Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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


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

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
    470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
    480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489
    490, 491, 492, 493

    Additional notes:

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

    Reliability of WION

    [edit]

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

    Seems like an easy 3-4. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit shocked it's so heavily used. Definitely 3+. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same as above. Mildly/notionally shocked (not really). Certainly alarming. 3+—Alalch E. 23:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been discussed before... Probably does need to be discussed again... For a minute there they looked to be getting better but the last year or so theres definitely been some backsliding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do other sources say about them? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets complicated because journalists at other sources have on occasion issues both with WION's factuality and with WION's leadership on issues which are not strictly related to factuality [1][2] are definitely within the overall perception of peers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More than likely a 3 at least. Wouldn't be entirely shocked if common use is due to being mistaken for an American local news station, given the 4-letter abbreviation beginning with W (ex. WTOP). The Kip (contribs) 03:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly disagree with classifying it as unreliable based on the evidence provided so far. I think we are often too quick at classifying non-Western media as unreliable.
    The reason they were blocked by Youtube was that they broadcasted a speech by Sergey Lavrov. This in no way indicates their unreliability, especially considering that they were unblocked in 4 days.
    As to the antifa being responsible for Charlie Kirk's death, their article simply doesn't say it (While no evidence has yet linked Robinson to any formal Antifa group, the symbolism he adopted underscores the movement’s cultural resonance, particularly among younger activists who borrow from its history, slogans, and aesthetics. The problem was with the editor who used the source improperly. Alaexis¿question? 05:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking closer at the source, it's possible it may be closer to a 2 in as far as non-Western sources, I will keep tabs on this thread to see if I feel the need to change my previous rating. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but this very quote is incredibly weasel-y, and definitely goes straight into misinformation territory. They create a completely artificial link throughout this article, very clearly trying to demonstrate an already chosen outcome to verify an editorial stance. The most charitable interpretation of such an article would be considering that this outlet dropped the ball on this article specifically, but since we have more than this I do not see how we could classify it as better than a 3; I do not argue for 4 outright though. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you're setting a very high bar here. A lot of other media outlets, including the greenest of the green, have their editorial stance which determine what they report and how. Alaexis¿question? 12:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's hard to ascertain what's going on with WION editorially, the site has been indispensable for English-language reporting on non-US topics; see, for instance, current events in Nepal. Might be a site that ranges from 1 to 3 depending on topic. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have opened an RfC below, so make sure to add your input if you want to do so. NotJamestack (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: WION

    [edit]
    NO CONSENSUS
    In short, I find that there is no consensus on the reliability of WION. Of the 23 editors who participated in this RFC, only 5 and 3 of them !voted for options 1 (generally reliable) and 4 (deprecation) respectively, and neither of these groups gave convincing policy based arguments, leading me to conclude that there is consensus against WION being generally reliable, nor WION needing to be deprecated. That leaves about 7, 2, and 6 !votes for options 2 (additional considerations needed), 2.5 ("use with extreme caution"), and 3 (generally unreliable). Even with considering second choices, these totals don't move much, options 2 and 3 each gain one !vote. This fairly even split of !votes between options 2 and 3, as well as policy arguments used by those arguing on either side, lead me to find no consensus. Concerns raised were regarding WION's lax editorial standards, churnalism, and misinformation. However, some argued that WION does produces some good quality articles that might not cover information found in other sourcing. Gramix13 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?

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

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

    Survey (WION)

    [edit]
    Option 4. Considering the amount misinformation given by WION during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it's safe to say that I wouldn't be surprised if this was immediately deprecated. NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not generally unreliable. I don't think the COVID coverage issue is severe enough to make the source wholly unreliable. One fact-checked article was revised to repeat the statement from Portuguese health ministry that “no evidence of a causal relationship between her death and the vaccine she received.”, and clarified that the COVID vaccine was not linked to the death. (compare old version and new version) A news outlet responding to fact-checkers is sign of reliability. Some of its wordings like the antifa example above should be less wishy-washy, but that is not sufficient sign of general unreliability. Ca talk to me! 05:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, which option? NotJamestack (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not very familiar with this source so I don't have a specific stance. But I am unconvinced by the evidence given. Ca talk to me! 13:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1. As I noted above, I've relied on WION for English-language news about Asia, which is often superior to Western reporting on the same topics. It's a new discovery for me and I can't speak to past misdeeds, but everything I've read has been solid and corroborated. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some examples in a reply to Bobfrombrockley. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3: I am not super familiar with this source, so wouldn't want my !vote to be too heavily weighted but it seems to me to be primarily a clickbait/churnalism site, that scrapes "news" from agencies and the web to generate as much content as possible and therefore engagement and ad revenue. I don't think it is an active disinformation site (which would merit option 4) but occasionally indulges in misinformation due to sloppiness and engagement farming. It was listed as one of the "Modi-aligned" media platforms accused of amplifying biased narratives in Canadian domestic politics in 2024, but with no details and no specific evidence of actual disinformation as opposed to partisanship. There are the various COVID sensationalist stories it has published discussed above: the Hantavirus sensationalism factchecked by AFP, the Portuguese vaccine story and another dodgy vaccine story. This is enough for us to consider it not generally reliable, and probably enough to consider it generally unreliable, but not enough for deprecation. On non-Indian topics, I see absolultely no reason to use it when anything it reports will have a better source. Why I'm hesitant to make a stronger case for a stringent 3 is that I don't know enough about Indian matters to know whether it might be usable for domestic Indian stories. I notice that many of our uses of it are for topics that aren't Indian-specific, and shockingly even include the COVID-19 pandemic article, where it is used to make a claim about an Indian contact tracing app, so I think it would be good to systematically flag its uses with better source tags. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobfrombrockley thanks for providing specific examples. I read the AFP report but I'm not sure I agree with it. Their debunk the claim that Hantavirus is a new virus, but in the WION video they refer to the host said that the virus is new but then in the next sentence said that the virus itself is old but the scare is new (it's in the first 15 seconds of the video). Or have I missed something in the video? Alaexis¿question? 18:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 or 2. I'm judging based on the evidence provided in this thread and the Wikipedia article. There are indeed some sensationalist pieces but no evidence of deliberate lying. Adding corrections/clarifications is a positive sign. I'm open to changing my !vote if more evidence is presented. Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 — Bobfrombrockley said it well: low quality, high volume churnalism that is not concerned with quality as much as with engagement, leading to all the obvious consequences. While I have been familiar with WION for some time, I had not considered that it might help fill a vacuum for some South Asia specific news; however better source tags would indeed be welcome in this context. I would support getting rid of the source for everything else (option 4 being a step too far, but still preferable to option 2 in my opinion). Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For your consideration:
    This is some of the best analysis on these topics I've seen. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah those are not bad. Maybe I was too harsh. They’re not typical though. Maybe articles by sub-editors are higher quality? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it, I don't see the pattern, and some of this stuff is really good. It would be a shame to see it 3ed or 4ed out of usability because they blew some other reporting. Unless it was obvious that they were on a campaign of malfeasance, I'm inclined to weigh the above more heavily than their mistakes, particularly if they corrected them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 as there were corrections issued and this is usually one of the single strongest signs of reliability on Wikipedia. No one says that a source must always get all the facts right, but what we do say is that you must correct for them when you get them wrong. This is the core tenet of reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2, echoing the points made by Bobfrombrockley and Choucas0. While I oppose the deprecation of this source, as some of the reporting presented does appear to be of good quality, I find option 1 unacceptable given the medical misinformation and high output/seemingly lax editorial standards. While I am seeing some good reporting on their website, I am also seeing no small amount of churnalism. It's not that everything coming out of WION is bad or unreliable, but rather, that I don't feel we can rely on their editorial team to ensure the reliability of everything they're putting out. It seems to me that they employ some very skilled and hard-working journalists, but are also perfectly content to churn out low-quality clickbait, and that's my concern.
    Something I personally check for when looking at the reliability of Indian sources is how they report on Hindu nationalism, conflicts between Indian Hindus and Muslims, etc - WION does not appear to be overtly partisan in this regard, but some of the reporting I would consider somewhat lacking in merely parroting the statements of nationalist officials without any critical analysis. Note this article on Modi's praise of Mohan Bhagwat, the current leader of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary organisation that Modi himself was once a part of that is credibly accused of anti-Muslim terror attacks. While the article is short and fairly straightforward in discussing Modi's statements, it does not mention Modi's affiliation with the group or anything about the RSS's long and ugly history. This may be due to a presumption of knowledge on the part of the reader, or intentional omission. This article, by comparison, is longer and lists some criticism of Hindu nationalism. I also found two articles discussing demographic change in India, with the first simply reporting on statements by an official with no discussion or analysis, while the second fact-checks a statement by politician Yogi Adityanath. From the research I've done over the past half hour or so I don't believe that the editorial team at WION is necessarily particularly biased or attempting to control the narrative, but their standards aren't high enough for me to consider WION generally reliable at this stage. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're describing here sounds like neutrality. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Side-note, this is RSN not NPOVN. DN (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. The coverage above simply does not support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And the arguments made in its defense aren't really policy-based; "well I rely on it" or "looks fine to me" or "I think these article are really cool" aren't how we assess the reliability of sources. We assess reliability based on reputation, and those arguments don't touch on its clearly poor reputation. Likewise, the argument that they're not deliberately publishing falsifications isn't an argument for their reliability - deliberately publishing falsifications would of course require full deprecation; but if the best that one can say in their defense is that they're not doing that, then that's damning them with faint praise, because their reputation is still not what we'd expect for a WP:RS. And while it's good for a source to issue corrections, that can't cure the fact that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Where do you see reputation documented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2.5 - use with extreme caution, if that makes sense - after reviewing some of the above evidence, I'm not quite comfortable with GUNREL, as they seem to sometimes have solid articles and issue corrections. However, their prior COVID misinformation and churnalism makes it quite blatantly obvious that this is a typically low-quality source that shouldn't be anywhere close to GREL. The Kip (contribs) 03:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 per Ethmostigmus. It's basically TOI-tier. KnowDeath (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 > 2. The evidence for unreliability provided so far is simply way too lacking for 4 or 3, marginal even for 2. Unless we have coverage in other secondary sources of wide-ranging deliberate misinformation, i.e. a documented pattern (documented by an RS of similar repute), I do not see how the source could be 4 or 3 at all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Naked personal bias without concern for Wikipedia policy or guidelines, that is how. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to keep comments to content not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - The outlet is mainly known for either publishing something that has been already published by another source, or for publishing fake news. There is no need for this source on Wikipedia. Wisher08 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 It works as a propaganda outlet for India (in geopolitical affairs, especially with regards to Pakistan) and at home, works as a propaganda outlet for the current government of India (BJP). The concerns about misinformation are also noteworthy (one example). If blacklisting is not possible I would prefer Option 3 as next best alternative. Zalaraz (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Deprecation (option 4) is not the same as blacklisting. KnowDeath (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Whatever I wanted to say has been in the detailed and excellent analysis by Ethmostigmus. The source appears to be slightly pro-government (for domestic matters) and mostly neutral otherwise. Failing some fact checks some years ago does not really reflect on the source as a whole. Disregarding unsubstantiated claims of propoaganda et. al. Not outright 1 due to clear usage of churnalism here and there. Gotitbro (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your claim that it is mostly neutral on non domestic matters is demonstrably false , their reporting on Pakistan, especially with regards to the recent conflict, it is undoubtedly pro india website. Some examples; [3][4], the tone , title of their articles and everything in general, reeks of state-sponsored mouthpiece. Zalaraz (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course involved sources would dither when coming to intractable (and present) conflicts such as ARBIPA here. This is true even of veritable sources like Dawn or The Indian Express. That doesn't impeach the validity/integrity of a source in toto. And that is domestic stuff as well (directly involving the home market), what was meant was uninvolved coverage which from what I can see appears to be mostly fine. All of the objections regardless can be sustained under considerations with Option 2. And it should be noted that bias as such has no bearing on reliability (case in point WSJ) but factual reporting, unless a source has a sustained track record of fake/fabricated news (this shouldn't be conflated with Politico style failed fact checks). PS: We've had a discussion about completely barring domestic/involved sources for all current armed conflicts here at RSN and at Village Pump but that made no headway/was clearly opposed. And as I said then, editorial judgment is enough to stem the tide of problematic reporting from such sources. Gotitbro (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you suggesting that a source that cannot report neutrally in geopolitics affairs (significant pro India and pro Russia bias), cannot report neutrally in domestic affairs (pro-incumbency reporting), their articles concerning other topics cannot be used because of significant churnalism along with having a long term history of COVID-19 misinformation should be not be declared unreliable? It is defacto unusable. Zalaraz (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      NPOV applies to article content and editing not sources. What we expect from the latter is factual reporting. Pro-Russia (itself questionable per the discussion below) or pro-India et. al. doesn't really have a bearing on whether a source is RS.
      The reason we barred Fox News for instance wasn't for its conservative bias rather a poor and regular record of mis/disinfo, and recordes as such by major academic sources. Certainly RS from the Western media aren't also barred from ABPIA for the regular recriminations of pro-Israel bias either. Take also the case of WSJ, it isn't without its regular pro-Israel/conservative bias but is a solid RS nonetheless.
      What I would be expecting here, or for any labelling of unreliable, is either support by academic sources/other RS stating as much or solid evidence to show regular fake news. What raised my eyebrows here wasn't bias as such but COVID misinfo but as Ca notes above that was a minor infraction mostly rectified since (what we would expect an RS to do). Churnalism can also effect our RS rating, the reason I degraded to Option 2, but while that is slightly the case here it is not really a major case of non-factual content. Gotitbro (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2.5, per The Kip. A read of votes here shows handwavvy, unsupported allegations of deliberate misinformation peddling, arguments that being WP:BIASED is enough for deprecation, or labeling as a propaganda outlet, which I don't see supported by the sources presented here, by a review of its coverage, or from similar arguments on this noticeboard. Happy to reconsider if actual sourcing is presented. One example of sloppiness in 5 years is jus tnot enough to label as GUNREL. Longhornsg (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Based on what I read and looked at on the website it seems to be best to use this source with discretion. If there would be another more reliable source contradicting a claim from WION then it would make sense not to use it in an article. But I don't think we need to completely discard all use of it. Swirlymarigold (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - There are far too many problems with this outlet to allow it on Wikipedia. Not only does it function as a mouthpiece of the Indian government (Godi media), it has also spread misinformation on many instances. Koshuri (あ!) 13:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: A source's editorial stance is not a legitimate reason to deprecate a source on Wikipedia, but that is what has been driving many !votes here. I evidence against the source is flimsy at best. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - For churnalism, a record of spreading misinformation and extremely biased coverage (to the point of being considered a state affiliated media)[5] on various issues, such sources should not be used on Wikipedia. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 03:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, on a thousand articles editors found it good to use. While criticism pointed to some wild ones (I'm inclined to say where is there a source that doesn't have some of those...), this seems to have a value of covering some topics best. I think for major topics there will be more prominent/larger and less churnalism sources that will naturally be used so feel no need to even give this an evaluation unless some TALK cites are shown that show it is a perpetual issue and otherwise it just does not belong in WP:RSP or to have an evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - It may be not good to consider it as one of the mainstream reliable source for any exceptional claim. But can be used as a source for general information or for any attributed primary claim. King Ayan Das (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: Considering the sheer level of misinformation and bias in WION, option 3 seems like the only appropriate choice. However, I would not be opposed to it being deprecated per Option 4. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Use with care, but certainly use for non-controversial coverage/fact. It can be editorially 'purple', certainly patchy and definitely Hinglish and at times almost hysterically nationalist. But, in these things, it's no outlier... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (WION)

    [edit]
    This news source has been discussed multiple times. If you take a look at the noticeboard archive, you can see a lot of discussions talking about WION, so I don't think this will be considered a bad RfC. NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a rewrite site. The "bylines" are generally not bylines, but "Edited by", which to me implies simple rewrites of wire service copy, but without acknowledging which wire service (though PTI - Press Trust of India - is mentioned in some stories). On that basis, it's a judgement call whether the articles are worth referring to. It's basically churnalism. There ought often to be better-resourced RS which would do the same job. It doesn't necessarily look unreliable (3) but I'd say additional considerations (2) and more are needed, so a 2.5 per @The kip and @Longhornsg., Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's definitely not reliable then. NotJamestack (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: Nick Pope

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Nick Pope)

    [edit]
    • On Q1 Option 3. Nick Pope is best known for dozens of appearances in UFO documentary-style entertainment films,[6] as emcee of "Ancient Aliens: LIVE on Tour!" (part of the Ancient Aliens entertainment franchise which posits that Martians used ray beams to build the pyramids),[7] his numerous quotes in tabloids commenting on UFOs, and his non-critical, popular texts on UFOs (see Amazon author page: [8]). Across numerous past discussions (see below) it's been made generally clear that he presents the 20th Century UFO Shared Fiction storytelling versus factual reporting or scholarship.
    On Q3 Option 2 but also okay with Option 3 For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Pope, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC); edited 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On Q1, Option C per @Chetsford
    No opinion on Q2. Dw31415 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1 Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. He is not a scientist, nor an expert in politics, he is a fringe exponent, and as such cannot be used for statements of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q2 Option 4: Whilst Option 2 would be best, that needs a seperate discussion on the general concept. and not taged as being about one author. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a few thoughts. First, this seems a little narrow in scope. I agree that we should consider UFO content creators more broadly. Secondly, it seems like these people could reasonably be used as a source for information about the disclosure movement itself (e.g. this UFO conference happened, there were these speakers, and these topics were covered), but obviously not reliable for claims about secret government programs, extraterrestrial contact, etc. Lastly, I'm not sure these discussions are perennial enough to be added to the table. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • On question 2, I oppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to be perennially discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time in reference to one AfD and the resulting discussions, and we barely cite him onwiki and for nothing of real importance. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can always just link to this RFC it ever becomes a problem again. As for Q1, while I don't think appearing on a stupid TV show is itself evidence of unreliability, his books push fringe theories and so I would not cite him on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the RSness of the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books so that should be fine and helpful, and even necessary. (Where else to find writings on UFO reports other than books like this author's ?) Come back with an actual entry and cite in question and -- likely it is fine. Cheers part 1
    • Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it seems not a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there. WP:RSP is not supposed to be a list of every single author, just a list meant for sources frequently discussed. In this case, discuss at any article or coming to RSN with any individual issue is the way this should proceed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q2 – Option 1: An independent entry for the individual iff there is consensus about a reliability rating here. As noted below, we've done this with WP:JEFFSNEIDER. If an individual publishes widely and makes appearances in a variety of shows and publications, is frequently cited on en-wiki, and is a frequent topic of discussion here then this makes sense. I specifically oppose Q2 Option 2. A blanket entry for "UFO content creators" is too broad and is unnecessary since most of this content is covered under the general reliability standards and WP:FRINGE. This also becomes problematic if individual authors/creators end up with different reliability ratings and may inappropriately imply that the rating applies automatically to creators who have not been discussed. "Paranormal content creators" is an even broader category and therefore more problematic than "UFO content creators". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP -- solution in search of a problem. Obviously, we're not going to treat fringe UFO believers as RSes on the existence of aliens, but per Anne drew, they're RSes to their own beliefs, the beliefs of others, and the history of their own movement, etc. Feoffer (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1 Option 3: Not reliable for factual content. Thoughts about his own beliefs or beliefs of others that are originated by Pope in books, on blogs, on YouTube videos, podcasts, fringe websites, social media posts, etc. do not merit automatic inclusion and are WP:UNDUE unless they are also noted in third party WP:RS sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question 1, Option 3 As a professional practitioner of woo there is absolutely no good basis for considering Pope a reliable source for any paranormal topics (or "adjacent subjects"), broadly construed. There is also no good basis for treating his own beliefs as encyclopedic content. No opinion about Question 2. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Nick Pope)

