the actual article about it. Silverseren^C 23:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Technical question: Is there a way to confuse it about content it picks from Wikipedia? I am not sure how, but it would be an interesting challenge. Some type of bot? What they are doing is just shameless. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia material is intended to be available for others to reuse and build on, and I'd be wary of any effort to restrict that access to folks one doesn't like, because (and not just because) it is apt to cause problems for others. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Kill it. Kill it with fire along with any other source that is AI generated. Don't have any fire on you? Kill it with a mainspace edit filter (ideally this would be configured to allow links to Grokipedia on the Grokipedia page). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Terminate with extreme prejudice let's have a mainspace edit filter asap. I think allowing even talk and noticeboard links is going to be fraught. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• It goes without saying that neither Grokipedia nor Wikipedia can be used as a source. But everyone seems a bit worked up considering it's not actually being used anywhere yet. I'm personally glad Elon has his own encyclopedia to treat as a sandbox without disrupting ours. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My concern is less anyone adding it as a direct source, but editors using it to make arguments on talk pages. Grok is very good at formulating positions for fringe POVs. It takes a lot of effort to deconstruct and dispute those arguments when they are so well articulated and integrated. -- GreenC 03:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• WP:GROKIPEDIA has been created. -- GreenC 03:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  See also: WP:YEET Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would you like to add comments such as the cases I mentioned here to that page? Grokipedia content is often random as I said. But l do not have much time to focus on this right now. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is currently hopeless but block it anyway. Just to see what it is like I tried a non-political item, namely supercomputer. As a user I found Grokipedia very confusing and super-verbose compared to Wikipedia. The fact that it has no images is also a big problem for it. And it has no links! It uses the term SIMD but can not link to it. It has a page for "Single instruction, multiple data" but no entry for SIMD. And the SIMD page is declared "fact checked" !! It is almost identical to the low quality Wikipedia page on SIMD. The fact checked claims are mostly nonsense. I would not use Grokipedia for anything. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• IMO new reader/ user requests/ mentions on article talk pages may have a larger scope to address about. As far as WP:RSN, without prejudice of any future improvements in AI/ based encyclopedias, as of the day their referencing from secondary sources specially from academic books seems weaker. Hence as of the day those i.e. Grokipedia seems to be a good candidate for WP:RSNP. Bookku (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• @ User:GreenC In above comment I have already supported Grokipedia to be included in WP:RSNP.

But can some comparative mentions on talk pages may be helpful to some extent? Just this month I created new well sourced article My Choice (2015 film). The film has generated very significant media and academic discussion vis a vis lead actress Deepika Padukone, but we find only a passing mention in WP article where as this grokipedia article about Padukone seem to take note to better extent though grokipedia's choice of sources is too poor. Would it not be natural for some users to bring such comparisons to talk pages or WP:NPOV to some extent if WP:RS options are very well available? Bookku (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So? Any AI will give you a similar AI answer, often with much more "information" than Wikipedia has. You could have simply gone to google.com/ai and entered in the same prompt. The problem is figuring out which added information is something that Wikipedia editors didn't find or found and rejected and which is an AI hallucination. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yeet it until it can be yeeted no more before someone actually tries to add it as a reference. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Kill it. Kill it with fire Agreed 1000%. Not amused to read WP articles I created scraped and presented verbatim on that piece of crap. Filter! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenC

  @TarnishedPath, @Alexandermcnabb and other editors, you are expecting filters just in article name space or in article talk namespace too? If you are expecting filters in article talk name space then what kind of restrictions you are looking forward to in talk namespace? Bookku (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'll only argue for article name space. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  May be we can create some standard talk namespace help messages at WP:GROKIPEDIA and make those available to WP:Teahouse, Help desk and users supporting edit requests at talk pages. Bookku (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think quoting WP:GROKIPEDIA would be sufficient. Unless you're volunteering? TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ditto! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Added input request at WP:EFN Bookku (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yeet with extreme prejudice due to the AI and LLM concerns. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment We're going to have to formalise the use of "Yeet" as a valid vote at this rate... However, it's easily the most appropriate term in this particular case!! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

More reasons to avoid it I also tried Vienna circle. That told me something interesting. Grokipedia at times merges content from the Stanford encyclopedia on philosophy and Wikipedia but it is anybody's guess what the outcome is. It is quite interesting how it does that but at times seems random. The page for Moritz Schlick who ran the Vienna circle is a good example. It is actually more complete than Wikipedia but again you have a feeling that no one has checked it. And it uses sources such as [47] which is a blog. As is, at the moment, I would not use Grokipedia for anything. It's contents seem random. Should be avoided. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've compared an article I brought to GA, Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) against what Gronkopedia has to say (mis-spelling deliberate) and found that it on first glance it appears to be more complete, but then I looked at the sourcing and found that much of its referencing is the Daily Fail. If I ignored the fact that it promoted a neo-Nazi as a political activist who has the mainstream media against them, I still couldn't ignore the pitiful sources that it has drawn its material from. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes beyond appearance, it's too poor in sourcing as of the day. Google is unlikely to help taking it's consumers to Grok by giving grokipedia links. But it's time to know their full business plan, it's a commercial venture after all and they can bring in crowd if they wish so with the help of the X. Grokipedia allows users to submit suggestions. Bookku (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously deprecate. There are too many problems to count. First, it's heavily based on Wikipedia, which would raise Citogenesis concerns. Second, the parts that are not based on Wikipedia are LLM-generated, with no reason to think there's any editorial controls or fact-checking. And third, it obviously lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with coverage already uncovering widespread and massive errors. These things combined with the fact that it was created with an overt political goal in mind make it hard to accept the problems are innocent and moves it into the category of active misinformation, requiring deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I compared an article I do not watch (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) just for fun. It was like reading about two different people. I suggest therefore that Grokipedia is unreliable as a source. - Walter Ego 14:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you like to add comments to Wikipedia:GROKIPEDIA? Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Blacklist - ignoring the fact that its stated purpose is to present a hallucinated version of "facts" with a right-wing point of view, it's an inadmissible source based on our regular criteria: it's both self-published and user-generated, and has no editorial oversight other than allowing users to submit (but not actually make) corrections, which are very likely still reviewed by an algorithm. It's also one of the very few examples of a bad source mentioned by name in WP:RSML. As many earlier comments have pointed out it does not appear to have any standards for source reliability at all, and if it happens to cite an actually useful source we could and should just cite that source directly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Question - Obviously, Grokipedia should not be cited or used in articles. Regarding blacklisting it, implementing an edit filter, etc., what do we do for Conservapedia? It's not listed on WP:RSP. Is there an edit filter? I mean - I think the idea of the two projects is broadly similar - to start with a mirror of Wikipedia, then edit it to be more right leaning. In Conservapedia's case they are using a typical Wiki model and having humans edit the articles to be more right leaning and the process is slow. In Grokipedia's case, they are using AI, so it will go faster. But I see no reason to panic about Grokipedia and take extraordinary measures that we don't take for similar projects like Conservapedia, especially pre-emptively. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think Conservapedia and others like it would already be covered under WP:USERGENERATED Giuliotf (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Grokipedia would also be already covered under a combination of:

  • WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERGENERATED as it starts as a mirror of Wikipedia
  • WP:RSML as it uses machine learning to edit the articles it copied from Wikipedia
  • As an encyclopediaesque thing it would be a WP:TERTIARY source, if it was reliable (which it's not due to being a combination of user generated and machine learning).

