Before posting, check the archives andlist of perennial sources for prior discussions.Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
RfCs fordeprecation, blacklisting, or other classificationshould not be opened unless the source iswidely used and has beenrepeatedly 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 notpolicy.
This page isnot a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
LUGSTUBS (March 2023, nb. that referencing only to Olympedia was one of the del. criteria and the motion passed, also note the discussion of the incorrect biographical details for Alexander/Arthur Martin)
Option 5 (orOption 4 for biographical data in any event, andprimary) - I don't doubt that the sport-statistics carried on Olympedia are generally accurate since they appear to come directly from official sources, but it would always be better just to cite those sources directly. This is also clearly a sport-reference-type source (indeed, it *WAS* part of Sports-reference.com) that doesn't indicate notability due to its wide-sweeping nature perWP:SPORTBASIC. When it comes to the biographical data, over the years I've seen a lot of mistakes in this whichI've listed here. Asthis Swimming World piece notes, a lot of this biographical information appears to come from either the families of the athletes, or from the research of the hobbyist volunteers who run the website, and they do not cite the sources they get their information from making its reliability dubious. Some (the majority?) of these hobbyists are also active as editors on WP and I don't see why their contributions on Olympedia should be treated as any more reliable than it would be if it was entered as uncited OR here.Olympedia lacks a clear editorial policy, but also clearly solicits contributions from amateurs and again notes that a lot of their information comes from the Olympians themselves or their family members. A lot of emphasis is often placed on Bill Mallon and Jeroen Heijmans having set up Olympedia, but these people are self-described amateurs/hobbyists and, even if they weren't, there is no sign that these people write or edit all or even most of the content on Olympedia. The lack of independence from the IOC is now also undeniable given their business relationship.
The primary nature of this source is demonstrated in the way they repeatedly just relay incorrect data (e.g., the recent case ofDragan Kusmuk, who they describe asDragomir Kusmuk because that's how his name was incorrectly listed by the IOC, one of many, many such cases). If this was really a reliable secondary source, there would be some degree of fact-checking on this and comparison with other sources where his name was correctly listed.FOARP (talk)11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, goodness knows I have no love for the IOC, but Dragan isn't exactly an uncommon nickname for people with the first name Dragomir; I'm curious as to how you decided that was an error on Olympedia's part as opposed to somebody registering & competing under a legal name, but later sources using a common name/preferred name?GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸10:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you check the previous RSN conversation or maybe it's the AfD, someone noted that the official IOC documents gave his name as Dragomir, as did the news reports listing the results of the Olympics.Katzrockso (talk)10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian It was thisAfD (still ongoing). The original reports from the Olympic Committee reported his name as Dragomir. Unclear if there was perhaps a mistranscription of the Cyrillic or perhaps a nickname like you suggested, but it's hard to fault Olympedia from originally having the same spelling of a new as the literal official Olympics did. For all we know they could have a policy for naming that just reflects what original Olympic documentation states, just like Wikipedia has a more idiosyncratic policy on article titles and naming.Katzrockso (talk)10:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso I think you might be onto something with the naming scheme - looking at their other entries, though they note the name change, they haveBalian Buschbaum asYvonne Buschbaum andHeinrich Ratjen asDora Ratjen. These are the names they competed under, but they aren't their common names or legal names (as far as I know).A blanket policy like this makes sense - it's not going to be practical, or even wise, for Olympedia to track whether former Olympians have legally changed their name or adopted a new on. For example, a female athlete might change her name upon marriage for cultural/practical reasons, but want to keep her professional credentials associated with the name she is known by - and therefore won't publicize the name change. (And will view trying to give the credit to their husband's name as incredibly offensive). On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I'd imagine women likeRobina Muqimyar are doing all they can to stay under the radar now.So are they errors? We often write about people under the name they used at the time.Barbara Bush, currently an FA, calls her "Pierce" until her marriage, and we often use "Folsom' forFrances Cleveland. I agree it's hardly fair to fault Olympedia for doing the same thing.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸11:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Describing the people who run the site as mere "hobbyists" is a very, very inaccurate label. As has beenexplained to you already by historianBill Mallon himself, the group is composed of ~25-30 members of the International Society of Olympic Historians who are academics, published experts, former Olympians and historians. Mallon himself, who has writtendozens of published historical books on the history of the Olympics, and received numerous honors for being one of the preeminent Olympic historians, performs most of the statistical updates. Forany biographical changes, the site has anextensive, week-long peer-review process in which all 30 historians and experts are required to review the biographical data, several others are required to edit it, and Mallon reviews and edits the final version. That is an insanely thorough peer-review process among historians that I doubt the vast majority of reliable sources even approach for their content. Olympedia is clearly reliable. And I'll add that many of the tiny "errors" list (12 out of probably 1 million+ pages) mentioned by FOARP are not actually errors, such as him deciding himself that Olympedia is wrong since we weren't able to find any further sources under the name they gave for a pre-internet athlete, or them (accurately) having the maiden name of a female athlete which she competed under and FOARP deciding that that's an "error" since she later married and changed her name.BeanieFan11 (talk)16:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Mallon would appear not to be an indendent source on the topic and the International Society of Olympic Historians is an amateur association not a professional one (you and I are both welcome to join it tomorrow despite having no higher qualification than a bank account). Which would make sense because Bill Mallon is an amateur historian not a professional one, he doesn't actually meet the standard for subject matter expert on wiki... Unless I'm missing something none of his work has been published by academic presses.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he doesn't actually meet the standard for subject matter expert on wiki ... none of his work has been published by academic presses Mallon isvery clearly an expert. Policy states that someone is an expert if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Are you suggesting thatMcFarland & Company,The Globe Pequot Publishing Group,Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, andSaunders are all not "reliable publications"? As all of them have published his many books.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No those are not in context reliable publications, those are mass market presses. I also think you're mixing his publishing in medicine with his publishing on Olympic history, the only Saunders book I see is "Ernest Amory Codman - The End Result of a Life in Medicine"Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take the emotions down a notch, there is no reason to be getting worked up here. Those are mass market presses (Scarecrow was stripped by Globe Pequot to just its name and eventually not even that) and you do appear to be conflating his publishing on multiple topics. Work with me here, show me a peer reviewed article in a university journal or something like that.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources describing Scarecrow Press as some unreliable "mass market press"? From all the descriptions I can find of them, they're academic and scholarly.BeanieFan11 (talk)20:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was published by The Globe Pequot, an imprint is not a publisher its just a trade name. It also seems like you're picking one little thing to focus on while ignoring almost everything else, for example whether or not you're conflating his publishing on multiple topics. Remember he can published by both of those presses and be neither an academic or a scholar but simply an adult non-fiction writer.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His sports books were published by Globe Pequot/Scarecrow Press and McFarland, while his medical books appear to be published by Wilkins and Saunders. I still don't see why Globe Pequot/Scarecrow Press is unreliable?BeanieFan11 (talk)20:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally reliable for sports stats like Olympics results, dates, etc. Plus this source has been used in academic research and sports media. And the IOC's Olympic Studies Centre promoted it as a reliable resource for Olympic info.Frankserafini87 (talk)05:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 or 5 I find the arguments that this source is unreliable to be compelling but the formatting is throwing me a bit here preventing me from arriving at a clean numbered !vote. From their about page[1] it really is a more hobbyist group even if there are some professional participants. Note that theInternational Society of Olympic Historians is an amateur association, not a professional one... There is no membership qualification other than the ability to sign a check. There are also real questions about Olympedia's independence from the IOC, they seem to have had a very real if complicated relationship which ended in the freezing of the site.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, it would then unambiguously appear to be "Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)." however else we find about its reliability... So I will repeat my confusion/frustration with the formatting of the question.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think its too late for any changes, lets just go from here. I think in general we agree that this source is probably fine for statistics supplied by the IOC but less than awesome for non-statistical information. On the statistics side I also don't see why we wouldn't just use the IOC's stats directly if Olympedia is just copying them without any edits, but thats more a due weight question.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the issue with the formatting of the options is that you have made it unclear what to select if one believes that the source is both non-independent AND generally unreliable. The former is Option 5, but the latter would be Option 4.~2025-34572-30 (talk)03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the horse has already rather bolted on that one, for which please accept my apologies, but you can simply just state that in your !vote if it is your view.FOARP (talk)09:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. I don't see any reason this wouldn't be reliable. If we were to downrank a source for getting the names of a handful of people out of thousands wrong I we would not have any sources. Also, some of those don't even seem to be wrong? Generally reliable is not infalliable.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we're going to be using them for a source on the Olympics, which is entirely controlled by the IOC. There is no indepedence issue which would apply to the IOC but not the Olympics in this context, there is no Olympics independent of the IOC unless we're talking about really really old ones.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to me that's like saying that any study that receives a grant from any major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from the governmental healthcare body and so cannot be trusted on healthcare. There can be no source on the Olympics that is 'independent' in this context, even the news, but that's clearly not what we mean byWP:INDEPENDENT. They seem to have editorial independence.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They would appear to receive 100% of their funding from the IOC... And any study that receives a grant from a major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from that governmental healthcare body but it stops there, there is no wider "cannot be trusted on healthcare." WP:INDEPENDENT instructs us to ask "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" and the answer here is clearly "closely affiliated with the subject" when it comes to the Olympics.Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of academic studies and sources that are 100% government funded and yet completely independent of the government. What matters is if their editorial decision making is independent of the funding they receive, which I see no reason to suggest otherwise for this source.Katzrockso (talk)01:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section begins: "An independent source is a source that hasno vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic."Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{outdent}
By this logic, would it not be the case that any sports network (or hell, probably any news network big enough to have a sports division) was non-independent, e.g. ESPN, since that has a "financial or legal relationship to the topic"? They're not financially isolated from the topics they cover.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. If they have a broadcast relationship with the league their coverage can't be considered independent for wiki purposes. Remember that there are still plenty of uses for non-independent sources, it isn't like they can't be used they just have some stipulations that come with them.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with that. Banning all news coverage from contributing to sportsperson notability would be ridiculous, and is not what I get from my reading of the independent sourcing guidelines.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, leagues and teams generally have exclusive or regionally broadcast relationships. Thats already how its written and broadcast relationships are both legal and financial. They come with non-disparagement and promotional agreements. See for exampleOlympics on NBC.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to type "financial interest" (WP:ISS "no vested interest [...] "develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic"). And according to what?PARAKANYAA (talk)02:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the idea that "any study that receives a grant from a major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from that governmental healthcare body", at least if you're exceptinghealthcare. They cannot be divorced unless you can also divorce IOC the company from the broad cultural event that is the Olympics.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on if they have editorial review and the nature of their coverage. I would not call them independent from the NFL's company workings but specific players and games, perhaps.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way its written they need both editorial independence and a lack of conflicts of interest/vested interests. A financial relationship is clearly laid out as counting as a vested interest. See above.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am saying that a publication funded by the IOC with editorial independence would be independent from the people who have competed.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not count as independent coverage of anything those people did at the Olympics or awards awarded by the IOC or constituent organizations. Everything else would be on a sliding scale of how related to the Olympics it was. It would never count for notability.Horse Eye's Back (talk)02:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that, but I've never seen a description there longer than a paragraph or two, so it's not going to count for notability anyway?PARAKANYAA (talk)02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 and a primary source It is good for statistical data, since it's from the IOC itself, but that's where the buck stops. It's also a primary source for said data, so doesn't contribute to notability in any way. In short, for everything else like biographical and personal info, get some better sources. If you don't have anything else, then sorry, but your person is not notable. My question that honestly has felt relevant for years is: why is the sourcing for sports subjects so terrible all the time?SilverserenC01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 and a primary source: I find the arguments by Silverseren and Horse Eye's Back to be compelling. I would also very much not have to go through so muchWP:BLUDGEONING; I find fifteen comments in one RfC to be excessive. Let someone else get a word in, please. Finally, this is Yet Another Example of an RfC that would have benefited greatly from a pre-RfC discussion about what questions to ask and what options to include. Perhaps we can work that a bit more deeply into the guidance for RfC authors? --Guy Macon (talk)04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6 /Option 1: The source is generally reliable. 12 cherrypicked incidents of largely misspelled names is hardly a evidence of inaccuracy when it comes to biographical details. So truly there are 2 examples of errors in biographical data, which amounts to "generally reliable" when it comes to biographical details. I think it's obvious the source is reliable for sports statistics data as well (seeWP:USEBYOTHERS in e.g.[2][3]). This source is obviously not independent of the IOC in the strict sense, as it has a contract with the IOC. So consequently, it can't be used to establish notability on things like e.g.International Olympic Committee. However, this does not mean that the source is non-independent of any Olympic athlete.Katzrockso (talk)09:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is absurd to claim that this is a primary source - compiling information from news reports by definition makes it not a primary source. Maybe a mix of secondary and tertiary source would be the best designation.
