Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 491

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

Archive 485

←

Archive 489

Archive 490

Archive 491

Archive 492

The Guardian (Nigeria)

I was hoping the community could weigh in on the reliability of The Guardian (Nigeria) for a specific article they've published given that I've just seen WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Currently it is being used quite extensively at 15_(programmer) and 15.ai (currently being reviewed for Good Article status) due to this [1] article. I am concerned because The Guardian (Nigeria) evidently has a history of undisclosed advertisement and the author of the article, Yusuf Temitope, is not listed as a contributor for The Guardian (Nigeria) and the only other article I found by them on The Guardian appears to be AI Generated and is clearly an advertisement [2]. The tweet which the article seems to base its content on also has a call at the end for journalists to contact the creator, so I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that the article might be paid for [3]. Teppa-Nyxos-XXVII (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock.

I am yet to learn of a single news outlet in the nation of Nigeria that is not, to some degree, like that. Hence WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Anything from there that looks dubious do not use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that seems to be the common feelings given WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, but as it is an article by article basis I was hoping more experienced editors could weigh in on it. The reason I went looking is because there's a source assesment table for 15.ai that linked me to WP:RSNG that lists The Guardian as generally reliable for content about Nigeria but WP:RSNG linked to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA at the top. I was hoping others might be able to assauage my concerns from reading WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Since this particular article by Temitope doesn't look as blatantly advertorial as the other article, does that mean it's good to go? Well, that's a relief. Teppa-Nyxos-XXVII (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock.

The Guardian is generally reliable, but that doesn't mean that all the articles it publishes are reliable. When it writes such a puff piece, especially if the subject is far removed from it's normal reporting, then WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA should be taken into account. In the specific contect of the report about 15.ai it's apparent that it's an advertorial, and shouldn't be considered reliable for anything other than basic facts (the same way a presss release should be handled). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Okayyyy. Tbh, the entire thing is confusing to me because the 15.ai article just doesn't have the same vibe as the blatant advertisement article that the author did so I was hoping it'd just be fine, but I think I'll just avoid Nigerian news sources and leave it to other editors with keener eyes to sort out. Teppa-Nyxos-XXVII (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock.

Commenting on this RSN discussion because this user has been blocked as a suspected sock of someone who has been WP:HOUNDING my edit history for the past year (see the SPI discussion for detailed evidence). They have had a history of disruptive editing on Wikipedia, particularly surrounding the 15.ai article. A tactic they have used in the past is to create RSN discussions in bad faith in an attempt to slowly whittle down the number of sources on the article so that they can ultimately nominate the article for deletion. I have stricken posts from this sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE so that future editors who come across any similarly created discussions from a relatively new editor (account created on or after October 2025) can be aware of this person's history (previously known as BrocadeRiverPoems, 172.90.69.231, and Emm90). –G M 04:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest not relying on such poor sources to begin with. Using every source regardless of quality can make an articles notability look weaker than it would do otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Is ASN (Aviation Safety Network) a reliable source?

The website https://asn.flightsafety.org/ has been cited in many articles on Aviation Accidents and Incidents such as in article Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 reference number 4 and United Airlines Flight 232 reference number 5. The website is a database containing every aviation accident and incident. It’s a wiki that anybody with an account can edit and contains sources for the accident description. It is a tertiary source but the reliability is kind of questionable as it appears to fall under the category of self-published material. --Prothe1st-- 11:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure how much of the site this covers, but anything with wikibase in the URL is user generated content per ASNs own description "The ASN Wikibase is updated regularly by a large user community..."[4] and "Yes, you can add accidents and incidents to the ASN WikiBase yourself! Or you can correct or update existing accidents."[5] So none of those URLs would be reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Their website states they are a non profit that has been around for 80 years. The about page says they have multiple sections, https://asn.flightsafety.org/about/, ASN accident database is their own, they also have a wiki database that is user submitted, and a "sightings" list. On both sources, it looks like they are hosting official government responses to the accidents. The Wiki shouldn't be used, but the reports seem fine unless they seem to contradict other sources, or give other clues they might be inaccurate, using reasonable judgement. I wouldn't use this for notability, because they are going to record every accident, but the use on those articles seems to be mostly to flesh out some details about the accidents. Denaar (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

User generated almost certainly not unless we can trace back authorship to an otherwise fine RS/SME type. Others likely fine that aren't like that.

See: Flight Safety Foundation#Aviation Safety Network — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on this topic over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Aviation Safety Network as a Reliable Source. I will be opening an RfC here shortly, just haven't had a chance to do it yet. nf utvol (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There’s no need for any of that - this is the correct venue for any discussions as to the reliability of a source; an RfC isn’t needed and shouldn’t really be opened elsewhere. I’d recommend pointing participants at the other talk page to this discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It might be helpful if some of the WP:Aviation explain why this shouldn't always be counted as usergenerated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the 30,000 foot view of the argument? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Their wiki database has always been a mix of ASN's own coverage along with user submissions (the former is true for a lot of its 20th-century coverage). But it cites sources regardless and those are what should be ultimately used. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Ben Saul, Reuters and The Diplomat

I like input on whether the following sources are reliable for factual statements about Taiwan’s constitutional and political status under the Republic of China (ROC). The core statements I wish to add is explaining;

The ROC Constitution still formally claims sovereignty over all of China, not just Taiwan.
Taiwan has never declared formal independence.
The government continues to call itself the Republic of China (not the Republic of Taiwan), and its official status remains unchanged (current).
DPP admin unilaterally can't change the Constitution and it requires KMT or majority of lawmakers (75%) to agree to a change in status and constitution.

Another argued that my sources were "unreliable opinion pieces" and I need to find better ones, but I believe they are suitable for attributed factual use of above claims. My sources are;

Ben Saul (The Conversation) - who is a Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney. He explained the ROC Constitution still claims all of China and that Taiwan has not declared independence. [6]
Reuters – Article notes it would be extremely difficult for Taiwan to formally declare itself as the Republic of Taiwan and that the ROC government still calls itself as Republic of China - as it still hasn't changed the constitution. [7]
The Diplomat - Explains that despite DPP presidents rejecting the One China principle rhetorically, Taiwan’s constitutional status remains unchanged because only constitutional amendments could alter it. (Be good for explaining the challenges and the limits of DPP power to change status)[8]

My question is - Are these sources particularly The Conversation (Ben Saul) and The Diplomat - considered reliable for factual and or attributed use to their claims above? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is going to be a situation that's about more than the reliability of a few sources. Commonly the Republic of China is referred to as Taiwan in English sources, so Wikipedia calls Taiwan a country even if that's not technically correct. There was a formal discussion about it in 2020. If editors are looking to change that position I would suggest they work together towards starting a new WP:RFC. Other interested editors should see the relevant discussions on Talk:Political status of Taiwan. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Except I am not even talking about whether Taiwan is a country. My claims are very specific. It's that Taiwan constitution claims all of China and not just island of Taiwan. And that it never declared formal independence. And that it requires majority of lawmakers to make a change to their formal status. I am not asking for overly ambitious statements. Just those facts. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Glancing at the thread that appears to have prompted you to come here (Talk:Political status of Taiwan#Second Content Dispute (out of five)), all that seems to have happened is that you had one response that asked if you could produce legal scholarship to back up the point. That seems to be not an unreasonable ask in the context of the complexity of the question raised and coming here seems premature in response. A peer-reviewed article from a legal journal analysing this topic would be far more convincing than journalism, even a piece authored by an academic. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@DeCausa My understanding is that The Conversation, The Diplomat, Reuters etc And I can find more sources like UK gov library - [9] who all says about same thing that Taiwan hasn't declared formal independence and its constitution still claims all of mainland China rather than just Taiwan alone and unlikely to move to formal independence when most Taiwanese support status quo. Logically, one maybe make a mistake but it's unlikely for all of them to collectively make same error or that there's a conspiracy that they are all lying. My point is that the information I’m trying to add is factual rather than opinion. Ben Saul, a subject expert writing for The Conversation, states that the Taiwanese constitution formally claims all of China rather than just the island of Taiwan. Reuters also reports that Taiwan has never declared formal independence. While there may be debate over whether Taiwan is considered a “country,” whether a constitution makes a specific claim, or whether Taiwan has formally declared independence, is a matter of fact. Ben Saul cites the conclusion of the late James Crawford of the International Court of Justice, which supports the accuracy of this information. The UK Parliament Commons Library briefing also confirms that the ROC Constitution asserts sovereignty over mainland China. Unless they are all unreliable, the odds are taken together, these sources strongly suggest that these statements are accurate and reliably sourced. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that you should have no problems with finding scholarly sources (books or articles) that back up your claim.