  In other words - why do we need to do anything new or different here? Our existing PAGs cover this situation. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yeet. I mean, seriously. Everything Musk does is a joke, even the things that actively harm people. Furthermore, I'll be referring to it as "Gockopedia" from now on, in the hopes that it catches on and becomes the most common name for the site, because that would annoy Musk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Blacklist The Guardian says Grokipedia's entries hew closely to conservative talking points, with some journalists already saying it contains inaccurate information, citing the January 6 attack and a claim that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic. Wired seconds those points, and also a claim that social media has led to a rise of transgender identification. Kill it with fire. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Double Yeet - It goes without saying at this point but I did take a moment to review an article subject I'm familiar with and attempt to verify the cited "sources." It is actually terrifying to think people are going to trust the information given by this monstrosity. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  There is a saying in the fashion industry: no one ever lost any money by underestimating the taste of the public. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• All of the above. Yeet, deprecate, blacklist, edit filter, kill it with fire, etc. CNC (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Support per Ivanvector. Totally unredeemable as a source in and of itself. If it has something new and cites a RS we don't, we would be sourcing that RS directly. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support deprecation on the grounds that it combines all the problems of circular referencing with all the problems of LLMs. Underlining that with an edit filter seems prudent. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose blacklist, but continue listing it as a non-WP:RS together with WP:RSPWP, but continue to allow WP:COPYWITHIN from CC-licensed Grokipedia articles (different from citing, as the source is in the edit summary to comply with the CC license, and the copied content must be carefully screened by the editor for compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, etc.). Félix An (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  (Note: I was the one who created the redirects WP:RSPGROKIPEDIA and WP:COPYGP. The second one used to lead to a section about copying from Grokipedia, but another editor removed it for now. If it's fine to allow WP:COPYWITHIN from it, I'll restore that section.) Félix An (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Respectully, I have reverted WP:RSPGROKIPEDIA and re-targeted to this discussion. Grokipedia is not a perennial source, nor is it appropriate referencing it in the Wikipedia entry as a summary of a discussion that isn't referenced there. No issues with the other redirect, that seems useful. CNC (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  but continue to allow WP:COPYWITHIN from CC-licensed Grokipedia articles - the problem here is we already don't allow unmodified LLM content. Content from Grok is already covered by CSD G15. Guettarda (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is not a WP:COPYWITHIN situation, even when there's a CC-license. Copying from Grokipedia cannot possibly be copying within WP. It also wouldn't let one follow the edit history (which is a significant part of the COPYWITHIN process, since the WP editors still have the copyright even though they've released the content for use by others under a CC license). And there's zero reason to copy from Grokipedia rather than actually copying within WP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Input would be appreciated at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from Grokipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Just not Use reliable sources not this manicured self serving tosh. So many examples of utter rubbish for Grok and its pedia. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support edit filter. Even if were perfectly accurate, it can never be an RS. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I have created Special:AbuseFilter/1387. At this time, it is set to warn, so potentially good edits aren't being outright blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Blacklist It is only the loss of Wikipedia to allow artificial intelligence created information into it. Zalaraz (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment For the last ten years, I have watched AI's entry into various tasks follow a predictable course. It starts out laughably bad. In time it is performing as well as humans. Not long after that, it is outperforming every human on the planet. I don't see why online encyclopedias will be any different. The Yeet !votes are understandable but they're short-sighted, IMO. Editors and WP principals should be preparing for a scenario in which Grokipedia accomplishes higher levels of WP:V and WP:NPOV than at WP itself. What then will be its value proposition? Obviously Grokipedia shouldn't be regarded WP:RS at present, but it won't be the present forever. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  If Grokipedia is ever "outperforming" us in the future, we can revisit. For now, it's unusable for facts. Given Musk's biases and factual inaccuracies, I don't expect it will reach usability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Let he without biases cast the first opinion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  We're talking about inaccuracies here, not just biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Which raises an interesting question as to whether the emphasis of verifiability over truth is capable of eliminating inaccuracies past a certain point. I think readers of encyclopedias ultimately want truth, not mere verifiability. If GP becomes accepting of truth expressed at WP but not the converse, it will be an interesting case of adversarial interoperability. Which is to say that I understand the Kill It With Fire !votes, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reminded of print encyclopedia editors dismissing WP in the early days. Remember Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Given that Grok's algorithms have been modified to reflect Musk's biases, I doubt that it will ever be better at NPOV. And you might want to read "OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Read, thank you. You might want to read Hayek on human fallibility. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  The human fallibility essay perfectly explains why Gronkipedia doesn't mention Elon's nazi salute: "Any admission of fallibility is seen as a sign of weakness." So yes, revisionist history it is! Brilliant. 172.58.8.233 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is not how things will unfold. Mr Wales will not sit still. In time Wikipedia will provide AI assistance to Wikipedians. It will still be human powered, but bicycles are also human powered. And much faster than walking. 62.18.38.102 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  We shall have to see on that Wiki may very well never do that especially if the Wiki editors do not want it. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Mr Wales has only very limited influence on what goes on on Wikipedia these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Feel free to use the websites you like but WP is not for promotion. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support mainspace filter No good reason at all to link to Grokiepedia it is not reliable.GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Not usable As others noted, it's a technical issue: like any wiki, user generated, auto generated and/or especially if borrowing from WP, it can simply not be used as a source. If evidence shows that it's being spammed on WP it may then get blacklisted, like would happen with any spammed domain, but that's another step. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  About Grokipedia as a "wiki" and a "mirror": Grokipedia is not a website "like any wiki" because it is not a wiki. Wikipedia is a wiki. Grokipedia took only "-pedia" from Wikipedia because it purports to a be an encyclopedia like Wikipedia; it did not also take the "Wiki-" from Wikipeda, and does not claim to be a wiki, and it is not a wiki, and does not resemble a wiki. A mirror site is a replica of a website, a faithful and generally up-to-date copy. A website is also its software, and Wikipedia's software is called MediaWiki, which is a wiki software, and a wiki using it is a MediaWiki wiki. Wikipedia being a MediaWiki wiki, only a website that is technically comparable (in terms of software used to organize and display content) can be a mirror of Wikipedia; generally also a MediaWiki or MediaWiki-derived website. There are those wikis that are and those that are not mirrors of Wikipedia. Grokipedia not even being a wiki means that that it is not even potentially a mirror of Wikipedia. A website can host content copied from another website. Merely containing copied content is not even close to being enough to consider a website a mirror. There are websites that copy content from Wikipedia that are mirrors of Wikipedia and that are not. Grokipedia is in the latter category. Grokipedia is a non-wiki website with some of its content crudely copied from Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 08:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose blacklisting. I'm not sure all the supporters of this measure realize it would also prevent links to Grokipedia outside of article space. There are valid cases for linking to it on talk pages (e.g. Grokipedia discusses this aspect of the subject which we are missing). Even discussions like we're having now would be impeded by blacklisting. Just deprecating it would avoid these problems. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't see the problem. Instead of telling you "Look at [ https://grokipedia.com/page/Black_helicopter ], I could just say "Look up Black helicopter on Grokipedia." (Also see the TRUTH at [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]...) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    • How is that preferable to just deprecating it from article space? Suppose you want to link to a specific section of an Grokipedia article in a discussion. Having to say Go to the Grokipedia article for the "History of India" and scroll down to the "Religious Innovations: Buddhism, Jainism, and Heterodox Challenges to Vedic Orthodoxy" section is a hell of a lot less convenient than just linking to that section. Moreover, flawed as this website is, it's not spam. We should use the right tool for the job. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I see that as a feature, not a bug, of blacklisting. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Clearly unreliable I oppose blacklisting as well as deprecation. Those are both saved for sources that are specifically problematic, either they are widely cited when they shouldn't be (Daily Mail) or harmful (sites that contain illegal content). Gokipedia is none of those. It clearly can't qualify as a RS. What more needs to be done? Springee (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Blacklisting from talk page at this stage: Looking at emerging consensus to support WP:RSNP deprecation from article namespace Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard has already taken note and added Grokipedia to warning filter for main namespace and tracking filter for talk namespace.

Policy explanation

Same time we need to be mindful of existent various WP:Policies and eventualities.

1) (See WP:RSPCRITERIA WP:RSNP listing expects at least one more such round of substantial discussion at this WP:RSN.

2) Wikipedia:Spam blacklist expects compelling evidence of non-stop disruptive spamming with specific difs. As pointed out by few users already above there is no specific need of heightened panic at this stage.

3) And there can be genuine cases on article talk page discussion ( I have already discussed such one possible case above) for comparing the same as WP:TERTIARY source according to present existent policy. New non-technical users like me, may find it difficult to deal with talk page blacklisting even when such users are not spamming but wish to join a good faith discussion on a talk page.