    [edit]
    • We have previously and extensively discussed Nick Pope (e.g. [9] [10] etc.) and his various writings and other commentary are currently used as a source across the project (e.g. Ilkley Moor UFO incident, Ilkley Moor, Flying Saucer Working Party, Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, Narrative of the abduction phenomenon, Time-traveler UFO hypothesis, etc.). Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems to me that if a "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" row is created, people will start proposing other categories of content creators (e.g., legal content creators). Do you envision that over time, we'd just have a bunch of rows for different categories of individual content creators? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's possible. In the case of law, I'm assuming we're talking about pseudolaw content creators, like sovereign citizens. For the most part, we haven't had, in practice, a lot of disagreement about excluding the legal theories of Freemen on the Land or Sovereign Citizens to the point that there would be much benefit in indexing them in a single place to avoid endless argumentative repetition. If that started to be a constant and unending point-of-contention, however, I could imagine the dynamic might then justify a single and concise entry to index the most prolific and frequently discussed SCs and Freemen. But as of now, I don't see any extant record at RSN of these types of discussions. Chetsford (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was actually thinking much more generally (e.g., any legal content creator, or at least those who self-publish, not just those who create pseudolaw content). The reason I asked is because I don't see how to bound the scope of Q2 if consensus is for option 1 or 2. That is, you're asking specifically about Nick Pope, but editors raise questions about lots of individual content creators here: "Is Paula Person, author of Work 1 and Work 2, a reliable source?" What would distinguish the content creators who merit some characterization at RSP from those who don't? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In the case of Pope, an RfC is realistically justified as his name comes up repeatedly and he produces huge tracts of information in books by different publishing houses, appearances in different programs and documentaries, etc., and there are demands to relitigate each excision of his content which RfCs were designed to prevent (in the interest of time economization).
      I think that's qualitatively different from someone who asks "is John Smith's 1982 book about the Third Zulu War RS" ... that said, if there were an entire subculture of authors who create huge volumes of fictional content about the Third Zulu War, sure, I think that'd be fine. I just don't know it's something that would happen, in practice. Chetsford (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have any other listing on RSP for an individual person? Not that that impacts my answer (which I am thinking about), but I can't think of another. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't checked. Chetsford (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There's WP:THENEEDLEDROP, which is one person's YouTube channel, and The Skeptic's Dictionary is also listed. -- Reconrabbit 14:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Then it sounds like this would be different in the sense that it's source=creator rather than source=publication. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't find any entries on RSP that otherwise refer to a creator rather than the publication, with the exception of WP:JACOBIN which says "the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable." I don't see an easy way to mark a person as being more reliable or not with the current system (list) in place? -- Reconrabbit 15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some precedent with Jeff Sneider at WP:JEFFSNEIDER. The facts are a bit different but the entry notes that Sneider's reliability rating does not extend to his podcast co-host; thus the reliability is based on the speaker/"author" and not the show. If Sneider writes a piece in a different publication or is interviewed on a different podcast, I think it would be reasonable for an editor to apply his personal reliability rating to such sources, absent other reasons to doubt the suitability of the source and with all the usual caveats. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Richard Dolan

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    Survey

    [edit]
    • On Q1 Option 3. Dolan has appeared dozens of times on Coast to Coast AM, [11] has written numerous non-scientific books exclusively about UFOs,[12] and appears at UFO festivals like Contact in the Desert. [13] He presents himself as a serious academic, self-styled as the "UFO historian", however, matter-of-factly claims things like: a breakaway civilization is operating flying saucers,[14] and that "the existence of underwater UFO bases is likely". [15] His writings include forewords by such luminaries as 9/11 Truther Jim Marrs [16] and he was previously, it seems, proprietor of an indie publishing house called Keyhole Publishing that produced books like Richard Sauder's Hidden in Plain Site [17] that makes the case that The Matrix (apparently a scifi movie from the 1990s) is real. He currently has a YouTube show that discusses things like the Bermuda Triangle. [18] Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On Q3 Option 2. For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Dolan, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Q1 Option 3. for question 2 its "An independent entry for Richard Dolan. " Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Q1 Option 3 per Chetsford. As for the second question, Q2 Option 2 would be my preferred choice, though option 1 could also work if he's cited frequently enough, which doesn't seem to be the case so far. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • On question 2, I oppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to be frequently discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time as far as I can tell? He is not a perennial source by any means and we barely cite him. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can just point to this discussion going forward. As for Q1, his own reliability, he doesn't seem reliable, and furthermore all his books appear to be self-published or published by publishers only in the business of publishing wonkiness. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books or media content per se so that should be fine and helpful, and seems a general source for the field. Cheers part 1
    • Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it has not made the mark of a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there. It is not supposed to be a list of every single author and every single corpration or media entity, just a list meant for thigns frequently coming up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I’d try to evaluate the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS" Could you give some examples of Dolan's writing that might, contextually, turn out appropriate for our encyclopedia? For example, would it be his writing in A.D. After Disclosure where he says humans are being abducted and experimented on by aliens? Or the part where he says we should consider if aliens are harvesting human souls? Or that aliens may be interested in using humans as a food source? Maybe just one or two examples so I can better understand your position. Chetsford (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q2: Option 1 (individual entry) or Option 3 (no RSP entry). Oppose Option 2 ("UFO/paranoral content creators" entry). What I wrote in the Nick Pope RfC applies here. If Dolan publishes/appears widely, has consistent reliability issues, and is a recurring topic of discussion, an individual entry makes sense. "UFO content creators" and is too broad; "paranormal content creators" is even more so. Dolan doesn't appear to have been discussed often enough to be considered a true "perennial" source so option 3 (no entry) makes sense. That said, if there if a reasonable participation here and consensus about a rating, memorializing the discussion at RSP is acceptable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP As above, this isn't a problem that needs solving. Dolan isn't a RS on the existence of aliens, but he's probably a fine source for, say, the history of the UFO movement, their internecine disputes, and his own personal beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "he's probably a fine source for, say, the history of the UFO movement" His book AD: After Disclosure asserts as a fact the existence of "The Breakaway Group" which he explains is a cabal of dark global forces who are secretly using Hollywood to leak out evidence of aliens and slowly condition society that UFO believers were right all along. I'd rather not have an article on "The Breakaway Group" in our encyclopedia. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, our editorial policy doesn't allow editors to include details from fringe proponents they find interesting - unless secondary RS have discussed them first. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's definitely not cite Dolan on something like that. If memory serves, his very first book, despite being conspiratorial, actually had sourcing and included good debunkings. I don't think anything he's said or done since could be accused of being a RS though, and I wouldn't especially recommend using him even for mundane historical facts. But have people really been trying to use him as a regular old reliable source without any caution on context? Feoffer (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question 1, Option 3 Dolan is a professional practitioner of woo, and for this project nothing he writes/says/claims/etc. about paranormal topics, broadly construed, can or should be trusted. No opinion about Question 2, although I do not see how Dolan qualifies as a "perennial" source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]

    Grokipedia

    [edit]
    CLOSED
    Edit filters have been put in place to warn about using Grokipedia. Further discussion should move to WT:GROKIPEDIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Yeet into the void Danners430 tweaks made 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    obvioidly wary of anything like this a but I can see a AGF request to add material from it if it includes an external reliable source ref that we dont lready have covered. Very unlikely given what grokipedia changes around, but still in the realm of possibilities. Masem (t) 15:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps an edit filter on article and draft space, but allow comments on talk pages? Danners430 tweaks made 15:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages should be more free to include things, obviously, but I'm having trouble imagining a legitimate need to link to or cite Grokipedia on a talk page here. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at a couple of pages where I know the subject matter, the problem is that the source doesn't necessarily support the content it's cited for, and unless someone reads the source, they're not going to know this. It's a mess of accurate and inaccurate info, and a casual reader isn't going to know which. And if someone checks the original source, then they should use that as a source (assuming that it's an RS, etc.) and there's no reason to cite Grokipedia. I'd say that it's even less reliable that a WP mirror. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'd say that it's even less reliable that a WP mirror."
    Exactly what FactOrOpinion said. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. I also looked up some pages that I am familiar with. What I found was some pretty clear factual errors, but sometimes it was able to dig up a fact that I had missed where the sourcing checks out.
    While a conscientious editor could certainly check the grokipedia versio of an article after they finished working on it to check whether it managed to dig up any extra facts that can be tracked to reliable sources that they might have missed, we should not view this as a reliable source as the editorial process isn't transparent, and it is controlled by one man who has been known to change his AI's parameters on a whim[20] Giuliotf (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll probably need a special entry for Grokipedia on WP:RSNP: 'Utter garbage, fails every test for reliability. Not to be cited. Not to be read unless you have access to a Men in Black neuralyser. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.
    All AI generated sources should be considered Not Reliable, since there are no human editors, no accountability etc., to say nothing of the risks of "AI hallucination." If they have valid information that is sourced, people should cite the original sources.
    Grokipedia goes a step further, it's not just AI generated content - it's AI generated content where the AI is designed to be biased, often in the form of cherry picking information and sources. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It also plagiarises Wikipedia, relentlessly. Sometimes with acknowledgement, sometimes without. On this basis alone it cannot not pass WP:RS, even ignoring the multitude of other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it active? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's live. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, our policies should already cover it,. if it's a wiki it's not an RS, if it's AI-generated, it's not an RS. If it is being cited a lot, yes it needs a notice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an open-editing wiki; users can suggest changes that then need approval. But that doesn't make it reliable, and since much of it is just a copy of Wikipedia, that material is obviously subject to WP:WINARS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a wiki. —Alalch E. 13:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIRCULAR or LLM generated, not a reliable source. Given how much of a issue it's likely to be an edit filter is probably a good idea. I would suggest one similar to the deprecation filter, as there could be instances where links are valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As articles over there are for now created, edited and fact-checked by the Grok language model I find it unlikely that a source not knwon until know will appear at Grokipedia....LLM/AI isn't really good with sourcing as it is. Lectonar (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeet Block with extreme prejudice. Edit filter and list on WP:RS as hard fail. It's an LLM encyclopaedia, largely rewording WP - so inherently unreliable and also WP:CIRCULAR. On the off-chance it does offer up some genuinely useful citation, then that cite should be used directly. It's basically never going to be appropriate to directly cite Grokipedia as a source (except possibly in the Grokipedia article itself, e.g. referencing some controversial hallucination. Although we'd need third party cites as well anyway). Hemmers (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeet what else is there to be said? Someone should make the edit filter soon User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An editfilter for mainspace is a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support mainspace edit filter. I do think we should allow more flexibility on article talk, notice boards, etc. I'm not saying I think it has a lot of good use cases on these other pages but maybe wait and see if it becomes a problem outside of articles before applying a total block. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also support deprecating at WP:RSP. I understand that (1) its unusability is already obvious per applicable P&G and (2) we have not yet had a problem of widespread use but I think we can make an exception and preemptively add it. The fact that existing standards preclude its use supports deprecating Grokipedia as a reasonable, non-arbitrary move now, if there is consensus to do so. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklist - under existing P&G there is never any legitimate reason to link to this pile of LLM vomit, and preventing edits that add it will likely save recent changes patrollers lots of time. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklist that pile of crap. If you need AI to write an Encyclopaedia for you, you're clearly incapable of writing anything worthwhile yourself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Wikipedia material is intended to be available for others to reuse and build on, and I'd be wary of any effort to restrict that access to folks one doesn't like, because (and not just because) it is apt to cause problems for others. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is less anyone adding it as a direct source, but editors using it to make arguments on talk pages. Grok is very good at formulating positions for fringe POVs. It takes a lot of effort to deconstruct and dispute those arguments when they are so well articulated and integrated. -- GreenC 03:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • IMO new reader/ user requests/ mentions on article talk pages may have a larger scope to address about. As far as WP:RSN, without prejudice of any future improvements in AI/ based encyclopedias, as of the day their referencing from secondary sources specially from academic books seems weaker. Hence as of the day those i.e. Grokipedia seems to be a good candidate for WP:RSNP. Bookku (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ User:GreenC In above comment I have already supported Grokipedia to be included in WP:RSNP.
    But can some comparative mentions on talk pages may be helpful to some extent? Just this month I created new well sourced article My Choice (2015 film). The film has generated very significant media and academic discussion vis a vis lead actress Deepika Padukone, but we find only a passing mention in WP article where as this grokipedia article about Padukone seem to take note to better extent though grokipedia's choice of sources is too poor. Would it not be natural for some users to bring such comparisons to talk pages or WP:NPOV to some extent if WP:RS options are very well available? Bookku (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Any AI will give you a similar AI answer, often with much more "information" than Wikipedia has. You could have simply gone to google.com/ai and entered in the same prompt. The problem is figuring out which added information is something that Wikipedia editors didn't find or found and rejected and which is an AI hallucination. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    More reasons to avoid it I also tried Vienna circle. That told me something interesting. Grokipedia at times merges content from the Stanford encyclopedia on philosophy and Wikipedia but it is anybody's guess what the outcome is. It is quite interesting how it does that but at times seems random. The page for Moritz Schlick who ran the Vienna circle is a good example. It is actually more complete than Wikipedia but again you have a feeling that no one has checked it. And it uses sources such as [21] which is a blog. As is, at the moment, I would not use Grokipedia for anything. It's contents seem random. Should be avoided. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've compared an article I brought to GA, Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) against what Gronkopedia has to say (mis-spelling deliberate) and found that it on first glance it appears to be more complete, but then I looked at the sourcing and found that much of its referencing is the Daily Fail. If I ignored the fact that it promoted a neo-Nazi as a political activist who has the mainstream media against them, I still couldn't ignore the pitiful sources that it has drawn its material from. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes beyond appearance, it's too poor in sourcing as of the day. Google is unlikely to help taking it's consumers to Grok by giving grokipedia links. But it's time to know their full business plan, it's a commercial venture after all and they can bring in crowd if they wish so with the help of the X. Grokipedia allows users to submit suggestions. Bookku (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously deprecate. There are too many problems to count. First, it's heavily based on Wikipedia, which would raise Citogenesis concerns. Second, the parts that are not based on Wikipedia are LLM-generated, with no reason to think there's any editorial controls or fact-checking. And third, it obviously lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with coverage already uncovering widespread and massive errors. These things combined with the fact that it was created with an overt political goal in mind make it hard to accept the problems are innocent and moves it into the category of active misinformation, requiring deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I compared an article I do not watch (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) just for fun. It was like reading about two different people. I suggest therefore that Grokipedia is unreliable as a source. - Walter Ego 14:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like to add comments to Wikipedia:GROKIPEDIA? Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blacklist - ignoring the fact that its stated purpose is to present a hallucinated version of "facts" with a right-wing point of view, it's an inadmissible source based on our regular criteria: it's both self-published and user-generated, and has no editorial oversight other than allowing users to submit (but not actually make) corrections, which are very likely still reviewed by an algorithm. It's also one of the very few examples of a bad source mentioned by name in WP:RSML. As many earlier comments have pointed out it does not appear to have any standards for source reliability at all, and if it happens to cite an actually useful source we could and should just cite that source directly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Obviously, Grokipedia should not be cited or used in articles. Regarding blacklisting it, implementing an edit filter, etc., what do we do for Conservapedia? It's not listed on WP:RSP. Is there an edit filter? I mean - I think the idea of the two projects is broadly similar - to start with a mirror of Wikipedia, then edit it to be more right leaning. In Conservapedia's case they are using a typical Wiki model and having humans edit the articles to be more right leaning and the process is slow. In Grokipedia's case, they are using AI, so it will go faster. But I see no reason to panic about Grokipedia and take extraordinary measures that we don't take for similar projects like Conservapedia, especially pre-emptively. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Conservapedia and others like it would already be covered under WP:USERGENERATED Giuliotf (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Grokipedia would also be already covered under a combination of:
      • WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERGENERATED as it starts as a mirror of Wikipedia
      • WP:RSML as it uses machine learning to edit the articles it copied from Wikipedia
      • As an encyclopediaesque thing it would be a WP:TERTIARY source, if it was reliable (which it's not due to being a combination of user generated and machine learning).
      In other words - why do we need to do anything new or different here? Our existing PAGs cover this situation. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeet. I mean, seriously. Everything Musk does is a joke, even the things that actively harm people. Furthermore, I'll be referring to it as "Gockopedia" from now on, in the hopes that it catches on and becomes the most common name for the site, because that would annoy Musk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blacklist The Guardian says Grokipedia's entries hew closely to conservative talking points, with some journalists already saying it contains inaccurate information, citing the January 6 attack and a claim that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic. Wired seconds those points, and also a claim that social media has led to a rise of transgender identification. Kill it with fire. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double Yeet - It goes without saying at this point but I did take a moment to review an article subject I'm familiar with and attempt to verify the cited "sources." It is actually terrifying to think people are going to trust the information given by this monstrosity. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a saying in the fashion industry: no one ever lost any money by underestimating the taste of the public. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the above. Yeet, deprecate, blacklist, edit filter, kill it with fire, etc. CNC (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Support per Ivanvector. Totally unredeemable as a source in and of itself. If it has something new and cites a RS we don't, we would be sourcing that RS directly. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Support edit filter. Even if were perfectly accurate, it can never be an RS. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have created Special:AbuseFilter/1387. At this time, it is set to warn, so potentially good edits aren't being outright blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blacklist It is only the loss of Wikipedia to allow artificial intelligence created information into it. Zalaraz (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the last ten years, I have watched AI's entry into various tasks follow a predictable course. It starts out laughably bad. In time it is performing as well as humans. Not long after that, it is outperforming every human on the planet. I don't see why online encyclopedias will be any different. The Yeet !votes are understandable but they're short-sighted, IMO. Editors and WP principals should be preparing for a scenario in which Grokipedia accomplishes higher levels of WP:V and WP:NPOV than at WP itself. What then will be its value proposition? Obviously Grokipedia shouldn't be regarded WP:RS at present, but it won't be the present forever. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If Grokipedia is ever "outperforming" us in the future, we can revisit. For now, it's unusable for facts. Given Musk's biases and factual inaccuracies, I don't expect it will reach usability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Let he without biases cast the first opinion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We're talking about inaccuracies here, not just biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which raises an interesting question as to whether the emphasis of verifiability over truth is capable of eliminating inaccuracies past a certain point. I think readers of encyclopedias ultimately want truth, not mere verifiability. If GP becomes accepting of truth expressed at WP but not the converse, it will be an interesting case of adversarial interoperability. Which is to say that I understand the Kill It With Fire !votes, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reminded of print encyclopedia editors dismissing WP in the early days. Remember Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that Grok's algorithms have been modified to reflect Musk's biases, I doubt that it will ever be better at NPOV. And you might want to read "OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Read, thank you. You might want to read Hayek on human fallibility. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The human fallibility essay perfectly explains why Gronkipedia doesn't mention Elon's nazi salute: "Any admission of fallibility is seen as a sign of weakness." So yes, revisionist history it is! Brilliant. 172.58.8.233 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not how things will unfold. Mr Wales will not sit still. In time Wikipedia will provide AI assistance to Wikipedians. It will still be human powered, but bicycles are also human powered. And much faster than walking. 62.18.38.102 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We shall have to see on that Wiki may very well never do that especially if the Wiki editors do not want it. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Mr Wales has only very limited influence on what goes on on Wikipedia these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Feel free to use the websites you like but WP is not for promotion. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support mainspace filter No good reason at all to link to Grokiepedia it is not reliable.GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not usable As others noted, it's a technical issue: like any wiki, user generated, auto generated and/or especially if borrowing from WP, it can simply not be used as a source. If evidence shows that it's being spammed on WP it may then get blacklisted, like would happen with any spammed domain, but that's another step. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      About Grokipedia as a "wiki" and a "mirror": Grokipedia is not a website "like any wiki" because it is not a wiki. Wikipedia is a wiki. Grokipedia took only "-pedia" from Wikipedia because it purports to a be an encyclopedia like Wikipedia; it did not also take the "Wiki-" from Wikipeda, and does not claim to be a wiki, and it is not a wiki, and does not resemble a wiki. A mirror site is a replica of a website, a faithful and generally up-to-date copy. A website is also its software, and Wikipedia's software is called MediaWiki, which is a wiki software, and a wiki using it is a MediaWiki wiki. Wikipedia being a MediaWiki wiki, only a website that is technically comparable (in terms of software used to organize and display content) can be a mirror of Wikipedia; generally also a MediaWiki or MediaWiki-derived website. There are those wikis that are and those that are not mirrors of Wikipedia. Grokipedia not even being a wiki means that that it is not even potentially a mirror of Wikipedia. A website can host content copied from another website. Merely containing copied content is not even close to being enough to consider a website a mirror. There are websites that copy content from Wikipedia that are mirrors of Wikipedia and that are not. Grokipedia is in the latter category. Grokipedia is a non-wiki website with some of its content crudely copied from Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 08:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklisting. I'm not sure all the supporters of this measure realize it would also prevent links to Grokipedia outside of article space. There are valid cases for linking to it on talk pages (e.g. Grokipedia discusses this aspect of the subject which we are missing). Even discussions like we're having now would be impeded by blacklisting. Just deprecating it would avoid these problems. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that as a feature, not a bug, of blacklisting. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly unreliable I oppose blacklisting as well as deprecation. Those are both saved for sources that are specifically problematic, either they are widely cited when they shouldn't be (Daily Mail) or harmful (sites that contain illegal content). Gokipedia is none of those. It clearly can't qualify as a RS. What more needs to be done? Springee (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Blacklisting from talk page at this stage: Looking at emerging consensus to support WP:RSNP deprecation from article namespace Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard has already taken note and added Grokipedia to warning filter for main namespace and tracking filter for talk namespace.
    At Talk Grokipedia one ip has given google trend evidence, saying