I also think that if someone disputes this claim, they should be able to produce some kind of back up which is subject to the same standards of reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 09:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I haven't searched for that long but looking at Google scholar, I found Oxford University Public international Law - Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2020, author Björn Ahl) [10] - which says Taiwan meets the objective criteria for statehood but has not formally claimed de jure statehood due to the risk of PRC military action. I also found another source like Island Journal Review that says Taiwan functions as a de facto state that's limited to paradiplomatic channels because of China's influence and lack of broad international recognition.[11] I mean they pretty much support The Diplomat, Brookings and The Conversation. I doubt there's any reliable sources that exists that debunks them. I reckon if it does go to DRN, my sources will mog their sources. But do you think these are acceptable enough?

i JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

These are definitely acceptable sources. Note though that "RoC/Taiwan is a de facto state" and "The RoC claims the whole China" are different statements, so you might want to search for the sources that support your specific claim. Alaexis_¿question? 10:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to make my reply longer, as I know people may not want to read all that detailed explanation. I just want to know if source is acceptable. But yes, for example the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review states that under the ROC Constitution, whatever territory the PRC occupies is also considered ROC territory. Overall, according to the article, Taiwan functions as a de facto country but is blocked from de jure statehood: "Under the current ROC Constitution, both the PRC and the ROC occupy the same territory" and "even after relinquishing the mainland in de facto terms, if a war breaks out between two sides of the strait, it would be classified as an “internal conflict” under the current ROC Constitution". Meaning they don't consider the other side as foreign. There's more stuff like the Montevideo Convention, Etc [12] If it ever comes to a DRN, I will carefully outline the exact quotes to back all my statements. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie Columbia Undergraduate Law Review might be problematic since it contains undergraduates' work (or it might not be). But other journals you've mentioned earlier are certainly fine. Alaexis_¿question? 20:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

What article is this for? Czarking0 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that nobody has actually challenged whether or not the sources are "considered reliable for factual and or attributed use to their claims above." The discussion on the talk page is almost entirely about due weight with nobody actually rejecting these sources unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Make up your mind. I am here only when I see incorrect or missing info. I am not here to promote flawed articles and do not agree with you. If you have issues with the the current disputed edit of mine like [13][14] then make sure you can back it up and there's a place for disputes where I see you at DRN. But no offence, if you now talk about "due weight", that's a different place now and not here. Go to undue noticeboard if you now insist that's the issue or article talk page. However you indeed complained about sources like [15] being insufficient - [16] - despite my source is a subject expert who in his own words indeed say "Taiwan’s Constitution still formally claims all of China. ... Taiwan hasn’t formally declared itself to be a new, legally independent state." You only change your tune about my source reliability right after I told you that if you think my sources are insufficient then I will check at RSN. But if you have now issues with due weight, be very specific and not vague at Article talk page and I will raise it at Undue noticeboard if I have to. But discuss that at article talk page but not here. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I literally say "It would help if you had reliable sources beyond those opinion pieces... They can be used for the opinion of their author but they can not be used to make statements beyond that which is apparently what you want to use them to do." which is what multiple people both there and here have told you. This whole thing where you keep talking past people and shifting venues isn't helping. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Be specific. Which info? Tell me specifically which info instead of constantly being vague that it doesn't support what I say. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Most people don't bother to read the sources but I have. Joko2468 told me on my talk page they "know very little about the matter in question and the extent of people's prior opposition". Only you and I know the details. Again I am not asking that much - if you claim a source doesn't support what I wrote - be SPECIFIC also please take this discussion to the article talk page where I have updated and outlined the entire info I wish to add in future.[17] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not fond of the Diplomat as a source and Reuters is just a wire service. The Conversation source is the best of the bunch but sourcing could use improvement. Have you tried Wikipedia Library? Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Reuters honestly were more supplementary for saying the more obvious things like Taiwan never declared formal independence. The Conversation was the main one for the deeper issues. I have since increased my sources considerably since I started this thread. That includes US Asia law institute [18], Oxford University Public international Law[19], Island Study Journal, etc that's much more detailed. I do not know about Wikipedia library - what's that? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Seem Wikipedia library can be accessed by any registered editor whose account is six months old and has 500 global edits. That won't apply to me. Tho I only have one source I cannot access but wish to. It's - [20] I am not part of an organisation that "has access" nor do I wish to pay for a subscription fee. Would Wikipedia library allow one to access that paper? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I think academic books or papers rather than media articles would be better sources. Secretlondon (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This (Taiwan's de-jure maintaince of territorial claims and sovereignty) appears to be a fairly uncontroversial assertion which I believe should be supported by any encyclopedic source/history book on modern China.

Coming to the sources, Reuters and Diplomat are fine but Coversation pieces are op-eds and need to be attributed. But what you should be looking for in these cases are WP:HISTRS not run of the mill news sources. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Questioning source reliability in Murder of Jong-Ok Shin article

Hello,

I’d appreciate input on the reliability of several sources used in the Wikipedia article Murder of Jong-Ok Shin. My concerns include:

Frequent use of IMDb and YouTube uploads as sources for claims about programmes and testimony
Inclusion of an advocacy website (OmarBenguit.co.uk) under “Official website,” which appears partisan
Several uncited documentary or media transcripts used as evidence of investigative wrongdoing
Reliance on local news (e.g. Bournemouth Echo) for contested factual statements without corroboration from national or judicial sources

I have already flagged these issues on the article’s Talk page and in an NPOV request. Detailed discussion is here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about bias and sourcing in Murder of Jong-Ok Shin article.

The broader article appears to require a comprehensive neutrality and sourcing review.

Any insights from editors experienced in source-quality review would be very helpful.

66.54.123.6 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The article has undergone signficant changes since this query was posted, but FWIW:

IMDB is not generally reliable. It is currently used only once in the article to support some minor details about the production of a TV programme related to the murder, so it's not a major concern, but the article also wouldn't lose anything from just cutting the details supported only by IMDB
YouTube itself isn't a source but a host for various different sources of very different levels of reliability. A documentary which is a reliable source could be available on YouTube in which case it would be a legitimate courtesy link. At any rate, there don't seem to be any YouTube links in the article any longer
The standards for external links are different from (and less strict than) those for sources. omarbenguit.co.uk doesn't look like it's a reliable source, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the external link is unsuitable; WP:EL has guidelines about external links and WP:EL/N is the noticeboard to ask questions about those.
I'm not immediately seeing "several uncited documentary or media transcripts" used in the article and am not entirely clear what you mean by this – have they been removed in the intervening period? Documentaries absolutely can be reliable sources.
Local news sources are not inherently unreliable. If a claim is only reported in the initial local news reporting we might question whether it's due weight to include, and particularly extraordinary claims might require stronger sourcing, but I see no reason why, for instance, a local newspaper would be unreliable for a claim such as During her time in Bournemouth, Shin worked part-time at a bank and at a local hotel. Friends and teachers described her as kind, hard-working, and well-liked by other students. This kind of basic biographical information can absolutely be sourced to local news sources.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Arab News on Middle East Eye

There has been repeated edit warring at the Middle East Eye article over whether a 2019 article in Arab News, entitled How Middle East Eye is fake-news central, is a reliable source to be used in the MEE article. I think the answer is a hard no. MEE has been alleged by Saudi Arabia to be funded by the government of Qatar, and during the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis, one of Saudi Arabia's demands of Qatar was to shut down MEE. Given that Arab News is owned by a member of the Saudi royal family and is strongly associated with the Saudi government, the conflict of interest here is too great in my opinion for this to be due for inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of Arab News reliability in general the report fails verification in context. The addition to the article [21] is about the MEE pushing a narrative about Muslim victimisation in the UK and US, the Arab News article makes no mention of any of this and instead is about MEE having a pro-Qatar bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that too lol. The page is a mess of SPAs and IP accounts adding poorly sourced stuff like this. I wonder If I can get it ECPed, given that some of this does relate to Israel-Palestine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That is LLM nonsense, can tell from a mile away simply by the lang. Gotitbro (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the edit closely again [22] MEE demonstrates a consistent editorial bias in its coverage of Muslim communities and pro-Palestinian activism, regularly focusing on incidents of discrimination faced by Muslims—such as police harassment in the US and UK—and framing pro-Palestinian protests as subject to disproportionate state suppression. Its opinion pieces frequently foreground narratives of Muslim victimisation and challenge mainstream accounts, indicating an advocacy-oriented approach rather than a strictly neutral presentation of events is obvious AI slop, my eye just wasn't in for it. @Backlog girly: would you like to explain yourself?, and @Nehushtani: would you like to explain why you restored content even though it was not verified by the citation? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's AI, that the source does support the content is a more important issue anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The use of en dashes and this part in particular Its opinion pieces frequently foreground narratives of Muslim victimisation and challenge mainstream accounts, indicating an advocacy-oriented approach rather than a strictly neutral presentation of events strongly suggest that it's AI-generated. Look at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing for examples of similar AI text. I agree given the small length of the added content that the AI aspect is more trivial than it might be in a lot of other cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It is AI /LLM, mutiple detectors give a 100%. I would say this is quite important considering that hallucination here is the reason for the fabrication of the sourcing in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

If it is LLM generated it might explain why the source has not thing to do with the content, but unchecked LLM use is a behaviour issue rather than a reliability one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is why comments here make no mention of Arab News but rather why this addition can be discarded wholesale. Wikipedia is no place for LLM hallucinations (or LLMs generally for that matter). Gotitbro (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

AI/LLM usage aside, while the Arab News source might be DUE for an attributed quote/stance of general criticism (with appropriate context mentioning that MEE is Qatar-owned and Arab News is Saudi-owned), the article they're attempting to use absolutely doesn't support the additions they're making to the article - it seems they're trying to stretch one criticism of MEE into justifying the inclusion of another. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Book: Holy Woman: a divine adventure

I wish to write an article about following book. Seem to fulfill WP:Notability (books) following criterion. Mostly there should not be major concern but still wish to confirm before going ahead with the same.