At Talk Grokipedia one ip has given google trend evidence, saying

"It took less than three days for the public to lose interest: -- The biases are so obvious, stark, and selfishly motivated that almost everyone who took a look no longer cares."

So, IMHO, prima fecie we can afford to track with already initiated edit filter before taking further steps of entire black listing. Bookku (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support - It'd be a good idea to prohibit any attempts to cite it now to save everyone time cleaning up the inevitable mess later. It's a Wikipedia clone of poor quality, prone to both circular citations from their articles ripped straight from here & unchecked AI hallucinations. There's no reason we'd ever need to cite it directly, if anything about it is notable, we'll cite secondary coverage instead. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Blacklist Any editor bringing something from grok to talk pages should first be double checking all of the references to avoid misrepresentations and hallucinations. In which case, they can bring the source material to discussions here instead. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: At Talk:Grokipedia#NLP analysis information about pre-print of the research paper Yasseri, Taha. "How Similar Are Grokipedia and Wikipedia? A Multi-Dimensional Textual and Structural Comparison" doi has been shared. Seems a good read.

Article Talk pages may not be best places every time to share good faith comparisons, IMO, our actions should proportionate, appropriate and measured, so as not bite non- fully well versed good faith communications and communicators either. Bookku (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Practical reason for not linking to Grokipedia Regardless of all else please recall that Grokipedia content is dynamic. It may have changed as you read this. Thus any assessment of what it says now on a topic may become invalid in the next hour. Published journals are stable, Grokipedia is not. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Carlsen–Niemann controversy (ESPN)

Our article Carlsen–Niemann controversy contains this claim:

"The SLCC organisers permanently upgraded their anti-cheating measures for future events, including nonlinear junction detectors to detect silicon in electronics, a radio frequency machine to detect infrared signals, and a 30-minute broadcast delay for the duration of the U.S. Chess Championships."

This claim is obvious nonsense. As an electronics engineer I know (WP:OR!) that there is no such thing as a "radio frequency machine to detect infrared signals". That's like saying "a water sensor to detect lava" or "a microscope to detect elephants".

Yet the claim is sourced:

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/34736588/inside-chess-cheating-scandal-fight-soul-game

"Bird nods and asks Niemann to enter the tournament hall, where the club also uses a radio frequency machine, which detects infrared radiations -- signals to and from the players."

I have not been able to find a source for any chess anti-cheating electronics, but if I was designing such a system I would monitor for radio signals, infrared signals and ultrasonic signals.

So is the answer to decide that ESPN, while reliable for many things, is not a reliable source for the details of how electronic devices work? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

ESPN is a Sports news website, so I would consider the science of electronics to be firmly out of their realm of expertise. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

For obviously incorrect but cited claims, it's good to remember that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

From a quick search, it doesn't appear any other source cites this information independently of reposting ESPN. Since the key fact being conveyed is that SLCC took more measures rather than the specifics of those measures, it seems easy enough to just leave it out (i.e. Wikipedia:When_sources_are_wrong#Approach_5:_Say_nothing) -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I would support removal of the contested content. ESPN is probably generally reliable for factual reporting on details about tournament logistics and security practices but this bit of minutiae isn't in their wheelhouse and perhaps didn't set off their fact checkers' BS detectors (which are real). Since the claim is dubious, not widely reported or confirmed, and adds little value to the article I would remove it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Removed the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

USGS vs. National Geographic at Earthquake light

I'm concerned about the use of pro-fringe popular science primary sources at Earthquake light. Recent additions include:

• National Geographic reported the United States Geological Survey (USGS) was "circumspect" about the existence of earthquake lights, and quoted USGS from 2020: "Geophysicists differ on the extent to which they think that individual reports of unusual lighting near the time and epicenter of an earthquake actually represent EQL. Some doubt that any of the reports constitute solid evidence for EQL, whereas others think that at least some reports plausibly correspond to EQL."

Replacing and demoting from the lead:

• According to the United States Geological Survey, "Geophysicists differ on the extent to which they think that individual reports of unusual lighting near the time and epicenter of an earthquake actually represent EQL: some doubt that any of the reports constitute solid evidence for EQL, whereas others think that at least some reports plausibly correspond to EQL. Physics-based hypotheses have been proposed to explain specific classes of EQL reports, such as those in the immediate vicinity of the causative fault at the time of a major earthquake. On the other hand, some reports of EQL have turned out to be associated with electricity arcing from the power lines shaking."

Edit summary:USGS is primary and there's no justifable reason for a giant blockquote from a primary in the lede of any article anywhere. Found National Geographic secondary coverage which supersedes primary. Left primary as a bonus citation. (But isn't the USGS FAQ the best source currently in that article? And wouldn't NatGeo be WP:PRIMARYNEWS for this anyway?)

And this popsci-sourced, pro-fringe

• According to Joseph Stromberg writing in Smithsonian, it was not until photographs of earthquake lights were captured in 1965 at Nagano, Japan, that "scientists acknowledged the validity of the phenomenon".

• After the ionisation, the ions travel up through the cracks in the rocks. Once they reach the atmosphere these ions can ionise pockets of air, forming plasma that emits light.

References

As a bonus, the editors promoting popsci sources are opposed to this Skeptical Inquirer piece [48] since skeptics are just entertainers. Diff: [49] Geogene (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I dispute National Geographic, Smithsonian, the Seismological Society of America and the Geophysical Institute are "pro fringe".

Also, please don't selectively quote me. It's not polite.

• This version had a huge direct quote from the USGS directly in the lead, which is not how we do leads: [50]
• USGS here is WP:PRIMARY.
• I found National Geographic covering USGS there as WP:SECONDARY which is always to be used over primary, and NG is patently WP:RS. See: WP:NATGEO.

All I've done with this article is add this paragraph as seen on this version, heavily sourced to uniform WP:RS

Earthquake lights were once interpreted from the context of religious belief and paranormal events such as UFO sightings.[19] Professional and academic geologists were dismissive for years of the concept of earthquake lights.[19] According to Joseph Stromberg writing in Smithsonian and Brian Clark Howard in National Geographic, scientific acceptance began in the 1960s.[19][20] National Geographic reported it was not until photographs of "earthquake lights that were clearly tied to the geologic activity" were captured in 1965 at Nagano, Japan, after which "scientists acknowledged the validity of the phenomenon," according to Stromberg.[20] J. S. Derr wrote in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America in 1973, "The existence of luminous phenomena, or earthquake lights, is well established."[21] In 1978, T. Neil Davis at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, wrote of the earthquake lights photographed in 1965, and said, "No longer does this subject lurk in the shadows of scientific skepticism."[22] The United States Geological Survey (USGS) was "circumspect" about the existence of earthquake lights; National Geographic quoted USGS from 2020: "Geophysicists differ on the extent to which they think that individual reports of unusual lighting near the time and epicenter of an earthquake actually represent EQL. Some doubt that any of the reports constitute solid evidence for EQL, whereas others think that at least some reports plausibly correspond to EQL."[23][24]

Live on this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&oldid=1319252766#History_and_background

I'm not even sure what the issue here is truly; there's no WP:RS that calls earthquake lights fringe that I've seen yet. Folks like Dunning and Sheaffer don't and will never outrank the academic space. They're entertainers.