The examples of errors in biographical data listed include an error that is now corrected. I didn't think we here atWP:RSN called sources unreliable for errors that were corrected - that's literally a sign of editorial policy in action working. Other than that, precisely no evidence has been offered to suggest even the slightest bit of unreliability for their biographical information, so it seems like it's all based on feels or something. I find a group of historians (which getWP:USEBYOTHERS: search Bill Mallon's name on Google and you'll find him being cited byThe New York Times,ESPN, etc for claims about Olympic history) is generally reliable for this type of information.Katzrockso (talk)10:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5, which, to my mind, is a special species ofOption 2 (additional considerations apply). Compendia such as this do often rely on information from family (per FOARP), and probably sometimes the subjects themselves, and as they don't cite sources, we are left placing trust in what is collated. That this method generally produces information that is broadly true is certainly the case, as is the case for Who's Who (any version). Like Who's Who, the issue isn't so much that there are errors, but that this collation is therefore akin to a self published source. There is no clear biographical research and editorial process. Unlike Who's Who, I am not convinced the issues are so serious as to go straight to option 4, especially since the stats are taken, largely without synthesis, directly from the primary source. But there needs to be a suitable caution, particularly about the biographical information. And to forestall the obvious objection to possible loose wording on my part: I am not saying itis a self published source. Rather, the issue is that the independence of the biographical information is unclear, and there is no clarity that there is any suitable editorial process that addresses this. There should be better sources (and if there are not, the subject is not notable anyway).Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 (or, at the very least, Option 4 for biographical information) With a heavy reliance on self-proclaimed experts, multiple examples of inaccurate information being published (such as the Frank English case) and a lack of a clear editorial policy, we should not be using this for anything other than pure sports-statistics data. While uncited, [[4]] is also another example of how this source has published numerous inaccuracies.Let'srun (talk)18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an error that has since been corrected being held as "inaccurate information being published"? The entire list of "multiple examples of inaccurate information being published" are names discrepancies (plausibly explained by reliance on official Olympic reports) and things that have since been fixed or are accurate.
@FOARP why did you evaluate Alexander Cudmore as being in the "wrong regiment"? His veteran headstone application from 1945 lists him as a private in Company K in the 6th Infantry.Katzrockso (talk)23:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Frank English was fixedin response to our AFD. Do we typically rely on sites that use Wikipedia to fact-check them? No.
2) Their site says that heserved in Europe with the 6th. He may well have served with the 6th, but it wasn't the 6th that deployed to Europe in WW1, it was the 140th Infantry, which was formed by merging the 6th with the 3rd.FOARP (talk)15:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they fixed an error that was first spotted at Wikipedia doesn't mean they're unreliable, and further,worthy of deprecation – an extraordinary measure that only the very worst of all sources receive. Whether his 6th regiment was known under the title of "140th Infantry" in Europe or not is such a very, very minor detail. The outright deprecation of animmensely helpful, expert-run source with hundreds of thousands of entirely correct entriesjust for that and, at most, 10 other similar, extremely minor alleged "mistakes" (many of which aren't actually mistakes), would be one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen at Wikipedia.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this site ... [is] effectively doing exactly [what Wikipedia does] – what on earth??? Describing Olympedia as "effectively Wikipedia" is a stunningly-awful interpretation of how they work. Does Wikipedia restrict its editing to 30 academics and historians known for their expertise on the subjects? Does Wikipedia require,for any biographical update at all,all 30 of said academics and historians to review the change, including several to edit it? Does Wikipedia, after all that, then require one of the very top historians on the subject to further review and edit the proposed change? I don't think so.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unfortunate fact that because the title of the website has -pedia in it, people are incorrectly assuming that it is an open wiki that anyone can edit.Katzrockso (talk)17:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, comparing them to "Citizendium", another website thatanyone could edit, is completely ridiculous. Citizendium did not require a select group 30 academics, experts and historians to review every single proposed edit ever across a week-long review process. And that the group have called themselves hobbyists is irrelevant and does not remove their status as experts. People like Mallon are clearly historians.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one? Modern summer Olympics can have 10,000 athletes competing and they've been going on for a long time... Their self provided statistics suggest that they have 174,104 biographies which doesn't seem possible for one person to be substantially involved with, even as a full time job let alone a hobby.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The site has basic profiles, such asthis (with no biography), and then entries with actual biographies, such asthis. Mallon said he is involved in the editing of all written biographies.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All written biographies would appear to be 43,507 articles, so we're still well over the abilities of a single human editor to substantively review. Also I pulled the wrong number before, its 194,421 not 174,104.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm atoption 3. There aren't grounds to deprecate it. Deprecation is an extraordinary measure that we use for sources that are reckless or flagrant in their disregard for accuracy. The OlyMADmen, whoever they might be, are not that; they care about details that no other source cares about, and they're completionist. They're not out to gather clicks regardless of the truth. Option 4 is as unjustified as option 1 is. But it certainly doesn't meet my personal reliability threshold for biographies and shouldn't be used in them.—S MarshallT/C23:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the opinions of those voting above for options 5 and 4. I agree with their assessment as to why this source should be deprecated as unreliable. I've also caught occasional errors over the years of editing and interacting with that source. Best.4meter4 (talk)20:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the "occasional error" in an expert-run source with hundreds of thousands of entirely accurate entries warrantdeprecation, an extreme measure reserved for only the worst sources that areso terribly inaccurate that they are never to be used?BeanieFan11 (talk)21:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was my only reason. It's only one contributing factor ofmany. See the reasons given above by others which I agree with. Green Lipstick Lesbian in particular said it well. I don't need to say anything more than my thinking is the same.4meter4 (talk)23:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I see ~10 "errors" which mainly aren't errors given as a reason. Then I see, as a reason, FOARP declaring that some of the information comes from the subjects themselves (who, naturally, would be the most knowledgeable for information on themselves), that its run by "hobbyists" (who also happen to be some of the world's most prominent experts on the subjects), that they "lack a clear editorial policy" (which is a completely false statement asBill Mallondirectly detailed to FOARP an incredibly extensive process that involves a week of review among 30 historians and academics to makeany change to the site), and that there is "no sign that [Mallon] write[s] or edit[s] all or even most of the content on Olympedia" (also untrue as Mallon told FOARP directly that he is involved in the vast majority of statistical edits and all biographical edits), and that it is a "terrible source". Am I missing anything? What did GreenLipstickLesbian say that indicates Olympedia is unreliable?BeanieFan11 (talk)23:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is meant to be a survey of opinions not an inquisition. You don't need toWP:BLUDGEON the process by rehashing points we can all read. Other editors may reach different conclusions and find different arguments more persuasive than others than yourself. We should all be able to participate without the diatribe. I don't want to comment more other than to say that I find the opinions of editors above arguing for options 4 and 5 to be persuasive, and I agree with those opinions. I'm not going to change my mind.4meter4 (talk)01:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Olympedia is generally reliable. It satisfiesWP:USEBYOTHERS as shown by Katzrockso. Bill Mallon is an acknowledged expert in Olympic history. Although Olympedia contains some inaccuracies, this is inevitable for any source of such volume. It is receptive to criticism and willing to correct its entries, which is a sign of a high-quality source.Kelob2678 (talk)10:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 A quick glance at the website's about section states that the people who created it are dedicated historians, meaning that the vast majority of them, or at least enough so that contributions by the others can be thoroughly vetted, have the knowledge to make a reliable depository. There could be certain areas where the reliability could be placed under scrutiny, but overall it seems to work fine.interstatefive22:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being dedicated to a project doesn't mean someone is a reliable source, in fact often it means the exact opposite for fan led projects such as this. As been pointed out here, Olympedia has a working relationship with the IOC, meaning that at the very least it should not be used as a source on any articles specifically dealing with them.Let'srun (talk)12:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree that this source should not be used on articles about the workings of the IOC or the IOC itself. A person who happened to be an Olympian is not the same thing.Katzrockso (talk)14:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The clear financial interest and relationship between the IOC and Olympians has been recognized in hundreds (probably thousands) of AfDs by now. NSPORT also explicitly rejects coverage from any governing sports body as nonindependent.JoelleJay (talk)19:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that the relationship between the IOC and Olympians is the same as the relationship between Olympedia and Olympians? Frankly that doesn't make senseKatzrockso (talk)19:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That type of far-reaching evaluation would affect literally every publication, a web of connections that impinges on the reliability of everything. Is The New York Times not a reliable source for anything that Blackrock has an interest in because Blackrock has ownership in the NYT? The idea that Olympedia is editorially dependent on dead Olympians is not credible.Katzrockso (talk)20:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't far reaching its very basic and is the standard we've applied evenly across the article space for a long time now. If Blackrock has ownership in the NYT then the NYT's coverage of Blackrock+related isn't independent. There are plenty of ways to use non-independent sources and we do it all the time, but it would clearly not be independent.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree that NYTimes wouldn't have independent coverage ofBlackrock. What I disagree with is saying that the NYTimes has non-independent coverage of anything that Blackrock might have interest in. That would imply that e.g. the NYTimes coverage of China is non-independent because Blackrock has connections to / interest in China.Katzrockso (talk)20:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has said that... And thats not an equivilent here... The equivalent here would be Blackrock hosting a global investment competition... And coverage of those investor's participation in the competition by the NYT in that context would absolutely not count as independent coverage.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even setting aside whether I agree with that, the New York Times could provide perfectly fine independent coverage on those investors outside of the competition and their coverage on those investors in other contexts wouldn't be permanently tainted by the existence of that competition.Katzrockso (talk)22:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That birthdate is only being provided in the context of the Olympics. Take it down a notch unless you want this to turn into a discussion about your competence.Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As HEB said, this is how independence is already assessed on Wikipedia. And Olympedia has an even closer connection than your Blackrock example since it is specificallyfunded by the IOC to cover Olympians; the more apt analogy would be a company buying the local community newsletter and instructing it to report on company activities.Of course there will be a vested interest in providing extensive coverage.JoelleJay (talk)23:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting completely off-topic with this independence stuff (no need to continue to disagree only on a non-substantive issue since the question as asked in the RfC is a masquerade for a different question), the relevant question here is reliability.Katzrockso (talk)04:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment of independence is literally a subsection of one of the options. And you're the one who focused this thread in that direction...JoelleJay (talk)18:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to a comment speaking about reliability, you replied to me by veering off-topic and focusing on the independence aspect of the RfC (which is precisely why this RfC is ill-formed by mixing several questions together).Katzrockso (talk)02:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree that this source should not be used on articles about the workings of the IOC or the IOC itself. A person who happened to be an Olympian is not the same thing. This is directly invoking independence.JoelleJay (talk)16:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the context of the comment I am replying to there, which begins withBeing dedicated to a project doesn't mean someone is a reliable source. That comment that I replied to was in response to a comment that statesThere could be certain areas where the reliability could be placed under scrutiny. Reliability is always in context and that was the object of discussion.Katzrockso (talk)23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5. Option 4 for BLPs. Biographies do not have sufficient information on provenance, and the stated editorial policy of "sending drafts around to the email listserv" is nowhere near professional enough, to consider them reliable by default. And of course it is not independent of Olympics topics.JoelleJay (talk)19:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6: Olympedia is aWP:SELFPUBLISHED website by Bill Mallon and a small collection of hobbyists. It likely should be considered areliable self-published work "by an established subject-matter expert" (Mallon) whose work in this field has been previously published, and thus usable on Wikipedia. But BLP and Notability guidelines on all self-published sources should be followed. Appears to have past COI relationship with the IOC. This puts my !vote somewhere in the realm ofOption 5 as well.PK-WIKI (talk)09:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI, AFAICT we can't see who the author of a given biography is, so it's impossible to know whether it was written by an actual expert versus amateur/hobbyist (or someone with a relationship with the subject). This is especially a problem when there doesn't appear to be meaningful editorial control.JoelleJay (talk)18:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Profiles being sent out to an email list of mostly amateur volunteers to look over before posting is not editorial control. It's frankly no different from an article going through AfC.JoelleJay (talk)16:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that you do not like the "mostly amateur volunteers" (perfectly valid), how is this different than numerous other sources listed onWP:RS (having the group of editors 'look over before posting')? If it turns on the expertise of the group, that's the relevant locus of discussion.Katzrockso (talk)23:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RS employ professional journalists/scholars/etc. to write and edit articles according to defined standards. Amateurs are by definition not professional; in the (unlikely) case that an amateur is still considered an "expert", we would need to actually know that they (or a professional) were responsible for editing an amateur's submission. All we have for evidence of "editorial control" are Bill Mallon's Wikipedia comments stating profiles are sent around the email list. This is not how editing happens in RS.JoelleJay (talk)21:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6 - generally unreliable. The source is self-published, it isn't possible to see what is written by supposed experts and what isn't, and it isn't independent from the IOC.Cortador (talk)10:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5, with reliable statistics and unreliable biographical info, although as a second choice I'd pickoption 1 over #3 or #4. As the OP inthis Olympiedia RSN discussion last July, I don't think it'll be a surprise that I'm leery ofOlympedia's biographical details. Surely much of those could be obtained in better sources, perhaps the onesOlympedia sometimes itself cites. But the statistics, which are being published by the IOC now, are fair game. Every source has occasional errors, and I've yet to see convincing evidence that there is a systemic problem.To some of the comments above,Olympedia's independence from the IOC doesn't matter in thecontext of whether it's a reliable source or not. For the most part,Olympedia is a database of statistics—not a press release, not sponsored content, not some other sort of non-neutral content. Plus, no one in their right mind would think that the IOC, which operates the largest and most well-known sports competition on the planet, has pickedOlympedia back up to promote the Olympics. This is not the sort of source thatWP:INDEPENDENT (whichhelps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject") cares about.Ed[talk][OMT]03:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, thoughOption 5 is a reasonable compromise. I'm really not convinced by the accusations of inaccuracy, non-independence, etc. I'm with those who have said Olympedia isn't an ideal source, but it has most of the hallmarks of a reliable source (e.g. editorial review) and seems to have a decent track record for accuracy. So even though I don't love calling them reliable, I can't support calling themunreliable.Toadspike[Talk]23:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is their editorial review process? And do you not think that an entity controlled by the IOC and funded specifically to profile their Olympic athletes falls afoul of our explicit PAG that governing sports organizations are not independent of their athletes?JoelleJay (talk)22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, I am convinced by other people who have voted for these, namely Beaniefan. It is created by professionals, clearly goes through peer review, and only holds a couple of errors to show. Those who attempt to deprecate or mark this source as generally reliable seem to be overreacting, although it is good that they value the accuracy of Wikipedia so much.User:Easternsaharareview this04:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Easternsahara, how do you know a given biography was created by professionals? By their own admission they are largely amateur volunteers, and they have no published description of any editorial review at all.JoelleJay (talk)18:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A wikipedia comment is not apublished set of editorial standards. And do you really think he has professionally edited each of the 43k profiles...?JoelleJay (talk)18:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A wikipedia comment is not apublished set of editorial standards. That he described the policies on Wikipedia is irrelevant – all that matters is that we know they have professional editorial standards. Mallon has been in the field of Olympic history for decades and the biographies are usually about a paragraph in length. It isn't that far-fetched that he's reviewed that many, given both the short length of the bios and the time he has been involved in the project.