"The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews..."
~ WP:Notability (books) of WP:WikiProject Books

The Book name article to be written about: Holy Woman: a divine adventure, Author: Louise Omer. ISBN 9781925849233
Publisher: Scribe (publisher) Australia, Publisher's book entry
Listing: https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/13573958?utm
Refs to be used:
- Morand, Rosalind. On Banquets and Crumbs.(Reviewed Louise Omer Holy Woman, Scribe ) Meanjin Vol 81, No 3.Editor:Jonathan Green; Reviews Editor Cher Tan. Australia, Melbourne University Publishing, 2022. (Genre:Reference work as mentioned by Google Books Preview available on google books)
- Shorter, Rosie Clare. Woman’s fleshy, feminist spiritual pilgrimage is a warning against religious coercive control. The Conversation link
- Cain, Sian. Why is God a man? The woman who searched the world for a feminist religion. (Non interview part) The Guardian link

Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like sufficient sourcing to me. Cortador (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

After some effort I got two more following Australian sources. About them too reasonable editorial policy seem to exist, but making a mention so other editors can take look at the following sources.

Koch, Megan (2022-07-08). "Book review: Holy Woman – A Divine Adventure - InReview | InDaily, Inside South Australia". www.indailysa.com.au. Retrieved 2025-10-09.
- Editorial policy statement:
  "..We believe that professional and rigorous reviewing is a crucial part of cultural practice, helping artists and arts companies to be the best they can be. .."
  policy page Link
Fisher, Ellie (2022-07-05). "Book review: Holy Woman, Louise Omer". Arts Hub. Retrieved 2025-10-09.
- Editorial policy statement:
  "..ArtsHub also expects its staff writers, freelancers and volunteer contributors to adhere to the journalistic principles of the Journalistic Code of Ethics developed by the MEAA.."
  policy page Link

Bookku (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I found three more following sources one of them is interview so can't be used beyond further reading / external link. All the three sources seem to have clear declaration policy if any content is paid but in case of this book's review we do not find mention of reviews have been paid.

Bookku (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald is good. Foreword reviews is being discussed below at #Foreword Reviews. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Foreword Reviews

About 95 Wikipedia pages cite www.forewordreviews.com as a source. One such review is currently proposed and contested as a source for WP:NAUTH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Haisch. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look very reliable. Although it has an editorial team, these are paid-for reviews. There's little mention of the publication in other reliable sources, i.e., it's not respected outside those paying for the service. Fences&Windows 10:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Suppose a good gauge of independence would be if they gave a book a poor rating. Will keep searching. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this specific review is paid, as they indicate that the paid reviews are published under the Clarion section. Not being paid doesn't automatically mean that it would be suitable as RS or for N, of course. Foreword is fairly similar in nature to Kirkus which I believe is the only trade reviewer listed on RSP (at WP:KIRKUS). Kirkus is, of course, much more well established; think of it as the difference between broadly circulated newspapers vs more niche publications. As a trade publication, they are more independent then say, the blurb that gets written on the publisher's webpage, but how useful they are as a source really does need to be judged on a case-by- case basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have a decent amount of mentions/usages in academic books [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] for just a few, so that shows some usebyothers. According to the American Library Association, their reviews aren't paid but they have a separate paid program if they decide not to review it [28]. I don't see evidence that this is paid? They have a paid program, and it is under a separate name from their main program. Seems fine for their non-paid reviews (which this is) which is kept separate. They also seem decently well known... I would say RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be paid. That's a completely different section. They appear to be fully open about that on their FAQs and about pages. The regular magazine reviews aren't paid, they choose what they want to review based on books sent in to them, no money is exchanged. They do seem to prefer indie books over major publications, but I don't see an issue with that. Silver seren^C 22:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: As others have noted, the ForeWord review of Haisch's book states in small print: "No fee was paid by the publisher for this review.", while Clarion (fee-based) reviews have a different boiler-plate message: "The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book and paid a small fee to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer. Foreword Reviews and Clarion Reviews make no guarantee that the publisher will receive a positive review." While some (but not all) reviews are apparently paid-for via Clarion Reviews, this appears to be somewhat normal in the indie business (perhaps somewhat akin to article processing charges in open-access scholarly publishing?) and by no means are all reviews positive, even paid ones. This book "suffers from sloppy or nonexistent editing. [The author's] language is tortured, and his arguments are poorly constructed", while this 1-star review concludes the author "aims to offer spiritual and scientific clarity, but, unfortunately, this book does little to clarify and may only add to their confusion." Many of the reviewers appear to be professional albeit freelance journalists and book critics, so the question may be more of WP:DUE than WP:RS, and/or depend on the prominence/reliability of the of the individual reviewer. In the Haisch case the review is by Julia Ann Charpentier, who appears to have a MA in creative writing and literature and several self-published books on various literary topics. All in all I'm leaning towards generally reliable to marginally reliable (where context and expertise of reviewer might better establish notability or lack thereof). --Animalparty! (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I see as well that the Independent Book Publishers Association, which so far as I can tell as a reputable organization, has pretty high praise for Forward Reviews, a good sign. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

In above thread too I mentioned

https://www.forewordreviews.com/articles/article/reviewer-rebecca-foster-interviews-louise-omer-author-of-holy-woman-a-divine-adventure/

I would appreciate feed back about the same too. Bookku (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

On the discussion above, especially given PARAKANYAA's points, I'd comfortably call an interview in this source reliable for points discussed there if it is not indicated as a paid placement, which it is not for your source. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Use of AirForces Monthly in 2025 India–Pakistan conflict

I'm trying to use a recently published article in AirForces Monthly magazine to support the following content at the end of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Background section, but I'm getting a lot of pushback here. Could someone uninvolved please read the discussion there for context and provide feedback? The content I am trying to add is as follows:

On 29 April, four Indian Air Force (IAF) Rafale aircraft departed from Ambala Air Force Station on a strike mission but aborted and diverted to Srinagar Air Force Station. Following the failed 29 April strike mission, and before 6 May, the IAF redeployed up to 20 Rafale aircraft from Hasimara Air Force Station (home of No. 101 Squadron IAF in the Eastern Command) to Gwalior, Ambala, Srinagar, and Nal Air Force Station in Rajasthan. Several S-400 missile system surface-to-air missile batteries were also repositioned to Adampur, Bhuj, and Bikaner. During late April and early May, the IAF mobilised around 400 aircraft, with its transport fleet conducting more than 500 sorties.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes! But in the first line the mention of India's mission, which is to bomb terrorist targets in the north per this reliable source should be exist. Otherwise it's ok. King Ayan Das (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

But due to exceptional claim of "failed strike", I think per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, until reported by multiple reliable sources, atleast the word of the "failed strike" should be avoided. King Ayan Das (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there any evidence it is not an RS? What is its reputation? Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of information in this piece; it is sixteen pages long. Parts of it are clearly attributed to the PAF and its officials, but much of it reads as independent narration. We really need guidance from a volunteer uninvolved editor familiar with how attribution works to determine whether some portions can be written in wikivoice. I understand that the talk page discussion is quite lengthy, and while it would be preferable for the volunteer to read it, our only essential requirement is for them to evaluate the actual source and advise us on whether certain sections can be wikivoiced. I do not believe the entire piece reflects the official PAF narration, but the other editor do, and that is the main point of contention. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't call myself uninvolved, but it is a magazine article, in a not very well-known magazine (AirForces Monthly), by a journalist who is also not very well-known (Alan Warnes?). As such, anything taken from there should be attributed directly to the journalist or the magazine, if at all due in the first place. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Airforces Monthly is being used as a source in approximately 600 articles.[29], [30] The identity of the reporting journalist does not matter when we are citing a reliable secondary source. Most journalists working for reliable secondary sources are non-notable and do not have a Wikipedia article. We can attribute opinions or analyses to the magazine, but if the information is an independently voiced fact, it should be presented in wiki voice. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
If the information is disputed or contentious, and is not found in any other source except for AirForces Monthly, then it cannot be presented in wikivoice. I am sure if it is an 'independently voiced fact', then multiple sources would exist for it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
The entire Wikipedia article is contentious and disputed, which means that we cannot include anything not supported by multiple sources. However, I believe this approach will hinder the process of building an encyclopedia. AirForces Monthly is a topic-specific source, as it focuses on covering air forces. It will continue to report on such topics even months or years after a conflict, while mainstream media are primarily concerned with breaking news. Third-party press outlets cater to the interests of their readers and are therefore unlikely to cover the Pakistan–India conflict long after it has occurred. Thus, we cannot assume that if only one reliable secondary source specialising in air forces covers the role of an air force in a conflict months later, but no one else does, then the information provided by that source is incorrect. Such an approach would exclude encyclopedically valuable information from Wikipedia and would not serve the purpose of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Also this disclaimer at the very top of the article: "Alan Warnes gained rare and exclusive access to the Pakistan Air Force in mid-July, to understand how it managed to shoot down six Indian Air Force fighters on the night of May 6/7" makes it quite clear why we cannot wikivoice the claims of the article. It is based on the journalist's interactions with one party only. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
It is your interpretation of the disclaimer that is incorrect. My interpretation is that the author was given rare and exclusive access, which allowed him to verify the information and technical data firsthand. Therefore, when he presents the information in an independent voice, it can be wiki-voiced. He did not create the content from behind a desk; he wrote it based on evidence. However, we do not judge secondary reliable sources by the level of access they had. Instead, we assess the information presented in the source by how it is written, whether it is independently voiced or attributed to a party. This particular source includes plenty of information attributed to the PAF or its officials, as well as a substantial amount presented independently. I am quite certain that the author understood which information should be presented in an independent voice and which should be attributed to the PAF. My purpose in coming to this forum was to hear the views of editors who regularly participate here. I notice that you have rarely contributed to this forum before, and while I will not speculate on how you came across this discussion, I appreciate your perspective. I will wait for input from an editor who regularly analyses sources at this forum. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
It is not my interpretation, I never said Warnes is making stuff up, just that the article is based on the his interactions with one party only. The disclaimer clearly spells out Warnes' "rare and exclusive access to the Pakistan Air Force." Does the article anywhere claim that Warnes had similar (or any, for that matter) access to the Indian Air Force? I don't think so. I do still think that to add contentious information in wikivoice especially in a contentious topic article, multiple RS must exist for the said information. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think "rare and exclusive access" is synonymous with "this feature is presented as narrated by PAF officials, and the author or AFM takes no responsibility for any content". The article clearly differentiates between the information provided by PAF officials and the independent assessments made by the source. When incorporating this information into Wikipedia, we can make that distinction as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested I don't know anyone else who is a regular on this forum. Would you be kind enough to provide your feedback on this source, please? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I will note, questions as to wp:undue or attribution have nothing to do with if the Source an RS or not. Of course it should be attributed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right, this shouldn't even be here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yet the editor who challenged the wiki-voicing of independently presented information from this feature suggested taking the matter to RSN to determine whether it can be wiki-voiced or if everything should be treated as the official version of the PAF, even though the source clearly distinguishes between statements from PAF officials and independently written content. That is the reason we are here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Considering the source either fabricated the names of military bases or repeated dubious official claims, without fact checking in either case, make this a veritable RSN issue. Gotitbro (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