Editors don't decide what is FRINGE. Sources do. We are downstream small fish with limited agency. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Re: I dispute National Geographic, Smithsonian, the Seismological Society of America and the Geophysical Institute are "pro fringe". It would help if you could keep the POV found in primary papers from certain journals separate from the assumed POV of the journal and/or the journal's sponsoring organization. This has been a consistent problem with your editing in that article. E.g., "the Government of Canada" had nothing to do with this study; the lead author works for a provincial government [51]. Geogene (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you could specify your strictly policy-based issues with this paragraph, and stay focused, please:

Earthquake lights were once interpreted from the context of religious belief and paranormal events such as UFO sightings.[19] Professional and academic geologists were dismissive for years of the concept of earthquake lights.[19] According to Joseph Stromberg writing in Smithsonian and Brian Clark Howard in National Geographic, scientific acceptance began in the 1960s.[19][20] National Geographic reported it was not until photographs of "earthquake lights that were clearly tied to the geologic activity" were captured in 1965 at Nagano, Japan, after which "scientists acknowledged the validity of the phenomenon," according to Stromberg.[20] J. S. Derr wrote in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America in 1973, "The existence of luminous phenomena, or earthquake lights, is well established."[21] In 1978, T. Neil Davis at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, wrote of the earthquake lights photographed in 1965, and said, "No longer does this subject lurk in the shadows of scientific skepticism."[22] The United States Geological Survey (USGS) was "circumspect" about the existence of earthquake lights; National Geographic quoted USGS from 2020: "Geophysicists differ on the extent to which they think that individual reports of unusual lighting near the time and epicenter of an earthquake actually represent EQL. Some doubt that any of the reports constitute solid evidence for EQL, whereas others think that at least some reports plausibly correspond to EQL."[23][24]

I will reply again once you clearly detail actionable policy-based issues to this paragraph. Thank you. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Re: "I'm not even sure what the issue here is truly; there's no WP:RS that calls earthquake lights fringe that I've seen yet. Folks like Dunning and Sheaffer don't and will never outrank the academic space. They're entertainers." (Referring to [52]), Please see [53], which says:

A 2022 RfC established reasonably clear consensus that Skeptical Inquirer is generally reliable. The Arbitration Committee previously :found that it is not considered a self-published source, and that it should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources.

Also, please see this arbcom decision:[54]

Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source

Historically the use of the Skeptical Inquirer has received little attention and has been generally viewed favorably by the editors who have commented on its reliability (Alexbrn's evidence). By contrast the most recent discussion in January 2022 attracted a larger number of editors and was quite extensive. In that discussion, there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source and that columns should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability. Large parts of the discussion focused on its suitability as a source for biographies of living people and with the lack of coverage by other sources of many fringe topics. A formal RfC on the reliability of the Skeptical Inquirer was launched after the proposed decision for this case was posted.

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The RfC is here:[55] Note that Arbcom decisions trump RfCs, but also that the RfC addresses questions that Arbcom did not and is authoritative on those questions. -Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Tangentially: Source reliability is a content concern, not conduct, so I disagree that Arbcom would "trump" community consensus here. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

While is it true that "The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated."[56] It is not clear to me that arbcom ruling that a source is or is not reliable is "ruling on content". For example, in 2007 Arbcom ruled that Quackwatch was a partisan site[57] and in 2022 Arbcom ruled that Skeptical Inquirer is not considered a self-published source. That being said, if we could show a strong consensus that disagrees with Arbcom on the reliability of a source, Arbcom would almost certainly be willing to amend the finding to match the consensus. Nonetheless, Arbcom is the final authority on all disputes within Wikipedia and the only rules that Arbcom is subject to (other than the election process and perhaps WMF office actions) are self imposed and can be changed by Arbcom as they see fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Long time no see... (t · c) buidhe 20:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer may be the only reliable secondary source in that article. If so, the the article should be heavily trimmed, and re-written from a more skeptical POV. If articles from normally reliable sources like Smithsonian Magazine [58] are misidentifying cloud iridescence as earthquake lights, as Sheaffer points out, then I don't see how that article can be reliable for information on EQLs. Geogene (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The Times appears to have fabricated (and removed) an entire article

Recently, the Times of London posted this article about former New York mayor Bill de Blasio's comments about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. This would be a perfectly ordinary article about a subject of public note... except that according to Bill de Blasio I never spoke to that reporter and never said those things and The story in the Times of London is entirely false and fabricated.

The article itself is now down, as it should be, but this IMO pretty clearly calls the reliability of the Times into question. This is past the ordinary mistakes newspapers make every so often. Publishing a whole fake interview suggests that at minimum the Times has very little pre-publication editorial review (since even basic reaching out to de Blasio would have caught this) and potentially may have fabricated an entire interview deliberately (a possibility I wouldn't normally like to consider but this is so egregious I have to). Loki (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently they were tricked by an impersonator 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 01:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Turns out that it wasn't an imposter. It was someone else named Bill DeBlasio who never claimed to be the former mayor (though he recognized that the reporter was assuming this, even though the reporter never said so), and it was The Times' reporter who initiated contact. More info from Semafor. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Pulling an article when it becomes apparent that a mistake how been made, and publicly admitting to that mistake, is how we want sources to behave. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup. They messed up. They owned up to it. They pulled it in two hours. Hopefully the Times will be a bit more wary in the future, and hopefully Wikipedia will also remain wary of putting too much trust in a single source (any single source) for the sort of content that this sort of hoax could have been responsible for. It doesn't appear to have made it into the de Blasio article, so we're all good there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Fabricating quotes to the former NYC mayor is pretty wild in the first place. They didn't pull it till caught. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a good look, certainly. All sources are fallible though, and we have to base content on something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

They didn't fabricate the quote, the quote came from an impersonator who fabricated the quote. The Times fell for the impersonination thinking it was the real Bill de Blasio. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's not SO bad then. Not like they're the first people to get clowned like that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it makes them look stupid, but it's hardly the first time this has happened to a news organisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any acknowledgement on their Corrections page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see whether they add it to the list. If not, we should have a discussion about what not owning up to their mistake means for the Time's reliability. Cortador (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that pulling the article was the correct move. However, if they were tricked by an impersonator it still concerns me that they never tried to contact (the real) de Blasio. Even DMing him on Twitter would have been enough to stop this.

Like, the impersonator wasn't even trying to talk like the real guy. Anyone with even basic familiarity with the subject matter could've caught this. Loki (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

What action, if any, are you suggesting Wikipedia should take on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The Times is currently green at RSP and I'm no longer confident it should be. Loki (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's a newspaper of record out there that hasn't made similar slip-ups at one time or another. They messed up. They admitted it. They corrected it, rapidly. We clearly aren't going to change the RSPN entry on that alone. You could start an RfC, but it would be a complete waste of time in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's a newspaper of record out there that hasn't made slip ups. Similar slip-ups, though, I think is more debatable.

The entire premise of the article is wrong. They put words in the mouth of a man that he did not say and in fact has publicly said the opposite of. Loki (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How many reputable mainstream sources were tricked by The Yes Men's impersonation on the BBC, where one of them posed as an official spokesperson for Dow Chemical, apologizing for the Bhopal disaster, promising reparations, etc? This kind of thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a long history of news organisations failing for such hoaxes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the WaPo unreliable because of Janet Cooke? Is the New York Times unreliable because of Jayson Blair? Or is it only British newspapers that Loki thinks should be targeted? FOARP (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

...I am honestly concerned that you have these examples ready but think they are reasons to defend the Times rather than be doubtful of WaPo or the NYT. Loki (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well are you arguing that we downgrade all major newspapers with similar issues or just The Times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should at least be skeptical of any source that does this.

Upon looking closer, the WaPo incident was in the 1980s, and one hopes they've improved their fact-checking standards since then. The NYT incident, however, was both more recent and extremely problematic, considering how it consists of fabrication across multiple articles over years. I'm surprised we didn't downgrade it at the time, frankly. Loki (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that we do treat the news media in general with greater skepticism than for example prominently published academic work. This particular case does not strike me as out of the ordinary but is a good example of why we are reminded to be extra careful at the intersection of breaking news and BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

They have put out a statement "The Times has apologised to Bill de Blasio and removed the article immediately after discovering that our reporter had been misled by an individual falsely claiming to be the former New York mayor" HuffPost. I would expect that a correction notice will follow. I don't see how they could have confirmed it with the real de Blasio, when they thought they were in direct communication with the real de Blasio. The mistake was being overly trusting in a source, which they have immediately corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

DMing the real de Blasio on Twitter. Or emailing him. Or calling him.