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

    So, IMHO, prima fecie we can afford to track with already initiated edit filter before taking further steps of entire black listing. Bookku (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It'd be a good idea to prohibit any attempts to cite it now to save everyone time cleaning up the inevitable mess later. It's a Wikipedia clone of poor quality, prone to both circular citations from their articles ripped straight from here & unchecked AI hallucinations. There's no reason we'd ever need to cite it directly, if anything about it is notable, we'll cite secondary coverage instead. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blacklist Any editor bringing something from grok to talk pages should first be double checking all of the references to avoid misrepresentations and hallucinations. In which case, they can bring the source material to discussions here instead. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At Talk:Grokipedia#NLP analysis information about pre-print of the research paper Yasseri, Taha. "How Similar Are Grokipedia and Wikipedia? A Multi-Dimensional Textual and Structural Comparison" doi has been shared. Seems a good read.
    Article Talk pages may not be best places every time to share good faith comparisons, IMO, our actions should proportionate, appropriate and measured, so as not bite non- fully well versed good faith communications and communicators either. Bookku (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bookku, the 5-year chart shows an increased bubble in Wikipedia interest (July-October), just prior to Grok release, then the bubble deflated and returned to its downward trend, from peak interest in 2022. That bubble is strange, maybe Wikipedia was making a comeback and Grok took the air out of its sail.
      There are various forces working against Wikipedia. AI generally, of which Grok is one player, also Google Overviews, and the chatbots. The success of right-wing counter-culture, which is hostile to Wikipedia, is growing in size and influence globally. You can see in the 5-year chart, a significant drop in Feb-Mar 2025, when Trump and Musk started bashing Wikipedia as "biased", it had an impact. So we have political and technological forces aligned against Wikipedia, these are powerful forces. — GreenC 19:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Support at least deeming it unreliable. Not only is Grokipedia copied in large part from Wikipedia (which is already unreliable per WP:USERGEN and causes citogenesis concerns), it uses AI-generated text, which has been shown time and time again to hallucinate things. I would support a mainspace edit filter as well. Absent evidence of widespread abuse, though, I don't think we're at the point that it should be blacklisted completely yet; there may still be reasons to discuss it on non-article pages. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @ User:GreenC the aspects you are raising (at deeper level may relate to cycles of periodic socio-political oscillation in democratic political economics and Business economics and management side concepts of Product lifecycle and Technology Life Cycle. Aspects related causes citogenesis concerns raised by Epicgenius though important concerns my analysis may lead to digression rather I will include response to the same in my contemplated response to academic User talk:Adler.fa page eventually and keep you informed.
    Let me come to next relevant points, What is preferable, whether go by presumptions or collate evidence, analyze evidence and proceed?
    • (See WP:EFN) Filters 869 (article namespace to warn, log) and 1132 (talk namespace to track, log ) both now include Grokipedia functional since 31st October 25.
    • In my today's brief check by searching article namespace I did not notice any incidence of inserting grokipedia.com (Idk if I missed any, I am not still well versed for such searches). I asked at filter notice board how we can sort and track instances more easily particularly for Grokipedia?
    Okay I got one warning while preparing this response in my User namespace sub page sandbox and in later edits it allowed to save me without warnings.
    • In talk namespace in my direct search I found following type of instances. Assertiveness in some of Grokepedia supportive posts in no doubt concerning as OP raised the issue.
    1) There are some instances where readers are accusing Wikipedia and saying see how Grokipedia is better. Some talk pages Wikipedians engaged with them in the discussion some talk page messages are still unattended.
    2) Then there are couple of genuine discussion points.
    3) The last type is user has updated banners about media coverage of specific article in respect to Grokipedia Wikipedia article comparison or mentioned in news URLS
    4) At WP:VPMISC User:Some1 has given interesting comparison of Rowling. If some user instead of WP namespace makes provides such comparison at relevant talk page are we going to block it?
    5) I am not filter expert but Which to allow and which to block at talk namespace is likely to be tricky, I suppose that would very much depends on filter expert's inputs.
    • My preferred suggestion/ solution rather than censoring the talk namespace, whether we can use bots to invite and encourage such users to join and discuss their issues at WP:Teahouse, if not satisfied then LLM notice board still not satisfied then to WP:Policy.
    One way can be divert first type of users to WP:Teahouse with filter warning on talk namespace to do so. Bookku (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bookku, I responded to one of your examples here Special:Diff/1319261986/1320258094. This same response would hold true in most cases. I think we need an essay on why Grok is so bad, then link to it in talk page discussions, rather than repeating the same arguments. Possibly this essay could live at WP:GROKIPEDIA along with some other things. The idea is to educate about the dangers of LLMs and/or Grokipedia in particular. Rather than attacking or blocking which can come across as biased. Education is the key to changing minds. As a society we need to quickly come up to speed with identifying machine generated content, understanding it's limitations. — GreenC 17:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break (Grokipedia section)

    [edit]
    • Oppose arson. I see that cyberpower678 has already made edit filtering set to warning, but hope to cite Grokipedia when it's appropriate. I don't know when that will be, but I also don't know how other people can know. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • <joke>Perhaps we should have special AI bots to engage with anyone who mentions it as a source so editors don't have to bother with them! ;-)</joke> I had a look up of something and it was badly biased and the sources did not support what was said. And then it had a history section where it hallucinated post 2025! NadVolum (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      :) Not a joke, perhaps that would be more effective. A Wikipedian themselves telling not to use Wikipedia as a reference source without properly evaluating sources and content can be an effective communication. Similarly an AI bot itself engaging with them explaining various limitations of AI can really be a good strategy that I may support wholeheartedly.[Joke] :) Conversly if AI bots only end up talking to each other then that can become futile scenareo :)) Bookku (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    [edit]

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

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

    Apparently they were tricked by an impersonator 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 01:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out that it wasn't an imposter. It was someone else named Bill DeBlasio who never claimed to be the former mayor (though he recognized that the reporter was assuming this, even though the reporter never said so), and it was The Times' reporter who initiated contact. More info from Semafor. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pulling an article when it becomes apparent that a mistake how been made, and publicly admitting to that mistake, is how we want sources to behave. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. They messed up. They owned up to it. They pulled it in two hours. Hopefully the Times will be a bit more wary in the future, and hopefully Wikipedia will also remain wary of putting too much trust in a single source (any single source) for the sort of content that this sort of hoax could have been responsible for. It doesn't appear to have made it into the de Blasio article, so we're all good there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fabricating quotes to the former NYC mayor is pretty wild in the first place. They didn't pull it till caught. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a good look, certainly. All sources are fallible though, and we have to base content on something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't fabricate the quote, the quote came from an impersonator who fabricated the quote. The Times fell for the impersonination thinking it was the real Bill de Blasio. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's not SO bad then. Not like they're the first people to get clowned like that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it makes them look stupid, but it's hardly the first time this has happened to a news organisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any acknowledgement on their Corrections page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should wait and see whether they add it to the list. If not, we should have a discussion about what not owning up to their mistake means for the Time's reliability. Cortador (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More than half a week later - still no correction. Cortador (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that pulling the article was the correct move. However, if they were tricked by an impersonator it still concerns me that they never tried to contact (the real) de Blasio. Even DMing him on Twitter would have been enough to stop this.
    Like, the impersonator wasn't even trying to talk like the real guy. Anyone with even basic familiarity with the subject matter could've caught this. Loki (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What action, if any, are you suggesting Wikipedia should take on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times is currently green at RSP and I'm no longer confident it should be. Loki (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt there's a newspaper of record out there that hasn't made similar slip-ups at one time or another. They messed up. They admitted it. They corrected it, rapidly. We clearly aren't going to change the RSPN entry on that alone. You could start an RfC, but it would be a complete waste of time in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt there's a newspaper of record out there that hasn't made slip ups. Similar slip-ups, though, I think is more debatable.
    The entire premise of the article is wrong. They put words in the mouth of a man that he did not say and in fact has publicly said the opposite of. Loki (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many reputable mainstream sources were tricked by The Yes Men's impersonation on the BBC, where one of them posed as an official spokesperson for Dow Chemical, apologizing for the Bhopal disaster, promising reparations, etc? This kind of thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a long history of news organisations failing for such hoaxes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the WaPo unreliable because of Janet Cooke? Is the New York Times unreliable because of Jayson Blair? Or is it only British newspapers that Loki thinks should be targeted? FOARP (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I am honestly concerned that you have these examples ready but think they are reasons to defend the Times rather than be doubtful of WaPo or the NYT. Loki (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well are you arguing that we downgrade all major newspapers with similar issues or just The Times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should at least be skeptical of any source that does this.
    Upon looking closer, the WaPo incident was in the 1980s, and one hopes they've improved their fact-checking standards since then. The NYT incident, however, was both more recent and extremely problematic, considering how it consists of fabrication across multiple articles over years. I'm surprised we didn't downgrade it at the time, frankly. Loki (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that we do treat the news media in general with greater skepticism than for example prominently published academic work. This particular case does not strike me as out of the ordinary but is a good example of why we are reminded to be extra careful at the intersection of breaking news and BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have put out a statement "The Times has apologised to Bill de Blasio and removed the article immediately after discovering that our reporter had been misled by an individual falsely claiming to be the former New York mayor" HuffPost. I would expect that a correction notice will follow. I don't see how they could have confirmed it with the real de Blasio, when they thought they were in direct communication with the real de Blasio. The mistake was being overly trusting in a source, which they have immediately corrected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DMing the real de Blasio on Twitter. Or emailing him. Or calling him.
    Like, you have "de Blasio" making public statements contrary to previous public statements and talking like a different person. Certainly reaching out via a known method of contact is just basic fact-checking. Loki (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual news sources aren't that good most of the time, but even if editors decided something like that was due, it would be covered by RSBREAKING in this specific case, no? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RSBREAKING doesn't apply because this wasn't a breaking news report. "Breaking news" doesn't refer to news that were just published, it refers to news reports published very close to the event, from a writer who likely has incomplete information or is writing about a developing situation. This interview with the fake de Blasio unlikely happened just hours before they published it. It likely happened at least a day ago or so, as then included into this articles while adding other stuff e.g. Fetterman's comment and the assessment by economists etc. Cortador (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't cover exclusives then I think we should. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pretty bad mistake from the Times, in isolation I could see this as just a mistake that was rapidly caught, but this is not the Times first editorial controversy, for example this one was far worse [22]
    While they are generally reliable, I would take their reporting on some controversial political topics with a pinch of salt. Giuliotf (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked and the origibal story still appears to be up on their website [23] Giuliotf (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I might just be confused (wouldn't be the first time) but that looks like a different article than the original one in the thread, and than the one in the post you're replying to. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 13:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One problematic article isn't enough to call into question the credibility of a publication.
    I've added a separate (and I think much more egregious) example where the Times publish a problematic series of articles, at least one of which is still on their website. Giuliotf (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • An individual incident generally doesn't impact a source's reliability, not unless secondary coverage makes it clear that it has seriously damaged their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which isn't the case here. It might be a reason to track coverage and to give the source a closer look, but it isn't enough to make us reconsider its status on its own. If you do want to argue that it's a problem, the thing to do is to look for secondary coverage that shows how this has affected their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the signs of a good news organization is they retract their articles when they make an error. I think wikipedians have gotten way too attached to "discrediting" news sources when in general, across the board, news isn't reliable when compared to well researched academic works. There are more long-form, well researched news stories, but the news cycle today is faster then ever and focused on generating clicks. Per WP:RS: Each article needs to be evaluated for how reliable it is. Not just the author. Not just the publication. If we have a generally reliable News Source that reports something, that is clearly not true, that's enough to point out that that specific article isn't reliable because it's clearly not true.
    Look at this article [24] that claims this about Twighlight: "it was the 2008 movie that truly propelled the franchise (and vampires) into mass appeal. Vampires weren’t just for horror nerds and theater kids anymore. Vampires could be cool and sexy." The author was a teenager when Twightlight came out, it's totally true that Twighlight made Vampires popular for her generation, and that is the personal experience of the author and many people her age. But here on Wikipedia, there are way too many arguments that use a source like that, where it's a throw away remark, over a source like this, that points to the ABC soap opera "Dark Shadows", and a vampire who wakes up after a long sleep and has to adjust to modern society as being a turning point in how vampires are portrayed in video, and then goes on to reference other movies and tv shows that came along before Twighlight that were mainstream and popular with generations before, like Lost Boys, Interview with a Vampire, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. [25]. The second one is clearly better researched, the first one is just a throw away remark buried in an article about something else, based on personal experience, and not based on research.
    Wikipedians like to grasp onto that first article and insist "No, Twilight was the first! See this article says so!" and then get their buddies to come "vote" on it. This exact problem is happening on the Terminology of homosexuality article, where editors are defending a blog post, about a person who as a teenager experienced the word "Same-sex attraction" being used by religious groups, as proof the term was created and primarily used by religious groups, when a short search on Google Scholar clearly shows it's an academic term with a long history, used in academic and medical works for decades. Clearly, that particular blog post is "not reliable" because it's obviously not true.
    The same problem is on Imane Khelif's article, and the whole "no medical evidence has been published to indicate she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone" debacle. "We have a source that say's so!" despite... obviously it not being true. Nothing makes Wikipedia seem more unreliable then the manipulation of "reliable sources" in this manner to push specific points of view. Denaar (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said, how the Times handled this after publishing us exactly the behavior we expect from a reliable source. It's also a good reason to keep in mind NOTNEWS, particularly when it comes to things that can only be confirmed by one source, that there is never a reason to rush to add such material until it's clear it seems legit. Masem (t) 14:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a massive error but it does not alter The Times‍'s overall reliability rating. As others have said, a single incident is rarely enough to undo hundreds of years of credibility and their response is an indication of sound editorial practices. It doesn't appear that the original story made its way into any en-wiki articles but there's a good lesson here about not rushing to catalogue every breaking detail about high profile stories here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOURCEWRONG applies. It seems the process worked if they took story down.
    if there is constant pattern of doing this, we might need to consider reliability, but a single incident is understandable User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • The article in the first place is a bad mistake for sure, but I mean, them removing it entirely is exactly how we expect reliable sources to behave when they screw up - they realized they got duped/messed up, owned up to it, and removed the content from circulation entirely. If anything, it's a point in their favor as an RS rather than against. The Kip (contribs) 06:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They didn't "get duped", they duped themselves by reaching out to a completely different person. Even more concerningly, the Times itself is misleading in its correction by stating DeBlasio was "falsely claiming" to be de Blasio [26]. When a newspaper makes a misleading statement in their removal of a fabricated article, it makes sense to asks serious questions about their reliability. That they didn't have any form of fact-checking to make sure they were speaking to the correct person is indeed very concerning, as Loki points out. As DeBlasio says, "He assumed the reporter would “have all his people check it out.”" The fact they did not is a problem. Katzrockso (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The man was aware they thought he was the mayor and didn't correct them. That means he was impersonating Bill de Blasio. They made a good faith error and the man decided to have a laugh with it. I would not expect any media organisation to fact check a quote they had obtained by calling an interviewee.--Boynamedsue (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a daft thread and should be closed. Of course this has no effect on reliability. The Times has done everything we would expect, and the article appears not even to have got into its print edition. In that case, one would not even expect a written correction, the statement on the mistake suffices. Almost as if this wasn't really about the somewhat anonymous (in the UK at least) Mr de Blasio at all...Boynamedsue (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this apparently unpublished pdf a reliable source for

    [edit]

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

    What PDF? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's unpublished, how could we use it and why would we? 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 17:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agh, sorry. [27] Doug Weller talk 17:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you say it's unpublished? 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 18:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I say “apparently” as I would expect to find details of publication in a published pdf. Can you find evidence it’s been published? I Doug Weller talk 19:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know if you meant self-published, or if it was a draft, or wiki jargon that I don't know yet. I assumed it was published or self-published, but I know the wiki has its own standards and I'm still trying to get the hang of it all. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most documents like this on Academia.edu are self-published sources, and the lead indicates that is the case here (e.g. it just says the author's name, date, and the name of the pdf). I would say not RS unless creator is a subject matter expert, and even then probably not due weight. The creator appears to have no relevant credentials. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed it's probably not relevant for anything important, and agree with User:PARAKANYAA broadly but with an asterisk. This is a super niche, hardly known topic, and this random dude publishes one (1) paper ever, and it's on something this obscure?
    If someone who was 40-year career restaurant cook suddenly shows me the research paper he proudly published on say, Gibbs free energy, I'd be like, first, "Good work?" followed by "They teach this on the line?" I'd want to know where my pal got into advanced thermodynamics and I'd look to see what he wrote. Especially if it's all he's ever done in anything STEM on the record. Most people wouldn't spend that much effort on random esoteric bullshit (think pre-GPT).
    If nothing else, it may have a good bibliography or leads you can build off; what's in it? Could be a local amateur historian or descended from folks who spoke it, family lore, and they carved up their own historical record? Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. I had a friend who built out a local history on a particular type of news history, and I've encouraged him over the years to get it to say the local library, who could know the best places he could reach out to share it with. It's the sort of thing that if on a proper site (historical society, etc.) and a little editing would be perfect WP:RS for us somewhere. But as is? Nope. Same here. Broadly not WP:RS but even burnt pie has tasty things inside.
    A few sources on some articles I wrote on are obscure. I'd guess someone would say, "How the fuck did VPP find that?"... the answer is, I found a clue/reference to it in something that wasn't itself RS. Every rock has life under it, somewhere. Reddit, random PDFs, old forums, RS? No. But what's in them didn't form out of nothing. I found one off of Usenet archives. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes independent researchers do post worthy stuff to Academia, but in this case a skim makes pretty clear why he couldn't get published. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said if it is self-published on Academia, it should be approached with caution. If the person is a specialist or expert in the topic area, then you could maybe argue some relevance for inclusion. But in this case, I can't find anything on the author existing outside of his profile on Academia, so I would suggest not using his paper for any references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually the academia.edu stuff that is self-published, especially for linguistics, is not reliable. Katzrockso (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Roswell Daily Record for UFOs

    [edit]

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

    • Despite having a circulation of just 12,000, the Roswell Daily Record has a UFO beat reporter [28] and multiple freelance contributors penning UFO columns. Much like WP:UFONATION (News Nation), they appear to have made an intentional decision to lean-into UFO conspiracy theories to drum-up subscribers as much of this reportage has nothing to do with the newspaper's service area of central New Mexico and is clearly intended for a national audience of true believers. The newspaper's website even has a "UFO Store" and its About page talks about nothing but UFOs.
    • In "New evidence of UAP/Nuclear ties, old patterns of DoD deception" [29] they uncritically report on a new UFO "study" that's been, apparently, blocked by arXiv and widely criticized by mainstream science. [30]
    • In another article,[31] the newspaper claims that the decision to grant a medical disability to a former USAF airman is an acknowledgment by the U.S. Government of "the phenomenon" (that space aliens are secretly landing on Earth for some reason or another). This is not an editorial, but presented as straight news reporting.
    • One of their UFO freelancer reporters (i.e. not op-ed writers) is Kevin Wright, who is also Director of Public Relations [32] for the New Paradigm Institute (NPI), what seems to be some sort-of New Religious Movement centered on UFOs and led by Daniel Sheehan, the attorney for John Mack (who claimed humans were being kidnapped by space aliens and being force-bred to produce a hybrid race of alien-humans). The NPI describes itself as "preparing for the time when humanity takes our place in the galactic family" [33]). These stories usually start from the baseline assumption that space aliens are currently visiting Earth and the government is covering it up [34].
    • However, like News Nation, when it's not reporting on UFOs, the Roswell Daily Record reports on fairly rote stuff, like zoning board meetings, and local city council elections, etc.