A couple of possible typographical errors or mentions of military bases unknown to the public cannot discredit a 16-page feature. Those location names can be excluded pending confirmation from another source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Those are not mere "typographical errors", they are entirely fabricated place names. What the other 16 pages (with extensive full-page images for that number) carry is not very relevant, since the very content you seek to add directly pertains to this error/problem ridden para. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

There are other sources that mention Bhatinda and Barnala, while this one refers to Bhantral and Bhattwala. All other locations are covered by other sources. This clearly appears to be an oversight regarding these two location names that you are picking on. The author, not being local to Pakistan or India, clearly made a mistake on those two location names. As I mentioned, these two names can be excluded. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Journal of Biosocial Science

Following a recent discussion about this journal's value in a specific context (see [31]), I am asking if we can consider this small journal (Journal of Biosocial Science) to be a reliable source. Some of its other renowned publications are an article by Satoshi Kanazawa arguing the applicability of his "Savanna IQ hypothesis" to homosexuality [32]. Katzrockso (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that the discussion at FTN (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (again)) seems to have gotten more participants, so probably better to join the discussion on that noticeboard especially since it's more specialised on fringey stuff (even if things are in scope for both). Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Push Square, Game Rant, and Engadget for Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 pre-release metrics

I added content to Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 documenting pre-order chart positions and beta player counts, sourced from:

Push Square (PlayStation-focused gaming news site)
Game Rant (multi-platform gaming news site)
Engadget (technology news publication)

The content was reverted twice:

User:NegativeMP1 - "extremely poor sources"
User:IDKFA-93 - "sources aren't of the highest quality"

Neither editor has clarified what quality standards these sources fail to meet despite talk page discussion.