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a completely informal description that cannot be verified on anything indexed by search engines rather than an official, published policy?JoelleJay (talk)16:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares if the description is indexed by search engines or not? That doesn't make any difference whatsoever for Wikipedia purposes. We base a source's reliability on whether they have good authors and editorial policies, not whether the editorial policies we know are excellent are "indexed by search engines".BeanieFan11 (talk)17:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, dude. A vague description of the process they use, by a wikipedia editor claiming to be Bill Mallon (not thatI doubt that it's him), in a wikipedia discussion thread where he's already trying to convince us of the group's utility and reliability for wikipedia sourcing, is not verifiable and absolutely should not be sufficient evidence of adequate editorial policy to wikipedia editors. We don't do that for any other sources. And their editorial policies as described are most definitely not "excellent", they don't even resemble any form of professional editing I've encountered.JoelleJay (talk)17:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His detailed explanation of their editorial process is not "vague," there is no doubt that the editor is Mallon, and 30 historians/experts(it's very clear you dislike the source and do not consider them to be experts, but many of them clearly are) reviewing each change, followed by arguably the number one Olympic historian further editing it himself, is most certainly professional, and certainly better than the vast majority of reliable sports sources. Are you seriously saying that if Mallon were to update Olympedia.org to include the same editorial policies description that he told us already that suddenly it'd become more reliable? Come on.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sending biography drafts around to an email list of people who arelargely amateur hobbyists, who may or may not comment on them, with no description of anyone's official roles or the fact-checking process, is very similar to how my coauthors and I "edit" our scientific papers (not professional editing in any way) pre-submission to theactual journal editors, except each of us does have a defined role and expectations, authorship and contribution is clearly stated in the manuscript, and we all have PhDs in the subject. Mallon updating Olympedia.orgwould help, because thenother editors can verify it and there is institutional accountability. It wouldn't make the described process more professional however, unless there are a lot of details he didn't include.JoelleJay (talk)18:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be requiring sports sources to have the same standards as scientific journals.Sending biography drafts around to an email list of people who arelargely amateur hobbyists, who may or may not comment on them, with no description of anyone's official roles or the fact-checking process – regardless of the 30 experts who you deem amateur hobbyists, we still have Mallon editing and reviewing every single biography. How is the arguable number one historian on these subjects reviewing and editing everything not sufficient?BeanieFan11 (talk)18:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not holding them to the same standards as scientific publishing, I'm bringing up a comparison to the very informal way we draft manuscripts by emailing them out to all coauthors to validate/edit. That process is not what professional, hierarchical editing looks like. I don't know where you're getting this "30 experts" number. As far as I can tell, very very few are what we consider experts. Bill Mallon is certainly an important and the most prolific author of Olympics history; that doesn't necessarily mean he is the "number one" historian, or even that the "historian" appellation is appropriate for someone who has no academic papers on the topic. He is a subject-matter expert through his reliably-published books, and so his head editing could be considered "adequate" for non-BLPs like what we do forWP:SBM; the major differences being that the authors of SBMare academically qualified in their subjects, the editors are actual experts, and their editorial structure is at leastoutlined on the website.JoelleJay (talk)17:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - in particular, I find the arguments that Olympedia is a non-independent source to be unconvincing. As far as I can tell, the group producing it is independent both of the IOV and the athletes themselves.Newimpartial (talk)20:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They literally have a contract with the IOC, so they aren't independent from them. As for the athletes themselves, it is a bit more tricky, but at least some of the information they have posted comes directly from them.Let'srun (talk)02:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviewing a subject doesn't make an author non-independent of that subject, or we wouldn't have independent journalism. As far as the financial argument goes, I'm not seeing that argument either, since I'm not aware of any attempt at content control or similar interference by the IOC. I don'tlike the IOC, but they simply don't have the attention span to be evil all the time...Newimpartial (talk)04:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, @Newimpartial, we have explicit guidance that governing sports organizations are not considered independent of their athletes. This would directly apply to any coverage of Olympians by the IOC's partners and especially anything funded by them (the IOC contracts Olympedia, as noted many times in the discussion).JoelleJay (talk)19:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have consensus that sports organizations are not independent of their participating athletes, yes. However, I don't think we consensus behind a "fruit of the poisoned tree" approach to any entity a nonprofit or government organization has ever funded, that says that nothing the funded entity publishes is ever considered independent of the donating or contracting organization. That seems to me to be overreach.Newimpartial (talk)20:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic the material produced about a company by the marketing firm hired by that company is independent coverage of that company.Of course groups contracted by an organization are not independent sources on the interests of that organization,especially when the whole purpose of the group is to produce coverage of the organization. I can't believe this is being disputed.JoelleJay (talk)17:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a fallacy (and astraw goat argument). You don't have to use "fruit of the poisoned tree" logic to exclude the work product of marketing firms about their clients - and the fact that you are confusing Olympedia articles about athletes with marketing product suggests that you hold a mental model that is profoundly hostile to the purpose of an encyclopaedia, at least in this domain. Documenting the lives and careers of Olympian athletes is simply not comparable to ghost writing commissioned hagiography of executives, and our current P&G framework does not try to equate these very different forms of content. Let's not pretend that all writing by people to whom a topic seems interesting is automatically non-independent of that topic, or we will soon be left with no independent sources at all.Newimpartial (talk)17:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are youtalking about?! The IOC, the governing sports body for Olympians, literally bought Olympedia and has a long history of contracting with the group to write articles on Olympians. That absolutely falls under our uncontroversial PAG reminder that governing sports bodies are not independent of their athletes. You can't genuinely believe the IOC would spend money on a service for any reason beyond self-interest...JoelleJay (talk)17:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia would have existed at least in some form regardless of the IOC's involvement. The OlyMADMen have been working on the data for decades. Their data used to be onSports Reference. See this article from 2017 where the IOC "purchased Olympedia, an extensive American-built database of Olympic results". Andthis where Mallon says: "Olympedia has always been a product solely of the OlyMADMen and has been a private site that required a password that only we could grant."~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk)18:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I don't think we assume that content published on a website where the university owns the domain is necessarily non-independent of that university. I don't think we assume that data published on a government domain (say, climatological data) js necessarily non-independent of that government. The fact that a university or a government demonstrably incurs some costs in publishing or hosting something simply does not in itself "poison the tree" in the way you appear to assume here ... Of course, universitiescan interfere with independently authored content they host (and increasingly do so), and governmentscan bias or falsely the data they host (as we are likely to learn more and more). But those are cases to judge on their specific merits, not a general "poisoned tree" principle.Newimpartial (talk)18:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point tomy comment above on the relevance of independent vs. non-independent in this particular context.WP:INDEPENDENT is concerned with things like self-promotion, NPOV, directories, and the like. Setting my personal thoughts onOlympedia's biographical info aside, a database of Olympic statistics does not carry any of those concerns. Like,Baseball Reference's stats don't magically become more reliable and useable just because they're independent from Major League Baseball, and as databases neither (rightly) contribute towards notability.Ed[talk][OMT]19:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to our guidelines, non-independence is not simply concerned with relationships where obvious bias occurs in publication (however, in this case the biasis obvious in the choice of whether and at what depth to cover Olympians), where the relationship can affect reliability, or where the financial incentive is blatant (in this case, the incentive of the IOC to promote its own coverage is unambiguous). We have unambiguous guidance statinggoverning sports bodies are not considered independent of their players based on longstanding consensus. The INDY essay itself makes it clear that independence requires there be nopotential forpersonal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication, not that those gains be apparent or even actualized.Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. unequivocally applies to Olympians and the IOC regardless of whether the info the IOC publishes on them is accurate and unbiased.JoelleJay (talk)17:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC owns Olympedia. That disqualifies it from independence according to the relevant SNG, full-stop. That's even ignoring the fact that it bought Olympedia to promote its own history. What are you not understanding about this? It is absolutely not equivalent to a university web domain hosting something, although even in that case anything publishedabout the university on that domain is of course still non-independent. Non-independence does not require explicit, direct interference in the editing process nor does it require the published product to be noticeably biased.JoelleJay (talk)17:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears produce the conclusion that, if "(university name) academic press" published content about (university name), that content would not be considered independent and that if (country name) funded a study into "inequality in (country name)", that wouldn't be considered independent either. I just haven't seen any evidence that this is how independent sourcing works on enwiki - or, if these cases don't actually reflect the nature of your argument, then I don't understand what makes your argument different from these hypotheticals. You've said, for example, that Olympedia is biased in only offering biographies of Olympians, but theDictionary of Canadian Biography (funded in part by theDepartment of Canadian Heritage) only publishes biographies of Canadians, but it is a paradigmatic example of an independent, reliable source. So I am completely failing to understand what makes Olympedia non-independent when all these other cases I'm talking about are independent - unless it is a simple preference to exclude the topics the source treats in depth.Newimpartial (talk)22:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those analogies demonstrate the point in the best way, because I do think it's true that Olympedia is not independent of the IOC, given that it was reported that the IOC purchased Olympedia. But given that the body of Olympedia is not identical with the IOC itself, the question about the independence of Olympedia from the athletes is different.
It would be more like if "(university name) academic press" published content about (professor or student at university name). I don't think a university press release is necessarily independent of the professor or student (perhaps some university-written content may be, but in general probably not), but a work published by "(university name) academic press" would be independent of the professor or student.Katzrockso (talk)22:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
University press releases concerning professors or students arenever independent. Content on its professors or students published through the university's press also wouldn't be independent.JoelleJay (talk)17:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Content on its professors or students published through the university's press also wouldn't be independent" I think that's the crux of the disagreement here, where some editors do not believe that is the case, as the university press is (generally) completely editorially independent of the university.Katzrockso (talk)20:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A company that contracts/buys a group to provide precisely the coverage explicitly designated non-independent in PAGs is so self-evidently non-independent that it is baffling how this discussion has continued.JoelleJay (talk)17:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an outlet produced published work on an organization and was later purchased by that organization, would you say that the published work was non-independent of the organization? I don't see how something can be independent at one point in time and then non-independent later.
The opening of this RFC was prompted bythis story in Swimming World Magazine discussing the IOC's renewal of their lapsed contract with Olympedia. Particularly it repeatedly describes the people who run Olympedia as being hobbyists engaged in a "hobby", and it is obvious that they are at the very least in a business relationship with the IOC.FOARP (talk)11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the general reliability of the sports statistics is not controversial, I think they should probably be excluded from the RFC. From skimming the previous discussions, the main open questions seem to be how reliable the biographic content is and to what extent it can establish notability. If there hasn't already been a pre-RFC discussion, would you be open to changing the format of the question? —Rutebega (talk)16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The biographical data and the independence issue, yes. The pre-RFC discussion are all of the discussions linked (and many more on AFD). What format do you propose?FOARP (talk)16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This horse may have already left the barn, which is OK, but I would have suggested something like:
Question 1: is Olympedia areliable source for biographic details other than sports statistics?
This would allow everyone to separate their answers (as you have in your preferred option) or answer only one or the other. People can also !vote "sometimes" or "it depends" (with explanation), which the closer can consider appropriately. There are no options unlikely to be supported by anyone, and nobody has to explain their second or third preferred option.