    Chetsford (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, not WP:RS at all.. Roswell exploits this 'UFO' stuff to attract visitors (as it is entitled to do), and it is clearly in the newspaper's interest to take an uncritical (at best) line on it. As a more general principle, local newspapers are a poor source for such topics anyway, given that they generally have no subject-matter expertise, are inclined to go for sensationalism, and have little stake in getting such material right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is nothing more than a gratuitous assertion that applies to most media outlets these days. M3g4d37h (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Media outlets are not good sources for most things! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it is a problem I doubt this extends back many decades? So I wouldn't want to extend any sourcing restriction any further back than it became a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a good point and I agree. Chetsford (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We wouldn't use a tourist local UFO culture boutique/museum as a source and this instance is rather similar... 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A newspaper is not at all similar to that, no. And before Roswell the Roswell Daily Record was a completely standard, acceptable local paper, which to my understanding was not any weirder about aliens than any other paper. I would not be surprised if at some point they changed (because aliens are a lucrative market and the newspaper business has gotten rough), but I am saying that there is a difference between the coverage now and then and the circumstances in which we may use it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike NewsNation or Debrief, I don't typically think of RDR as outside of the mainstream in their UFO reporting. For example, lots of media outlets have covered the recent Villarroel paper with less-than-ideal scientific literacy, not just the Record. USA Today went with the headline "Did aliens spy on our nuclear tests?" ?! Feoffer (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate and respect that you have a different perspective on UFOs, the following RDR stories are generally not presenting a version of the natural and social sciences that is compatible with our encyclopedia in a general sense:
    • There's a possibility the Argentine Air Force battled an alien fleet (they didn't) [35]
    • People are experiencing "headaches and nausea to anxiety and sleep disturbance" after coming into contact with the ships of aliens visiting Earth (they aren't) [36]
    • The U.S. Government has already acknowledged the existence of ETs visiting Earth and this is a fact (they haven't and it's not) [37].
    etc. Chetsford (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm not seeing the full text, but none of those stories strike me as particularly fringe or incompatible with mainstream worldview.
    • The Argentine Air Force is alleged to have scrambled against UFOs, not aliens -- that's what air forces are supposed to do, consistent with a flock of birds.
    • People lose sleep over things they don't understand, and militaries are happy to let people mistake top-secret tech for UFOs or aliens. Popular Mechanics covered the same story with much greater scientific literacy
    • The VA decision didn't acknowledge ETs and the story explicitly mentions the possibility of exposure to top secret US technology.
    NewsNation was basically putting out talking heads welcoming our new Aliens Overlords on a nightly basis, but RDR stories all seem based in verifiable consensus reality, even if they're far from ideal. I appreciate and respect that you have a different perspective on UFOs Oh, I wish it were limited to UFO culture. These days I'm learning about 1820s Mormon culture; Flying saucers are easy compared to golden plates. Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "UFO" is used by fringe POV pushers as a legitimizing euphamism for alien spaceship,[38] precisely to allow them to say "we never actually said alien spaceship". When a local newspaper that reports on zoning board decisions and high school football in New Mexico also dedicates 15% of its editorial headcount to UFO beat reporters and they cover flight zone security alerts in South America, I think we can reasonably deduce the game they're playing. Chetsford (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Business Insider after switching to Artificial Intelligence

    [edit]

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

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

    Survey (Business Insider)

    [edit]

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

    • Option 2 No issues with reliability for me, but AI-generated stories should not contribute to establishing SIGCOV.
      Business Insider's AI policy is that the AI will generate a draft of the story that will then be human-reviewed before publication. So I don't have any more issue with using AI here than I would using spellcheck. That said, the bigger issue for me than reliability is whether or not these stories should contribute to SIGCOV for purposes of contributing to N. IMO, they should not. The idea implicit in SIGCOV is that, if multiple slow-moving humans have devoted time to enterprising stories about X, then X must be a matter of great interest to humans. The same can't be said for AI that is hoovering up vast quantities of material and using temporal trend scoring to determine what to elevate. I don't object to Option 3 for Business Insider AI Bylines only as per GothicGolem29. Chetsford (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC); edited 01:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. If Business Insider can't be bothered to write their stories, I have no confidence that their editors can be bothered to properly check them. The fact they apparently not to disclose AI use and plan to use it to distort images and videos only makes thing worse. Cortador (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing my vote to option 4 as per my comment below. Only tagging articles entirely written by AI isn't good enough. Cortador (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that all AI-generated stories will be bylined "Business Insider AI" [39]. If we wanted, we could segregate BI in the same way we do with WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORS and consider that byline non-RS. Chetsford (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. Any publication using LLM-generated content must surely be aware by now of its inherent (algorithmically-unavoidable) flaws - most notably its tendency to hallucinate. If they are prepared to foist that on their readers, declared or otherwise (and note Cortador's comment below regarding limits to their declarations [40]), one has to assume that they simply aren't interested in content accuracy, anywhere on their website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for Business Insider AI Bylines. Using AI for articles will seriously affect reliablity however, it looks like per what was noted by Chetsford and my own research that these AI articles will be under a AI byline and labeled as AI. So we should do what we do with WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORS and list the AI articles as unreliable but not non AI Business Insider articles.GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 per Andy the Grumpy person is clearly the best option here. - Walter Ego 15:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 per Andy. The fact that they're willing to use LLMs at all in articles reflects poorly on the intelligence of their editorial board. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No change. Their AI policy says There is always human oversight when our journalists use AI, and they are responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and overall quality of everything we publish. The risk of AI making stuff up, when people are to be held accountable, should be treated the same as the risk of people making stuff up—e.g, we judge sources for having editorial controls or not, with organizations taking responsibility for what they publish, and that should be the same here. If they do end up publishing fabricated information, then just like any other source that publishes fabricated information, we see it and go from there. Downgrading reliability without any evidence of actual published fabrication is premature and alarmist Placeholderer (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck my !vote per Grayfell. I maintain that a policy allowing regulated AI use isn't grounds for deprecation, but the issue is clearly more than that. I guess I'll wait for more information before another !vote, but I could end up supporting a 3+ Placeholderer (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No change per u:Placeholder's arguments. The argument that AI makes mistakes is similar to the argument that humans make mistakes. We don't downgrade every human-created media because of that. If the change leads to inaccuracies I'd be happy to support a downgrade but doing it preemptively seems like an overreaction. Alaexis¿question? 20:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No change for now They say that any pieces that involved AI will be clearly labeled, and these pieces can be evaluated on their own merits. I share PARAKANYAA's concern that a time-based deprecation is not workable. I am okay with considering AI bylined stuff to be generally unreliable, but I don't think this should extend to other BI content until we get a better handle on how this will effect the website in practice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Business Insider stated that only pieces fully generated by AI will be labelled, not all pieces using AI. Cortador (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for content under the AI byline, or for all content if AI is also contributing substantive content outside the AI byline. -- LWG talk 22:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 Option 3 - BI isn't using AI to spend more time or money on fact-checking. Their over-worked, disinterested editorial department is not going to be doing a better job with AI. There is no way to confidently tell what percentage of any article is LLM generated. BI has shown that they prioritize expediency over accuracy or integrity. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC) -edit: yeah, deprecation is too drastic. Business Insider was created largely as a blog for a guy who was banned for life from trading securities, and was financed by a guy who's prior claim to fame was pioneering privacy invading banner adds. It was never great as journalism, but it's become so ubiquitous on Wikipedia that jumping to full deprecation would be disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have any sources to say there's reason to doubt their accuracy? That's what this whole section should boil down to Placeholderer (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option not 4 The only thing I'm very confident of here is that we shouldn't deprecate. As PARAKANYAA points out below, deprecation can't be time-gated because deprecation is an edit filter. It is a deliberately blunt instrument and so regardless of how we want to treat this situation it's inappropriate here because everyone involved acknowledges that BI was reliable in the past. Loki (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 4 - Any site writing stories using AI should immediately be grounds for dismissal.
    If you can't be arsed to write it, we simply won't cite it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Business Insider)

    [edit]

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

    Which discussion is that? Cortador (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cortador This one. NotJamestack (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. From what Status writes, this includes using "A.I. tools for specific tasks and enhancements for images and video". That alone is dodgy since "enhancements" is a fancy term for "making things up", which doesn't bode well. Cortador (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NotJamestack, can you share more details - how are they using AI and why do you think it impacts their reliability? Any examples of hallucinations that made their way into news pieces?articles? Alaexis¿question? 13:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alaexis From what I can see from the discussion I linked above, Business Insider will use ChatGPT without disclosing it to the article readers. A.I. has been know to be inaccurate, so I do feel like it will change reliability. NotJamestack (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't notice the link at first. I think you'll agree that it's possible to use AI in a way that doesn't hurt and even enhances the quality. Humans are also widely known to be inaccurate sometimes. Let's wait and see whether this change produces inaccuracies - I don't think a preemptive change is warranted. Alaexis¿question? 20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A word of warning: Business Insider themselves writes that they will, in their own words "transparently label any products or content fully generated by AI". Emphasis mine. So if a story is partially slop, images are altered etc. they apparently won't disclose it. They also state that they will use AI to assist with fact-checking. How's that even supposed to work? AI itself is what needs the fact-checking in the first place. Cortador (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly are we going to deprecate it for only post-AI stories? That is impossible with how deprecation works. To deprecate it we have to have an RFC for the entire publication because you cannot time limit deprecation because deprecation is an edit filter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC is about the entire publication. The question above is how reliable Business Insider is after they started using AI tool, not how reliable their AI-generated articles are. Cortador (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this would also deprecate their pre-AI articles. You cannot time limit deprecation because all deprecation knows is the URL. So this has to be an RfC on the entire history of Business Insider, or deprecation cannot be an option. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEPS merely says that deprecation is typically enforced with an edit filter. The edit filter does not disallow edits but warns the user and tags the edit. So possible outcomes would be:
    • List BI post-AI as deprecated but do not add it to the edit filter. It's not clear to me how practically this is different from listing it as generally unreliable, but it's at least nominally a thing we can do.
    • List BI post-AI as deprecated; add BI in its entirety to the edit filter and accept some number of false positives (possibly it would be better to do this with a separate edit filter so we can give a custom message explaining the situation and make it easier for editors checking up on the filter to account for those false positives)
    • List BI post-AI as deprecated; add only BI articles written after some cut-off date to the filter (articles have the year and month of publication in the url so this should be doable with regexes). This cuts down on the number of false positives in option 2 but makes the filter more susceptible to breaking if BI change their url scheme.
    Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Placeholderer: There are plenty of sources for BI firing staff and aggressively shifting to AI ([41], [42], etc.) and being in bed with OpenAI ([43], etc.). BI often publishes vaguely proChatGPT puff-pieces like this without any disclosure. There's also self-citing ouroboros issue when BI generates a story from ChatGPT, which itself originated from BI, etc.
    In August, BI took down an LLM-generated article for 'failing to meet standards'.[44] Taking down the article was a good thing, but they only did this after another news outlet pressed them on it. The article was fabricated. Apparently nobody is properly fact-checking these LLM articles. Wired also got taken by the same slop-monger, but Wired had the good sense to publish an article about it. Nothing from BI, as far as I can see. This isn't surprising. BI has a history of 'stealth' edits to articles without acknowledgement of any kind. This is a bad practice which damages BI's reputation regardless of LLMs. (This source mentions an example of this).
    Here is an article co-written by a former BI editorial executive explaining why the track record for LLM tools in journalism is 'spotty, at best'. That source also points out that the use of LLMs requires more editorial oversight, not less, so they do not justify firing experienced editors.
    As I said above, BI has always prioritized expediency over accuracy or integrity. This recent push is just an extension of that. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That does look bad. Updating my !vote... Placeholderer (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    UnHerd website

    [edit]

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

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

    It's mostly opinion pieces afaik. Secretlondon (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    very undue. [45], filled mostly with "right-wing idealogues", pushing "culture war topics".
    Should not be used for citing facts if another better source exists.
    apparently, some nonprofit advertiser org called the Global Disinformation Index, has blacklisted Unherd due to its extreme anti-trans narratives. [46] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears we use unHerd in the GDI article to try to debunk the GDI. Not to say its not biased but unherd is def not to be trusted as a source for that. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, it looks like mostly Op-Eds: per WP:NEWSOPED there are usually not reliable for statements of fact. Our article calls it a "news and opinion" website but I'm struggling to find any straightforward news reporting on it. In this previous discussion, editors seem to generally agree that it mostly publishes opinion pieces from a particular political viewpoint, and should probably not be used for factual claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said, largely OpEds. It may be useful if we are providing perspectives on a topic, likely current political topics, depending on the notability of the author. Otherwise, likely a poor source for most Wiki articles. Springee (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can absolutely not be used to cite fact, speaking as a frequent editor in GENSEX I've only ever seen it used to launder TERF rhetoric and talking points into wikivoice. It'd be like citing The Daily Wire. Snokalok (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it's described as news and opinion, I've never seen anything other than OpEds. They would be reliable for the opinions of their authors, whether they were due would depend on the author and other factors specific to each usage. I would agree with Springee that they would have limited use outside of political topics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they ever publish news per say... But on the opinion side it should be assessed on a case by case basis as some of the authors I see are subject matter experts of one sort or another. That of course comes with inherent caveats in regards to what sorts of facts they can be used for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedians shun opinion websites as biased, unless they are good liberal sources like The New Statesman or The New Republic or Salon.com. We shun right-wing ideologues but embrace left-wing ideologues. I'm being intentionally facetious, but I would again like to stress biased doesn't necessarily mean bad. And even *if* most UnHerd articles are OpEds (which is an assertion that demands evidence), their contributors include distinguished scholar Terry Eagleton[47], economist Yanis Varoufakis[48], philosopher Agnes Callard[49]feminist Julie Bindel[50], and political historian Jeff Bloodworth. If we systematically exclude expert analysis on the grounds of "it's biased" or "it's right wing" or "it's a culture war issue" then we are actively perpetuating ideological bias in Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have this convo every few months, whether is grokipedia, larry sanger etc.
    the counterpoint is we also consider some right wing sites like free beacon as useful and drop left wing sites like occupy dems.
    and in general, it does seem other groups that are more aligned with traditional journalism also dislike it see [51] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liberal writer for Vice dislikes outlet founded by conservative as soon as it debuts. Shocking. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that the writer is a liberal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong inference, but apologies should I be incorrect. Per this post he is an editor for the liberal Novara Media, has written for let-wing New Internationalist and liberal outlets The Independent and The Guardian. The Vice piece above, if not already obvious, is saturated with opinion itself, calling Montgomerie "a Thatcher fan-boy" and UnHerd "a perfect example of the kind of media nobody needs any more". --Animalparty! (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make inferences about living people like that, BLP applies to this page. It doesn't need to be personal and it doesn't need to be political... Also note that Vice is not rated as generally reliable, which is weird if wikipedia is pushing left-wing ideologues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Novara being called liberal? They very much aren't. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, Novara is regarded as leftwing. [52][53][54] --Animalparty! (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    to note: Novara's founder is a regular contributor to UnHerd: https://unherd.com/author/aaron-bastani/ UnHerd is (increasingly) dominated by right of centre voices but is definitely not homogenously right-wing. The common feature is contrarianism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Animalparty: unless I'm missing something nobody has suggested that we exclude expert analysis from this source... And we discourage the use of opinion content when stronger sources are available regardless of political stripe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of the right wing being oppressed and silenced for their beliefs. Which beliefs specifically? Oh, well, never you mind. Again, I can only speak in regards to GENSEX, but wikipedia generally doesn’t cite terfs and other associated anti-trans advocates for facts on trans issues.Snokalok (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppressed and silenced for not getting an exemption from RSOPINION, unlike two liberal sources which, looking at RSP, also do not get an exemption from RSOPINION (and one that is not listed). Wikipedia will never stop being biased unless we repeal RSOPINION for enough right-wing sources to allow us to present alternative facts alongside regular facts on equal footing, I guess. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It depends. Mostly an opinion site, and that is not always going to be due. I think it would be fine for media opinion. It is certainly an influential site in that regard. Wouldn't cite it for anything contentious but like, a book review or an interview or something is fine. Sort of like Salon.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    News organisations need to publish news not just opinion, so unHerd definitely isn’t a news organisation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would characterize much of what they do as analysis. Opinion is involved, but it's not op-ed. Facts cited therein can probably be regarded as reliable. Since the nomination failed to provide context, it looks like a fishing expedition. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a couple of examples on the front page that might conceivably be called analysis rather than op eds, e.g. a piece about the Dutch elections by a Dutch journalist. But the overwhelming majority are pure opinion, and more importantly there is no label distinguishing one from the other BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And it’s leaned really deep into anti-trans culture wars, a topic I can’t imagine we could consider it due for.
    On their ownership, read this and this. On its politics, read this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Byline Times isn't an RS, I hope. Secretlondon (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Byline Times is an RS, albeit not the strongest. I think we've discussed it before and that was the consensus. Whereas UnHerd doesn't have journalists, report facts, do investigations or have editors with backgrounds in news editing, Byline does all those things. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems entirely reliable for the opinion of its authors, which may be due if they are a significant voice on a particular subject. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Times Now

    [edit]

    Is Times Now ...