Question: Are these sources acceptable for documenting pre-release commercial metrics (pre-order chart positions, beta concurrent player counts) for video game articles? These appear to be the same tier as sources already used extensively in the article.

~~~~ Megamoddingman (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:VG/S for how the video game community feels about these sources. With it being one of the most popular game franchises in existence, you probably should be able to find some stronger sources if it's a common/important sentiment...

Another factor is probably the actual content you're trying to add. "Concurrent user" data is a popular talking point on forums and social media, but realistically isn't an important metric. Actual sales figures, regional sales data, commentary on profitability - these are the noteworthy things you'd want to add. (But that falls outside of the scope of this noticeboard.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to WP:VG/S. I'm aware Game Rant is listed as "situational" there, but the guidance specifically says it's acceptable for "general pop culture topics or game information" - which is exactly what I'm using it for here (basic player count metrics). I'm not using it for controversial claims or BLP material.

Push Square and Engadget are both listed as reliable at WP:VG/S, so those should be solid.

As for the "concurrent user data isn't important" argument - I disagree in this specific context. This is the first Call of Duty in 16 years to not top charts, and the beta numbers provide concrete evidence of that underperformance. It's not just forum chatter when multiple reliable sources are reporting on it as newsworthy. The pre-order chart struggles are equally notable - Push Square specifically wrote an article about it because it's unusual for the franchise. ~~~~ Megamoddingman (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Right, the sources are more "weak" than "unusable". But like I was saying, this issue is probably outside of the scope of this noticeboard. It's less about the reliability of sources, and more of a content dispute related to the inclusion of certain content. It's the sort of thing usually hashed out on article talk pages and only includes if there is a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. You can neutrally request input from WP:WIKIPROJECTs too - WT:VG considering the subject in question here - if there's a lack of participants discussing it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

With respect, both reverting editors explicitly cited source quality among their objections. IDKFA-93 said the sources "aren't of the highest quality" alongside timing concerns. NegativeMP1 called them "extremely poor sources" alongside tone objections.

Per WP:VG/S, Push Square and Engadget are listed as reliable sources. Game Rant is listed as acceptable for "general pop culture topics or game information" - which factual reporting on chart positions and player counts clearly falls under. These aren't "weak" sources; they meet the established reliability standards for this content type.

The problem is that when editors list source quality as one of multiple objections, I need confirmation that the sourcing objection is resolved before investing effort to address their other concerns (section placement, encyclopedic tone). Otherwise I'm caught in a cycle where I can fix everything else and still face reverts on source-quality grounds.

The sources are reliable per WP:VG/S. That sourcing objection should be withdrawn so the remaining editorial disputes (timing, tone, placement) can be properly discussed on the article talk page without source quality being used as a backup revert reason. ~~~~ Megamoddingman (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Megamoddingman, please stop using LLMs to write talk page messages, and please refrain from using LLMs on make edits on Wikipedia without disclosure. Your initial comment neglected to mention that you also added App2Top (app2top.com), Into Indie Games (intoindiegames.com), and Twisted Voxel (twistedvoxel.com) as sources in your edits Special:Diff/1316521412 and Special:Diff/1316564310; these three sources are unreliable because they are self-published blogs. — Newslinger talk 09:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is that some editors saw this edit and this edit, both adding two paragraphs about "Commercial performance" for a game that's not even out yet, citing a mixed bag of sources, and reverted. I may have done the same, to be honest.

Part of the issue is that several of these sources discuss player counts and don't get into pre-orders, so they're irrelevant in a section on sales. Engadget is a reliable source, yes, but that source is from 2024, meaning it's SYNTH to use it for claims about 2025. Of the sources that do discuss pre-orders, Push Square and Tech4Gamers are okay—but you don't need 3 Tech4Gamers articles. (One of them is about player counts and not pre-orders anyways.) Game Rant is clickbaity, so I personally avoid them on anything controversial, like this. So we've got 2 okay publishers talking about low pre-orders, which isn't great sourcing. My opinion is that's marginal to support a single sentence. It's also kind of CRYSTALBALLy since the game doesn't come out for another month. Maybe pre-orders will pick up, right?

If it were me, I'd wait until the game is out for a while and see what sources say about sales. At that point a "Commercial performance" section would be warranted. If pre-order sales didn't pick up, maybe the consensus will swing towards mentioning that. Woodroar (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

AeroRoutes and Airlineroute

Shortcut

WP:AEROROUTESWP:AEROROUTES

NOT RELIABLE

Consensus that this is an WP:SPS and not reliable.
Sure, involved closer, but the !votes cast here are a WP:SNOW outcome. Feel free to revert and/or request a formal close if you disagree FOARP (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

AeroRoutes is widely used but as far as I can tell undiscussed on here, it is the direct successor to Airlineroute so the two are in the same basket for our purposes here... It came up in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - WP:NOTGUIDE? and there appears to be disagreement over whether or not its a WP:RS and while I think its a discussion we should have that page really isn't the place... So lets see what people have to say here, pinging the involved from that talk page @EEng, Masem, FOARP, Reywas92, and Danners430: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SPS, not independent - It's a guy's blog. It literally declares that this is what it is. In as much as it is accurate, this is due to the information being simply relayed directly from the airlines since "All data sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website" (OAG and GDS are airline-data aggregators). Very similar to RoutesOnline which we already deprecated as non-independent except at least that's from a company, not a one-man-band. EDIT: that's not reliable in case you're wondering. FOARP (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It might be that Airlineroute is just part of RoutesOnline. The author of Airlineroute has a entry at Aviation Week Network[33] that says this about the Airlineroute site "Launched in 2007, the site became part of the Routesonline content offering in 2010..." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It's telling that Aviationweek (at the link you just gave) call Aeroroutes "our sister blog". It's an SPS blog, period. E Eng 16:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I wonder in what sense they're "sisters" Aviation Week Network isn't much help... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The linked RSN discussion is closed as additional considerations apply, not deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if Author A takes information from Conflicted Source B, that does not make Author A be non-independent. Non-independence means "someone paid me to publish this". It does not mean "I know how to get information straight from the horse's mouth". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It does if they are relaying the information without any fact-checking, and Jim Liu is not fact-checking the information he is getting. This means the information should be treated, in as much as it is reliably transmitted from the airlines, as coming directly from the airlines (i.e., not independent). FOARP (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
It's a WP:SPS per it's about page [34]. I can't find anything to establish the authors reputation, but doing so is hampered by their name being somewhat common. It doesn't appear to 'analysis, interpret, or evaluate' what it publishes, instead it just copies the primary source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Let's quote that "About" page, to save everyone the trouble of clicking:
independently owned Jim Liu ... 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 ...

Not reliable. Case closed. E Eng 16:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Not reliable - it's someone's blog, and while they may be quoting from other sources, the margin for error by omission is huge. And if they are coming from other sources, we should use those sources if they're not primary. I don't see any reason we'd use a fan blog for this kind of thing. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd consider it not reliable: enthusiast site, reliant on a single person to publish, no real way to quantify the completeness of the information. Also, I looked for and saw nothing to indicate significant use by other reliable sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Not reliable. It's an amateur blog, it should never be used as a source outside of ABOUTSELF. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

As someone heavily involved in the WP:VPP discussion where this originated, I wish to abstain from any formal vote. However, I do feel that given the About page that it’s pretty obviously not a reliable source, unless evidence can be obtained that editorial oversight exists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to abstain here... JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I've already got an editor on the VPP thread calling (for reasons unknown) for me to be topic banned from Airport articles. I can't be bothered with a fight over something so silly, hence I'm content with leaving an opinion only. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

As I said over at VPP: The fact of the matter is that the quality of the editors involved in a given topic area (in terms of their ability to grasp and adhere to P&G's, judge and interpret sources, work with other editors effectively, and so on) is inversely proportional to the triviality of that topic area -- an example of a trivial topic area being endlessly updating airport destination lists. That editor doesn't know what they're talking about, and there's zero chance of you being topic-banned. They'd be laughed off ANI. E Eng 01:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose… ah well. I’ll change my vote to a not reliable unless evidence to the contrary is found. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment, well this seems pretty unanimous. 14:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterbury Tail (talk • contribs)

It needs to be treated as an SPS, which means it should be considered primary and not independent, though I would not necessarily say its unreliable. Just that where content is expected to be backed by independent, third-party sources (as airline destination lists are per the RFC), this simply cannot be used. Masem (t) 14:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes it's a primary source, but use of an SPS is subject to more restrictions than even the usual ones for primary sources. In this case, it means we could only use this blog as a source on itself -- "Jim Liu's blog claims to do X" -- and that's assuming an article had some reason to talk about this blog, which seems highly unlikely. There's essentially no foreseeable use case for citing this source for anything. E Eng 17:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I know how we're trying to argue this, eg, we don't want this type of source to be used to build out airline destinations, its just that its hard to say its not reliable because it is pointing back to reliable sources for that information even if those are airline databases. But being primary and non-independent is a problem both per the last RFC on the airlines, as well as arguably what NCORP says about sources for business articles, in addition to general WP:V and WP:NOR problems with the lists. Masem (t) 23:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Question… could Jim Liu be considered an “expert” on airline routes? Has he written or spoken on the subject elsewhere? Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing that I can about Jim Liu that is otherwise not sourced to Aeroroutes, so very much unlikely to be the case. Masem (t) 00:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Our policy states all SPS are unreliable unless published by a recognized expert in the field, and even then usage is discouraged. It's irrelevant what the sources the SPS uses are when it comes to whether the SPS itself is reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, let's be real here: what is Jim Liu reporting? He is, at best, reporting airline announcements/listings of their future plans. He is not providing a list of services actually offered by the airline. Not only should we not be using him as a source, we shouldn't be reporting this information at all unless a secondary source can be used to show that it is WP:DUE to discuss it.

There is no shortage of information that can be sourced to primary sources about an airline. We could, for example, keep an up-to-date listing of the meals offered in first class, cited to the airline website. However, this would be pure trivia. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment - given these are likely to be deprecated as sources, can I suggest we incorporate them into the list of Perennial Sources, since it's so widely used? It would also be worthwhile adding a note to WP:WikiProject Airports and WP:WikiProject Airlines. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Deprecation requires a RfC which isn't what is happening here... And regardless we seem to have consensus for generally unreliable by default as a non-expert SPS not deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Aye, wrong phrasing methinks… I should probably have said “added to the list of Perennial Sources as Generally Unreliable” - is this something that can be done? Please excuse my ignorance as to process, I’m just trying to pre-empt the inevitable problems that will happen once we start removing these cites from articles and replacing them with CN tags… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