Like, you have "de Blasio" making public statements contrary to previous public statements and talking like a different person. Certainly reaching out via a known method of contact is just basic fact-checking. Loki (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Individual news sources aren't that good most of the time, but even if editors decided something like that was due, it would be covered by RSBREAKING in this specific case, no? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

RSBREAKING doesn't apply because this wasn't a breaking news report. "Breaking news" doesn't refer to news that were just published, it refers to news reports published very close to the event, from a writer who likely has incomplete information or is writing about a developing situation. This interview with the fake de Blasio unlikely happened just hours before they published it. It likely happened at least a day ago or so, as then included into this articles while adding other stuff e.g. Fetterman's comment and the assessment by economists etc. Cortador (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If we don't cover exclusives then I think we should. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty bad mistake from the Times, in isolation I could see this as just a mistake that was rapidly caught, but this is not the Times first editorial controversy, for example this one was far worse [59]

While they are generally reliable, I would take their reporting on some controversial political topics with a pinch of salt. Giuliotf (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just checked and the origibal story still appears to be up on their website [60] Giuliotf (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I might just be confused (wouldn't be the first time) but that looks like a different article than the original one in the thread, and than the one in the post you're replying to. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 13:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

One problematic article isn't enough to call into question the credibility of a publication.

I've added a separate (and I think much more egregious) example where the Times publish a problematic series of articles, at least one of which is still on their website. Giuliotf (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• An individual incident generally doesn't impact a source's reliability, not unless secondary coverage makes it clear that it has seriously damaged their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which isn't the case here. It might be a reason to track coverage and to give the source a closer look, but it isn't enough to make us reconsider its status on its own. If you do want to argue that it's a problem, the thing to do is to look for secondary coverage that shows how this has affected their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• One of the signs of a good news organization is they retract their articles when they make an error. I think wikipedians have gotten way too attached to "discrediting" news sources when in general, across the board, news isn't reliable when compared to well researched academic works. There are more long-form, well researched news stories, but the news cycle today is faster then ever and focused on generating clicks. Per WP:RS: Each article needs to be evaluated for how reliable it is. Not just the author. Not just the publication. If we have a generally reliable News Source that reports something, that is clearly not true, that's enough to point out that that specific article isn't reliable because it's clearly not true.

Look at this article [61] that claims this about Twighlight: "it was the 2008 movie that truly propelled the franchise (and vampires) into mass appeal. Vampires weren’t just for horror nerds and theater kids anymore. Vampires could be cool and sexy." The author was a teenager when Twightlight came out, it's totally true that Twighlight made Vampires popular for her generation, and that is the personal experience of the author and many people her age. But here on Wikipedia, there are way too many arguments that use a source like that, where it's a throw away remark, over a source like this, that points to the ABC soap opera "Dark Shadows", and a vampire who wakes up after a long sleep and has to adjust to modern society as being a turning point in how vampires are portrayed in video, and then goes on to reference other movies and tv shows that came along before Twighlight that were mainstream and popular with generations before, like Lost Boys, Interview with a Vampire, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. [62]. The second one is clearly better researched, the first one is just a throw away remark buried in an article about something else, based on personal experience, and not based on research.

Wikipedians like to grasp onto that first article and insist "No, Twilight was the first! See this article says so!" and then get their buddies to come "vote" on it. This exact problem is happening on the Terminology of homosexuality article, where editors are defending a blog post, about a person who as a teenager experienced the word "Same-sex attraction" being used by religious groups, as proof the term was created and primarily used by religious groups, when a short search on Google Scholar clearly shows it's an academic term with a long history, used in academic and medical works for decades. Clearly, that particular blog post is "not reliable" because it's obviously not true.

The same problem is on Imane Khelif's article, and the whole "no medical evidence has been published to indicate she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone" debacle. "We have a source that say's so!" despite... obviously it not being true. Nothing makes Wikipedia seem more unreliable then the manipulation of "reliable sources" in this manner to push specific points of view. Denaar (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'm in England and I never heard of Bill de Blasio before. Yes it was bad The Times got duped by someone, but the idea that they would bother fabricating something about some New York mayor is quite ludicrous. How many New Yorkers know the name of the mayor of London and do they care in the least about his politics? NadVolum (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Mayor of London is Sadiq Khan, and you'd be surprised how much we New Yorkers know about him as a result of Islamophobia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, how the Times handled this after publishing us exactly the behavior we expect from a reliable source. It's also a good reason to keep in mind NOTNEWS, particularly when it comes to things that can only be confirmed by one source, that there is never a reason to rush to add such material until it's clear it seems legit. Masem (t) 14:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is a massive error but it does not alter The Times‍'s overall reliability rating. As others have said, a single incident is rarely enough to undo hundreds of years of credibility and their response is an indication of sound editorial practices. It doesn't appear that the original story made its way into any en-wiki articles but there's a good lesson here about not rushing to catalogue every breaking detail about high profile stories here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEWRONG applies. It seems the process worked if they took story down.

if there is constant pattern of doing this, we might need to consider reliability, but a single incident is understandable User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Correcting mistakes should make a source go up in our estimation of (general) reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Just because accusations have been made against a living person repeatedly in this thread, and only corrected once, several levels deep in the replies, I thought it best to make a clear and visible statement: The person whom the Times interviewed does not appear to be an "impersonator" or a "hoaxster", but simple someone else of the same name (if capitalized differently) who the Times mistakenly reached out to. The fault lies at the feet of the paper, not the interviewee. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• The article in the first place is a bad mistake for sure, but I mean, them removing it entirely is exactly how we expect reliable sources to behave when they screw up - they realized they got duped/messed up, owned up to it, and removed the content from circulation entirely. If anything, it's a point in their favor as an RS rather than against. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Nizami Mausoleum

Is the following a reliable source to support the claim that "As part of its large-scale attempts to eradicate any traces of Persian cultural influence, Azerbaijan has removed the Persian-written tiles from the mausoleum"? [63]

Mamedov, Eldar (2017). "Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings". In Hunter, Shireen T. (ed.). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution. Lexington Books. pp. 27–64. ISBN 978-1498564960.

The claim that independent Azerbaijan removed Persian writings from a Soviet-era mausoleum is highly dubious. First off, It is unclear if the source supporting the claim is referring to this specific mausoleum. The source mentions "the removal of tiles written in Persian from Nizami's monument", but the Soviet-era mausoleum (built in 1947 and collapsed in late 1980s) had no tiles and was constructed from limestone blocks. Moreover, a mausoleum is not exactly the same as a monument, and the source does not specify the type or location of the monument. There are monuments to Nizami in nearly every town in Azerbaijan, so it is unclear whether the author is referring to the mausoleum in Ganja. As one can see from the photo in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the mausoleum from the Soviet period only displayed Nizami's name in Russian Cyrillic script on its front façade. [64]

The reliability of the source itself is also questionable. It originates from Eldar Mamedov, who is not a historian but a politician dismissed from the European Parliament due to a corruption scandal. According to Politico, he is known for his anti-Azerbaijani views and suspected ties to the Iranian regime: [65]. Per WP:Exceptional, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Is the above source sufficient for the claim about the removal of tiles? Grandmaster 16:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by Grandmaster. Since they completely ignored everything at Talk:Nizami Mausoleum as it did not fit their goal (WP:TENDENTIOUS), I'll mention it here as well.

The claim that independent Azerbaijan removed Persian writings from a Soviet-era mausoleum is highly dubious. First off, It is unclear if the source supporting the claim is referring to this specific mausoleum. The source mentions "the removal of tiles written in Persian from Nizami's monument", but the Soviet-era mausoleum (built in 1947 and collapsed in late 1980s) had no tiles and was constructed from limestone blocks. Moreover, a mausoleum is not exactly the same as a monument, and the source does not specify the type or location of the monument. There are monuments to Nizami in nearly every town in Azerbaijan, so it is unclear whether the author is referring to the mausoleum in Ganja.

Still zero WP:RS to back anything up. All you're doing is engaging in speculation and guesswork. You're indicating that the author is instead referring to some random, obscure construction (which you can't even name), and not the famous mausoleum of Nizami Ganjavi.

As one can see from the photo in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the mausoleum from the Soviet period only displayed Nizami's name in Russian Cyrillic script on its front façade.

I'm no architectural genius, but I'm pretty sure a mausoleum is more than a front façade, and that looking at a far away, old image is not going to make anyone more smart. Also worth mentioning, the previous link Grandmaster used was also with a bunch of non-helpful images [66], and which even engaged in the same historical falsifications campaigned by the current and past regimes in Azerbaijan (see down below), the same type of info that Grandmaster wants removed from Nizami Mausoleum.