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

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

    Survey (Times Now)

    [edit]
    • Option 2 reliable for anything not related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism. Our article on Times Now isn't in great shape and should not be used as a definitive guide to evaluate this.
    • Meets our standard for WP:USEBYOTHERS outside of Indian politics; e.g. Straits Times, [55] TIME, [56] Jerusalem Post, [57] Al Jazeera, [58] South China Morning Post, [59] etc.
    • While some editors have raised concerns in past discussions about the reliability of its coverage of the BJP, there has never been an objection to its coverage outside those topics and the fact it's in a joint partnership with Reuters [60], which is unambiguously RS is worth taking note. At the very least, as a subsidiary of the Times of India, it would be hard to imagine it would be less reliable than the parent (which we currently subject to "additional considerations", those considerations being attentiveness to AI and advertorials).
    • It obviously has a gatekeeping process and a publication record, and I can find no record of it failing any factchecks after checking all the usual suspect F/C entities, (outside of presentation issues related to Indian politics and Hindu nationalism).
    There should be no reason we treat it more stringently than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS vs WP:FOXNEWS. Leaving this in limbo removes a major source for topics related to contemporary India that sit outside the political arena. Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 or 3, low editorial standards which appear to only be dropping as time goes on... There also seems to be ongoing issues with mixing opinion and news content in an unclear way, some of that can be written of to clickbait or sensationalism but it doesn't speak in their favor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Οption 3. A strong political bias is never bottled and isolated. It leaks and spreads across almost every kind of reporting. The most trivial examples of that typical phenomenon will be found in the realms of sports and culture. Therefore, having established that Times Now is virtually a political propaganda organ, we should keep it at a safe distance from the pool of reliable sources. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrevocably so. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I didn't get that memo. Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are biased sources reliable, then? -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias is not a standalone determinant of reliability; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I went for option 3 on the basis of the guideline you invoke. To wit: Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering Seems to pass all three of those for topics not related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism (the construction of this RfC). Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

    Discussion (Times Now)

    [edit]

    The Military Watch

    [edit]

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

    When were they added, and by whom? If it is one person, it could be promotional and being spammed. Please check to see when they were added, and if it was one person, and the page was used in many other pages at around the same time, you may nominate the source for spam blacklist. If it was one person, you may check spamcheck.toolforge.org to make checking for spam easier. Thanks. NotJamestack (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They were initially added by someone who's username/IP has been removed [1][2][3].
    Later they were cited by @Dombo78 [1][2] then by @BlackFlanker [1][2] & by @Mr.User200 [1][2][3], all before 2024.
    So it seems several editors have cited it over the years. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see that it's anything but a random self published Facebook page. It appears to be run my someone called Marcin Rogowski, who doesn't appear to have any previously published works per WP:EXPERTSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Unherd

    [edit]

    How would you rate the reliability of Unherd? G13 vs G14 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Survey

    [edit]
    • Option 2: Based on the discussion of this website above, I think it is not generally reliable, but at the same time it is not generally unreliable. It should not be used for facts in controversial articles related to politics, science, etc. If used, it should be attributed as opinion of the author in accordance with WP:DUE. It can be used for facts in non-controversial articles, but can be replaced if a better, non-opinion based source exists. Essentially, it has the same reliability as The Spectator. G13 vs G14 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the RfC is premature, but am skeptical of the assertion that Wikipedians, collectively, can and routinely do assess topical consensus; preferring instead to delegate all decision-making on usage to the color of an entry at WP:RSP. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They do until a source is listed on rsp. And then theoretically only because there had been sustained controversy and any topical considerations are listed as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should add something to the banner in stronger terms that say "not everything needs to be listed at RSP, if nobody is arguing with you about it in articlespace you don't need to ask here" or something along those lines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a closure request at WP:CR. NotJamestack (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see cnc said no, and agree. Unless if WP:SNOW applies and everyone votes bad rfc, closure this early is improper. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2 or 3 it needs careful handling. It's not as simple as 'is this good Y/N?'. What's the context? What's it being used for? Secretlondon (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: WP:RSOPINION and attribution. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC per my above comments. NotJamestack (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2/Bad RfC I think it's a bad RfC because we simply don't have enough controversy regarding the use of this site and in general we should be looking at specific use cases rather than yet more blanket accepts/rejects. That said, I would say 2 with the clear understanding that the source's nature as mostly commentary/analysis is going to make it something that will have limited use. It shouldn't be 3 since we don't really have evidence of reliability issues that aren't already covered by things like RSOPINION. Springee (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close RfC without prejudice against opening a similar RfC some time soon. What I want to see is a normal discussion with people giving examples of edit X using reference Y and why that is a problem. If that doesn't result in a consensus, go for another RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC but "option 2" is closest to my opinion on it. Fine for where opinion/criticism writing is fine. They don't do much news reporting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC but "option 2" Per parankayaa. Its mostly opeds, its claims should never be anything but attributed and statements of fact should be taken from better sourcing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC.The 4-way fill-in-the-box including a ban option is bad. If there's dispute in a Wikipedia article e.g. Global Disinformation Index then that could perhaps be discussed on the talk page first. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, though it may sometimes be used for attributed statements of opinion when covering the opinions of subject-matter experts, due weight permitting. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and honestly no indication that they even attempt what we would consider proper editorial controls. Disagree with the people above arguing that the RFC should be closed or isn't necessary; it is not necessarily obvious to everyone at a glance that this source is only usable for attributed opinion, and in fact it is currently used for unattributed statements of fact in several articles. It comes up a huge amount on talk pages, where people often use it to argue for facts, not opinion. It's obvious to us that this isn't a source usable for statements of fact; it is not necessarily obvious to people who are less familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. This is the sort of thing that WP:RSP exists for. They are not usable for statements of fact, and given the constant confusion over that point and the repeated discussions, we ought to make that unambiguously clear - especially since nobody seems to disagree with that fact, they just disagree over how clear we need to make it. "It could be cited for attributed opinion when they're interviewing an expert" is a normal exception per WP:EXPERTSPS, since it doesn't matter who the publisher is in that case, and isn't a reason to be unclear when a source is otherwise unusable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue, however, is that there have not been repeated discussions. This has only been discussed twice and the discussions are two years apart. There is not enough substance for an RFC here. NotJamestack (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for the RfC but if we must, then option 2, because there is no indication that it is unreliable for what it publishes: the opinions of its authors, which we would always attribute. Can we stop using this board to try to gerrymander enemy sources out of existence, and start using it to discuss reliability of sources in context, like the massive banners at the top say? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC The consensus of the prior discussion seems clear, they mostly publish OpEds that should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. There's no need to have an RFC when policy is clear on the points involved. Whether a particular opinion is worth inclusion in an article is going to depend on the author and the specific article. As it's raison d'être is basically to be controversial that's unlikely to be the case very often. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Index of Economic Freedom - looks to me as though a lot of the sources are not rs or DUE.

    [edit]

    Index of Economic Freedom#References Cite unseen says 4 marginally reliable,1 generally unreliable, 17 blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Index of Economic Freedom is an unusual kind of Wikipedia article. It's basically a primary-sourced summary of the Heritage Foundation's views on what constitutes economic freedom, with very few secondary sources. Pertinently, an IP asked on the talkpage in 2024 (getting no response), "Why Heritage foundation is presented as some sort of neutral party? Heritage foundation has a specific agenda, especially when it comes to economic issues." As Doug points out, the CiteUnseen script finds 17 blacklisted (and also "advocacy") references out of 39. Those 17 are mainly the references to the Heritage Foundation's own material, i. e. they're primary sources from a blacklisted source. (The Ludwig von Mises Institute is in there once too). Wikipedia's article was created as far back as 2003, but I have nevertheless PRODed it for atrocious sourcing. Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    There seem to be some sources using the IOEF, but not many about the IOEF, or at least not in sufficient quantity and quality to warrant an article rather than a section in the Heritage Foundation article.
    That said, this is probably more an AfD issue overall. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The article has been de-prodded and is now at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Economic Freedom. Bishonen | tålk 10:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Reliability of marathimovieworld.com as a source

    [edit]

    I would like to solicit input regarding the reliability of the website marathimovieworld.com, which is being used as a source for Marathi-cinema content.

    About the website

    [edit]
    • The site publishes news, reviews, previews, trailers, cast/crew details, and occasional interviews about Marathi films.
    • Example sections: News, MovieDetail pages, Reviews.
    • I could not find clear information on editorial oversight, an editorial policy, or whether content is produced by trained journalists or by contributors/enthusiasts.

    Points for discussion

    [edit]
    • Editorial oversight / verification — Does anyone know whether marathimovieworld.com has an editorial policy or fact-checking procedures? Is it run by a recognised media organisation or by independent bloggers?
    • Reviews vs factual claims — For film reviews (criticism), the site may be acceptable, but for factual reporting (release dates, casting announcements, box office figures), should we accept it as reliable, or require independent corroboration from more established outlets?
    • Independence / promotional content — Is the site independent of film production/marketing (i.e., not owned/controlled by studios or PR agencies)? Does it primarily re-publish press releases, or does it do original reporting?
    • Past usage / problems — Has anyone used this site in articles and encountered verifiability or accuracy problems?

    Tentative view

    [edit]

    I recommend caution: treat marathimovieworld.com as potentially useful for opinion/review citations, but verify factual claims with independent, reliable sources when possible. I'm open to being convinced otherwise with evidence (e.g., clear editorial policy, reputable staff, or widespread independent citation).

    Please share any experience, links to the site's about/editorial pages, or examples of high-quality reporting from the site. Morekar (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't look like serious journalism per [63]. --Hipal (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this be used for film reviews? Morekar (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should assume any independence of the reviews, so no. --Hipal (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a notification with the Indian cinema WikiProject[64]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret “Marge” Hebbring

    [edit]

    Article on Margaret Hebbring. Do you think this woman is a reliable source when it comes to Ojibwe history? The reason I ask is because I saw that she been used as a source by some history books and she appears to have some associations with historical societies. CycoMa2 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I do believe this woman has some associations with Theresa M. Schenck, who I strongly believe is a reliable source. CycoMa2 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." From a cursory web search including VIAF I have yet to find any books or articles by Hebbring. Is she being cited anywhere on Wikipedia? If she is merely mentioned or cited in history books by credible publishers, then the reliability/due weight discussion falls to the author, publisher, and/or content of said books. --Animalparty! (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Animalparty You see I am writing biographies on notable historical Ojibwe people.
    As well as living one’s.
    I am also trying to write about Ojibwe culture as well. CycoMa2 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this interview that involves her here. CycoMa2 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s from the university of Wisconsin.
    Just spitballing to y’all. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanna take my time with this discussion. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another AI-generated article from The Times of India

    [edit]

    This one article talking about a fictional game region named "Amphoreus" is clearly AI-generated: "Amphoreus Explained: Origins, Role, and Lore in Honkai Star Rail" (author: Global Sports Desk). Basically, this article mistakes "Amphoreus" to be a character; at one point in the middle of writing, AI found that Amphoreus is more of a symbol of memory, knowledge, and flexibility of identity rather than a character, but continues to regard "Amphoreus" as a character anyway.

    For people who did not play Honkai: Star Rail, here is the Fandom article of "Amphoreus" in case you want to verify.

    Previous discussions:

    1. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#The Times of India
    2. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342#Valid Sources?
    3. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353#Circular references from The Times of India
    4. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Times of India is not that pro-government as mentioned ?
    5. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 442#Times of India running AI-generated articles?

    SuperGrey (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My opinion: we should rate it generally unreliable; or, generally unreliable after ChatGPT's debut in 2022. SuperGrey (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that it should be WP:GUNREL post-2022. Also, WP:TIMESOFINDIA is not a paper that undertakes factual corrections (e.g., Billionaire CEO Charlie Munger surprises University of Massachusetts Dartmouth graduates with cash gifts). - Amigao (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read enough Times of India articles published prior to 2022 to give input in its reliability then, but most content published afterwards has questionable reliability. With AI generated articles and clear factual errors, I believe it is WP:GUNREL. jolielover♥talk 16:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally unreliable if they publish slop like this. Cortador (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our measure for reliability is having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Slop from LLMs comes nowhere near that measure and if a newspaper is relying on it for their stories, we need to consider them to be WP:GUNREL. TarnishedPathtalk 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ToI spews out an overwhelming quantity of garbage every single day. The 'news desk' content is bad, but also, stuff written by individual named writers isn't any better, since they are often pumping out dozens of entertainment/gossip/lifestyle articles each, every day, for weeks or months. LLM or not, it's junk. If they put out any legit journalism, good luck finding it on any of their many busted, spammy websites. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usable for uncontroversial bylined film reviews, bylined sports reporting and the like but other content needs careful checking for AI, and political bias, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

    Encyclopedia of Arkansas

    [edit]

    Any thoughts on Encyclopedia of Arkansas as a RS? I'm trying to find information about a 1908 dirigible named American Eagle. Information about it is hard to come by. It is mentioned in https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/aviation-4589/ but I'm not sure how much weight to give that. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an encyclopedia funded by the state's library system, and has an editorial board with a fairly high proportion of academics. I'd expect it to be fairly reliable.
    Re. the American Eagle specifically, the article is by Michael B. Dougan: he's a historian at Arkansas State University who lists his articles for the encyclopedia on his CV. Everything points to it being a fine source for the kind of basic facts that the article gives. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a fairly in-depth article on a specific, rather obscure topic I had read a lot about and found it to be an excellent article. I think it is a great source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC: Alleged deceptive editing of video, bias and censorship

    [edit]