So in general the list is for sources that continually come up as contentious and this is the first formal discussion on this source so it doesn't really qualify... But you are right that it is widely used so it could be helpful to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok - yeah I was thinking because it’s so ridiculously widely used, and there’s already a fairly large problem with airport route tables, it would be helpful to include it simply as a way to reference back Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If the removals are objected to those discussions would count towards a listing. I know its not perfect, but its a self forming system in that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries - process is process :-) What I'll do for now, once the consensus is reached and the conversation closed or archived, I'll create a WP-namespace redirect to the discussion so that at least we can reference the discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a project level source list? This would make a good candidate to add if one exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no... Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is kind of that but also definitely not that... Its meant to stop the same arguments from happening over and over again for the same few sources not to be a project level source list. Its not meant to include sources that aren't the subject of significant repeat objection... This particular situation is certainly an outlier though, its very rare to have a source that widely used and basically nobody advocating for its use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If nothing else, it’s a rather damning part of the wider airport destination list issue… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Not reliable Per WP:SPS, this is definitely a blog outlet as self described on its website. As others have indicated, primary sources are more reliable when it comes to the kind of "reporting" this deals with but better secondary sources generally exist as well. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:53, 15 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.

Consensus claim at Lewis's trilemma

At Talk:Lewis's trilemma#On whether Jesus claimed to be God there is an argument whether the WP:SOURCES comply with WP:RS/AC about "most scholars" or about the verbatim quote I have replaced it with. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on the reliability of the Hindustan Times?

I can't find it in WP:RSPS. guninvalid (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The RSP isn't a complete list of sources, just sources that have been repeatedly discussed on this noticeboard. Most sources are just covered by basic policy, including this case.
Hindustan Times is an established news organisation, so per WP:NEWSORG it should be considered relatively reliable. The usual points about opinion pieces (WP:RSOPINION) and bias (WP:RSBIAS) apply. As a Indian news organisation articles that are overly positive about a subject should be handled with caution, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I would consider their news to be generally reliable. KnowDeath (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I find them to be higher quality than Times of India. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I've found them to be decently reliable Snokalok (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say generally reliable from what I've seen. WP:NEWSORGINDIA does not, nor should not apply to literally every publication ever to come out of an entire nation. That would be beyond absurd. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The main issue I've seen is editors considering ever article from an Indian source being unreliable because of NEWSORGINDIA, which is the opposite of what it says. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That is in fact a problem. Thanks for noticing that. Not sure if we could take corrective action there on that somehow? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I repeat the correction ever time it comes up here. If you see someone making the mistake in a different discussion I would suggest quoting what NEWSORGINDIA actually says. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times ("HT") is a newspaper owned by HT Media Group. The paper has agreed to a code of ethics, has an editor-in-chief, and claims to have a staff of over 5,000 people. Third-party public interest groups have assessed HT to have a slight left-leaning or center bias, with a mixed factual reporting record, failing multiple fact checks on popular stories (1; 2; 3).

I believe it is a questionable source, and caution or additional sourcing when citing HT, especially on contentious subjects, should be exercised. Jcgaylor (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

CBS News

DUPLICATE DISCUSSION

Any interested editors should join the pre-existing discussion here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § CBS News

– Aaron Liu (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Now that CBS News has been taken over by Bari Weiss, who owned the hyper-unreliable "Free Press", do we need to reevaluate the reliability of CBS reporting starting October 2025? 98.201.221.226 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Too soon. Ask again in about a year (when we might have actual evidence to discuss). Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, agree this is a too soon situation. In general I think a healthy skepticism concerning the accuracy of American media is good but whether this hiring decision substantially impacts the reliability of this particular platform remains to be seen. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Also to keep in mind that bias is not the same as unreliability, though extreme bias along with poor editorial practices get one to a Fox News situation. Masem (t) 19:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to support the notion that The Free Press is "hyper-unreliable". Per the ongoing discussion, and the other comments in this thread, a "wait and see approach" is necessary. It is too soon to make such a judgment. Jcgaylor (talk) 19:04, 16 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.

Reliability of &Asian, Pop Journal, and EnVi Media

Hello guys! I am just asking for the reliability of &Asian [35] (pronounced as andasian or and asian) and Pop Journal[36]. I use this frequently for pop culture or to any songs releasing or their reviews. Although, I really don't need to RfC this because it is not really uncontroversial source but I want to make sure that is good to use this sources. There's no suspicious on their writings like bias or anything but I just want to make sure that these sources are okay.

Thanks for who will help me. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, the EnVi Media[37] I want also to check on reliability. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

EnVi Media (about, masthead, policy) should be fine for pop culture content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

&Asian was previously discussed in August and September. To quote Cortador from the September discussion "... it's fine for pop culture content. Anything else should at minimum be attributed." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

inf.news

The King of Thailand hid Suthida's son and gave the opportunity to Dhipangkorn. The second prince of Thailand is expected to assist the government - iNEWS 西城東路 (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@西城東路 What is the question/problem/request? Polygnotus (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

We want to inform Queen Suthida's unnamed son on related pages. 西城東路 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@西城東路 There is no evidence in reliable sources that Suthida Bajrasudhabimalalakshana has a nine-year-old son hidden in Switzerland. It is probably not true. Polygnotus (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The website iNews (inf.news

; Traditional Chinese version at inf.news; English version at inf.news/en) does not disclose any staff or authorship information, and is generally unreliable as a self-published source. The article in question is poorly written and clearly not fact-checked (e.g. it begins with "The son of King Suthida of Thailand was hidden", when Suthida is actually the queen of Thailand). It claims, "According to royal expert Andrew, Suthida has a nine-year-old son", without giving further details about who "Andrew" is, and I cannot find any reliable sources that confirm this high-profile allegation, which would surely be reported in a more prominent publication if it were credible (or had any prominence in public discourse). In contrast, Hindustan Times (2025), The Business Times (2023, Singapore), and The Straits Times (2019) all state that Suthida has no children with Vajiralongkorn.

The website's search function shows that iNews has published numerous articles alleging that Suthida has a hidden son, including several from this week claiming that the son is seven instead of nine years old:

Articles 1–3 contain a screenshot of a 13 December 2014 post on Twitter containing a picture of an infant purported to be "The five-month-old son of Thai crown prince Vajiralongkorn with his mistress Major General Suthida". The post was from the account @zenjournalist, which is operated by the critic of the Thai monarchy Andrew MacGregor Marshall; he is what "Andrew" apparently refers to. The last article falsely claims that Suthida is currently imprisoned, which is not supported by reliable sources; Sineenatha is the consort that had been imprisoned from 2019–2020. Some of the other articles in the search results make claims about Suthida that are even more ridiculous, such as "Sutida has repeatedly shot the mother and son of shirami to show her ruthless side", referring to former princess of Thailand Srirasmi Suwadee.

iNews has also published Chinese-language content with the same allegation regarding Suthida having a hidden son. I checked the Chinese Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard, and found that iNews had been added to the Chinese Wikipedia's spam blacklist in 2021 in response to an iNews article that copied a Chinese-language press release from WeChat without attribution; iNews's English-language version of the article was a machine translation of the Chinese-language copy.

On the English Wikipedia, our noticeboard archives show prior discussions of "inf.news" in August 2025, April 2024, and October 2022, all showing the site to be unreliable. As iNews is currently cited in 244 articles

, regularly publishes content that would egregiously violate the living persons policy if cited, and has also published copyright violations that should not be linked on Wikipedia (per WP:COPYLINK), I support adding iNews (inf.news) to the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Iraqi universities

We may need to rexamine how we use accademic Iraqi sources

https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/17/exclusive-iraqi-university-forcing-students-to-cite-its-journals-to-graduate/

If this is true it will create inflated cite counts for thier published papers. A metric used to estlabish if a paper is an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, this practice is not unique to Iraq; the source says it "is widespread in academia". Additionally, according to the report this is happening at the University of Technology in Baghdad (although for how long is unclear), but not necessarily every higher education institution in Iraq. Using citation counts as the main gauge of reliability is not a good idea to begin with, IMO. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

yes citation count is terrible for determining reliability for all sorts of reasons (Paging Dr. Wakefield...)

for establishing notability or prominence for e.g. WP:NACADEMIC, we will need to exercise increased caution. —Rutebega (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately stuff like this is common across the developing world. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think that it's only across the developing world? How many US academics do you know who got jobs only on the basis of citations to or from foreign publications? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Citation cartels and such are a big problem everywhere, but if you read retraction watch, you get the impression that the problems like this seem to be most acute in developing countries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Citation count isn't great for reliability (partially because it doesn't distinguish between context; a citation that treats a source as reliable is very different from one that cites them to say how wrong they are.) But it is somewhat useful for establishing WP:DUE weight. And a citation count of zero is particularly significant; a high citation count doesn't necessarily mean a paper is reliable or due, but a citation count of zero strongly suggests we shouldn't give it too much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph/The Daily Telegraph

WP:ARBPIA

This reporting is related to protests about the ongoing situation in Israel/Palestine, only accounts that have extended confirmed rights can take part in discussions related to this content area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

The Daily Telegraph is widely considered an unreliable source due to its bias. It frequently distorts reports to push a certain narrative and an agenda.

See this article for example. It claimed a man was arrested for wearing a Star of David, when [in reality [38], he was arrested for illegally breaching a counter-protest zone and inciting the crowd by his speech. Notice also that it presented the man as Jewish, not as a protestor or a Brit or w/e.

And here where it labeled a flag with Shahada script on it as a "jihadists' flag of terrorist organisations". Islamophobia 101.

176.28.144.44 (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Please check the 2022 discussion regarding the Daily Telegraph as well as WP:TELEGRAPH. Those links should help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The 2024 discussion would be better to consider when it comes to anything to do with culture wars. TarnishedPath^talk 13:08, 20 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.

Primary sources for history

For the love of god can we get some consensus/essay/guideline on using primary sources or old secondary sources for history topics. WP:PRIMARYUSE is okay, but it doesn't really address the issues. It's common for editors to use said sources for wikivoice prose uncritically, when one of the basic tenets of history is source analysis and not taking sources at face value. Editors tend not to be professional historians and aren't trained to handle said sources. The amount of times I've gotten into disputes w people who just don't get it, and all I can point to is WP:CSA, which is an essay I wrote and not indicative of any sort of consensus. There's WP:HISTRS which doesn't seem to have made it to a guideline Kowal2701 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Context would help, as this reads like you might be engaging in wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

? I'm saying articles should be based on recent secondary sources, where's the OR? What prompted this was this, but there's also been this. Also practically every article on a British African colony was written with pre-1960s sources (eg. East Africa Protectorate, Nyasaland, Colony of Natal and Orange River Colony, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Southern Rhodesia, Transvaal Colony). I only really edit in African history, but I'm sure this persists in other topics, just perhaps with less urgency due to less-problematic bias. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

A large portion of this is likely due to the fact that older sources are generally free (e.g, Britannica) and easy to find online, or can be found freely digitized somewhere. Recent academia and books can be very expensive unless you are an academic or have WPL access, which you don't get until you're relatively established here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I see there's WP:GRLIT for ancient Greco-Roman topics Kowal2701 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think in practice HISTRS is treated as authoritative by the community; I would support an RfC to adopt it as a guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've seen people use very old social science sources too, it's not unique to history. Secretlondon (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Classical Greco-Roman sources are up on RSP as WP:GRECOROMAN, and really the advice there goes for all sorts of pre-modern sources, e.g. Chinese official histories. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Could that entry be expanded to all historical literature? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