This is only a valid formulation in cases where the two related questions are not contingent on one another. I think this is such a case, because a source could reasonably be reliable but not independentor independent but not reliable, so there is no chance of a consensus outcome that contradicts itself. If the questions are contingent, an alternative is to provide options that answer both, but only with combinations that are coherent. As a more generalized example, this could look like:
Option A: Generally reliable
Option B: Generally unreliable
Option C: Generally unreliable and deprecate
but not
Option D: Generally reliable and deprecate
As an aside, I think it's also important to clearly distinguish between interpreting policy and interpreting consensus. With a few exceptions (notablyWP:DRV), participants in a discussion shouldn't be asked to gauge consensus, only to assess proposals on their merits, in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. RfCs should not generally ask"is there consensus for...", as this is a question only the closer can answer (consensus can change, after all). Likewise, if an overwhelming majority of participants wind up pickingno consensus, you could have a nasty paradox on your hands. When necessary, just leave an option forno change or similar. The distinction matters substantively because deferring to existing consensus over new analysis undermines the current discussion and unduly privileges the status quo.
This is just my proposed approach to drafting an RfC aimed at being easily understandable and yielding a clear, useful consensus moving forward (as well as being brief and neutral as all RfCs must be). I'm open to any feedback even if it doesn't influence or pertain to this particular RfC. —Rutebega (talk)21:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I've used Olympedia as a source was onChris Chan, to provide citations for his birthdate and an Olympic award he received. Do opponents of this website also oppose it being used to cite birthdates and awards received? ―Howard •🌽3318:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of their comment, that's not what they said. They said that a source being the only source of information for something doesn't automatically make it reliable, not that only sources repeating each other are reliable.Aviationwikiflight (talk)02:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ1 Option 2, onQ2 Option 3, onQ3 Option 2:Avi Loeb is known for frequently — and, thus far, incorrectly — announcing various mundane celestial objects might be space alien starcruisers, even seemingly suggesting Earth is about to be invaded by the space aliens.[6] Loeb is not an established subject-matter expert on the items listed in Q1 and his unfiltered writings and commentary on blogs, social media, etc., should never be cited, nor should his quotes and interviews be laundered through otherwise reliableWP:SECONDARY on these topics. Insofar as high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, he should be used only to the extent reliable SECONDARY covers hispeer-reviewed research.
Loeb himself says his blog and social media are"detective stories" in which he just throws out possibilities because"the public loves detective stories".[7] This is incompatible with how we imagine SPS is used for established subject-matter experts.
According to theChicago Tribune, Loeb's scientific peers consider him"outlandish and disingenuous, prone to sensational claims, more interested in being a celebrity than an astrophysicist — not to mention distracting and misleading".[8]
According toThe New York Times some scientists are"now refusing to engage with Dr. Loeb’s work in peer review" due to his penchant for making outlandish claims.[9]
In an article forSmithsonian Magazine, the author reports that other scientists"chuckled" at the mere mention of Loeb's name.[10]
According toJalopnik, his theories go beyond exploratory science and are are"worrisome" because of"how aggressively Loeb is sticking to his guns in the face of some pretty clear, science-based dismissals of his claims; going on to generously note that it's possible some of his theories about marauding alien spaceships are based on"shaky math and some basic errors of reasoning".[11]
In a post to X,Washington Post science contributorShannon Stirone opines that"Avi Loeb has gone off the deep end and as soon as the media recognizes that having Harvard attached to his name does not in fact give credence to his claims and stops covering this nonsense, the better."[12]
In a post to X,Chris Lintott says of Loeb:"I am confident that he couldn’t distinguish a meteorite from a rock let alone an alien spaceship from a nodule."[13]
In a post to X,Ethan Siegel described Loeb as"a prolific, but low-quality scientist".[14]
Jason Wright has criticized Loeb and his penchant for making extraordinary claims to drum-up media coverage and of assigning percentile chances to his theories various comets are alien spaceships: [he gets]"plausible deniability of the bad-faith “just asking questions” variety... It certainly gets him lots of TV time and fan mail."[15]
and, thus far, incorrectly This is claim about facts. Your claim, as it is written, isfalse.announcing various mundane celestial objects might be space alien starcruisers This is claim about facts. Your claim is misinformation – it isfalse. He did not claim that, he said it was a possibility and for Oumuamua maybe that it seems likely.Loeb himself says his blog and social media are "detective stories" Loeb described the collective scientific process to learn more about the interstellar object as akin to a detective story where more clues are found and analyzed. Where is the problem?some scientists are "now refusing to engage with Dr. Loeb’s work in peer review" Why would it matter what some anti-science stubborn scientists are doing? People ignoring the scientific method when it comes to rejecting or attacking research they find to be false and absurd has happened many times throughout history. "some scientists" don't get decide whether a person is a SME.author reports that other scientists "chuckled" at the mere mention of Loeb's name Okay, ignore all I said – I changed my mind...if they did indeed chuckle at his name, this case is closed.Prototyperspective (talk)19:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ1 Option 1, onQ2 Option 1, onQ3 Option 1: Loeb is in the same space asSETI investigating the question of intelligent life in the universe. And SETI is not fully acceptable all scientists, "Critics argue that SETI is speculative and unfalsifiable". Criticism of Loeb is criticism of SETI. He does not "claim" rather investigates possibilities, known as the scientific method: a theory that is testable. Some professional peers are upset with Loeb because he is frequently appealing to a popular audience and makes claims - in the popular sphere - that is speculation. This is not uncommon in the sciences: the anthropologist who dresses like Indiana Jones and appears onHistory Channel is often derided by his "serious" peers. But just because Loeb isalso popularizes science, this does not inherently make Loeb's professional science work unreliable. --GreenC01:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not uncommon in the sciences: the anthropologist who dresses like Indiana Jones and appears on History Channel is often derided by his "serious" peers." In fact, History Channel is considered generally unreliable (WP:RSPHISTORY), and you'll have a hard time wedging the theories ofDavid Hatcher Childress ("the anthropologist who dresses like Indiana Jones") into the Incan Empire article.Chetsford (talk)01:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding. The mere fact a scientist appears on History Channel does not invalidate their entire corpus of work. I actually was thinking of a different person BTW who is not important, but it's such a common occurrence when a scientist crosses into popular culture they take hits from their peers, happens all the time. --GreenC16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 for bothQuestion 2 & 3. There's to much criticism of Loeb by independent sources for him to be reliable for statements in wikivoice, but his attributed statement may be worth inclusionif reported on by other sources. No answer forQuestion 1, I don't believe he's relevant without secondary sourcing so his selfpublished work is irrelevant. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ1 Option 2, onQ2 Option 3, onQ3 No Opinion: Alongside the secondary reporting on Avi Loeb losing any potential credibility in the areas of Q1 and Q2 highlighted by Chetsford, as I've mentioned in previous discussions, Loeb has also publicly attacked and attempted to discredit mainstream scientists in these fields and leading experts in these fields because they have been critical of Loeb's claims. This shows that he is active in staking his claim to fringe positions, and does not want to engage in the academic process in these fields, instead choosing to try and litigate discussion in the popular press. As to Q3, I am unfamiliar with Loeb's claims in this area, and as far as my understanding goes it's all magic to me so I can not make an assessment. --Cdjp1 (talk)09:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC. Repeating what I said re yet another post by Chetsford mentioning Mr Loeb: WP:SPS says "Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." -- so that's already covered and requires no denigration of the professor's whole work. Assuming that by "galactic astronomy" Chetsford meansGalactic astronomy i.e. stuff about the Milky Way, I object to censoring Mr Loeb's posts likeThe Particle Accelerator at the Center of the Milky-Way orDeath by a Gamma-Ray Burst from a Milky-Way BOAT -- although I won't insult other editors by pretending they don't have the sense to take the ET bits lightly. I'm not !voting according to Chetsford's multiple-choice pigeon-holes though, I'm only supportingWP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Mr Loeb's CV ishere.Peter Gulutzan (talk)17:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I merely meant that I feared I'd be rude if I posited that others are not being sensible if they don't take the extraterrestrial bits lightly as I do. (I'm a nonbeliever.)Peter Gulutzan (talk)23:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ1 Option 1, onQ2 Option 1, onQ3 Option 1: He is the head of the world's largest scientific UAP research project and haswritten dozens of papers on the subject, including as peer-reviewed papers in journals (in addition books and essays in publications like Scientific American). He's a subject-matter expert as described by WP:SPS and whether he should not be up for numerical vote but be assessed based on policy (/ arguments based on policy). He is a highly cited scientist with major impact and responsibilities, and has an impressive track-record of scientific publications that substantially contributed to progress in the history of science. There is no reason to negate him being an expert, it seems to be bias such as quotes being misunderstood or taken out of context and such quotes about things people disagree with or dislike about him being used as a "reason" to negate Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies are not overriden by count of opinions of users disliking somebody (neither about whether some of his colleagues – an unknown fraction and so far low count – accuse him without any substantiationmore interested in being a celebrity than an astrophysicist), seeWP:NODEMOCRACY. --Prototyperspective (talk)19:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the world's largest scientific UAP research projec" This is incorrect. So-called "UAP research" is a pseudoscience like chiropractic, crystal healing, and ghost hunting. Ergo, there are no "scientific UAP research projects". Whether Loeb is the head of the world's largestpseudoscientific research project I have no idea.Chetsford (talk)20:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It's anovellegitimatescientific field, including a University research center,a NASA research program, studies in the journal Nature, and novel AI-based sensor systems (incl. described in peer reviewed journals;example).
What an absurd reasoning to begin with. For instance, nothing supports your argument other than your personal nonexpert subjective opinion. Moreover, whether it's a scientific field or not is irrelevant to the question whether Loeb is an expert for that topic. History of xyz is also not a scientific field but people can be experts in it.Prototyperspective (talk)22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So, anyway, ufology is a pseudoscience.[1][2][3][4][5] Summarized byBrian Keating: "UFO true believers aren’t just wrong. They’ve built a techno-cargo cult around fake physics".[16] Since it's a fringe belief and system of junk science, we typically treat it according toWP:FRIND. Thanks.Chetsford (talk)01:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you still think ignoring other people's points withSo, anyway, would make for a strong argument. Or that random quotes of random people you agree with would be a sufficient basis for an argument about what we're discussing.
People complain it's junk science or 'pseudoscience' and – I guess not you – that real science would need to be done and rigorous scientific data be available, people go ahead and try – including building novel advanced sensor systems to gather new scientific high-quality data – and the same few but loud people dismiss it as "junk science" or whatever ––> ergo nothing that deviates from their potentially quite uninformed nonexpert opinion can ever become a scientific research field.
However, it's not about your opinion …or a small handful of essays that you agree with.
That UFOs should be scientifically studies is not a fringe view and various types of doing so aren't either considering, for example, that, as mentioned earlier and ignored, even anofficial NASA panel is studying the subject.
Moreover, see the partFringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context in mainstream sources.
And regarding Brian Keating, healso saidyou have Avi Loeb and Gary Nolan, you know, rigorous professors due to full studio scientistsandthose that say it's impossible to believe that these advanced civilizations crashed you know after navigating their whole way across the entire galaxy […] a lot of these things are I think basically pandering to like 'oh they're not there, here's you can just dismiss it because the video quality is crappy, they wouldn't crash land if they're such expert pilots and they wouldn't allow themselves to be seen' – those are completely illegitimate arguments against it (fairly bad argument but whatever) andThe expectation for high-definition evidence ignores the reality that any visiting extraterrestrials might not prioritize or possess technology compatible with our expectations, much like how Jane Goodall wouldn’t expect gorillas to capture her research on iPhones. […] The essence of scientific skepticism lies not in what extraterrestrials might discover but in the evidence supporting their presence. Ultimately, faith cannot replace facts. I despise when people say, “I want to believe”. No, one should want data, not faith. The demand for irrefutable proof remains paramount, underscoring thenecessity for a grounded, empirical approach to the UFO phenomenon. As you can see, he is able to engage rationally and seems to support scientific research of UFOs. Reminder:What that guy said, meant or believes is entirely unimportant. so if you do reply to my comment feel free to ignore that part but please not the rest again.