    The Daily Telegraph, a right leaning British tabloid, has published a story claiming that the BBC deceptively edited film footage of Donald Trump's controversial speech on January 6, 2021. These claims are sourced to an internal BBC report that the DT asserts was quietly ignored by their management. Further, the DT claims it will be publishing additional internal BBC documents demonstrating bias and censorship on other hot button topics such as the Gaza crisis and the debate over transgender issues. There have been numerous and longstanding claims that the BBC is politically biased. The DT has likewise faced similar claims and has been the subject of discussion on this forum in the past. As of this post, the BBC has declined to comment on the allegations, something which I do not find encouraging. Should these allegations be confirmed, would it be sufficient grounds to revisit the BBC's community based ranking as a generally reliable source? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The DT has a strong right wing bias and a longstanding axe to grind against the BBC. This just seems like mudslinging unless this is considered significant by less partisan publications. The BBC is regularly accused of being politically biased by all sides in the UK, both right and left, so I really don't think we can downgrade the BBC just based on this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the point in asking this until the "allegations [are] confirmed". Katzrockso (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given debates we've had here about the reliability of DT on trans issues, I think we can disregard their culture warring on the issue. TarnishedPathtalk 03:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Second what Hemiauchenia said. We'll see if there's any legs to their claims, but for now they're just allegations by a tabloid against a far-more-respected outlet. The Kip (contribs) 04:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    but for now they're just allegations by a tabloid against a far-more-respected outlet I'm personally no fan of the Telegraph, but it's not accurate to call them a tabloid. The Telegraph is still a traditional broadsheet in format, and most Brits would still consider it a respectable paper on a level with the Guardian and Times. These days it's maybe not quite as respectable as it once was – especially on right-wing culture war issues – but frankly these days the BBC isn't as respected by the general public as it once was either! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it’s broadsheet in format doesn’t change the fact the Telegraph has arguably become rather tabloid in terms of its journalism. Ever since the dispute over its ownership and possible sale its standards do seem to have slipped somewhat, and editorially it can be seen to have become increasingly reliant on culture wars (of which the BBC is a frequent target of) to maintain its own relevancy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the Telegraph is no longer as reliable as the Guardian and BBC, but it is still not reasonable to classify it as a tabloid. This is both my opinion and the conclusion of many, many debates on this page and elsewhere.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2021 speech was aired by us networks as well. What exactly was editted incorrectly ? Donald trump did encourage rioters to act and his actions that day are well documented. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluethricecreamman
    That's an incorrect assessment of an hour long plus, Trump speech. Two parts of the speech, an hour apart were merged/edited by BBC, Panorama, wrongly implying it was one continuous statement. Furthermore rioting footage was wrongly included, even though the rioting footage was recorded prior to President Trumps speech, yet again wrongly implying Trump, through his public address was inciting supporters to break the law. Quite the opposite was true, he had urged supporters to act peacefully. The Guardian has reported on the BBC's difficulties in defending the claim. "BBC accused of selectively editing Trump clip from day of Capitol attack | BBC | The Guardian".
    The BBC hasn't been a reliable source for several years, which is why in part, they set-up BBC Verify. Dotsdomain (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/03/bbc-accused-selectively-editing-trump-clip-capitol-attack Dotsdomain (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both this and the Telegraph story are reporting on a leaked report by former Sunday Times political editor Michael Prescott. It's not a conclusion, just an allegation made by a person whose history as a journalist at a right-leaning outlet, and whose appointment to the oversight board by the Tories, could mark him as an unreliable narrator. Oblivy (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC hasn't been a reliable source for several years.
    Community consensus is the opposite of what you state. TarnishedPathtalk 09:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Err I am confused, are you saying that they did not in fact edit the video, just drew the erroneous conclusions from it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's high-time that the BBC's entry was slapped with a bias disclaimer. Despite major criticisms, such as those contained in the Hutton Inquiry on its misleading of the British public over the Iraq war, and a litany of other causes of criticism over the years, it has improprly continued to be treated as some sort of gold standard. Its effective state capture, in which it is two-thirds funded by a tax collected and distributed only at the discretion of the government, also makes it little removed from other "state-owned" media that draw far greater criticism. These two facets are currently treated like they are unrelated, when they are anything but, when rather, for want of a better phrasing: "The BBC, as a publicly funded entity, aligns with British foreign policy objectives".[65] The BBC's entry should be upfront about this and note the outlet's typically submissive coverage when uncomfortable news collides with UK foreign policy, in just the same way that the entry for AJ and others note this or related facets. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also instructive here is The BBC: Myth of a Public Service by Tom Mills (2020), for which the parsed Google books summary explains: Despite its claim to be independent and impartial, and the constant accusations of a liberal bias, the BBC has always sided with the elite. As Tom Mills demonstrates, we are only getting the news that the Establishment wants aired in public. Throughout its existence, the BBC has been in thrall to those in power. This was true in 1926 when it stood against the workers during the General Strike, and since then the Corporation has continued to mute the voices of those who oppose the status quo: miners in 1984; anti-war protesters in 2003; those who offer alternatives to austerity economics since 2008. As noted, the pattern extends beyond foreign policy, though that is often where the most egregious historical instances of bias have lain. The BBC's long-term censorship by omission in its coverage of domestic protests, in 2003 and at other times, is well documented. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly oppose this proposal. The BBC’s continued ability to provide more balanced (albeit of course imperfect) coverage than other sources is well illustrated by the fact that left-wing attackers like Mills call it right-wing while right-wing attackers like the Telegraph call it left-wing. They logically can’t both be correct. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's supposing that political positions are binary left/right, and that not being left/right makes one neutral and without bias. The BBC has a political position which broadly supports the British establishment, and as such follows what is the "acceptable mainstream" in the UK. Hence it is supportive of private property rights, monarchy, a limited state, strong links with the US, military and political support for Israel, strong controls on immigration etc. This is not neutrality, it is bias. However, it occasionally allows platforms for more left-wing voices, especially in its creative programming. That said, bias is not evidence of factual inaccuracy. The editing of this one speech is probably a bit dodgy, but it does not have wide implications for the BBCs overall accuracy.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't think that there are any wider implications for the BBC's accuracy, though I do think that a slightly sterner note on the BBC's government-aligned bias, along the lines of the above, is well merited and long overdue. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Telegraph and other right-wing papers like the Mail have long had a problem with the BBC and are quick to jump on any perceived failings. Given their own failings in actually managing to print the truth much of the time, we should treat this as more of the same unless the BBC can be shown to have a pattern of persistently and knowingly transmitting false stories, which we don't have here. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here should not be the BBC but Panorama, one of its products. Has Panorama been used for anything related to Trump or anything at all on Wikipedia? It's generally difficult for us to use broadcast media, as we are text based we usually rely on what's been written about what was broadcast. Also, news-magazine/documentary is very different from straight news. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Panorama a BBC published show but not part of BBC news? Something like Dateline NBC was to NBC and it's news program? If yes, then this would really be a question about a BBC show rather than all of the BBC. As for the edits, that's a hard one to classify. It is misleading to present a quotes and actions out of their true sequence. Selective quoting is always something we should be careful about and is exactly the sort of thing where we should consider bias of a source. This appears to be a case where bias may have resulted in context being omitted leading the viewer to draw their own, possibly false, conclusion. But it also appears this isn't BBC as a whole, rather a single show. I don't think this justifies any change to BBC News but I would be an issue if we are trusting this particular program for anything resembling analysis of facts/information. Springee (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And we could never take a clip of Panorama stock footage and interpret it just from the clip in our articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is also very true. Springee (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For an academic take on the long-term arc of decontextualization in video editing at the BBC, see: De/Contextualizing Information: The Digitization of Video Editing Practices at the BBC (2015). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Panorama is not part of BBC News, but a separate current affairs documentary programme broadcast by the BBC. The BBC produces a truly vast array of programming, most of which is not BBC News. There was a post awhile ago about a BBC Travel programme making fringe historical claims, just because BBC News is generally reliable doesn't mean the entire output of the BBC should be regarded the same way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alanscottwalker Political programming on the BBC is not different from the news that they produce. They use their own staff journalists to work on both products, they even lede the news, with content from their own unverified output such as Panorama, Question Time, Politics Live, Laura Kuenssberg Sunday Politics etc.
    We may be text based here but the links we provide give access to almost everything available media-wise to the public.
    (This comment by Dotsdomain (talk · contribs) has been removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    Oh, my, are there reds and illuminati too, perhaps some international conspiracy! At any rate, bias is what we generally expect from all sources, and it still has not been shown we have used Panorama for anything, so, we can no doubt calm down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you call The Telegraph a "tabloid."
    The accusations are clearly notable considering that they've been covered by media outlets with opposite bias [66].
    I think we should wait and see - maybe the accusations would be refuted. Maybe BBC will end up responding to the leak, this will also impact our assessment. Alaexis¿question? 13:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always assuming every source is biased is a good way of doing research. The BBC is British and funded by the UK license fee, so of course, that's going to influence their reporting. Their reporting on US politicians is going to be based on what they think is good for the British. Sometimes that distance makes it more objective, sometimes not. Per WP:RS "Each book, article, or other source needs to be credible for supporting the particular claim(s) it supports." There shouldn't be a blanket "this news source is always trustworthy" because news in general is produced quickly, by individuals with own points of view. When we're looking at sources, we have to go beyond "this generally reliable news source confirmed it" and look at the article or news story itself. We shouldn't use WP:NOR as justification to include a 'fact' that was 'reliably reported' if it's obviously not true and easily shown to be false. I haven't dug into this enough to make a judgement, but we can look at an individual news story, determine "eh, they missed the mark on this one" - and go with the best, most reliable sources... on an article by article basis. Conclusion: You don't have argue the entire BBC is unreliable to say "this one news report wasn't accurate". Denaar (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaexis The BBC Corporation have said today in their own inimitable way, "we don't comment on internal leaks".
    How pathetic is that? Dotsdomain (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, no, this is not grounds to revisit the BBC's reliability status. We should not be basing general reliability assessment on individual failings. Every source gets it wrong occasionally. What is more important than a failure is the reaction to the failure. Will they issue corrections, make apologies, launch internal investigations etc.? If so, we should probably consider them to be a more reliable source than we did previously.
    Any talk of downgrading sources is massively premature if the only evidence is one or a handful of bad articles.
    I would like this board to return to its purpose of discussing reliability of sources in context. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, let's be clear here. We are not talking about falsifying a story, we are talking about spinning it to pursue a particular POV, at the very worst. If we deprecated any media that were guilty of doing that, then ironically the Telegraph would be one of the first on the list. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Selective editing to make someone appear to say something that they did not say is definitely falsification. It's just that in the scheme of things, this is a very small amount of bathwater in which a very big baby sits. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What did the BBC say that Trump said, that he actually didn't? Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you watch the video in the article? It's right there. They arranged his words to form a sentence that he didn't say. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RS is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; given the breadth of the BBC's reputation, one article from one source isn't going to be enough to change their overall reputation. The thing to do is to see if it gets followup elsewhere in a way that implies that the BBC's reputation has changed. With state-run media there's always some reason to be cautious about potential changes (especially anything that indicates that their independence has been breached, or that the fact-checking and editorial controls that gave them their reputation have shifted) but it would take more than a single article to establish that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Aquillion I'm wondering what date were the BBC given permission to merge videos of the Trump speech to give the impression that what was presented, worldwide was true, when in fact it was false? Only last week a left wing celebrity had to apologise in court for trashing a respected University professor's reputation. Will Trump bankrupt the BBC? Time will tell. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if those accusations are true, I'm sure they'll get a lot more coverage; and if they're significant, perhaps it will impact the BBC's reputation. But right now it's just a single piece from a single source; that's not enough to impact the overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of a source this high-profile. It's a reason to, like, keep an eye out, maybe, but it's not enough to change things on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the accusation is that Panorama took two statements by Trump that he definitely made, as part of a rallying speech, prior to his supporters attacking the Capitol... and its "deceptive" not because of what was said, but because it made the link between the statements and outcomes more explicit because it didn't play the full 2 hour rambleothon? This is blatant WP:COATRACK from the DT so they can launder their full list of grievances for their other media friends. Koncorde (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Koncorde I'd urge you to read the entire thread before jumping to those conclusions. The BBC included riot video clips that were filmed prior to Trump's speech and deleted his words urging protesters to behave peacefully. Dotsdomain (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Read it before I commented. Its still gibberish. Incited a riot. Riot took place. Was impeached for it. Everything else is just wild flailing trying to rewrite long settled narrative. If there had not been a riot, or impeachment for said riot, maybe some point may be gleaned. Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucky that we are blessed to have so many impartial editors. Dotsdomain (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest you take a minute and read the page on WP:ASPERSIONS and rethink how you plan to go about this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (This comment by Dotsdomain (talk · contribs) has been removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    Koncorde I don't disagree that part of the content of Trump's speech could be construed that way, you described the uttering as "gibberish" however the issue is whether a "respected" media outlet should knowingly splice two seperate parts of a speech (an hour apart) together, as if it was one sentence, to give the false impression that Trump was urging protesters to riot in the Capital. The deception was further compounded with the BBC broadcast, of earlier footage of rioting, recorded before Trump's speech was ever made. There is a very long catalogue of publicised BBC blunders which I am barred from sharing with you on here but which have been raised in Parliament. Dotsdomain (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not construed. Its what happened. They didn't turn up armed and equipped only after his speech. They didn't try to overturn multiple results only after his speech. They did storm the Capitol after his speech where he exhorted his followers to not give up etc. Suggesting the BBC Panorama edit of two comments or a video was meaningful years after the event, when the crimes had long been committed and litigated. Koncorde (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the resulting edit dud not create a complete new and factually incorrect narrative, there's not much that can be done. Editing video clips all the time us SOP for network news outlets. Omitting certain segments but other still staying to the truth of what happened is well within the scope of journalism. Only if it can be shown that the edit of the footage falsified a completely different story that what other sources have already collaborated, as often done on Fox, then maybe something can be said. Masem (t) 22:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC should be downgraded to WP:MREL. Just last month, Britain's media regulator sanctioned the BBC for a "materially misleading” documentary pertaining to the Gaza war. This isn't an isolated mistake, the Daily Telegraph's allegations appear credible, and while bias is not actionable in itself, the bias at BBC is resulting in the reporting of falsehoods. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “ The BBC said that the independent production company, Hoyo Films, bore the most responsibility for the failure because it didn’t share the background information regarding the narrator’s father. Hoyo Films apologized for the lapse.”
    From the AP News article. So it wasn’t the BBC that made the mistake, but that the BBC had failed to take due efforts to ensure it wasn’t made.
    There’s zero reason to move it to MREL based on unevidenced claims made in the Telegraph nor misrepresenting a different controversy as being caused by “falsehoods” when it is demonstrably a different issue entirely. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ofcom evidently did not concur with that cowardly delegation of responsibility. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is civil in nature, but given your current ongoing, quite passionate disagreements on multiple articles to do with Israel-Palestine as a subject, may I suggest that you may lack the distance on this topic needed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you'll accommodate some civilly expressed passion on the topic. DT's evidence has been corroborated; see BBC accused of ‘pushing Hamas lies’ after whistleblower report found Gaza coverage ‘minimised Israeli suffering’ and Jewish leaders slam BBC after boss praised Arabic service as ‘almost as trusted as Al Jazeera’. If a conservative outlet was fostering such animosity about another ethnic minority, WP editors would blacken their RSP listing. That the BBC also fabricated a narrative about the US president should open a reconsideration about their reliability. These aren't errors amenable to correction; they're revealed policy that certain kinds of lies and distortions are acceptable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't been "corroborated", you've just linked the Jewish Chronicle, a source itself found to be unreliable when it comes to the topics of Israel-Palestine (WP:THEJC) and is in recent years regarded with increasing suspicion following a still anonymous buyout and a rapid decline in quality amid a fabricated stories scandal, simply repeating the allegations as fact and citing "Jewish leaders" that openly operates a pro-Israel campaign group unsurprisingly being "outraged" by unevidenced claims that the BBC are "pro-Hamas".
    As I've said in the subsection below, it's kind of interesting that the more that's come out about this "leaked report" the more it's entirely complaints from a very specific part of the political spectrum and involves people (including the memo writer themselves) who have deep ties to the Boris Johnson administration that spent much of its life actively trying to dismantle the BBC at every turn. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be unsurprising that the people whose interests are most injured by the BBC's malfeasance have done the most to expose it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assumption there that people associated with one of the most corrupt British governments of modern times should be trusted when it comes to their non-evidenced accusations that are the usual things about how the BBC is "woke, pro-trans, and pro-Palestine" which are things that funnily enough it's attacked for not being at all at the exact same time... Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen anyone dispute the DT's evidence. Have you? I'm open to reading it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The DT hasn't presented any evidence. That's why everyone's shoving the word "alleged" or "accused" in front of their reporting. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They rather have. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A YouTube video from the DT showing a couple of clips of a Trump speech which the report's author claims is "deceptive", screenshots of said report that if you read the entire thing is very unconvincing (and funnily enough they fail to disclose was written by someone linked to the widely-believed to be rigged attempt by Boris Johnson to impose Paul Dacre as Director-General of the BBC in 2021[67][68]), and going "remember that trailer from 2007" is not what many would consider "evidence".
    What they're doing is the same old spiel that's become "journalism" the last few years, making unsubstantiated, emotive claims on issues to which the intended audience is already receptive on taking at face value and seeing what sticks and running with it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The DT quite plainly compared the BBC's fabrication to the source material from which it was confabulated. They've presented their evidence. Barring someone claiming that the BBC did not fabricate the video or that the Prescott memo is a fake or somesuch, that evidence stands. You seem to be objecting to how the evidence has been interpreted, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm going to repeat what I said initially to you at this point. Given you're throwing emotive words around like "fabricated" (which isn't even what's being alleged) and are insisting the mere making of allegations (which means without evidence, which is what the report stands as given it's simply presenting the view of its author) is compelling evidence simply in being, I believe that you're not distanced enough to make fair judgement on this due to your involvement in other discussions.
    The fact there are now reasonable, evidenced grounds to suspect both the memo author's motivations (links to the Paul Dacre BBC bid affair) and claims (minutes of meetings casting a different picture) just weakens the likelihood it will lead to any re-evaluation of the BBC as a source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian: The words were taken from sections of his speech almost an hour apart. It did not include a section in which Trump said he wanted supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. It is reasonable to call this fabrication. Also: Concerns about the cut were raised in a memo by Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC). The Guardian is stating these items as fact. No one is disputing the existence of the Times's evidence, only its meaning. Suggesting that I'm insufficiently disinterested to discuss this is ad hominem. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not reasonable in the slightest. To "fabricate" would mean that they invented those quotes, which nobody is suggesting are they? It's not an "ad hominem" to suggest a lack of distance on your part when your argument is constructed using a level of highly emotive language not even being suggested by the Telegraph's reporting even if you were to take it at face value (fabricate, cowardly, lies just as examples), so isn't a comment on your character.
    All The Guardian has done in that link you've provided is report there are claims made in a memo. It does not pass judgement on whether they are credible or not, and instead as I've linked above they have since reported that are grounds to challenge the memo's credibility as an account. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If not for the gaslighting, there'd be no light in here at all. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See, now that is a personal attack and emphasises my point.
    Clearly there is no point in engaging further with you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement that All The Guardian has done in that link you've provided is report there are claims made in a memo is glaringly false. But Signore Brandolini and I have other stuff to do. Peace out. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognise the BBC quite obviously censors some things by simply ignoring them. However they do seem to try to make sure they don't put out obviously wrong stuff like joining up two bits of what a person says to say something they never really said. I think we should wait for the inquiry into this and if that is really what happened then yes what the BBC says will need much more careful checking. The Daily Telegraph has lost any reputation for straightforward clean news where it might suit its agenda. NadVolum (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least Ofcom have acted to seek out the truth, according to the Telegraph
    "the head of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom Michael Grade has told Mr Shah that he must “seriously” examine allegations of bias, censorship and doctoring uncovered by The Telegraph.
    Lord Grade, who leads Ofcom, has written to the corporation’s chairman, seeking reassurances that he is investigating the claims made in a leaked internal dossier."
    The leaked 19-page memo was originally sent to the BBC Board by Mr Michael Prescott. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/05/lord-grade-ofcom-bbc-bias-inquiry/ Dotsdomain (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the same Lord Grade that funnily enough even we ourselves document on his very own article was appointed by Boris Johnson's government (who were explicitly not fans of the BBC), was a Conservative life peer up until that appointment, and has made previous public interventions in regards to the BBC and its coverage including Israel-Palestine.[69][70]
    Yeah, for all the BBC's faults, it's not the BBC who are the ones here who I'd consider to be the biased party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the BBC broadcast Panorama on the World Service, the implications are worldwide but as the Foreign Office part-fund the Service, the duplicity also goes to the heart of UK Government.
    UK taxpayers and licence fee payers are funding a BBC fake news attack on the UKs closest ally.
    It is well known that the BBC use subsidiary production companies to hide away payments they make to talent, journalists and production staff, while retaining full editorial control, but most importantly it is their BBC inhouse staff lawyers who signs off (approve) each and every one of the BBC subsidery programmes prior to their broadcast.
    The buck starts and ends with the BBC, there is no getting away with or from the outpour and depth of evidence that Wikipedia prevents me from sharing. I'm not even a Trump supporter, but if the BBC can manipulate a Trump speech in plain site, everyone else is fair game too.
    The BBC is no better or worse than GB News it is just that the BBC have been around for so much longer, that some think they are an institution to be revered rather than a news outlets to be scrutinised.
    How ironic that Wales chose to appear on the BBC last month, to say, "We're living in an era of a massive lowering of trust" while at the same time blocking some editors from editing on important subjects. Dotsdomain (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC has significant bias issues, especially around the issues of Israel and transgenderism. This has been reported on by many reliable sources, and the BBC itself. This is just the latest example of that problem.
    I support re-considering the reliability of the BBC, especially as it realtes to Israel/Gaza and transgenderism coverage. Jcgaylor (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may wish to reconsider how you phrase that second topic, as the term you've used is considered by many to be derogatory. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is why the BBC is an RS [[71]]. They at least try. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two point in response to the OP - apologies if they've already been made. First, the DT is right-leaning (to out it mildly), but it's not a tabloid - it's a broadsheet, and one of the most respected news outlets in the country (albeit an openly and exceedingly opinionated one). But no, this one story does not mean we need to revisit the beeb's status as RS. This is breaking news. There will be an investigation, and likely if there is merit to the story, a retraction, as we expect from RSes. We don't need to jump at these things, but by all means we need to keep an eye on them. No news sources are free of dodgy reporting, it's how they deal with it when it's discovered that matters. Girth Summit (blether) 20:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While not a tabloid, it’s a long time since the Telegraph was one of the most respected news outlets in the country. I’ve reached the point it should be regarded as unreliable on culture war issues, and in the UK the BBC is a core culture war issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly:
    "The one-hour programme, Trump: A Second Chance?, was broadcast last year and was made for the BBC by independent production company October Films Ltd, which has also been approached for comment."
    There seems to be multiple core misunderstandings to the issues at play here:
    1. Despite the editorialisation by the Daily Telegraph, none of the errors raised are actually production decisions made by the BBC (many "BBC" shows are in fact produced by outside companies), but rather instances where it's suggested the BBC should've caught and prevented the transmission of.
    2. The entry for BBC (WP:RSPBBC) already contains the disclaimer that it shouldn't be applied to "BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight".
    At most what may be needed is a more obvious separation of core BBC items (such as BBC News itself) from those that are aired by them but are not in fact BBC editorially-controlled such as having two distinct entries for the perennial source list, but that would in my view require a far wider discussion than this one. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the rest of the series from the telegraph most of the other complaints are claims of bias because the BBC doesn't give enough article (or push notification) attention to the typical culture war issues the telegraph likes to devote itself to (apparently they don't report enough on immigration and anti trans issues like the WPATH files). It seems to me that whilst there are one or two examples here of times the BBC got it wrong (to be expected given the time frame considered), the majority of this complaint is about bias and that the BBC doesn't share the same bias as the Telegraph. If this is the worst they can find, the BBC is obviously a GREL source. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Coverage

    [edit]
    -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having done a scan through of the full text as printed by the Telegraph, I'm actually now more sceptical of the rationale behind the memo and its "leaking". To be quite frank it reads like a greatest hits of right-wing complaints with the BBC going back the last half decade, especially given how non-apparent complaints made by more progressive/left-wing groups are in this memo (which funnily enough included how the BBC's coverage was anti-trans which we have an entire article on). For instance one of the complaints is that the BBC didn't take the group "History Reclaimed", that Michael Prescott deems to be "reasonable" and intones are a non-partisan collective of scholars, seriously despite the fact it's very clear from their own website[72] that the group are one of the various "anti-woke" pressure groups that've popped up over the last few years in the UK (such as Restore Trust for the National Trust).
    Beyond that I also did a quick google and for those who may remember there was a big storm in 2021 when Boris Johnson was angling to place Paul Dacre (a notable Tory press ally and former editor of the Daily Mail) in charge of the BBC through a much criticised recruitment process that was regarded as designed to give him the job. Turns out Michael Prescott already had links to the Tories and was brought in to aid the process.[73]
    Despite the headlines the more that comes out about this memo, the less it seems like an explosive expose by an independent advisor unfairly ignored and more it seems uncannily linked to people and groups with longstanding political axes to grind regarding the BBC. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon seeing it, that splice was deceptive but not so deceptive it deserves this level of press coverage. Or us downgrading the BBC. This is an elaborate version of taking a quote out of context, a thing publications do all the time. In print with an ellipsis this wouldn't even be an error. Loki (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not enough weed in the world to make me take this complaint seriously. The allegations are the typical mountain-out-of-a-molehill reach to try and criticize any institution perceived as leftist, and aren't worth consideration by anyone with more than two brain cells (or even anyone with only two, so long as they're not currently fighting for third place). If anything, this makes me re-evaluate how seriously I will ever take the the Daily Telegraph again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Twitter post as a source on article Justin Barrett?

    [edit]

    A user is edit warring to include the content "and compared himself to Josef Mengele, who was involved in Nazi human experimentation, in a Tweet in October 2025". It is only sourced to a tweet https://x.com/BarrettNatSocP/status/1977838806683255224 . It is also not clear if he even made this comparison.

    On another page, an admit stated "Deciding which quotes from someone's social media account to include, especially when committing OR with language like similarly, is not fine. We don't decide what views of a BLP should be included, secondary sources do that. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly does not allow statements not about the subject themselves."

    Additionally, since this is a BLP, per WP:ONUS, the user should find a consensus first before inserting controversial claims ~2025-31266-17 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The section "who was involved in Nazi human experimentation" is probably unnecessary, but him comparing himself to Mengele (which he certainly does do) is a valid WP:ABOUTSELF situation. What ABOUTSELF would prevent is if I created a Twitter account and compared him to Mengele. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I always love when people don't read further than sentence 1: On another page, an admit stated ""Deciding which quotes from someone's social media account to include, especially when committing OR with language like "similarly", is not fine. We don't decide what views of a BLP should be included, secondary sources do that. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly does not allow statements not about the subject themselves."" ~2025-31285-64 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can put it in bold all you like, doesn't change the fact you're taking a quote by a single editor used in a different context (i.e. where someone's tweets were being used against secondary sources to establish wider political leanings) and trying to use it here to argue something completely different. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone else reply please, this guy doesn't seem to get it ~2025-30969-34 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A quote saying "Jews don't like me but in common with Dr. Mengele, one meeting and they never forget!" using the tweet as a source would be perfectly reliable. The issue here seems to be about WP:DUE, but that's not a reliability issue. Just because something can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it should always be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Among other things, it's just obviously promotional and self-aggrandizing. We wouldn't include an academic's tweet comparing themselves to Albert Einstein! Suriname0 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How would this be due weight? Can we just start assembling an article based on all the tweets he has made? Unless they are basic facts like birthday tweets should not be used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you remove it then? ~2025-31625-93 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead internet theory has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    Dead internet theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Business Insider - Katie Notopoulos

    [edit]

    WP:RSNP for WP:BUSINESSINSIDER says There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.