To all ancient historical sources? Possibly. To any source predating the 1960s? I think that's a much harder sell. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe "non-contemporary"? I can’t think of a topic where recent sources aren’t available and you’d need to cite pre-1950s secondary sources without attribution, other than for data. But if there’s too many exceptions to that, "pre-modern" as you said above would be fine imo Kowal2701 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I can think of quite a few topics and have encountered many. Really anything specific, such as a person, a specific group, can have this happen. I would be opposed to limiting that as a result. For full governances, there are almost always better sources, but with specific things, often not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

"Specific group" can go very wrong using old sources. Secretlondon (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but what is the trade off here? Right now we rely on the editorial judgement and it produces the problems you've described. If we establish a bright-ish line rule, it may cause other difficulties. Do recent sources that cover the colonial history with the same detail always exist? Are they always better?

Maybe it's worth tagging the editors you disagree with and letting them explain their choice of sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah there’s loads of coverage of colonial history in recent sources, more than enough for encyclopedia articles. There’s some topics that haven’t received much attention from recent scholarship, like Cannibalism in Africa where one of our best sources is from 1958. But generally if a topic doesn’t meet GNG w recent sources, I don’t think we ought to have an article on it. Both editors in those cases linked above are currently blocked Kowal2701 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think we should enshrine WP:RECENTISM, a bad thing, into policy or practice. Sometimes a secondary source will have been surpassed by more recent scholarship and if so, just use those sources. If not, then it is fine. GNG does not have a time limit and I would resist any addition of one. This would hurt our coverage of more specific topics. Not everyone is interested in writing broad topic articles. Sometimes you want to write an article on a guy who lived in the 1800s and the most comprehensive source on him is an article from the 1940s... any regime that excludes such a source due solely to age I would oppose. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You're essentially proposing (indirectly) a substantial change to the notability criteria ("if a topic doesn’t meet GNG w recent sources, I don’t think we ought to have an article on it") and I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I took a look at the articles you've mentioned like Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia and they do rely on colonial-era or 1960s sources (such as The Cambridge History of the British Empire: South Africa, Rhodesia and the High Commission Territories, African Agriculture in Nyasaland 1858 to 1894, The Constitutional Status of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, etc). I got the impression that most of them are used to support claims that aren't controversial and have been in the articles for a long time.

I appreciate that you have had to spend time arguing with editors who want to use subpar sources - I have similar experience in other areas - but I think that a bright-line rule would cause more harm than good. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered by WP:OLDSOURCES? Kelob2678 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Palestine Chronicle

Palestine Chronicle is a pro-Palestinian news website and non-profit company created by Ramzy Baroud. Its cited in about 400 Wikipedia articles. Would you consider it a reliable source?

Recently, one of its contrubutors (Abdallah Aljamal) was revealed to be a Hamas-affilated hostage taker who was killed by IDF during Nuseirat rescue and massacre. ([39] [40]) G13 vs G14 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

There was a lawsuit about this in the US. From our article on the Palestine Chronicle, which I now see that you wrote yourself(12:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)):

In January 2025, the lawsuit was dismissed by judge Cartwright, who ruled the lawsuit provided insufficient evidence that the Palestine Chronicle was aware of AlJamal being a member of Hamas.^[1] Cartwright ruled that AlJamal's articles critiizing Israel were protected under first amendment and that the lawsuit provided no evidence of him inciting or planning violence. She also ruled that the lawsuit showed no evidence of Palestine Chronicle intentionally paying AlJamal money to carry out terrorism or participate in Hamas operations.^[2]

Is your employer responsible for everything you do or say? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ever have an employee whose side hustle was hostage-taking? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to say, a single instance of this just isn't enough to consider a source unreliable. It's just a way to dismiss a source with guilt by association. That said, I have no opinion on whether Palestine Chronicle is actually reliable or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the second lawsuit against it was filed by an Israeli scholar sometime in October 2025. G13 vs G14 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Being subject to lawsuits does not mean that a publication is unreliable. Donald Trump has filed numerous lawsuits against US news organisations, and the weight this should have on their reliability is zilch. The Israel-Palestine topic area is so partisan that accusations getting thrown around in lawsuits like this need to be taken with a massive grain of salt. This noticeboard has repeatedly rejected similar claims against Al Jazeera of being unreliable because of allegations of a reputed pro-Hamas bias/affiliation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Abdullah Aljamal also wrote an op-ed for Al Jazeera too, which we consider that a reliable source. Most of the sensationalist coverage over him actually specifically invokes Al Jazeera. Katzrockso (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

We should downgrade Al Jazeera as well. The fact that they're green WP:RSPS and National Review is yellow is insane. Say what you will about NR, the number of Hamas-affiliated hostage-takers they've employed is zero. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That appears to be a recently created article. Regardless the actions of employees do not reflect on orgs as a whole, so that is really of no concern to us unless there is a pattern that their reporting has also been affected as such. You should also look at whether Baroud is himself reliable (from what I can see there are no real issues there).

Ultimately as the RSP list tells us, all partisan sources in the WP:ARBPIA space should be fully attributed in text and not wikivoiced. Gotitbro (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The last discussion over this about an year ago was here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 454. And while there was general advice cautioning its usage (on a case by case basis), I see no consensus for outright tagging it as unrel. @AndreJustAndre, Monk of Monk Hall, Super Goku V, Burrobert, Peter Gulutzan, Alaexis, Bobfrombrockley, Huldra, and Coretheapple: pinging previous participants. Gotitbro (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Re-reading that thread it seems we reached a consensus that it’s not GUNREL but that it’s a weak source and a better one will always be available for anything due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep. This just feels like a retread of the discussion from last year. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: just a heads-up - Andre was TBANned from the topic area by PIA5 and is unable to respond to this thread, while Alaexis was subjected to a balanced editing restriction a few weeks back and is effectively TBANned from anything outside of article/talk/draftspace. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the head up (had avoided blocked/t-banned editors that I recognized). Gotitbro (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

My take on this source remains the same as in the past discussion, and if I remember correctly the issue of an alleged hostage taking journalist (perhaps the very same) was a part of the discussion. We're judging overall source reliability on this board, and I am generally unconvinced by attempts to disqualify sources on the basis of anything other than demonstrated inaccuracies that affect Wikipedia's reliability. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Echoing Bob somewhat, at best it's partisan enough to be a generally poor choice of source and at worst it creeps into GUNREL territory a la Electronic Intifada. Don't see a reason to change our treatment of it. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
The Palestine Chronicle seems to be a highly unreliable source of information given the discussion above. A source having terrorist connections (as is the case here with the PC having connections with Abdallah Aljamal) should be disqualifying on its own as there are sources that are considered deprecated for a lot less. Also, this fails WP:RS, specifically WP:NEWSORG which reads, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Most of the pieces on the Palestine Chronicle are opinion commentary or activist reprints, not independent journalism. PC is an advocacy organization and it lacks a clear editorial policy or corrections policy. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
The controversy over Aljamal was discussed at length a year ago. In the end, it produced no tangible evidence of Palestine Chronicle being used in an unreliable or misleading way on Wikipedia. Unless there is new evidence that Palestine Chronicle articles have been used in a way that demonstrates their unreliability, this is just rehashing an old, divisive discussion that didn't go anywhere. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Their About page says: The Palestine Chronicle is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public by providing a forum that highlights issues related to human rights, national struggles, freedom, and democracy. I read that as their main purpose being advocacy. I couldn't find any evidence that they publish corrections, or have a reputation for fact-checking, or enjoy significant use by others. Their Disclaimer says The Palestine Chronicle makes no representation concerning and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the material herein including statements, news, commentary, features, photos, video, audio, art, political cartoons, and other materials containing information, data, findings, interpretation, advice, opinion, or views. which is not encouraging. It seems unlikely that any due content could not be sourced from a more reputable outlet, but if we did want to use something, I suggest attribution would be necessary. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

In the previous discussion, some fringe cases were identified where the source might be useful. For example, a paywalled Boston Globe piece is reproduced more accessibly in Palestine Chronicle. But generally I agree with your assessment that this should not be a preferred source in most if not all contexts. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It's obviously a WP:BIASED source, but for incidents like these, the question is always whether it affected the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (And for something like this, I think it'd be obvious that sources "on the other side" are bad sources for establishing whether something's reputation has changed.) In particular, I would point out that the CNN source you presented only mentions the Palestine Chronicle in passing, and not in a way that really suggests that this has actually affected their reputation. Was it previously reliable in the first place, though? All that I can find about it is ^[3], which doesn't really touch much on its reliability and is more about bias, but which vaguely implies it is equivilant to Haaretz. --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I have looked at articles dating to 2009 and found all of two corrections 1 2; one of them amended a botched citation of Haaretz, and the other was about soccer. The publication has referred to October 7 hostages as "prisoners." Discussing Ruth Wisse, it has written, "The prominent Montrealer’s racism was instilled by one of the city’s many Jewish supremacist schools." It has cited the ridiculous art project Forensic Architecture in ostensibly serious reporting. Bias is a separate consideration from reliability, but this publication is a clown car of unprofessionalism and should be regarded as completely unreliable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say no not a reliable source at all. Here is the archive of articles written by Abdallah Aljamal for the Palestine Chronicle: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/writers/abdallah-aljamal/ the Chronicle is now trying to say he was never employed by them or affiliated. To me this is extremely disingenuous as they clearly had a relationship and relied on him for work. He has written for them more than 180 times--that's how many pieces his name alone has shown up in bylines. He was part of their team. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "US judge dismisses rescued hostage's lawsuit against company that employed his captor". The Times of Israel. February 3, 2025. ISSN 0040-7909.
^ Merrill, Monique (January 31, 2025). "Federal judge dismisses former Israeli hostage's claims against pro-Palestinian newspaper". Courthouse News Service.
^ Alhossary, Abeer ZA, et al. "Framing the Great March of Return: A Pilot Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis of the Palestine Chronicle and Haaretz."

Classmates.com

I came upon an article about a famous person who died recently. On the person's Talk page, one editor claimed the article erred regarding the person's age. The editor recommended other editors consult classmates.com as proof that the age the editor believed the person to be is different from what is reflected in the article. I see no reference herein regarding the validity of classmates.com, so I reach out to all of you. Does Wikipedia consider classmates.com to be proper, reliable source?

I say it is not, because the information is user provided. Also, I must admit that many decades ago, I created a phony profile in a different class so I could research information about a former friend with whom I want to reconnect. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Housekeeping note: MarydaleEd, I have moved your comment here to the proper board, as WT:RSP is for discussing Perennial sources. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

To your point: in general we do not regard WP:SOCIALMEDIA as reliable, because as you pointed out, it is a self-published source. Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

At the moment Diane Keaton graduation date is referenced to her highschool yearbook, rather than through classmate. The only other reference to the graduation date I can find in even semireliable sources are the LA Times[41], who state she graduated in 1963. It doesn't appear that Keaton thought it important enough to include in her own autobiography. Keaton still counts as a BLP, so I would suggest not using the classbook as it's a primary source. I suggest either using the LA Times reference or removing the detail altogether as secondary sources don't show it's an important detail of her life (WP:BALASP/WP:HTRIV). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have dealt with birthday stuff that even newspapers got wrong. If no good sources can be found, it is probably best to leave the information out. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say no---not a reliable source and should not be used on a BLP page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Times Now