Comment. This RFC has a confusing organizational structure. I am visually finding it very difficult to get a reading on what the responses are by each commenter by bundling three questions into single answers with similar names and number structures. This was not thought through. Each question should have been looked at separately in its own subsection to keep conversation targeted on a single question, and to easily follow responses. This whole thing seems very disorganized. Also, I'm not seeing any attempt to discuss this RFC by the nominator atTalk:Avi Loeb prior to creating this thread. A notice about this RFC should be placed on that talk page. That should have happened at the time this discussion was opened at the very least (really a notice should have placed long before about the noticeboard threads above as well.) Some of these fundamental notification lapses and structural issues are bordering on Bad RFC.4meter4 (talk)05:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 as regards the incredibly confusing formatting of this RfC. I would definitely have appreciated a notice about this RfC, but I now have notifiedTalk:Avi Loeb. There has been a fair bit of discussion there about how we should cover Loeb's claims about extraterrestrial life, with the consensus being to split it into two sections:Life in the universe, which covers his peer reviewed output on the topic, andClaims about alien life which covers his more speculative claims (and the reaction to them). That being said, discussion about Loeb's usability as a source on other pages is probably a better fit for this board as users are more likely to check here rather than Loeb's talk page.CamAnders (talk)02:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update.While theNew York Post is not RS for mainspace, editors can individually ruminate on its content for purposes of tertiary source evaluation here. Earlier today, that outlet printed an interview[17] with Avi Loeb in which he purportedly claimed the mundane comet 3I/Atlas is like"a serial killer" and it contains cyanide that it may use to poison the human species. After a thorough search, I can find no evidence of any other living scientist claiming a comet is on a possible murder spree. I do not believe the contention that 3I/Atlas could possibly be on a mission to poison the human race with cyanide to be merely an iconoclastic, Copernican viewpoint that is open for contextualization and incorporation into our encyclopedia as soon as it makes its way into an RS. Rather, I suggest that — in concert with the exhaustive other evidence already presented — it indicates the speaker is so far outside the mainstream that his "research" and "theories" should appear nowhere outside his own BLP.Chetsford (talk)02:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents as a frequent editor of Loeb's page:
Q1: Option 2: Loeb has made a number of false or premature claims about UAPs and astronomical objects. These are most common on his Medium, where he has neither an editorial board to rein him in or grad student collaborators to temper his claims. Claims made by him cannot be considered reliable simply because he is the one making them.
Q2: Option 2: Loeb's reliability varies strongly by the type of source. Loeb's claims on these topics in peer-reviewed journals are generally reasonable, if somewhat speculative. They are probably usable for attributed opinions. Loeb's claims in non-peer reviewed fora (preprints, his blog, popular press) tend to veer more in to fringe territory, with poor delineation between facts, speculation and outright falsehood. Loeb displays unwillingness to retract claims in the face of disconfirmatory evidence, so his non-peer reviewed output does not meet the standards of WP:V.
Q3:Option 1: Loeb is an expert in this field. His claims should be assessed with the same scrutiny as any other SME.
It [3I/ATLAS] has a tail and coma like a comet. The tail and coma have the gases we expect to see from a comet. It’s brightening and evolving as it warms up like comets do. If Avi had not claimed it could be an alien spacecraft no one would be talking about it as anything but a comet. It’s also worth noting that zero planetary scientists give Avi’s claims any credence. Contrary to his complaints, this is not because they are afraid to consider the aliens hypothesis or they are stuck in their ways (after all, I’m the director of the PSETI Center where we try to push the boundaries of the search for aliens!). I have found planetary scientists to be very open minded about this! They’re saying he’s wrong because he’s demonstrably wrong. The second thing you need to understand about Loeb is that he has no training in planetary science (the study of comets and other things in the Solar System) and does not seem to consult planetary scientists before (or after) making his claims. Yes, he is an accomplished astrophysicist, but his area of expertise and success is very far from the study of comets, with almost zero overlap. Yes, he has published many papers on comets, but none of his co-authors have any expertise in these matters either, and most of those papers are not peer-reviewed, so they have not been checked for accuracy. In these papers and on his blog he regularly betrays an unfamiliarity with well-established planetary science concepts and misinterprets papers and comes to erroneous conclusions. When the authors of those papers complain he has misstated or even reversed the meaning of their conclusions or when his errors are otherwise pointed out, he either keeps repeating the misinformation, or quietly drops the line as if nothing happened. I’m not aware of him ever admitting he got something wrong with respect to 3I/ATLAS and retracting a claim, despite ample opportunities to do so. — Jason Wright
Wrong question. We have seen the same pattern again and again. A well-respected scientist spends decades doing sound scientific work and being published in peer-reviewed journals. Suddenly they pivot to supporting fringe science (Creationism, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy, antivax, magic cancer pills, etc.) in the popular press, becoming very rich in the process. This leaves us once again dealing with editors citing them. The right question is based upon dates. When did they abandon science and become a creationist, UFO nut, etc? That's when they stopped being an acceptable source. The reason they are paid the big bucks to promote bullshit is their reputation and prior work, but that doesn't make them a better source for our purposes than the people who are promoting free energy from a perpetual motion machine without doing good work in science for many years beforehand. We should figure out the date they sold out and started pushing pseudoscience and let that decide how to treat them as a source. --Guy Macon (talk)18:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an unreasonable position. That said, I would posit that Loeb hasnever been a subject-matter expert on UFOs / UAPs, extraterrestrial intelligence, etc. He works in a very particular area of plasma physics. Because he deals with "space stuff" doesn't mean he's an expert on UFOs anymore than we could say a geologist is an expert in classic cars because they're both "ground stuff".Chetsford (talk)21:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any examples of Loeb discussing UFOs, intelligent ETs or any other fringe subject prior to 2015? Talking about habitable zones, markers for life or even SETI as long as he doesn't claim that they found intelligent life don't count. Plenty of legit astronomers talk about those things. As far as I can tell Loeb started pushing fringe theories in 2016 or 2017.
Looks like he is still doing peer-reviewed science, but most of it is about UFOs. Looking at the list (newest to oldest):
1 Paper about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (another name for UFOs)
2 Paper about dark matter but not about dark matter in our solar system (see below), so this looks like legitimate science.
3 Paper to 3I/ATLAS - an object that Loeb speculates might be an alien spacecraft.
4 Paper about dark matter, but not about dark matter in our solar system (see below), so ordinary science.
5 Ordinary physics paper as far as I can tell. Avi Loeb proposes that the star HD7977's flyby of the solar system 2.5 million years ago may have triggered a shower of comets, which is a scientific hypothesis, not a UFO theory. See[18]
6 Black holes (a kind of dark matter) in our solar system. See below for how this relates to UFOs
7 Another 3I/ATLAS paper.
8 A paper on spherules recovered from the ocean. According to[19] Loeb claims that these spherules are evidence of alien technology.
9 More dark matter in our solar system. See below.
10 Interstellar objects in our solar system. He doesn't actually say they are UFOs, so this is legitimate science. On the other hand, we have maybe three examples of such objects, and Loeb thinks that they all might have signs of alien technology.
"We are confident that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, because we label two of its most abundant constituents as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', for lack of a better knowledge of their nature. We only know that dark matter induces attractive gravity like the ordinary matter we find on Earth, whereas dark energy induces repulsive gravity - triggering the accelerated expansion of the Universe. If an extraterrestrial technological civilization was able to harness these unknown but most abundant cosmic constituents to fuel the propulsion of its engineered vehicles, the Galileo Project telescopes would not detect the standard exhaust plumes that usually surround human-made crafts."
My conclusion: It looks like we can assume that anything prior to 2015 is legitimate science, but not that everything recent is fringe. We will have to look at each paper on a case-by-case basis. --Guy Macon (talk)17:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he is still doing peer-reviewed science, but most of it is about UFOs.
I think you are overselling how much of his work is "UFO" a fair bit. If you expand the page to 2016, then look at just 2017+ data, I see about 420~ papers, a mix of mostly him and him as co-sponsor. Some very heavily cited and all over the astronomy space, as well as some UFO/UAP stuff.
"We will have to look at each paper on a case-by-case basis. " I'd customarily agree with your conclusion,Guy Macon. We're in a difficult position in which a mob is being regularly ginned-up on Reddit to flood the UFO page-du-jour with ChatGPT-generated arguments as to why Avi Loeb's Medium posts, social media posts, interviews, etc. are those of an "established subject-matter expert". As the coalition of the sane is largely adherent to our contentious topic restrictions in a way burner accounts need not be we're left with nothing in our quiver. That should not excuse us to cut corners, however, in this case we can safely and correctly assert that there is an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of evidence chronicled by multiple RS like theNew York Times, Chicago Tribune, Smithsonian Magazine, etc., that Loeb does not operate in the same solar system as mainstream science. Loeb generates an absolute deluge of content. If every Medium post claiming an alien starship is heading toward Earth and you should book your vacation before it's too late requires a two-month RfC before we can excise it, we may as well just throw in the towel. No one has time for that.Chetsford (talk)22:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably already covered byWP:Exceptional. Loeb does have some works that would be considered reliable, but given his later work I don't believe his selfpublished works should be considered reliable for statements about UFOs or possible alien life as such statements are inherently exceptional. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It's the SPS material that is about UFOs and claimed to be from a subject-matter expert that accounts for most of the problem. In one recent case, his self published source (on his own site) was labeled as a transcript of an interview with a local Fox TV station. Zero evidence from Fox that it actually happened. Another editor claimed that this made it a secondary source and not a SPS. On the one hand, there are a lot of things that happen on local TV that never get published anywhere else, but on the other hand I would wager that if I emailed Loeb and impersonated a Fox reporter he would do the interview and publish it without checking whether I am real. --Guy Macon (talk)03:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zero evidence from Fox that it actually happened. False.FOX 32 Chicagopublished the interview on YouTube.+thisif I emailed Loeb and impersonated a Fox reporter he would do the interview and publish it speculation (and I very much doubt it) but let's assume this is the case for the sake of the argument: it would indeed be better to use the actual source with the transcript just being part of the reference (to make it easy to read/search through it as text).Prototyperspective (talk)10:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the transcript accurately matches the interview, then it's as reliable as the interview on FOX 32 Chicago. You could cite the YouTube video, and include the transcript as a courtesy link. Whether the quote from Loeb is due inclusion isn't a verification matter. Personally given the criticism of Loeb on this matter I wouldn't assume that it's due. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today, Loeb purportedly claimed to a non-RS (the New York Post)[20] that the comet 3I/Atlas is like a"serial killer" that might be racing toward Earth spreading cyanide. The idea that 3I/Atlas is on a murder spree is not merely a minority scientific viewpoint that we need to cherish as iconoclastic and exploratory thinking. It is beyond every checkpoint of fringe; and it starts and ends with Loeb -- no other scientist on this planet is suggesting this. A pattern of publishing ridiculous stories like this are precisely why we deprecated the entireNew York Post instead of doing a story-by-story evaluation. If we're willing to deprecate the Post for stories like this, surely we should do the same to the sources they're using to cite this dreck to, particularly if it's the same person time and time again?Chetsford (talk)02:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post article is based upon thisWP:SPS:[21]
This is an ongoing problem that we see again and again. See my proposed solution below:
The problem: well-respected scientist with many peer-reviewed papers starts pushing pseudoscience and gets insanely rich in the process. Creationism is particularly well-known for rewarding scientists who switch sides, but UFO true believers are giving them a run for their money.
My solution: Peer reviewed papers continue to be reliable sources (making sure they are actually peer reviewed and not "reviewed" within a walled garden of pseudoscience) but starting with the first indication of pushing fringe science, that scientist becomes ineligible for the subject-matter expert exception toWP:SPS for any new SPS statements.
Anyone here up to putting together a proper proposal to make the above an official guideline? At the very least we should apply the above to Loeb. --Guy Macon (talk)21:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm skeptical about using Loeb for anything outside of his narrowly defined expertise (cosmology and plasma physics)., I feel thatwith the first indication of pushing fringe science, that scientist becomes ineligible for the subject-matter expert exception to WP:SPS for any new SPS statement is probably a bit overbroad. Applying this to a historical example, we would have to concludeLinus Pauling's fringe views on vitamin C somehow cancel out his expertise on chemistry or nuclear weapons testing. Instead, I think we should make sure that if we are citing SPSes, the author is an expertin the field in question, narrowly defined.CamAnders (talk)02:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me how you would apply that principle to this Dec 6, 2025 SPS by Loeb:[22] Is not the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS in the field that Loeb is an expert in?
"One of the substances discovered in the tail by spectroscopic analysis was the toxic gas cyanogen, which led press to misquote the astronomer Camille Flammarion by stating he claimed that, when Earth passed through the tail, the gas 'would impregnate the atmosphere and possibly snuff out all life on the planet'."
...and from Loeb's blog:
"In World War I, hydrogen cyanide was used as a poisonous chemical weapon by France, the United States and Italy. Is 3I/ATLAS a friendly interstellar gardener or a deadly threat? On a blind date with an interstellar visitor, it is prudent to observe the dating partner and decide whether it could have seeded life on Earth by carrying out interstellar panspermia (as discussed in a paper that I co-authored here) or whether it represents a serial killer spreading poison."
How narrowly defined do you have to make "in the field in question" to exclude Loeb's "just asking questions" blog post about an interstellar object being a deadly threat and a serial killer spreading poison? --Guy Macon (talk)07:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is not the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS in the field that Loeb is an expert in? No, Loeb is an astrophysicist, not an expert in planetary astronomy.Jason Wright (astronomer) put it this way:The second thing you need to understand about Loeb is that he has no training in planetary science (the study of comets and other things in the Solar System) and does not seem to consult planetary scientists before (or after) making his claims. Yes, he is an accomplished astrophysicist, but his area of expertise and success is very far from the study of comets, with almost zero overlap.
I think it's pretty reasonable to say that planetary astronomy and cosmology are different fields, which have different experts. To use a different field as an example, a cell biologist doesn't necessarily have any expertise in evolutionary biology.