    I came across an article of Katie Notopoulos (seems their own correspondent) "I tried Grokipedia and I think it beats Wikipedia — in some cases. (Citation needed.)" at following two links.


    I have not checked if Notopoulos ref as been used in Grokipedia or not but I find her comparative point vis a vis WP:Stub articles valid to an extent.

    Should we use her opinion with necessary qualifications for a contemplated comparative section? Bookku (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Week

    [edit]

    "Co-founder locks edits on Gaza genocide page"

    [edit]
    Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Times of Isreal
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/wikipedia-co-founder-locks-edits-on-gaza-genocide-page-citing-anti-israel-bias/

    I think times of Israel is unreliable or extremely biased when it comes to Israel Palestine conflict and should be used with caution.

    There are many articles like this.

    I will start making a list from now on.... Cinaroot (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow every outlet picked up on this false headline. See Talk:Gaza genocide#"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales made the extraordinary move Sunday to lock down the online encyclopedia’s English-language entry on the genocide in Gaza." or the {{Press}} box on top of that page: No idea which outlet originated the claim but everybody (from NYPost to The Verge, from JPost to Al Jazeera) parrotted it, though the prestige-ish outlets like Reuters, NYT, and The Telegraph haven't. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these made retroactive updates to their original headlines and content. Though looking at it again, I'm not sure if The Verge's ever had the incorrect headline.
    Anyways, my point is this is not a political bias issue, as demonstrated by Al Jazeera on the opposite wing initially repeating the same claim: https://archive.today/2025.11.04-185538/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/4/why-did-wikipedia-cofounder-block-edits-to-the-gaza-genocide-page (now updated to "editor") Aaron Liu (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would agree that TOI is biased, its practices have shown that it is GREL, and this mistake is not something that really warrants any change in its current assessment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    aljazeera corrected it. Cinaroot (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So did TOI. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not corrected. The headline “Wikipedia co-founder says page on ‘Gaza genocide’ locked due to anti-Israel bias” is inaccurate — Jimmy Wales never said that. Misattributing statements like this isn’t a minor error; it’s poor reporting. In Al Jazeera’s case, it’s not as bad, since the claim was framed more as a question than a direct assertion.
    Cinaroot (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also its carefully designed to persuade public opinion in Israel imo Cinaroot (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they changed title from "Wikipedia co-founder locks edits on ‘Gaza genocide’ page, citing anti-Israel bias" to "Wikipedia co-founder says page on ‘Gaza genocide’ locked due to anti-Israel bias" [74]
    So this is no longer a mistake. Its deliberate Cinaroot (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Headlines are never reliable, see WP:RSHEADLINE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It says the same in body. Read opening sentence. Cinaroot (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was simply an aside about headlines, I have no need to read anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, the article also calls locking an article a "rare move", which isn't true at all. It happens somewhat often, just not always on high-profile articles. The article also just repeats Wales's claims. Cortador (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection is a rare move. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NYPost seems to be the first one who made the mistake based on publications times. But it could also be that they all made the same mistake independently, as most people don't know the basics of even checking edit histories on articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron is right. Even the most reliable sourcing is somehow lazy and incorrect on wikipedia on the regular. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Al jazeera, an outlet on the other side, also ran with this headline though i believe they eventuallh issued a half assed correction. edit: didn't see aaron already pointed out al jazeera messed up too, right below his original reply. whoops. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an example of how newspapers and the like are not as reliable as many Wikipedians seem to think. If you know a lot about a subject a newspaper is writing about, they often make serious errors (c.f. Gell-Mann amnesia effect). This is why scholarly sources are preferred in most cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scholarly sources don’t tend to understand Wikipedia any better on the whole BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately this is true, most reporting on Wikipedia is very poor and fails to understand how things actually work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This does somewhat link into concerns of enwiki becoming a walled garden of sorts, where it's difficult for newcomers and non-editors to understand our policies; however, that's a discussion for a different noticeboard. The Kip (contribs) 19:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree about newcomers, we do a very bad job of getting editors started. There's a few things that are being done but it's glacial, and the learning process is still a cliff face. However non-editors could just ask, if Wikipedians are known for anything it's exceedingly verbose discussions about the Wiki's policies and practices. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If I got things right, there is a discussion about the Gaza War, Jimbo took part in it, and that discussion itself became a news topic. Is there an article about all this (not the Gaza War, but the Wikipedia drama about it), where those sources are being used? Because if not, this whole thread is pointless. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If the sources that reported that Jimbo locked down the page and after been told they were wrong, did not correct or retract, that adds to any concern on their reliability. Masem (t) 16:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making mistakes about the internal workings of a minor web page can fit into the "nobody cares" margin of error. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Wikipedia is currently in the political discourse, including the whole debate on Israel, the assertion that the founder locked down a page is actually a major error that should be corrected by any outlet that claimed that. Masem (t) 18:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a funny definition of "minor website". Wikipedia is consistently one of the top ten most visited websites. We are currently below Google and FaceBook but above Amazon and Microsoft.com[75] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Debate? So there is a debate, then? Because everybody was fighting tooth and nail to say that there is no debate and that everybody's in agreement. Good to know. Cambalachero (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a political debate. There is little academic debate. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The headline is claiming Wales forced either censorship/manipulation of content or used extraordinary measures stemming from his authority to rein in a page's content (the article content says it's extraordinary). In reality he just discussed it. "locks edit on page" is completely understandable to anyone, and anyone would know how that is different from making a forum post. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to downrank the reliability of all sources wrong about Wikipedia, we would have no sources left. Every academic article I have ever read on Wikipedia that wasn't written by a Wikipedia editor contains some error about this website's functioning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this. There is a difference between ignorance and deliberate misinformation. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. I basically never expect sources written by non-Wikipedians to correctly report on Wikipedia's internal procedures. The Kip (contribs) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The best journalist, in my opinion, who covers Wikipedia regularly and in a reasonably accurate fashion, is Stephen Harrison, writing for Slate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh Dzieza (a red link) et al writing for The Verge a couple of months ago did a pretty job, I think. It's behind a firewall so...archive.is your friend if you want. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the first time Times of Israel has failed to get basic facts correct. They've previously gotten basic facts about WP:ARBPIA5 incorrect in their reporting. Per our policy on reliable sources, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Times of Israel clearly fail on this metric and they should be downgraded from green at WP:RSP. TarnishedPathtalk 10:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a good look for the sources that got it wrong, and especially not for ones that failed to issue a correction... but reliability is about overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it's pretty rare for one incident to destroy a source's reputation all on its own. At best this is a reason to keep an eye on those sources and see if there's other incidents like this, coupled with secondary sources covering them in a way that makes it clear that their reputation has declined. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Check source: Journal İmgelem and article Dead Internet Hypothesis: AI, Censorship, and the Decline of Human-Centered Digital Discourse

    [edit]

    This source has come up on the Dead Internet Theory RfC, and it looks pretty suspicious to me. First, the article cites a journal that has already failed Reliable source noticeboard, and it repeatedly states "Source: Author’s own work" within the text. The journal website looks like several predatory journals I've seen. Using Grammarly, large portions of this article resemble AI text. Looking for opinions, as this article could have significant impact on the discussion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a paper from 2025. Have others cited it? Secretlondon (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of GB News

    [edit]
    WP:NAC Consistent with several discussions going back to at least 2021 (see the GB News entry at WP:RSPS), the consensus here is clear: GB News is generally unreliable. No evidence or arguments have been presented here that demonstrate otherwise, and continued discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    GB News channel has won two TRIC Awards in 2025 and also won its historic Judicial Appeal, against Ofcom, including winning its legal costs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86pp6wq1xno

    Given the 2025 GB News channel journalistic success, is it time to admit them to the reliable sources list? Dotsdomain (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you point to sources that would support a claim that GB News has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Neither the court ruling, which refers to a specific Offcom ruling regarding two shows hosted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, rather than anything more general, or the TRIC awards (for which you provide no source, and for which media coverage in general seems very sparse, suggesting that they aren't seen as significant) appear in any way to do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify about the judicial review of the Ofcom decision: the court didn’t rule that Ofcom was incorrect; it ruled that Ofcom didn’t have the authority because the show was a “current affairs” show not a “news” show. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobfrombrockley With respect, the outcome of the unprecedented Court ruling together with the annulment (quashing) of the Ofcom decision, of two sample counts against the then sitting MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg along with the award of legal costs against Ofcom, is a "win" according to the cited BBC headline. There is currently debate about whether the Corporation (BBC) is itself reliable, yet other news outlets have also agreed, by describing the Court ruling, achieved by GB News as a win. Tellingly, Ofcom announced it would not seek Leave to Appeal the decision, that they lost.
    Most if not all impartial viewers would have expected a media Regulator to know the difference between a News Programme and Current Affairs output (free speech) without the input of the judiciary.
    As for the industry recognition achieved by the Charlie Peters' (TRIC) award, the respected investigative news presenter raised national media awareness of the UK Grooming gang scandals. The second award was won by the GB News Breakfast team, who were up against fierce competition including BBC News, ITV News and Good Morning Britain (GMB) but seemingly Sky News didn't even make the final cut.
    The canvassing of votes on-air by GMB, didn't boost their winning chances, so there is no reason to believe that it helped GB News to win their winning nominations either. Dotsdomain (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    is a "win" according to the cited BBC headline Winning a court case does not make one a reliable source. The BBC article says that the court found that JRM's programme was a current affairs programme, not a news programme, and thus is not bound by rule 5.3 of Ofcom's broadcast standards governing the required level of impartiality and accuracy in news programmes.
    A ruling that JRM's programme should not be held to as high a standard of impartiality and accuracy as Ofcom wanted is a legal win for GB News but it is not evidence that it is a reliable source; if anything it is a strike against it being reliable!
    As for the TRIC award: winning a public vote is not a good indicator of reliability. Even assuming that this is a perfectly fair vote among disinterested members of the public, and not simply a measure of how good the various nominees are at motivating their viewers to vote, public popularity != reliability. 1421: The Year China Discovered the World was a best-seller despite being absolute nonsense. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Caeciliusinhorto-public Aren't Wiki editors also members of the public?
    If we used the members of the public analogy, nobody would be eligible to vote for anything. A free vote is just that. Nothing more nothing less. One view is no more compelling than the next in a free vote. Dotsdomain (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wikipedia editors are members of the public. We theoretically make content decisions on the basis of reasoned discussion based on our policies and what reliable sources say, not whatever gets the most votes, so I'm not really sure what your point is here.
    In general people are perfectly eligible to vote for things; Wikipedia just doesn't usually take those votes into account when deciding whether or not a source is reliable. To show a source is reliable you need to demonstrate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or that other sources which we consider reliable treat it as a reliable source. Whether or not some members of the public voted for it to win a television award has no bearing on the matter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even just theoretically if a proposal got a majority of votes based on just support with no reason they would probably not be counted(and potentially the same thing if the votes got collapsed for something like AI.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What Caeciliusinhorto-public said. A win in court about Ofcom's jurisdiction is not an indicator of GBN's reliability. Popularity with non-expert media consumers is not an indicator of reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dotsdomain: I'd actually go further than, BobFromBrockley and Caeciliusinhorto-public. If the Ofcom win does mean anything to Wikipedia, it's that Jacob Rees-Mogg's programme cannot be used as an RS with the possible exception of attributed opinions per WP:RSOPINION which frankly would IMO be the default position anyway. But it doesn't tell us if GB News's other programmes are RS, or for that matter even if Jacob Rees-Mogg's programme is suitable to be used for RSOPINION. It maybe does suggest additional caution with GB News if they treat other programmes similarly although as I mentioned frankly from our PoV Jacob Rees-Mogg's programme is always likely to have been RSOPINION. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a "reliable sources list". We do have a list of frequently-discussed sources, and GB News is already on that list. Cortador (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is called reliable sources/perenial sources list to be fair WP:RSP so I don't really object to it being called that(even if I disagree with them on GB news.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GB News and its presenters have actually won multiple TRIC awards since 2023, which is unsurprising when they are fairly unknown awards decided by a public vote and various websites and social media pages aligned with GB News (and GB News themselves!) persistently nag their viewers to vote for them multiple times. Black Kite (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite As a GB News viewer, were you persuaded by their "persistent nag" to cast a vote for them or the other nominations in their category?
    I doubt you did, so how persuasive was the vote canvassing? Dotsdomain (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never watched GB News (to be honest I don't watch TV news much at all). I have however seen the canvassing for votes on social media on a few occasions, notably Facebook. I think this is a bit irrelevant, though; if you believe that GB News is no longer unreliable, the best thing to do would be to start another RfC focusing on its actual output rather than minor award shows. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fair enough that you do not watch GB News, you're probably not my target audience, as I am attempting to gather information from viewers that would support GB News, reporting accuracy and reliability. This also includes their website. Dotsdomain (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't really make sense - if you're intending to run an RfC (which will need to happen if GB News is to be reclassified) it would obviously be useful to gather information from those both for and against its inclusion in reliable sources, as both of those classes of people will comment on it. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite That's true enough, as you can see on this topic though, those against GB News credibility, take care of themselves. If you do not view the channel or their website then you are not really the target viewer for any discussion that would potentially gives an authoritive opinion, either way.
    In much the same way, if people don't read The Daily Telegraph perhaps due to their online Paywall restrictions, then any opinion they hold is less valuable than perhaps those with an online subscription, only because the Telegraph subscribers have 24/7 access. An analogy might be, how could you review a particular restaurant meal, if you hadn't tasted their food? Dotsdomain (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dotsdomain, please stop wasting our time with this nonsense, and read WP:RS. Reliability isn't a popularity contest, and what the viewers think of GB News is of almost zero relevance to how Wikipedia assesses reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP's standard is not editors' original research based on analysing the sources ourselves; it is reputation for reliability, as indicated by use by other reliable sources, passed or failed factchecks, regulatory rulings, etc. So being a subscriber is not a good path to assessing that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite There seems to be a dismissive attitude towards the TRIC Awards here, can I ask why TRIC is notable enough to have its own page?
    Thanks. Dotsdomain (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what you mean by you're probably not my target audience? Do you have a conflict of interest here? Orange sticker (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they mean that they only want the opinion of people who watch GB News, so those would have a positive opinion (otherwise why watch it?) - a.k.a. cherry picking. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's not much better! Orange sticker (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very strange to see a proposition that we should reconsider viewing GB News as a reliable source because it won a legal case on the grounds... it wasn't airing news so isn't subject rules on impartiality or accuracy which are things that are fundamentally important to how we assess sources.
    GB News is an opinion channel with a long established history of extremely biased reporting and presentation. It's not a credible news organisation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that my request for evidence that GB News has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" has gone unanswered. And given the nonsense above, I'll ask another one: @Dotsdomain, have you ever actually read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? One gets the distinct impression that you haven't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See, that's your problem, Andy. You keep insisting on fancy-pants "evidence" rather than simply accepting the word of anonymous strangers on the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump I have read much of the wiki reliable sources you linked to. To refresh all our memories,
    "Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility," that does seem to be quite a good starting place. Dotsdomain (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. See all previous discussions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's enough here to justify a reassessment of consensus on this, and if one were reopened on these grounds, I'd support the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence "It's fair enough that you do not watch GB News, you're probably not my target audience, as I am attempting to gather information from viewers that would support GB News, reporting accuracy and reliability." show a basic ignorance of how Wikipedia works. First, popularity is not reliability. If it was, Infowars would be more reliable than The New England Journal of Medicine. Second, our job is to figure out if GB news is reliable, not to decide without evidence that it is and then gather information supporting that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not challenging your premise that "popularity is not reliability" that is self evident, The Sun (United Kingdom). If we can't discuss the potential reliability of GB News here, then we can't reach a rational mature conclusion on whether GB News, is or it isn't on par with other news outlets that are historicly considered reliable sources. The Times and the The Daily Telegraph are considered reliable, yet both operate online paywalls, which prevent the vast majority of the public from instantly checking the reliability of their citations within our published articles. Yet we currently can't include credible citations from GB News, whose output is less extreme than the Telegraph and is as neutral as the Times. Admittedly GB News hasn't been around for as long as many other institutions, editors in the main set the rules collaboratively based on reasonable discussion, research and comparison of the criteria that each outlet must meet. This topic's aim is to weigh up where possible the pros and cons of GB News, prior to deciding on the next (if any) steps to be taken.
    Constructive criticism should always be welcome but negativity for its own sake does nothing to enhance the improvements many of us want implemented after due diligence. Dotsdomain (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet we currently can't include credible citations from GB News, whose output is less extreme than the Telegraph and is as neutral as the Times.
    Yeah, this is the exact moment whatever good faith this discussion had has officially run out (WP:SUICIDEPACT). There is simply no ability to take seriously someone claiming that the opinion channel that uses politicians as hosts, has aired a variety of misinformation and is constantly in hot water with the regulator, and only managed to escape sanction by arguing that it isn't airing news programming is anywhere close to The Times in terms of journalistic integrity. I'd sooner see us assess Sunday Sport as generally reliable Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion on GB News, see the archives for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the propaganda wing of Reform UK, its claims to reliability remain as persuasive as they ever were. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, per all above and previous discussions. TRIC Awards are also a public vote (per their own article), so that's an extremely poor determinator of reliability; while I don't know if they actually did this, who's to say they didn't campaign amongst their readers to vote for them? The Kip (contribs) 19:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • PROPOSAL: I propose that an experienced editor who is not involved in the above discussion write up a brief summary of the consensus and close this discussion. It is clearly going nowhere and the consensus seems clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the things you've brought up help its reliability. It won the court case because it was found that it was not a news channel, so that counts against it; and "awards" that are awarded via online polling are WP:USERGENERATED and not worth the bits used to broadcast them. And coverage from experts makes it clear they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy:
    • Talk TV and GB News also serve as a demonstration of how the oligarchic structures of UK traditional media make it vulnerable to dark ideas. Both have been accused platforming dark ideas, particularly far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation.[1]
    • Home to a number of Conservative MPs hosting their own shows, GB News has breached broadcasting rules on numerous occasions including for platforming anti-vax conspiracies. The channel has also interviewed a number of far-right groups and supporters, whilst host Martin Daubney promoted a fake story about ‘sexual harassment from refugee boys’ sourced from a ‘Hotels Housing Illegals’ Telegram chat.[2]
    • GB News UK has been marked as a “conspiracy theory”, “pseudoscience” and “propaganda” news source by MBFC since it has almost failed fact checks (almost all of them are related to COVID-19).[3] (I don't think MBFC itself is a great source to cite directly, but in this case its conclusions are being taken seriously by an academic secondary source.)
    ...and so on. I can find more if necessary, but this shows in general how poor of a reputation GB News has. None of the things presented here change that or even really confront or challenge it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Fowles, Sam (2025). ""Extremism is the Point: How Our Society and Politics Foster Dark Ideas."". Demagogues, Populism and Misinformation: A Guide to Combating Dark Ideas. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 149. Talk TV and GB News also serve as a demonstration of how the oligarchic structures of UK traditional media make it vulnerable to dark ideas. Both have been accused platforming dark ideas, particularly far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation.
    2. ^ Fekete, Liz (1 January 2024). "The hurricane from the Right". Race & Class. 65 (3): 92–103. doi:10.1177/03063968231212993. ISSN 0306-3968. Home to a number of Conservative MPs hosting their own shows, GB News has breached broadcasting rules on numerous occasions including for platforming anti-vax conspiracies. The channel has also interviewed a number of far-right groups and supporters, whilst host Martin Daubney promoted a fake story about 'sexual harassment from refugee boys' sourced from a 'Hotels Housing Illegals' Telegram chat.
    3. ^ Papadogiannakis, Emmanouil; Kourtellis, Nicolas; Papadopoulos, Panagiotis; Markatos, Evangelos (22 April 2025). "Welcome to the Dark Side: Analyzing the Revenue Flows of Fraud in the Online Ad Ecosystem". Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. WWW '25. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 1522–1535. doi:10.1145/3696410.3714899. ISBN 979-8-4007-1274-6.
    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.