Is Times Now RS for subjects other than Indian politics and nationalism? My perception, from past discussions, is that we should treat Times Now with the same caution applied to Fox News under WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, though it's generally fine for topics that don't touch Indian politics or foreign affairs. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on reliability of Iflscience?

I'm not really plugged into the pop science literature, and am not sure if this is considered a reliable source. There is a useful article for the Dead Internet Theory titled Dead Internet Theory: According To Conspiracy Theorists, The Internet Died In 2016. In 2024, I posted on the talk page asking about it here, but got no reply. I have added some content from the article, but want to double check here it is okay in this instance. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine considering that they don't make the claim in their own voice, and that it's not a fringe topic. Cortador (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That said, you may want to have a look at this JSTOR article if it's not already cited: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27244117 Cortador (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

IFLScience is a legitimate popular science website and should be generally reliable. Of course, higher quality sources are to be preferred, but those may not be available for a topic like the Dead Internet theory. John M Baker (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

IFLScience historically when it was primarily a Facebook page had an extremely low reputation among connoisseurs of science journalism as a low quality site that was the source of misleading, clickbait science stories (see for example [42] and [43]) . However, the company was purchased by a professional media organisation in 2020 that now owns Discover Magazine, so I'm not sure how much the criticsm that IFLScience received a decade ago is really applicable to the site as it exists today (with the story you wanted to cite being from 2024). Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @John M Baker, @Cortador, and @Hemiauchenia! I'm dating myself, but I remember them as that clickbait Facebook page, and needed a sanity check that today it is something we can make reference to today. Cortador, that article is already included in the article, but thanks for the recommendation! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Fandango.com

Is Fandango Media considered a reliable source for a celebrity's year of birth? Muzilon (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have specific details? A media corporation that might own multiple media sources is to vague. The URL and which article / celebrity would be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In this particular case, Ann Turkel. https://www.fandango.com/people/ann-turkel-681527

Muzilon (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. Fandango is a parent site of Rotten Tomatoes. Which is considered unreliable for bio details. Kcj5062 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Well spotted, in fact the biography section of their article is a word for word copy of the one on Rotten Tomatoes. As they are just mirroring these profiles across they should be considered as reliable/unreliable as Rotten Tomatoes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No not considered a reliable source. I think IMDB is though and I believe they have birthdates. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but IMDb is also unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I've never used it--but I have seen other people reference it on BLP pages. Good to know. Thank you! Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You can check here for what sources that Wikipedia considers reliable or unreliable.[[44]] And I'd like to point out if there's a source that's not on this list, it doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. It just means it hasn't been talked about much here. So be careful with this sort of stuff because many places leech off of sites like IMDB as well as Wikipedia for DOB information. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

German language newssources on Israel-Palestine suggesting that most Gaza press are "hamas propagandists"

see Talk:Saleh_al-Jafarawi#Propagandist, but have some questions, many of these seem to discuss the conflict in a very biased way?
@LennBr is bringing up some german language sourcing to push this on that article and Pallywood

some Neue Zürcher Zeitung source, [45] found a free version of article on web archive, give it a sec to load and drop the banner and then used the translate button.

suggestion that hamas makes money off of dead children With every bloodied child, terrorist organizations make money. Suffering as a source of income, better than drug trafficking and arms smuggling.,
suggestion that press isn't press . These are always surrounded by the "press." These are people wearing blue press vests and holding cell phones. "Press" often just means being in the right place at the right time and then selling the videos or photos to news agencies for a lot of money
this While Jewish and Israeli news outlets have been intentionally avoiding publishing such images for months to protect the body and the person's relationship to the body, Palestinian video creators know no moral boundaries.

Lenn posted some other german language sourcing, but i don't have all that much time to look over it right now, will look it over later. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow. I'll withhold my opinion on the content and just say that piece is WP:RSOPINION and so not appropriate to cite for the claim that al-Jafarawi was a propagandist. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

i cannot easily understand german, i guessed it was, but the translation had no clear part where it stated it was an opinion piece.

from my understanding, NZZ is a premier newspaper in switzerland, some Newspaper of record, and the piece was called a feature. how do you tell if the piece is an oped? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Despite some prior attempts, I also don't read German and was relying on the translation provided. I don't see anything indicating this is an oped piece but it contains clear editorializing that wouldn't be acceptable in regular news reporting. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

the other pieces lennbr posted also do not seem to include info on whether they are opeds or not either in the auto-translation. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Can't find anything indicating it's an op-ed, though this article seems to indicate NZZ has something of a right-wing bias, and our own article notes that the paper's undergone a right-wing shift in the last decade, so a lot of the article's content wouldn't be surprising in that respect.

Ultimately, as a newspaper of record, I might consider the article's criticism DUE, but, considering the inflammatory wording (I think - I also just machine-translated it, I don't speak a word of German), and as with most sources in the area, I'd only use with explicit attribution to NZZ. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip "Feuilleton" in the context of German-language magazines means that this is a culture rather than politics. This also explains the tone - readers won't expect reports on a new artist or exhibition to have the same tone and style than articles on regular politics (even if there's plenty of political art). That said, we are looking at a topics here that is inseparable from politics, which makes the whole thing read like an op-ed. Cortador (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that NZZ piece is op-ed. The clue (besides the clear polemic) is the word "Feuilleton" in the upper-left corner. This could mean "feature" or "guest-writer" or some supplemental article from outside the publication (like a letter to the editor).

The NZZ does tend to lean right but the best reason to use caution regarding Mirna Funk's piece as factual source is it's under the "Feuilleton" category. That is, it depends how you want to use it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The source seems less than reliable, but ideally editors should avoid insufficiently supported or merely asserted claims coming from even typically reliable sources, which seems to be the nature of the claims in question here. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Besides NZZ, Lenn was also suggesting for inclusion these sourcing. the current wording for these articles in the current page is: Multiple news outlets from europe accused him of spreading propaganda in favor of Hamas.

from Focus (German magazine) one of the most widely circulated german magazines, [46] - calls Saleh al-Jafarawi Gaza Joe or Hamas actor, no indication

While he claims to be an artist from Gaza, many accuse him of spreading propaganda for Hamas. Despite, or perhaps because of, these accusations, Aljafarawi's accounts have reached around 2.5 million followers.
Al-Jafarawi is considered a Hamas crisis actor. Clips of him circulating online show him holding a machine gun, sometimes with what appears to be a bleeding baby in his arms.

Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, a daily in germany, calling Lenn Gaza Joe as well. [47] I cannot find a free version of this on wayback machine.

personally, think at best the polemic and lack of manner of fact tone suggests most of these are all opeds as well, not really strong enough for mention in general. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I would dismiss any article/source using Pallywood in earnesty. This here includes NZZ and KSTA. Completely disengenous. Gotitbro (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

That Focus source seems to mostly be a compendium of angry tweets about a WP:BLP. So I'd say it's not usable as a source in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

seems Lenn started an interrelated BLP talk here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Does_BLP_forbid_calling_living_and_recently_deceased_persons... User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What we are seeing here is what many sources have called entrenched anti-Palestinian racism in the German media. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The NZZ is the Swiss newspaper of record. German language is not German. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The author of the NZZ piece is a German whose work appears primarily in German news: [48]. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

If a German wrote for an American paper that would still not be "the German media". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is all in response to buidhe's offhanded summary of coverage in German media and thus it's a bit moot (and dependent on which studies buidhe is actually thinking of and referring to), but in my experience studies of "German media" often include German-speaking media in other countries. There isn't a firewall between Switzerland and German literary cultures. Obviously we should be careful about how to phrase such claims when writing article text, but I don't think it's accurate to a priori assume that characterizations of "German media" necessarily refer to German-national as opposed to German-language (or vice-versa). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Even in the above hypothetical though, a member of the German media writing in an American paper would be reflective of acceptable discourse in both German and American media. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I was going to highlight how NZZ is a German language source, but the paper, and it's owning company are Swiss (and as a newspaper of record, I would argue should be considered GREL), so the social and political environment is different to that of Germany, and Austria. But people have already highlighted this.

Now, what is more important in assessing this specific article, is two fold. Firstly as others have highlighted, it is roughly equivalent to an opinion piece by a guest writer. Secondly, while people have pointed to the writer being German and not Swiss, the more pertinent piece on the writer's identity, is that she is a self-declared liberal Zionist, and has a plethora of work writing in support of Zionism. For examples, searching for "Mirna Funk zionismus" will bring up results both in German and English language media, spanning Germany, Israel, and the US. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It is german language media, and apparently german is one of the official languages of switzerland

leaving that aside, wikipedia cannot correct for bias for what is supposed to be a newspaper of record (see that rfc discussion a bit ago about how we cant do that for western medias coverage of the conflict) , but there appears to be a ridiculous bias here to the point where most editors seem to believe this is an oped.

not sure what next steps are. agree that bias in these pieces is pretty bad. Would like confirmation of how to definitively determine these are all opeds. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It is a feuilleton piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh i missed it for the nzz piece. The translation to English called it feature, which made it harder to recognize.

the other sources (focus and ksa) dont show that label. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article de:Feuilleton does a better job explaining what that section is for. I will also note that on Swissdox, the article has two bylines: first one for "Auswärtige Autoren" ('external authors'), then the one for Mirna Funk. Toadspike [Talk] 12:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman we can rule out the Focus piece. It's basically just a compendium of angry tweets. I remain firmly of the position that Twitter noise is almost never encyclopedic or due. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I think the matter is dropped, but glad to have learned more about ehen to interpret german language sourcing as op eds User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Is EBSCO Knowledge Advantage a reliable source for Woccon language

? Doug Weller talk 11:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, as EBSCO is a library repository not a source itself, and IIRC, the "Knowledge Advantage" suite is LLM generated overviews of topics, something that a lot of companies related to academic publishing and access are now doing. The source list provided at the bottom of the "Knowledge Advantage" page for "Cape Fear" should be looked into as potential sources to use. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any LLM use for EBSCO Knowledge Advantage Research Starters™®©™™ or whatever the official name for it is, though they might have named multiple products named similarly, I'm not too sure. WP:RSP#ScienceDirect topics definitely is, and they say so on the about page, but I can't find anything similar for EBSCO. They're not a great source, and as the title implies they're better as research starters, but otherwise I would consider them a mediocre but not absolutely terrible tertiary source, say, like a random undergraduate textbook. Some of them have authors credited would would be an additional data point for those specific articles (though the "Cape Fear" one doesn't of course). Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

[1] "US judge dismisses rescued hostage's lawsuit against company that employed his captor". The Times of Israel. February 3, 2025. ISSN 0040-7909.

[2] Merrill, Monique (January 31, 2025). "Federal judge dismisses former Israeli hostage's claims against pro-Palestinian newspaper". Courthouse News Service.

[3] Alhossary, Abeer ZA, et al. "Framing the Great March of Return: A Pilot Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis of the Palestine Chronicle and Haaretz."

[1]

[2]

[3]