I'm not usually a fan of hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, but a good rule of thumb could be that if two different fields both have Wikipedia pages, and one is not a sub-field of the other, than one's expertise in one field has little bearing on one's expertise in the other.CamAnders (talk)15:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is not the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS in the field that Loeb is an expert in? No. It is a comet, as comet experts found out on the same day it was first seen. Loeb has no clue about comets and believes it may be an alien spaceship. There are three know extrasolar objects, and two of them are alien spaceships according to Loeb. When it comes to aliens, he belongs in the same category as the "I am not saying it's aliens, but it's aliens" meme guy. His field is astrophysics, and what he is mainly known for is not stars, therefore outside his expertise. --Hob Gadling (talk)07:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "Loeb has no clue about comets", and yet theMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society just published his paper titled"The physics of cometary antitails as observed in 3I/ATLAS",[23] and in 2021Scientific Reports published"Breakup of a long-period comet as the origin of the dinosaur extinction".[24] That's his peer reviewed work. On the other hand, we have things like the arXiv preprint "Is the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Alien Technology?"[25] (arXiv is a preprint server and is not peer-reviewed).
The arXiv preprint contains this:
"As largely a pedagogical exercise, in this paper we present additional analysis into the astrodynamics of 3I/ATLAS, and hypothesize that this object could be technological, and possibly hostile as would be expected from the Dark Forest resolution to the Fermi Paradox"
What tells you he didn't submit that or a variant of it to a peer-reviewed journal?
Re Hob GadlingHis field is astrophysics indeed, so it's relevant here.what he is mainly known for is not stars early stars is one of the main topics of his research. Moreover, what he'smainly known for has changed substantially in the last 5 or so years.Prototyperspective (talk)19:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I am just guessing that a paper with a conclusion of"when viewed from an open-minded and unprejudiced perspective, these investigations have revealed many compelling insights into the possibility that 3I/ATLAS is technological" would not survive peer review. Total speculation on my part. --Guy Macon (talk)19:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I am just guessing that a paper with a conclusion of"when viewed from an open-minded and unprejudiced perspective, these investigations have revealed many compelling insights into the possibility that 3I/ATLAS is technological" would not be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Total speculation on my part. --Guy Macon (talk)19:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the Scientific Reports article carries a "Mattters Arising" (ie a rebuttal) which alleges Loeb engaged in QRPs:Siraj and Loeb effectively applied different standards to the geochemical evidence for comets and asteroids.
Had this been published on his blog or as a preprint, this correction would not have been attached, and an editor could have cited it uncritically.CamAnders (talk)20:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 Option 1, on Q2 Option 1, on Q3 Option 1:Generally Reliable Loeb's job as a scientist is to investigate the possibility of alien life and sometimes he will get things wrong and publish when he is wrong. I have seen no evidence of him falsifying research.Guz13 (talk)20:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are department of transportation maps primary sources about roads?
AtM-65 (Michigan highway) and a number of other articles@TenPoundHammer: has objected to my addition of a "primary source overuse" tag on the grounds thatdepartment of transportation maps are not primary sources about the roads under the jurisdiction of that department of transportation. To me they clearly seem to beWP:PRIMARY but I am interested in hearing them flesh out their argument (they insist on a centralized discussion) and to hear what other people have to think.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What aspects of the roads are the sources used to support? I would imagine that the primary source for most information on the roads would be the original plans for their construction (as-built plans would also be a primary source, but a much more usable one owing to their nature, IMO). The DOT's maps would be derived sources, based on either those plans or the results of independent surveys.
I suppose if the statements they're used to support is "this road is under this DOT's jurisdiction", that would arguably constitute a primary source, or at least something analogous toWP:ABOUTSELF, though a case could be made that the only truly primary source would be the legislation establishing the DOT... I don't think that's a strong argument, tho.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make any analytical or evaluative claims about primary sources, so it isn't secondary at least as we count them. They also aren't at all removed from the subject, the department of transportation is the road's controlling body so whatever they say about the road is primary (we wouldn't treat it any differently from a company publishing a map of their stores).Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The better question is whether the use is excessive given the subject matter, and whether the tag actually helps facilitate improvement of the article.GMGtalk18:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~24 of the ~30 citations in the article are to the Michigan Department of Transportation. I've seen excessive defined two ways... Either the majority of sources being primary or the majority of content being sourced to a primary source (both have support in P+G and are the same answer much of the time anyways), this would seem to fall under both majority of sources and majority of content. If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. That's not responsive to the question asked. A tag can be useful in one context and not useful in another. The latter case doesn't invalidate the tag altogether, just the as-applied use case.WP:PRIMARY isn't a blanket ban on primary sources. The policy section enumerates seven different criteria for evaluating when to use primary sources. It's not clear which of these you think are relevant to this article. Point 3 would seem to be directly relevant:A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. Point 5 is also relevant:Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. If DOT sources are primary then that's in play. Is caution warranted? What's the actual concern?Mackensen(talk)21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. I'm not aware of any negative impact that such a tag could have, what am I supposed to be weighing the beneficial impact of a valid tag against if there is no harm? So far the only argument made against the tags is that they are inaccurate because DOT maps aren't primary sources... Hence this discussion, its a bit of a chicken and egg issue after all...Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tags are placed because a problem has been identified and needs to be addressed. They also serve as a warning to readers that the article may have issues. As discussed, relying on primary sources is not, by itself, a problem. Whether the DOT sources are primary or not is something of a side issue, because even assuming that they are you haven't indicated what the actual problem is, or the expected beneficial impact.Mackensen(talk)22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a tag for primary use... Its a tag for primary overuse, the actual problem is that the article is not primarily based on reliable secondary sources and all wikipedia articles are expected to be so per WP:V and WP:NOR. The expected positive impact would be the addition of reliable secondary sources, the trimming of primary sources, or a combination of the two.Horse Eye's Back (talk)22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the department of transportation is the road's controlling body so whatever they say about the road is primary
I don't necessarily agree with that. Sure, a lot of what they say about the road would be primary, but there's lots of stuff they could say that isn't. Are they talking about details of the road's design or construction? The primary source for those would be the engineers and contractors involved.
Having worked with numerous DOT's myself, I know for a fact that the majority of the publicly available information they have is provided to them by engineers, surveyors, inspectors and contractors of various specialties. There's some information generated internally, but most of it isn't. Road routes are generally provided to them from surveyors or the original design engineers, who will contract surveyors and prepare an as-built document. Same for traffic light information, sidewalks, etc.
Unless those engineers and contractors were independent of the department of transportation what difference would that make? If they're being paid by the DOT for the work they're doing they're included. A map of McDonalds published by McDonalds doesn't become secondary because it was made by a bunch of consultants and contractors working for McDonalds.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, municipal clients in projects like this aren't all that involved,except by receiving documentation and approving plans and estimates. The actual work of making it all happen is on the GC.
And as anyone who's submitted a plan to a DOT can tell you, you're lucky if they review any part of the document other than the cover sheet (because their project requirements and a high-scale, low detail overview of the site plan are on the cover page). I've been involved in contracts where the DOT didn't even do that much, and they later balked at a things like legal requirements for environmental impact studies, soil-density testing, or even a final cost that was 2% less than the estimate.
That isn't different than any other industry. None of that would make the map of McDonalds a secondary source and it all applies... McDonalds doesn't build its own restaurants after all, thats done by the GC on behalf of McDonalds.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're telling me is that if I were to send you a bunch of links to newspaper articles about me because you were planning on writing my BLP, you'd reject all those sources as primary, since you got them from me? That's the exact same logic as your argument here, and I'm not seeing how it makes any sense at all.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you published a map about yourself based on those newspaper articles that map would be a primary source in the context of an article about you. These maps aren't based on newspaper articles though, don't you mean more like if you collected accounts about you from your doctor, friends, employees, and whatnot but nothing was formally published besides your own piece?Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have published an email collating the links. Just as DOTs publish maps collating as-built data.
These maps aren't based on newspaper articles though, don't you mean more like if you collected accounts about you from your doctor, friends, employees, and whatnot but nothing was formally published besides your own piece? No, because writing accounts about me wouldn't be the usual course of business for my doctor or friends or employees. At least, I *hope* they're not getting paid to write about me... (If someone named Charlotte writes anything about my sex life, I promise it's not true.)
The contractors, specifically the engineers,are in the business of producing (again: most of) the data you're getting from a DOT. And their means of publication is (drumroll please).... Submission to the DOT.
Again, this also very much depends onwhat data is being cited, and for what claim. There are plenty of claims, such as dates of repairs or improvements, names of engineers or contractors, project requirements, overall costs and the like that would make this usage a primary source. Hence why I asked above.
I also think that GMG raises a valid point. If the tags are only useful to you (as you indicated in that ensuing sub-thread), and are objected to by other editors (as is clearly the case here) then I would think that you might be better off dropping a note on your user page that you think this particular article is using too many primary sources.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Submission to the DOT would not count as publishing for wikipedia purposes You understand that this was my point, right? If the DOT is neither the publisher nor the author, they can't be the source at all. They're just the host. Except for information they generated themselves, of course.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.03:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HEB, I've already laid this out multiple times. I would consider them a primary source for information that they generated: costs of construction and improvement projects, the requirements for those projects, the maintenance schedule and details for those roads, etc.
For things like the routes, construction details, mileage, etc., I would not consider them primary, as they're merely collating, verifying, synthesizing and hosting information which was produced by other parties.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if "they're collating, verifying, synthesizing and hosting information which was produced by other parties" about themselves then whatever they publish about themselves is primary. You still haven't exlained why a map published by the X company depicting goods and services offered by the X company is not a primary source for information about those goods and services... We've always treated such sources as primary, this would be a massive change to how we do business.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't exlained why a map published by the X company depicting goods and services offered by the X company is not a primary source for information about those goods and services... No, I've been telling you why this isn't the same situation. But you don't seem inclined to listen. In any event, the consensus seems to be squarely against you, and TenPound's accusation of bludgeoning does seem to be accurate. You've made 28 out of 58 comments in a thread with 11 participants, and as best I can tell, you're alone in your position.
Yes, but I don't see the point of the primary overuse template. Primary doesn't mean unreliable, if the subject is notable then using primary sources to verify details is fine. The question would be whether the details are excessive, and that's not a verification issue. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V explains the intersection of V and NOR as "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." so presumably an article based largely on priamry sources is both a V and NOR issue.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Base articleslargely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on themcan be problematic." My point was if the details are excessive then there could well be a problem, but that's not always the case. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is based largely on primary sources then the use of primary sources is excessive... But it can still be problematic even when the article is not largely based on them.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That specific article has a number of OR issues introduced by the excessive use of primary sources, especially basing large passages on them. Excessive use of primary sources almost always introduces problems in terms ofWP:NOR,WP:V, and/orWP:DUE.Horse Eye's Back (talk)02:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The route description section for example, there are a number of extended passages which aren't entirely verified by the given sources and are more or less original research. For example where in the given sources can you verify "From there, the road continues due north through fields"?Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the other given source is google maps which does not have a terrain layer with that level of detail, I am exceedingly familiar with google's suite of tools in this area and even in the premium versions they can't tell a field from a pasture, meadow, etc.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like you should tag those statements with failed verification. The same alleged original research could have occurred with an secondarily sourced map too. Or perhaps add the original research template, that would be more justifiable.Katzrockso (talk)21:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't able to quickly identify you tagging specific sentences with tags about NOR, only about the "primary sourced overused". Could you provide more specific diffs?Katzrockso (talk)23:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I quotedWP:V but theWP:NOR would say "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources,and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." I quoted V though as it's relevant to this noticeboard, rather than NORN. Either way primary sources can be used and are reliable, the question is whether those details are due or excessive. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the articlesentirely based on primary sources? If so take them to AfD as secondary sources are need to show notability. That passage still doesn't change that primary sources are reliable and usable, only that you shouldn't use them for excessive amounts of content. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When this has beenpreviously discussed, I was assuming maps would be primary sources as used in these articles. But per the American Historical Association,whether a map is a primary source or not depends on the context, and arguably the published maps in question here are being used as secondary sources (edit: per their definition): "In the same classroom a student report might refer to a map to show the location of certain cathedrals, a route of pilgrimage in northern Italy, or the pattern of forests and cleared land in the Rhine Valley. These maps are used as secondary sources."Ed[talk][OMT]02:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking one below, where you argued that the exit list was "unsourced" and kept dodging the question when I pressed you on what a non-primary source that meets your standards would even be. And your responses were "you can't cite a road", "not my problem", and "That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR." None of which addresses my point in the slightest or even makes sense. Why did you even bring up a random discussion from 2008 that I wasn't even aware existed and wasn't involved in? That feels like you're just making non sequiturs at this point.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)04:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was that you felt the exit list wasn't sourced at all, which itself was wrong given that the article itself is heavily sourced to maps corroborating every intersection or exit. I said,Especially since most of the body of the article already informs the reader of most major junctions, and the exit/intersection list is considered a summary. andHow would you use secondary sources to prove that two roads intersect? What sources would even exist in that case? If two otherwise-notable highways intersect but there is no secondary coverage of their intersection, would you still insist it be there, [citation needed] it, or delete it entirely? Those latter two sound ridiculous and are against the precedent of road articles. I didn't use the word "primary", but the general idea of what a source that meets your (and seeminglyonly your) standards for "not primary" would even be. And again, all you did was dodge the question and say "not my problem", the same way you're myopically focusing on one small thing in everyone else's response and still not grasping the greater idea that literally no one seems to agree with your take, no matter how many times you restate it.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)04:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I told you very clearly thatWP:V applied, that answered your question. I also told you that lists of intersections did in fact exist and were commonly used. You were the one who didn't respond, not me. Again the problem was not a primary source but the complete lack of a source for most of it.Horse Eye's Back (talk)04:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This still shows your stubbornness and your desire to fabricate a problem where no one else seems to think one exists. I didn't respond because I felt I had nothing more to say at the time that would get through to you, and apparently I was right.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)04:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: I've told you multiple times,drop the damn stick and walk away from the dead horse. I've been there, trying to get someone to see my side of an opinion. But it's clear no one is agreeing with your interpretation, or even seeing any semblance of a problem whatsoever on any of the road and highway articles. You've also been warned to keep discussion of this in one place, and yet you're still bouncing across multiple talk pages again even after opening this thread. It's abundantly clear right now that no one is agreeing with you and you need to just stop.