Per WP:Exceptional, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Is the above source sufficient for the claim about removal of tiles?

The Azerbaijani regime engaging in historical falsifications is far from WP:Exceptional, which you're aware of, but keep ignoring, which is highly concerning. There is even a huge article dedicated to the Azerbaijani historical falsification in regards to Nizami Ganjavi (Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan). We also have Falsification of history in Azerbaijan, Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan and this huge collection of WP:RS [67]. As clear, authors routinely mention the historical falsifications in Azerbaijan. Not sure why the author would make something up (the link also does not mention "Anti-Azerbaijani" views, as you claim), it's not like there is a lack of historical falsification to begin with. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Azerbaijani historiography is indeed problematic. Having said that, I think that the best way to resolve this disagreement would be to find more sources. This monument is likely to have been photographed a lot so it should be relatively easy to find pictures with the Persian writings. Also the reconstruction and purported removal would probably leave traces. Alaexis_¿question? 22:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Alaexis, please everyone avoid cluttering this noticeboard. In 2013, Iran reported to UNESCO that the inscription had been removed; in response Azerbaijan said that it was only temporarily removed for repairs. See here. @KeuleKeulmann uploaded this photo barely 3 months ago, clearly showing that the inscription was in fact restored and still exists today. 23:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal, thanks for the information, this is really helpful. It is much clearer and more informative than the vague source that was provided initially. It appears that the modern mausoleum originally featured quotes from Nizami’s poems in Persian, which were later removed and replaced with the same Persian quotes accompanied by translations into Azerbaijani. This is why I requested additional sources, context is important. Grandmaster 09:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grandmaster Also not correct. The original tiles also included text in Azerbaijani. Both the Persian and the Azerbaijani were replaced in 2013. You can see the original tiles in this 2012 photo and both missing here in this 2013 photo. GordonGlottal (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you GordonGlottal. Per your findings, I've removed the text from the article. As for Grandmaster, I would highly advise them to remember the many policies I've had constantly had to remind them. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal, thanks again for your research and help with resolving this matter. Much appreciated. @HistoryofIran, it’s always good to ask for a third opinion when we can’t agree on something. That’s how WP:DR works. Grandmaster 15:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing with something does not justify ignoring/violating policies. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this apparently unpublished pdf a reliable source for

Pictish language and Newton Stone. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

What PDF? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's unpublished, how could we use it and why would we? 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 17:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Agh, sorry. [68] Doug Weller talk 17:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do you say it's unpublished? 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 18:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I say “apparently” as I would expect to find details of publication in a published pdf. Can you find evidence it’s been published? I Doug Weller talk 19:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know if you meant self-published, or if it was a draft, or wiki jargon that I don't know yet. I assumed it was published or self-published, but I know the wiki has its own standards and I'm still trying to get the hang of it all. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Most documents like this on Academia.edu are self-published sources, and the lead indicates that is the case here (e.g. it just says the author's name, date, and the name of the pdf). I would say not RS unless creator is a subject matter expert, and even then probably not due weight. The creator appears to have no relevant credentials. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed it's probably not relevant for anything important, and agree with User:PARAKANYAA broadly but with an asterisk. This is a super niche, hardly known topic, and this random dude publishes one (1) paper ever, and it's on something this obscure?

If someone who was 40-year career restaurant cook suddenly shows me the research paper he proudly published on say, Gibbs free energy, I'd be like, first, "Good work?" followed by "They teach this on the line?" I'd want to know where my pal got into advanced thermodynamics and I'd look to see what he wrote. Especially if it's all he's ever done in anything STEM on the record. Most people wouldn't spend that much effort on random esoteric bullshit (think pre-GPT).

If nothing else, it may have a good bibliography or leads you can build off; what's in it? Could be a local amateur historian or descended from folks who spoke it, family lore, and they carved up their own historical record? Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. I had a friend who built out a local history on a particular type of news history, and I've encouraged him over the years to get it to say the local library, who could know the best places he could reach out to share it with. It's the sort of thing that if on a proper site (historical society, etc.) and a little editing would be perfect WP:RS for us somewhere. But as is? Nope. Same here. Broadly not WP:RS but even burnt pie has tasty things inside.

A few sources on some articles I wrote on are obscure. I'd guess someone would say, "How the fuck did VPP find that?"... the answer is, I found a clue/reference to it in something that wasn't itself RS. Every rock has life under it, somewhere. Reddit, random PDFs, old forums, RS? No. But what's in them didn't form out of nothing. I found one off of Usenet archives. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes independent researchers do post worthy stuff to Academia, but in this case a skim makes pretty clear why he couldn't get published. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Comiclopedia

Two months ago I edited the George Herriman article to reflect information found in the book "Krazy Kat: The Comic Art of George Herriman". However, some information found on the website lambiek.net, the "Comiclopedia", appears to supplement and sometimes contradict the book. Specifically, the site talks about his comic strips and their publishing dates. Is Comiclopedia a reliable source?

George Herriman article on Comiclopedia Dotoilage (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Comiclopedia is a commercial venture run by a comic shop: a self-published source. Without very strong evidence that the author is being cited as a reliable source in publications which DO meet WP:RS, it shouldn't be cited at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I take a more positive view of Comiclopedia, but it’s of marginal reliability at best. It has two professional “editors/writers,” see here, so more (though not a lot more) than just a one-person operation. It is well-regarded by comics experts; for example, The Comics Journal, which should be a reliable source for comics, says it is “an indispensable online resource of comics knowledge”. (TCJ also says it is “Wikipedia for comics,” but Comiclopedia is not user-generated.)

In contrast, the book you mention is undoubtedly RS, but nearly 40 years old, and it seems plausible that it may have been superseded by more recent scholarship. The best option would be to refer to that more recent scholarship (e.g., the Michael Tisserand biography), but failing that, maybe Comiclopedia could be used with in-text attribution. John M Baker (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Money Today

I added a Money Today article to NCT Wish (see diff). I used this article to argue that this group sold out three-night Macau performances. Is Money Today generally reliable or not? Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a normal WP:NEWSORG. Is anyone saying you can't use it? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: No, nobody says I can't use it. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Roswell Daily Record for UFOs

This is not an RfC, just a discussion / question.
Is the Roswell Daily Record a reliable source for reporting on UFO's and the paranormal?

• Despite having a circulation of just 12,000, the Roswell Daily Record has a UFO beat reporter [69] and multiple freelance contributors penning UFO columns. Much like WP:UFONATION (News Nation), they appear to have made an intentional decision to lean-into UFO conspiracy theories to drum-up subscribers as much of this reportage has nothing to do with the newspaper's service area of central New Mexico and is clearly intended for a national audience of true believers. The newspaper's website even has a "UFO Store" and its About page talks about nothing but UFOs.
• In "New evidence of UAP/Nuclear ties, old patterns of DoD deception" [70] they uncritically report on a new UFO "study" that's been, apparently, blocked by arXiv and widely criticized by mainstream science. [71]
• In another article,[72] the newspaper claims that the decision to grant a medical disability to a former USAF airman is an acknowledgment by the U.S. Government of "the phenomenon" (that space aliens are secretly landing on Earth for some reason or another). This is not an editorial, but presented as straight news reporting.
• One of their UFO freelancer reporters (i.e. not op-ed writers) is Kevin Wright, who is also Director of Public Relations [73] for the New Paradigm Institute (NPI), what seems to be some sort-of New Religious Movement centered on UFOs and led by Daniel Sheehan, the attorney for John Mack (who claimed humans were being kidnapped by space aliens and being force-bred to produce a hybrid race of alien-humans). The NPI describes itself as "preparing for the time when humanity takes our place in the galactic family" [74]). These stories usually start from the baseline assumption that space aliens are currently visiting Earth and the government is covering it up [75].
• However, like News Nation, when it's not reporting on UFOs, the Roswell Daily Record reports on fairly rote stuff, like zoning board meetings, and local city council elections, etc.