    Daily Mirror text appeared on Wikipedia 13 years before?

    [edit]
    • Leishman 2023, mirror.co.uk: After shooting indiscriminately at partygoers, Pardo unwrapped the 'present' containing the homemade flamethrower and used it to spray racing fuel gasoline and set the home ablaze.
    • DocOfSoc 2010, on Covina, California: After the shootings, Pardo unwrapped a Christmas package containing a homemade flamethrower, and used it to spray racing fuel gasoline to set the home ablaze.

    DocOfSoc does have an open CCI, so maybe there's a common source for both, but it seems the Daily Mirror definitely didn't write the text, which I should think casts doubt on their reliability (noting they're yellow-lit at RSP). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Police believe that after Pardo stopped shooting he unwrapped his gift -- a home-made device used to spread fire -- and used it to set the house ablaze[76] 2008 CNN article. Closely paraphrased into Covina massacre by User:Cyanidethistles[77] in 2008, which DocOfSon linked in his edit. Given how close the rest of the Daily Mirror article appears to match Covina massacre, I would guess that's the common source. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Asia Business Daily

    [edit]

    I added an Asia Business Daily article to NCT Wish. I used this article to argue that 24,000 people mobilized this group's sold-out first concert in Seoul. Is the Asia Business Daily generally reliable? Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Asia Business Daily is a standard Kor an news organisation, so generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG unless something serious shows otherwise. In the case of the specific article note that it's not the newspaper saying 24,000 attended the concert but SM Entertainment, the band's management company. So it's better to say the groups management said that 24,000 people attend the concert rather than just "24,000 people attended the concert". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-published source used to support unverifiable claims

    [edit]

    This source is being used in three articles to support the same claim.

    Three articles use it: Timeline of women in religion in the United States, Timeline of women in religion and Timeline of women's ordination.

    The text is either the same or similar to this one: "For the first time in American history, a Buddhist ordination was held where an American woman (Sister Khanti-Khema) took the Samaneri (novice) vows with an American monk (Bhante Vimalaramsi) presiding. This was done for the Buddhist American Forest Tradition at the Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center in Missouri."

    I'll be mentioning the AfD for "Vimalaramsi" and the "Dhamma Sukha Organization" as a supporting argument, not as a definitive recommendation. The AfD closed Vimalaramsi's article with result delete for lack of Notability. All of its sources were either self-published or press releases placed by the Dhammasukha.org organization.

    These three pages use a source from an affiliated organization to "Kanti Khema", described by the article passages as being the "first ordained buddhist nun in the US." There is no way to attest this information - i.e that she is the "First nun in american history" from any reliable secondary sources, nor are they presented anywhere for examination.

    Dhammasukha.org (referenced in these pages through archive.org) has four components that disqualify it as a reliable source: (I). Primary. (II). Affiliated with the subject. (III.) Non-notable and (IV). Cannot be confirmed by reliable secondary sources. Therefore, it appears to quote groundless information regarding the subject as being "The first in american history". Article text should be cleared of its controversial claim to fame or removed entirely from all pages. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    All of its sources were either self-published - nope; Natalie Quli is not self-published, see diif, which was removed by this editor from his talkpage as he perceived it as harassmenrt, an accusation for which they have been warned diff; see also User talk:Monkeysmashingkeyboards#Please remain civil.. Their attitude has detoriated rapidly into WP:BATTLEGROUND; see User talk:Deathnotekll2#What's up, from Deathnotekll and User talk:Deathnotekll2#About. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Comment on the merit of the proposal or discussion instead of attacking the proponent.
    Natalie Quili is not being discussed here, nor is the AfD per se. Read the proposal correctly.
    No administrative warnings have been placed in my account. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that you have no evidence that the claim is false, and assuming that the claim is plausible, I believe that the claim should be attributed to the organization that made it, rather than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. But I do not see your concerns in themself to be an argument to entirely remove the claim. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. However, the claim is not plausible.
    Remember we are discussing. I am not attempting to force my conclusion.
    The claims are quite boastful, actually. They are similar to saying an unknown person with no verifiable notability has been the indisputable best at something or that they have met Einstein.
    How is one to say it isn't a lie? Deathnotekll2 (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stating that a woman is the first at a fairly obscure but significant accomplishment is not boastful and nowhere near comparable to an assertion that a person is indisputably the best at something. If a person was accomplished in physics and mathematics in the 50 years preceding 1955, it is not implausible to claim that they met Einstein. After all, Einstein loved intellectual conversations with a wide range of people although he did not enjoy conventional small talk and chit-chat. He was not reclusive.
    What is your evidence that this specific claim is not plausible? Does the organization making the claim have an established reputation for making false claims? Do you have evidence, for example, of a previously ordained Buddhist nun in the United States? Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, the Onus of Proof, often summarized by the maxim affirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probatio (the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies), is precisely the case here.
    The organization is required to prove that such a bold claim is true. A company can claim its product is the best in the market with no supporting evidence to back their assertion. It'll be dismissed as marketing propaganda. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We commonly deal with such matters by attributing the claim to the person or entity that made the claim as opposed to stating that it is true in Wikipedia's voice. We do not usually deal with evidence free doubts like yours by completely erasing the claim. I have asked repeatedly for evidence that this is false and you have provided nothing more than your strident skepticism. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy and guidelines are subject to interpretation.
    Should Wikipedia also deal with evidence free claims, then? The opposite of evidence free doubt equally applies as well.
    I haven't checked yet for additional evidence that contradicts the unsupported claim presented by the article passages that many of its supporters here wish to unambiguously defend. You demand and insist I do, and maybe I will. It's appropriate I demand back equally that you do your own research in the opposite fashion, i.e prove that the claim you defend is true. Maybe if that is done by both sides, a conclusion will be reached.
    Personal commentary: I'm actually delighted you labeled me as a "strident skeptic". That's exactly the boldness Wikipedia needs. Really, I took no offense. I liked it. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For something to be a WP:RFC (that has a particular meaning here), the steps on that page needs to be followed. But just having a discussion about something is fine, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. @Deathnotekll2, I highly recommend you take a look at WP:BEFORERFC and WP:RFC. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I attempted to challenge a source so editors could examine it and remove it side-wide if applicable.
    I couldn't find a consensus-style process to do so, so I posted here after being recommended to do so by another user.
    Anyway, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång said, I'll stay here so we can debate it, challenge it or support it. If necessary, I will open a formal RfC after studying the necessary conditions to do so in full. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've renamed the section, this isn't a WP:RFC and the title is only a distraction from any other discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Sorry. I'm new here.
    I didn't understand why the title would be a "distraction" though, as I didn't intend for that. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because RfCs are formal proposals that often have many users !voting in, so having a non RfC be titled as an RfC can confuse people, and bring them here instead of other, geuine RfCs. Does that make sense? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does. I think.
    Where and how can I open a formal RfC on this topic if need arises, by the way?
    It's probably best to do so after this discussion ends, right? Or so I'd assume for now. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any reason you would need to open RFC on this at any point. I wouldn't suggest even thinking about them until you have more experience and understand what they are for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Are they that difficult to open? Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if you really want to know, I suggest taking a look at WP:BEFORERFC and WP:RFC. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFC says how you can open a RFC. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 20:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "RfCs are time-consuming, and Wikipedia being a volunteer project, editor time is valuable. If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways."
    The RfC page quotes that. Do you think the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard is a good alternative to a WP:BEFORERFC? Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it's also important to note what the opinions on the request are. If the proposal is universally accepted/rejected, then per WP:SNOW there's no need for an RfC. Same goes if it can be resolved in some other way. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deathnotekll2, It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've gotten no support here. Please find some other way to contribute constructively to the project. At this point you're wasting everyone's time. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So you speak on behalf of the entire Wikipedia and all of its editors?
    Are you attempting to pressure for the closure of this discussion? Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deathnotekll2, I wrote a page giving advice to people who find themselves in the exact situation you are in. A lot of folks say that it helped them. You can find it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blog written by an academic

    [edit]

    Hello,

    I am interested in potentially using this blog (https://theartofsouthasia.com/2019/04/11/the-vi%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87u-temple-of-adityasena-at-aph%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B8%8D-bihar/) to expand the archaeology section of the Later Gupta dynasty article. After doing some research, it looks like the blog is authored by Lakshmi Greaves who is an art historian at Cardiff University. Link to her profile: https://profiles.cardiff.ac.uk/staff/greavesl

    Would the blog post be considered WP:RS? Ixudi (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blog of researcher w prior publications (in the same field ofc) is covered under WP:EXPERTSPS, so it can be used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She looks to be a relevant subject-matter expert under WP:SPS. I'd consider this reliable, at least for factual descriptions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems ok to use with some general care of course. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rudolf Steiner

    [edit]

    Collin-Smith, Joyce; Wilson, Colin (2004). "Introduction". Call No Man Master. Authors On Line Ltd. p. v. ISBN 978-0-7552-0116-7. Retrieved 7 November 2025. for the claim "Rudolf Steiner was a guru".

    On one hand, citing Colin Wilson would be okay. On the other hand, it's WP:SPS. So, I have doubts about this source. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the statement in the article, I feel like at some point past a dozen sources for the same claim you'd start to run into diminishing returns? Like, any more than 4 or 5 and you should probably start considering what is novel/different about this one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;" from WP:NPOV. That's my reasoning for wanting many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would interpret that clause as encouraging a focus on quality over quantity. After all, while "reference texts" is in the plural, the adjective used is commonly accepted and not, say, many reference texts. One or two books from George Guru et al., who are each really important people in guruology, would beat five, ten, or really any number of sources from just anyone, really. Ideally you'd be looking for secondary sources that take a look at the sources calling him a guru and describe how the term is used, but those are probably going to be rare, and it's not an explicit requirement unless you want to establish an academic consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with the above. See also WP:OVERKILL —Rutebega (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When NPOV says that it's talking about finding the balance in an article, rather than a need to add lots of references to an article. If someone questions that balance, then as part of a discussion you should be able to show that's it's "easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts" that the balance is correct. For very controversial statements that are commonly challenged putting 3-5 of the strongest sources can help stop repetitive discussions, but it's not required by WP:V or WP:NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Crowdfund Insider

    [edit]

    The article https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/02/31795-child-abuse-victims-speak-former-fleetwood-mac-guitarists-kickstarter-campaign/ "Child Abuse Victims Speak Out Against Former Fleetwood Mac Guitarist’s Kickstarter Campaign" on "Crowdfund Insider" was cited on Jeremy Spencer. It contains child abuse allegations. The article has a byline, and it has been up for eleven years, but I don't think it's strong enough for BLP purposes. I've never heard of it (but their topics of publishing aren't in my areas of interest), so I excised it from the article, but wanted feedback from a larger audience if it can remain in the article.-Ich (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure "various" (or the other descriptions used in the source) should really be transmuted into "consistent" even if we accept the source uncritically, but I'm, uh, not the biggest fan of crypto sources and general (non-crypto) BLP stuff would seem to fall outside of the areas of expertise. So I guess I agree we shouldn't really be using crypto sources, especially for contentious BLP content. On the other hand there is coverage of the tour (with a bit less of the more out there stuff) in The San Diego Union-Tribune, which is a normal, widely-circulated metropolitan broadsheet (see our article on the newspaper) so if people do want to add something in perhaps less contentious terms... Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's a great find and much better than the original source. I think at the very least adding a section "cancelled tour and kickstarter" and something to the effect of "this proposed tour was criticized by Safe Passage Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for children raised in cults. The foundation had also launched a change.org petition."-Ich (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloomberg Law News

    [edit]

    Is Bloomberg Law News a reliable source?

    URL: news.bloomberglaw.com
    Link SearchFulltext
    GoogleWhois

    From Bloomberg Law, it is stated that Bloomberg Law is a subscription-based service that uses data analytics and artificial intelligence for online legal research, so Bloomberg Law should be generally unreliable. However, what about Bloomberg Law News, a.k.a. their news platform? SuperGrey (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't seen an issue with them in the past but that was before the LLM AI bubble hit. What I've seen doesn't suggest AI is being used (at least, not as a final product). Masem (t) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Uses artificial intelligence for online legal research" does not equal "uses LLMs to write articles." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AI in online legal research would typically be used for stuff like algorithms for finding relevant cases when practitioners search for cases or providing summaries of how a particular court/judge is likely to rule based on their past rulings. Unless there's evidence that it's being used to write articles, the news articles should be fine -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem, Patar knight, Tioaeu8943: To prevent the discussion from deviating too far -- I just want to know what's the reliability rating of Bloomberg Law News. Is it generally reliable, or marginally reliable, if it is not unreliable? SuperGrey (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you have evidence to the contrary, or there are concerns about an individual article (even RSs get things wrong), it should be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG since it's part of Bloomberg. They appear to have staff writers per some profiles on LinkedIn (e.g. [79] among many at [80]) and the page for pitches indicates editorial control that includes a fact checking and corrections process. [81] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to be within generally reliable. Masem (t) 00:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Shore News Network

    [edit]

    Mario Kranjac (deletion discussion) has sources from an organization called Shore News Network. I don't think this is a reliable source for facts or for notability: no bylines, no editorial staff list. Example: [82]. Thoughts? 🌊PacificDepths🌊 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Take a look at this:[83][84][85][86] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The "about" page at [87] lists their address as
    301 Route 17 North, Suite 800 # 12-40 Rutherford NJ 07070
    Putting that into Google shows the following businesses that have the exact same address:
    • Jstu Elites (truck accessories)
    • Relations Transportation (General Freight company that registered with DOT in 2022 and promptly vanished)
    • Hartmann Industries ("business solutions provider" with no website)
    • Martenette Farms LLC ("Cet fresh organic local food delivered to your door weekly!")
    • Pricklee Cactus Water (canned drinks)
    • Binaries.io ("Software development and services firm")
    • Children Entertainment R US (Rent a bounce house, Catering, and they are nationwide!)
    • ...and hundreds more
    They are all actually customers of Alliance Virtual Offices.
    "Build trust and credibility with a commercially recognized address. Establish your business at a commercially recognized address to achieve long-term stability in your chosen market. It’s a fast, cost-effective way to build trust and credibility with clients and stakeholders. With a virtual business address, you can effectively communicate your professional presence to the world. Using virtual office services ensures that your business maintains a prestigious address without the overhead costs of a physical office."
    Also note that Frank Sadeghi, owner of Shore News Network, put this up on his website:
    https://www.franksadeghi.com/2025/03/23/ocean-county-unveils-608-7m-budget-with-stable-tax-rate-major-investment-in-growth-and-education/
    It's easy to get good press when you own the presses.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this ?

    [edit]

    Came across to develop and cite some, I have encountered a <ref> tag with timesofassam.com. Been through, searched archive, and reading some of their news/articles, found a rat. I wonder how I missed it. It's a too small news portal, but old, somehow in 2010, but very accurate in specifically militancy issues of north-eastern India. I wonder, how come this little pony got too much news attentions in several Wikipedia articles about north-eastern-India and South Asia? Is it a PR or Mass engagement war by them? Not listed as a reliable source, not listed as un-reliable too, still they are being a factor to Indian nation media in regards of news related to militancy! Why exactly they are here? Can't we ban or block them? SaTnamZIN (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you re-explain, what is the exact issue? What claim is this being cited for? Ramos1990 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant, is that source reliable? SaTnamZIN (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable for what? I can only find 7 citations to timesofassam.com, which doesn't look like 'mass engagement' to me. [88] You'll have to provide more evidence. As for 'not listed as a reliable source', WE DON'T DO THAT. Wikipedia has never had any such list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Usage and a previous discussion (including input from a sock). The interview with Alan Skorski is pretty wild. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - I'd obviously not used the search function properly. Looking at the website, I'd say that this page alone [89] was possibly sufficient to rule it out as a reliable source, since they seem to publish user-submitted content. Beyond that though, it looks questionable in several regards, and I'd be very wary of citing it for anything contentious, even without the user-submitted content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump That has 57. SaTnamZIN (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it allows (as it seems to ) user-generated content, no it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by user-generated content? SaTnamZIN (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With both the above link and this [[90]] "we’re reliant on field investigations" implies they rely on "citizen reporters". Also (I cannot find it now) I am sure there was a submit a story link. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh.. These are too common in Indian media. SaTnamZIN (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is the problem, and why we have to have a note over at wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it now. SaTnamZIN (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Contradiction between sources

    [edit]

    We have contradictory sources regarding the early history of the city of Stepanakert/Khankendi. The current version of the article refers to historian Robert H. Hewsen, who wrote that:

    "Originally called Vararakn, this Armenian village on the right bank of the Gargar (Arm. Karkaṙ) River was renamed Khankendi in 1847."

    However, this information contradicts primary Russian imperial sources. The earliest Russian census of 1823 already refers to Khankendi, and Russian imperial records and maps do not mention any settlement called Vararakn. Therefore, it could not have been renamed Khankendi in 1847 if it was already known by that name in 1823.

    In the "Description of the Karabakh Province", compiled in 1823 by order of the Governor-General of Georgia and Caucasus, Aleksey Yermolov, and authored by State Councillor Mogilevsky and Colonel Yermolov II, in the section titled “Estate belonging to the former Karabakh Khan Mehti Quli Khan”, Mogilevsky and Yermolov wrote that the newly settled Armenian village of Khan-Kendy was established by the former Karabakh Khan Mehti Quli Khan and was his estate, which he had gifted to his wife, Badridjagan Begum. After Mehti Quli Khan and his wife fled from the Russian Empire, the village was transferred to the Russian treasury (see page 291, the text is in Russian).

    The name of Khankendi (spelled as Ханъ‑Кентъ or Ханъ Кянды) can also be found on Imperial Russian maps from before 1847, for example this one from 1842: [91] or this one from 1838: [92]

    Robert H. Hewsen is a respected expert on the ancient history of Armenia and the South Caucasus, but not as much on the Russian imperial era.

    I would like to ask for assistance with this matter: how can we reconcile the apparent contradiction between the secondary modern source, which claims a renaming in 1847, and the primary Russian imperial sources, which clearly mention the village of Khankendi as existing in 1823 and 1838? Grandmaster 12:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Тифлис, 1866". Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 1866 is the date of publication. But the document is from 1823, as is clear from the title Описание Карабагской провинции, составленное в 1823 г.. — Тифлис, 1866. Grandmaster 12:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And do we know if any changes were made in those 40 years? This is why we try not to use primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is the original text. It is considered one of the most important sources on the history of Karabakh region. Grandmaster 12:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It is also not uncommon for places in the Caucasus to have more than one name. Nowhere does the primary sources mention that Khankendi was the official designation of the place. That is Grandmasters own deduction, which is against WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, which they have been told countless times to refrain from, yet still do. If their theories are right, I'm sure there are actual WP:RS about it. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that the claim that the village was renamed in 1847 contradicts the available primary sources, which show the name Khankendi in use well before 1847. Also, WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussions. Grandmaster 12:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors should not interpret primary documentation to counter works by trained historians. Instead try to find other works on the issue that have raised the same issue -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Heart Mountain (Wyoming)

    [edit]

    Could someone please look at the sourcing issue at Talk:Heart Mountain (Wyoming)#Size error? My Internet keeps shutting down and I am having a heck of a time verifying sources, especially sources behind paywalls. Thanks!

    Please note that the page is getting extra attention because of https://xkcd.com/3162/ --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1321241983"