@MjolnirPants:,@ActivelyDisinterested: Horse Eye's Back has beenWP:BLUDGEONing the hell out of this idea since at least July, dubiously placing{{primary sources}} or other undue tags in a drive-by fashion on articles. And then when they're pressed, they either filibuster across multiple pages at once, or just shrug and say "not my problem". See the archives ofTalk:U.S. Route 131 as an example. HEB's edits are bordering on disruptive and harassing at this point, and I would seriously file an ANI on them right about now if I had the spoons.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)03:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this discussion because you insisted that I open a centralized one aka "please centralize discussions on related topics to one area" and I haven't edited a single talk page in the topic area since opening this thread[27]. Please retract.Horse Eye's Back (talk)04:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of it is wrong as well, Talk:U.S. Route 131 for example. Note that some here appear to agree with me that DOT maps are primary in this context, and you castigated an editor atTalk:M-218 (Michigan highway) who was of the same opinion as me so you know that you're not telling the truth when you say that no one is agreeing with me.Horse Eye's Back (talk)04:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so hung up on me being slightly imprecise with the US-131 talk page anyway? And that other editor was someone who as far as I know was seemingly unaware of you also holding that position before you joined that discussion. That's still only two people, with countless others having the same view as me, Imzadi1979, and as far as I can tell, anyone else.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)04:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So two editors who were completely unaware of each other told you the same thing and you think that both of them need to shut up and go away? Because you weren't being nice to that editor, you were treating them with the same hostility that you've treated me with... Like an outsider who needs to be run off. This would also mean that "But it's clear no one is agreeing with your interpretation, or even seeing any semblance of a problem whatsoever on any of the road and highway articles" was never true, you knew all along that at least one other editor had seen the same problems.Horse Eye's Back (talk)04:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how I am being hostile to you. I never told you or the other editor to "shut up and go away". JustARandomSquid has the excuse of being previously (to my knowledge) uninvolved in any road related content before now, and therefore unaware thatWikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources established maps as an acceptable source. Which of my comments was "hostile" to you or JustARandomSquid?Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)04:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Drop the stick" is a reference toWP:STICK, an essay about knowing when to concede a point. I never told you to "go away" entirely in the sense I don't want you editing Wikipedia anymore. I just suggested you take a breather from highway articles because they're clearly a source of contention for you.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)04:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a cartographer, borders, roads, cities, all need to be cited like any other source. When looking for map layers to include, we tend to turn to the government agencies as authoritative sources on those things. Census data is generally considered to be reliable data, for example. When discussing a country likeWestern Sahara, if we choose to include it on a map or not is going to be dependent on the source we are using for borders. If I was making a map of roads for Wikipedia, there isn't a better source for roads then the agency in charge of maintaining those roads. Failing this, not most, but almost all the maps on Wikipedia need to be removed as either original research or for over use of primary sources.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)05:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we have an actual cartographer sayingIf I was making a map of roads for Wikipedia, there isn't a better source for roads then the agency in charge of maintaining those roads. is the sanity this thread needs. I have no idea why Horse Eye's Back came back after nearly five months to re-enter a fight they'd clearly already lost.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)05:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Overall, this example is just one of the never-ending stream of proofs that the primary-secondary classification is harmful to the encyclopedia. If the source is published and reliable, use it. Use it properly, but use it.Zerotalk06:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive use of just one source is definitely problematic in this article. Even if experts consider this to be a reliable source for information about roads, if the article uses that source almost exclusively, I question whether all that information is due for inclusion.Cortador (talk)07:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dueness and reliability shouldn't be conflated; one's not the other and the former isn't really in scope for this noticeboard. The original question was whether these maps are primary or secondary sources. The reliability of them hasn't been challenged.Mackensen(talk)12:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree withMackensen in that I generally think that UNDUE questions should be resolved in another forum, this is not a hard question.WP:UNDUE, which is primarily concerned with majority and minority viewpoints, doesn't apply to something like describing a road's path. See e.g. "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." We aren't talking about a minority view or aspect. We're talking about a road taking a left turn at the river. It's a core part of an encyclopedic article on the topic.Ed[talk][OMT]18:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing absolutely forbidding us from using primary sources, and indeed the distinction between primary and secondary sources can be fuzzy, and useless to discuss in many cases. In many cases sources which are primary, or at least arguably primary, might be the best ones to use. There are various other ways in which an article about the bare facts of a road might be criticized for being unencyclopedic, and indeed some of those might be helped by ADDING secondary sources with commentary about the road, for example, but this does not sound like a reliability issue. I think the policies being quoted here are not meant to be used in such an extra way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk)13:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster, we do have policy forbidding us frombasing articles off of primary sources.Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. This especially becomes an issue on whether a given detail is actually BALASP if the only source reporting it is an official government record (which also makes the source non-independent).JoelleJay (talk)20:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go so far to question whether this topic is even notable. The only sources that aren't primary in the article are Google Maps, a road atlas, a book about bridges, a news article about the highway's opening, and one about a beautification project alongside the highway. That's only one source that offers something that qualifies for in-depth coverage.Cortador (talk)22:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was only asking whether it was primary or not, unless I'm missing something this is the appropriate forum to answer that question but not to answer whether a given use is overuse but that second question seems to largely be based on the answer to the first.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you did mentionaddition of a "primary source overuse" tag. Whether a map is primary or not depends on the map. Which map are you referring to? A diff or a link to the article where it's used would be useful.M.Bitton (talk)17:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first is indeed a primary source, the others are either inaccessible or dead links (the fact that michiganology.org hosts primary sources would suggest that whatever is being linked to could be a primary source).M.Bitton (talk)17:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And after all this time, thisstill doesn't answer 1. why this is a problem, or 2. what would be a better solution. No one else seems to agree with Horse Eye's Back on this point except for one other uninvolved editor who AFAIK has never crossed Horse Eye's path nor doubled down the way Horse Eye's is.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)17:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing's for sure, if someone is willing to go through all this argument over whether they get to place a cleanup tag, then they need to go touch grass. By which of course I mean go toGrass and improve the article instead of doing this. The whole thing is like three sentences.GMGtalk16:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read all of this but yes they're primary sources. They're also subject matter experts for the purposes of theself-published sources guidelines, and should be treated accordingly. If we're talking about a highway, it's a highway because the DoT (or whatever) says that it is, and literally for no other reason, so of course we can use their materials as a reliable source. Cleanup-tagging a highway article because it relies on the highway authority's publications isnonsense, there is no cleanup to be done. Of course there could be unusual situations with specific material (I don't know, a portion of a highway that's described as "dangerous" maybe?) but if it's just supporting basic information about the road, then of course we don't need third-party sources, they're just going to be referring to the highway authority's materials anyway because that's where the information comes from.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)17:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I had the same assumption about them being primary sources, but I was then surprised to findAmerican Historical Association support for them being classified as secondary sources. Their definition depends on context, but that context looks an awful lot like the one we're working within. This doesn't invalidate anything you've said, and I agree with all of the rest, but it was interesting food for thought for me.Ed[talk][OMT]18:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17, that site is using a narrow application of "secondary" in the context of teaching and understanding history by interpreting how old cartographers chose the geographic/social features to depict on their maps and how that fits into a historical narrative (and it's not really clear what the distinction actually is in their "student report" example). But for our purposes an official government-commissioned roadmap is not temporally "removed" from what it is depicting: it is a direct, first-hand account of the roads and specific landmarks as they existed at that time, rather than a retrospective synthesis of e.g. settlement data and records of historical forest coverage to create a map depicting human migration trends 300 years prior. This distinction is also somewhat addressed in guidance from university libraries.[29][30]JoelleJay (talk)21:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add another outsider viewpoint that there does not seem to be any real problem caused by using DOT sources on road articles and so I am not sure what real purpose in terms of the quality of the encyclopedia is being served by this controversy.CapitalSasha ~talk22:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, official governmental maps are primary and also non-independent. Policy treatsofficial records andreports of government commissions as primary.JoelleJay (talk)20:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the last part of this seems nonsensical to me. Reports of government commissions, like other sources, may be primary or secondary, independent or non-independentdepending on the context of use. And the same seems quite obviously to be true of government maps.Newimpartial (talk)17:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that HEB is being accused of conduct issues, but I might as well answer the question at hand. It's not so much the maps, or their publisher, but the age of these maps. The GAR where I commented had one from 1936. Going through old government records and basing an article primarily on, not just these, but their interpretations (however simple reading a map may be), smells like original research to me, and I don't like it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and should be a summary of all information found in reliable independent secondary sources, not what an editor has dug up in an archive somewhere. I'm not diminishing these peoples' work, it's just... become a historian and start a journal or a website writing histories of highways, you know?JustARandomSquid (talk)21:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a firm view about whether these maps are primary or secondary (or tertiary) in the context of these particular articles. However, they are quite clearlyindependent sources for almost any conceivable use, except for encyclopaedic content about the maps themselves, I suppose.Newimpartial (talk)22:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To also opine, yes they are primary sources, but it is unrealistic to expect things such as the route description or exit list to be sourced to secondary sources. Primary source overuse determinations should only apply to parts of the article where secondary sources would realistically by used (ex. the history or impact sections)JumpytooTalk23:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain this claim,Jumpytoo? Because GEOROAD explicitly brings up that road articles need to meet the GNG and "typically notable" is referring to them typically meeting said GNG. Which is the problem here with that claim, considering many of these roads articles are solely sourced to primary maps and don't have significant coverage in secondary sources. If they don't meet the GNG, then they aren't notable.SilverserenC04:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I meant that AfD voters would point to GEOROAD if you tried to nominate such articles so you would at least need a strong rationale to counter that (ex. "I did a stronger than usual BEFORE including offline sources and really could not find any sourcing"). Ifconsidering many of these roads articles are solely sourced to primary maps and don't have significant coverage in secondary sources is true, maybe we need to get rid of GEOROAD first?JumpytooTalk06:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPLACE causes similar issues. It's not that these guidelines are wrong, populated places and highways generally are notable, it's just that they discourage people from taking to AfD articles even when they plainly don't meet the GNG.JustARandomSquid (talk)08:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are primary. And I think maps are horribly misused as sources on Wikipedia, with massive swaths of OR editor interpretation of them. Map use currently is running into the same issues that the entire roads topic was previously (and many other topic area for different reasons, such as sports BLPs). Ie walled gardens of usage promoting inappropriate sources and content, usually because of a group of Wikiproject editors trying to completely control the related articles.