Chetsford (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• No, not WP:RS at all.. Roswell exploits this 'UFO' stuff to attract visitors (as it is entitled to do), and it is clearly in the newspaper's interest to take an uncritical (at best) line on it. As a more general principle, local newspapers are a poor source for such topics anyway, given that they generally have no subject-matter expertise, are inclined to go for sensationalism, and have little stake in getting such material right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion that applies to most media outlets these days. M3g4d37h (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Media outlets are not good sources for most things! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if it is a problem I doubt this extends back many decades? So I wouldn't want to extend any sourcing restriction any further back than it became a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point and I agree. Chetsford (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

We wouldn't use a tourist local UFO culture boutique/museum as a source and this instance is rather similar... 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A newspaper is not at all similar to that, no. And before Roswell the Roswell Daily Record was a completely standard, acceptable local paper, which to my understanding was not any weirder about aliens than any other paper. I would not be surprised if at some point they changed (because aliens are a lucrative market and the newspaper business has gotten rough), but I am saying that there is a difference between the coverage now and then and the circumstances in which we may use it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Master's thesis for biographical details

I'm planning to expand our article on Jacob Steinhardt and in my initial search for sources found this Master's thesis from a student at Charles University, Prague. Is this an appropriate source for biographical details, or no? Because the fourth chapter, Zur Person von Jakob Steinhardt, seems to be a very handy four-page summary of his life, appropriately cited. I've never quite understood our rules on theses as sources; it seems perfectly reliable to me, but I thought I'd ask for clarification. Thanks. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:THESIS applies. I haven't looked at the PDF, but you'd expect any thesis to cite their own sources anyway? FDW777 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, sometimes they cite sources that are reliable but that we can't use, like research library collections or the like. Not sure if this one does, but that's an example I had to deal with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Do other RS cite the thesis? If not, no. I've had to use cited masters theses for biographical details on a few very obscure articles, but they're only RS if they can be shown to have academic acceptance through citations or something. Sometimes you can just refer to their sources, but sometimes they cite sources we cannot cite. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems impractical. Why should a Master's student not be trusted to be able to write coherent biographical information? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Question about a source on Station Museum of Contemporary Art

On the Station Museum of Contemporary Art article, there's a sentence ("In addition to traditional exhibitions, the museum has featured monthly film-screenings, musical events, lectures, fundraisers and more which aimed to inspire a dialogue that encouraged the public awareness of the lives of others".) which uses 365 Things to Do in Houston Today as a source (the link to the source for that sentence is here).

Is this website considered a verifiable source per WP:RS and WP:V? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The entry doesn't seem to be user-generated. For something as mundane as this, I think it's acceptable. Cortador (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No. The line is lifted verbatim from the museum's About page. The website should be considered WP:PRSOURCE. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

To add to my earlier comment, I also found the 365 Houston source on Hockley, Texas, where the 5 Must Do Things Around Hockley was used as a source for this sentence: "The community is surrounded by grain farms and cattle ranches.". I wonder if someone should look into this? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider after switching to Artificial Intelligence

How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed Business Insider after it has started using A.I.? NotJamestack (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally Reliable
• Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable
• Option 4: Must Be Deprecated

Survey (Business Insider)

Option 2.5; Use With Extreme Caution. I'm not too familiar with this change. A.I. does tend to be inaccurate, but I'm not sure how this A.I. will behave. I will be going for 2.5 on balance as a result. NotJamestack (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 No issues with reliability for me, but AI-generated stories should not contribute to establishing SIGCOV.
  Business Insider's AI policy is that the AI will generate a draft of the story that will then be human-reviewed before publication. So I don't have any more issue with using AI here than I would using spellcheck. That said, the bigger issue for me than reliability is whether or not these stories should contribute to SIGCOV for purposes of contributing to N. IMO, they should not. The idea implicit in SIGCOV is that, if multiple slow-moving humans have devoted time to enterprising stories about X, then X must be a matter of great interest to humans. The same can't be said for AI that is hoovering up vast quantities of material and using temporal trend scoring to determine what to elevate. Chetsford (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. If Business Insider can't be bothered to write their stories, I have no confidence that their editors can be bothered to properly check them. The fact they apparently not to disclose AI use and plan to use it to distort images and videos only makes thing worse. Cortador (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to option 4 as per my comment below. Only tagging articles entirely written by AI isn't good enough. Cortador (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that all AI-generated stories will be bylined "Business Insider AI" [76]. If we wanted, we could segregate BI in the same way we do with WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORS and consider that byline non-RS. Chetsford (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4. Any publication using LLM-generated content must surely be aware by now of its inherent (algorithmically-unavoidable) flaws - most notably its tendency to hallucinate. If they are prepared to foist that on their readers, declared or otherwise (and note Cortador's comment below regarding limits to their declarations [77]), one has to assume that they simply aren't interested in content accuracy, anywhere on their website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for Business Insider AI Bylines. Using AI for articles will seriously affect reliablity however, it looks like per what was noted by Chetsford and my own research that these AI articles will be under a AI byline and labeled as AI. So we should do what we do with WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORS and list the AI articles as unreliable but not non AI Business Insider articles.GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Andy the Grumpy person is clearly the best option here. - Walter Ego 15:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Andy. The fact that they're willing to use LLMs at all in articles reflects poorly on the intelligence of their editorial board. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• No change. Their AI policy says There is always human oversight when our journalists use AI, and they are responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and overall quality of everything we publish. The risk of AI making stuff up, when people are to be held accountable, should be treated the same as the risk of people making stuff up—e.g, we judge sources for having editorial controls or not, with organizations taking responsibility for what they publish, and that should be the same here. If they do end up publishing fabricated information, then just like any other source that publishes fabricated information, we see it and go from there. Downgrading reliability without any evidence of actual published fabrication is premature and alarmist Placeholderer (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• No change per u:Placeholder's arguments. The argument that AI makes mistakes is similar to the argument that humans make mistakes. We don't downgrade every human-created media because of that. If the change leads to inaccuracies I'd be happy to support a downgrade but doing it preemptively seems like an overreaction. Alaexis_¿question? 20:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• No change for now They say that any pieces that involved AI will be clearly labeled, and these pieces can be evaluated on their own merits. I share PARAKANYAA's concern that a time-based deprecation is not workable. I am okay with considering AI bylined stuff to be generally unreliable, but I don't think this should extend to other BI content until we get a better handle on how this will effect the website in practice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Business Insider stated that only pieces fully generated by AI will be labelled, not all pieces using AI. Cortador (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 for content under the AI byline, or for all content if AI is also contributing substantive content outside the AI byline. -- LWG ^talk 22:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Business Insider)

There have been a lot of RfCs on Business Insider in the past, with one discussion very recently talking about the switch to Artificial Intelligence. I don't think this is a bad RfC as a result. NotJamestack (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Which discussion is that? Cortador (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cortador This one. NotJamestack (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. From what Status writes, this includes using "A.I. tools for specific tasks and enhancements for images and video". That alone is dodgy since "enhancements" is a fancy term for "making things up", which doesn't bode well. Cortador (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@NotJamestack, can you share more details - how are they using AI and why do you think it impacts their reliability? Any examples of hallucinations that made their way into news pieces?articles? Alaexis_¿question? 13:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis From what I can see from the discussion I linked above, Business Insider will use ChatGPT without disclosing it to the article readers. A.I. has been know to be inaccurate, so I do feel like it will change reliability. NotJamestack (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the link at first. I think you'll agree that it's possible to use AI in a way that doesn't hurt and even enhances the quality. Humans are also widely known to be inaccurate sometimes. Let's wait and see whether this change produces inaccuracies - I don't think a preemptive change is warranted. Alaexis_¿question? 20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A word of warning: Business Insider themselves writes that they will, in their own words "transparently label any products or content fully generated by AI". Emphasis mine. So if a story is partially slop, images are altered etc. they apparently won't disclose it. They also state that they will use AI to assist with fact-checking. How's that even supposed to work? AI itself is what needs the fact-checking in the first place. Cortador (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How exactly are we going to deprecate it for only post-AI stories? That is impossible with how deprecation works. To deprecate it we have to have an RFC for the entire publication because you cannot time limit deprecation because deprecation is an edit filter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This RfC is about the entire publication. The question above is how reliable Business Insider is after they started using AI tool, not how reliable their AI-generated articles are. Cortador (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but this would also deprecate their pre-AI articles. You cannot time limit deprecation because all deprecation knows is the URL. So this has to be an RfC on the entire history of Business Insider, or deprecation cannot be an option. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

UnHerd website

Hello, I have seen UnHerd being used in a lot of articles, link search shows that it has been referenced over 500 times. I briefly looked at it and it seems that most of Unherd's news articles are op-eds by columnists, contributors, experts, etc (similar to The Spectator).

Do you think this is a reliable source? Can it be used to cite facts? G13 vs G14 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It's mostly opinion pieces afaik. Secretlondon (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

very undue. [78], filled mostly with "right-wing idealogues", pushing "culture war topics".

Should not be used for citing facts if another better source exists.

apparently, some nonprofit advertiser org called the Global Disinformation Index, has blacklisted Unherd due to its extreme anti-trans narratives. [79] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears we use unHerd in the GDI article to try to debunk the GDI. Not to say its not biased but unherd is def not to be trusted as a source for that. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

As you say, it looks like mostly Op-Eds: per WP:NEWSOPED there are usually not reliable for statements of fact. Our article calls it a "news and opinion" website but I'm struggling to find any straightforward news reporting on it. In this previous discussion, editors seem to generally agree that it mostly publishes opinion pieces from a particular political viewpoint, and should probably not be used for factual claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, largely OpEds. It may be useful if we are providing perspectives on a topic, likely current political topics, depending on the notability of the author. Otherwise, likely a poor source for most Wiki articles. Springee (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It can absolutely not be used to cite fact, speaking as a frequent editor in GENSEX I've only ever seen it used to launder TERF rhetoric and talking points into wikivoice. It'd be like citing The Daily Wire. Snokalok (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Although it's described as news and opinion, I've never seen anything other than OpEds. They would be reliable for the opinions of their authors, whether they were due would depend on the author and other factors specific to each usage. I would agree with Springee that they would have limited use outside of political topics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they ever publish news per say... But on the opinion side it should be assessed on a case by case basis as some of the authors I see are subject matter experts of one sort or another. That of course comes with inherent caveats in regards to what sorts of facts they can be used for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedians shun opinion websites as biased, unless they are good liberal sources like The New Statesman or The New Republic or Salon.com. We shun right-wing ideologues but embrace left-wing ideologues. I'm being intentionally facetious, but I would again like to stress biased doesn't necessarily mean bad. And even *if* most UnHerd articles are OpEds (which is an assertion that demands evidence), their contributors include distinguished scholar Terry Eagleton[80], economist Yanis Varoufakis[81], philosopher Agnes Callard[82]feminist Julie Bindel[83], and political historian Jeff Bloodworth. If we systematically exclude expert analysis on the grounds of "it's biased" or "it's right wing" or "it's a culture war issue" then we are actively perpetuating ideological bias in Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

We have this convo every few months, whether is grokipedia, larry sanger etc.

the counterpoint is we also consider some right wing sites like free beacon as useful and drop left wing sites like occupy dems.

and in general, it does seem other groups that are more aligned with traditional journalism also dislike it see [84] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Liberal writer for Vice dislikes outlet founded by conservative as soon as it debuts. Shocking. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Animalparty: unless I'm missing something nobody has suggested that we exclude expert analysis from this source... And we discourage the use of opinion content when stronger sources are available regardless of political stripe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Another example of the right wing being oppressed and silenced for their beliefs. Which beliefs specifically? Oh, well, never you mind. Again, I can only speak in regards to GENSEX, but wikipedia generally doesn’t cite terfs and other associated anti-trans advocates for facts on trans issues.Snokalok (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppressed and silenced for not getting an exemption from RSOPINION, unlike two liberal sources which, looking at RSP, also do not get an exemption from RSOPINION (and one that is not listed). Wikipedia will never stop being biased unless we repeal RSOPINION for enough right-wing sources to allow us to present alternative facts alongside regular facts on equal footing, I guess. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

At most, they should only be used for attributed opinions of the writers where appropriate, but not for much else, especially not for any potentially controversial statements. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

"The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Failing that, UnHerd has a track record of corrections and an editorial hierarchy. Even critical articles about it do not accuse it of inaccuracy. UnHerd meets WP:NEWSORG. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• It's a publication primarily of opinion, similar to The Spectator. It may have occasionally usable articles like The Spectator, but generally encyclopedia articles should not be sourced to opinion pieces. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It depends. Mostly an opinion site, and that is not always going to be due. I think it would be fine for media opinion. It is certainly an influential site in that regard. Wouldn't cite it for anything contentious but like, a book review or an interview or something is fine. Sort of like Salon.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

News organisations need to publish news not just opinion, so unHerd definitely isn’t a news organisation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Poor source. Its mission is to publish stuff that mainstream outlets won’t, so it’s almost by definition fringe. Although it has (or at least used to) have some good writers with track records publishing elsewhere (albeit most of these seem to have left as it’s gotten weirder), at best it might once have been an opinion outlet that we might use for opinions that are due for some reason such as authorship by notable subject matter experts, perhaps somewhere between spiked and the Spectator or a more right-wing Jacobin. But especially during Covid it published loads of dodgy stuff. For example, it published this piece of Nicaraguan government propaganda by a very dodgy author (a Grayzone contributor who made up a false identity to launder torture confessions), presumably because it had an anti-lockdown message. One other regular contributors, former eco-warrior turned far right activist, became an anti-vaxxer railing against “bio-medical tyranny”. Another contributor who went off the rails during Covid is Tony Young.

And it’s leaned really deep into anti-trans culture wars, a topic I can’t imagine we could consider it due for.

On their ownership, read this and this. On its politics, read this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Times Now

Is Times Now ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Times Now)

• Option 2 reliable for anything not related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism. Our article on Times Now isn't in great shape and should not be used as a definitive guide to evaluate this. At the very least, as a subsidiary of the Times of India, it would be hard to imagine it would be less reliable than the parent (which we currently subject to "additional considerations", those considerations being attentiveness to AI and advertorials). While some editors have raised concerns in past discussions about the reliability of its coverage of the BJP, there has never been an objection to its coverage outside those topics and the fact it's in a joint partnership with Reuters [85], which is unambiguously RS is worth taking note. It obviously has a gatekeeping process and a publication record, and I can find no record of it failing any factchecks after checking all the usual suspect F/C entities, (outside of presentation issues related to Indian politics and Hindu nationalism). There should be no reason we treat it more stringently than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS vs WP:FOXNEWS. Leaving this in limbo removes a major source for topics related to contemporary India that sit outside the political arena. Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3, low editorial standards which appear to only be dropping as time goes on... There also seems to be ongoing issues with mixing opinion and news content in an unclear way, some of that can be written of to clickbait or sensationalism but it doesn't speak in their favor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Οption 3. A strong political bias is never bottled and isolated. It leaks and spreads across almost every kind of reporting. The most trivial examples of that typical phenomenon will be found in the realms of sports and culture. Therefor, having established that Times Now is virtually a political propaganda organ, we should keep it at a safe distance from the pool of reliable sources. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Times Now)

• Times Now has been repeatedly discussed across this noticeboard (e.g. here, here, here, here, etc.) and most recently last month [86]. It's occasionally cited across the project. Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The Military Watch

Not to be confused with Military Watch Magazine, The Military Watch is a Facebook page with limited followers. It's cited 45 times at List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Russo-Ukrainian war, so figured I'd better at least discuss it here before editing. FDW777 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

When were they added, and by whom? If it is one person, it could be promotional and being spammed. Please check to see when they were added, and if it was one person, and the page was used in many other pages at around the same time, you may nominate the source for spam blacklist. If it was one person, you may check spamcheck.toolforge.org to make checking for spam easier. Thanks. NotJamestack (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

They were initially added by someone who's username/IP has been removed [1][2][3].

Later they were cited by @Dombo78 [1][2] then by @BlackFlanker [1][2] & by @Mr.User200 [1][2][3], all before 2024.

So it seems several editors have cited it over the years. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)