If you don't have a secondary source for information like exits or routes, then theyshouldn't be in the article. If your article is entirely about that topic and you don't have the secondary sources for it, thenthe subject is non-notable.SilverserenC23:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It is not true that there is a blanket prohibition on primary source usage. It is a question as to whether reading a map is analysis. Sometimes it is, but a simple interpretation of a line meaning that this is an exit or whatever is not, provided that it is the same reasonable interpretation that everyone would make.Andre🚐23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for claiming things I never said? I never said that primary sources are bad or that they are prohibited. I said maps are bad and OR. They are also primary, per the OP question, but that's not the issue here. The issue is, as you just said, you have to interpret the maps. You interpreting them is OR. Period. If you don't have a source that actually states the information in text, then you shouldn't be putting it in the article. You're not allowed to interpret any other images either. You can't make claims about an image that isn't stated in a source in text connected to said image (such as an image description). Maps are no different whatsoever.SilverserenC23:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point that we disagree on. Simply reading what a map says isn't necessarily analysis. And I believe the policy on image captions does say you can simply describe what is obviously depicted as long as you don't comment on the importance or meaning.Andre🚐00:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet most of these aren't "obviously depicted". The descriptions include details that aren't names on a map, but claims about the surroundings that aren't textually based. That's OR.SilverserenC02:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "straightforward"? You're not basing it off of any actual textual information, you're not summarizing anything. You're making an interpretation of what you consider a line on a map to be doing. You are making up wholesale things from the map and even its surroundings without the map even including explanatory text. For example,this terrible article that is a joke of a Good Article, which uses Google Maps to claim that it goes "through farmland". How do we know that that's farmland? Because it "looks like it", presumably.SilverserenC02:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no maps expert, but what else would that be other than farmland? I'm currently staring at open fields with 90° corners and nice, orderly manmade rows. It's a textbook farm, and you'd find similar ones in many places around the world.Ed[talk][OMT]04:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand why "well, I can see it with my eyes" isn't considered a verifiable, reliable statement on Wikipedia? That's precisely the sort of OR interpretation that new editors unfamiliar withWP:V are frequently called out on.SilverserenC05:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GIS experts actually use specific, defined terms for these kinds of geographical features that reflect their land use, land cover, federal/non-federal administration, soil quality, etc. Editors are not qualified to assess these things, so their categorization of something as "farmland" is wholly OR. I think @Horse Eye's Back has background in this area, he could probably explain better (if he gets unblocked).JoelleJay (talk)16:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly doubt HEB will get unblocked. I would like to point out that, at least as far as the F-41 article is concerned, other maps besides those made by MDOT and Google Maps are also cited. Did no one think to check those?Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)16:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're writing a geological history of an area, GIS definitions would be important. For the route of a road, we don't need to get that technical.Ed[talk][OMT]18:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to point out that definitions of features are not actually clearly defined in most cases, and vary from agency to agency. For example, there isn't really a good definition ofSea, the termcountry is ambiguous, the wordcontinent is essentially meaningless, there isn't a good definition that determines when ahill becomes amountain, and both terms have differing definitions depending on the source. Fundamentally, the English language is not precise and there is not a central agency that regulates these definitions.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)22:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that statements about the nature of terrain should not be cited to maps that do not have legends clarifying the type of terrain.Katzrockso (talk)04:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The level of obviousness is determined by editor consensus. I think many people would say that something like determining that Road X intersects with Road Y at point so and so signed as X is obvious. I think that whether a piece of land is farmland might also be sufficiently obvious. I suppose a case could be made that a property lot map should be consulted but being farmland doesn't necessarily mean it is an active farm. E.g. I might say that a road goes through farmland because I can see a big stretch of land with grain silos and a few barns and a bunch of fields as Ed says cut into perfect squares. A better sentence than farmland might be that it goes through a rural area. Do you think that you need a secondary source to say that a road intersects with another one or leads to a destination like a city in a certain compass direction?Andre🚐04:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I do think you need an actual textual statement for saying that something was built, created, or changed about a road and using two maps at different time points to make such a claim is wholly inappropriate. Unfortunately,this GA road does that repeatedly in its history section. I am also quite interested in how "completing the pavement surfacing of the road in 1945" can be sourced to a map. Is this literally trying to use a claim of "well, I see pavement" on the map?SilverserenC04:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can concede that it might be a "bridge too far." I can't think of how we would know that it was completed in that year unless I guess, that there is a 1944 map that shows it as a dirt road, but even then, it could have presumably been completed in 1944 and they just printed the map earlier in the year? Maybe you could do it if a map was printed on Dec 31, 1944 showing a dirt road and then the 1945 map has paved roads?Andre🚐05:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such "inferring something from comparing two time periods"WP:SYNTH issues are not a problem unique to maps, one could make the same error to use your example is if you had two textual descriptions of the highway road surfaces where one time period said it was gravel and the other said was paved.JumpytooTalk06:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it a SYNTH issue and not a map observation issue. It is reasonable to use map 1 for the road is dirt in 1944 and map B for it is paved in 1945 but the synth is the conclusion of when it was paved, not contained in either source. That could happen with textual sources the same way.Andre🚐06:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpytoo,AndreJustAndre, I also have concerns about the lineM-152 is not on the National Highway System, as it's basing it on a map of the NHS for the state. Are we allowed to use sources to claim something isn't true about a subject because of them not being included or mentioned in the source?SilverserenC18:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean maybe, but that's my answer to most questions surrounding this. Are the maps secondary? Maybe. Are they appropriate primary sources? Maybe. Does interpreting them like this constitute original research? Maybe. Are we seeing notability issues? Maybe. There's just too many maybes stacked together, and some of these articles are GA, too.JustARandomSquid (talk)18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, it's one of those cases where if this was in the infobox param (there is one for NHS details), it would unlikely to be challenged, but when in prose it could be.JumpytooTalk19:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing I was saying. Looking at a map to list highway exits can be ok. But writing a detailed history of a road starting from the 1930s by comparing old government maps you've found in an archive is OR or SYNTH — that's exactly what a historian should be doing and therefore exactly not what a Wikipedian should be doing.JustARandomSquid (talk)07:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the policy as anything that could go in anWP:ALTTEXT to be fair game. In this case you provided including the farmland part as part of the textual description could be OK, but it's also something I could see challenged with aWP:NOTBLUE rationale.JumpytooTalk05:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long-time road editor here who'd like to give his stance on this issue. First off, I would encourage anyone here who is not familiar with road articles to readUser:Rschen7754/FAQ to get a better idea of what the issue is. He explains it better than I can. When it comes to maps, I personally prefer, partly in the spirit of compromise, to use secondary sources such as road atlases or USGS maps, particularly the latter for terrain descriptions. However, state DOT maps differ very little, if any, from these sources. Claiming that DOT maps aren't reliable sounds almost conspiratorial, like the DOTs have some kind of agenda to propagate false information in their maps. As far as I know, no one has identified any systematic issues with state DOT maps that indicate that they are less likely to be reliable than other maps. Yes, I know we're supposed to prioritize secondary and tertiary sources, but often times in road articles, we don't have many of these. With regards to using maps as opening dates, I personally prefer sources that explicitly list dates, such as newspapers or DOT reports. This is what I've done with all my highway GAs and FA. In fact, I'm actually hesitant to attempt to bring an article to GA if I can't find a source of this type. I've also argued that some sources used in road articles, such as National Bridge Inventory, should not be considered reliable because I've actually documented instances where this source conflicts with newspaper articles and satellite imagery. However, maps are sometimes all we've got, particularly when it comes to secondary highways. If we have a highway where a 1944 map shows it to be dirt, and a 1945 map that shows it paved, I don't think it constitutes OR or SYNTH to say "The road was paved by 1945". I think whatwould constitute OR would be to say something likethe road was likely paved by 1944 orpaving work was underway in 1944, even though both of these are likely to be true. With regards to the blocked user, this is not a new issue. They were pulling the same arguments in the 2023 RfC, which ultimately led many road editors to quit the project. Their stance seems to be that we canneverconclude something beyond a reasonable doubt unless somethingexplicitly says so. That if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we can't conclude that it's a duck unless we can find a source that says "it's a duck". In my opinion, if your only goal is to try as hard as you can to tear down articles, thenyou're not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry if sound like a jerk, but it's really frustrating when users who've done next to nothing to try to build and expand articles come in and attack the longstanding sourcing practices that have worked very well for more than 20 years.Bneu2013 (talk)01:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a map and then writing down in a Wikipedia article what you see isWP:OR and editors shouldn't do this. A poignant example is seeing a 1944 map that shows a dirt road, then a 1945 map that shows a paved road, and writing that the road was paved by 1945. That's analyzing a source, it's OR. To answer the OP, a map, even a DOT map, can be primary or secondary depending on the particular map. If it's a survey (somebody goes out and looks/measures, then creates a map based on those observations, a.k.a.cartography), it's primary; if it's a historical map (e.g. a map that's based on other maps, like a map that shows changes to an area over time), it's secondary. Either way, editors should use text as sources for Wikipedia articles, not maps. If for no other reason, we need text sources to tell us what are significantWP:ASPECTs and what isWP:DUE for inclusion. The fundamental problem here, as elsewhere, is that some editors want Wikipedia to be a gazetteer or travel guide rather than an encyclopedia, i.e. that we should have articles about all roads and say everything about those roads, but there aren't text sources for that, so we must rely on maps. This is a mistake.Levivich (talk)19:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, if someone looks at a map from 1945 that shows a paved road, sayingit was paved by 1945 is not OR. The source, from '44, says it's paved. It necessarily had to be paved some time prior to that. Simply having an RS showing it was not paved in '44 doesn't change that. I mean, the 'acceptable' alternative to what you've described would beIt was a dirt road in 1944.['44 source] It was paved in 1945.['45 source]. That's literally conveying the exact same information, just withfar worse prose.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both are WP:OR, IMO, because it's analysis of a source. Even saying "Route 1 intersects Route 2 in Nowhereville" is analysis of a source. "Reading" a map meansanalyzing the map. The map could be wrong, but even if you assume for the sake of argument that the map is an RS and totally accurate, just because two road lines on a map intersect on the map, does not mean that the roads themselves intersect in real life. There could be a bridge or a tunnel. Some maps indicate bridges and tunnels with particular symbols -- reading and understanding what those symbols mean, is analysis of the map. Same with knowing what the difference is between a thin line and a thick line, a solid line and a dotted line, etc. etc. In order to properly "read" a map, one has to know how to read maps, how to understand their symbols. If a reliable source, like a scholar, reads a map and writes down what it says (Route 1 intersects Route 2, Route 1 is a dirt road, etc.), then we are relying on thescholar's ability to read maps, rather than relying on aneditor's ability to read maps. I don't trust that random people on the internet know how to read maps. I trust them to be literate if they can write, but I don't trust that editors know how to read maps. I trust that reliable sources like scholars and cartographers know how to read maps. Whether or not it's OR is very much a matter of opinion, though, it's about where we draw the line (see what I did there?).Levivich (talk)19:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Route 1 intersects Route 2 is not analysis. That is simple chart-reading. True, many people lackthe ability to adequately translate printed maps into actual physical directions that will get them to Albuquerque. But I would hazard that most Wikipedians can. Or at least there is a critical mass of Wikipedians who will, through our beloved project mechanisms, influence the group so that good map-readers carry the day as far as what makes it into articles. And to be clear there is a threshold level for obviousness, which you are drawing at 0 and saying "no reading is obvious." That's an opinion, but it's not a right one according to current consensus guideline view.Andre🚐00:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich,JoelleJay - So by that logic, why even have maps in the first place? I expect that if you're this skeptical about maps, you must never use them to navigate. You must think Google Maps and Apple Maps are some of the biggest wastes of bandwidth on the internet. Also, I'm certainly not the smartest person in this discussion, but I've been reading maps since I was a small child. I'd like to see all you map skeptics identify a systematic problem with map interpretations on Wikipedia.Bneu2013 (talk)02:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of that have to do with reliable sources on Wikipedia and what counts as original research? You literally just called them "map interpretations", so you acknowledge that using maps on Wikipedia involves analysis and interpretation. Ie, exactly whatoriginal research means. Hence why maps shouldn't be used on Wikipedia as references.SilverserenC03:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You "interpret" text too even if you don't analyze it. You are interpreting what I'm writing right now. You interpret every book or article you cite.Andre🚐03:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that, without analysis, you can't possibly summarize complex text. Consider the following source text:
"This study consisted of ABC tests done upon 501,032 subjects chosen at random from the population. ... The X gene was observed in 4,262 subjects of the study group. ... The presence of the X gene in combination with exposure to the Y environmental factor produced the Z effect in every case. No instances of the Z effect were observed in the subjects who lacked the X gene. Some subjects with the X gene and with no recorded exposure to the Y environmental factor also exhibited the Z effect. It is presumed that these individuals had undocumented exposure to Y based on the mechanism outlined by I. M. Scientist et. al. in their 2022 paper. The rate of occurrence of the Z effect in the study group matched the rate observed in the population as a whole."
One could summarize this (perhaps over succinctly) by stating the following:
"Up to 0.8-0.9% of the population exhibit the Z effect, which was shown to be caused by a combination of exposure to Y and the presence of the X gene in a study."
One needs to take different parts of the text, such as the study size, the number of study participants, the number in which the X gene was observed, whether the study was large enough to be a representational section, how subjects were recruited, whether or not the Z effect appeared in subjects without the X gene, and compare and contrast them with each other, doing math and just generally analyzing the text. And there's no OR there. The claimed rate is calculated (seeWP:CALC) from the provided numbers, and the source confirms that is the same rate as the population at large. The size of the study group and the source's statement about the rates lining up confirms that this is a large enough study to make statements about the population from. The source's uncertainty and presumptions are reflected in the calculated number...ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... so, even if a document is not a good source for a Wikipedia article, that document may still be useful in the real world. Like, for example, a map.Levivich (talk)03:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to ourimage use policy, images in general (including maps) are supposed to depict what's covered in the articles (and not the other way around), unless of course, the articles are about the images in question (such as notable paintings, maps, etc.).M.Bitton (talk)03:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you read a map to cite it in the article, that is not something that falls under the image use policy, as you are not necessarily using an image in the article.Andre🚐04:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the image use policy is that the image is supposed to depict what's in the article (as opposed to being used as a source to add content to the article).M.Bitton (talk)04:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article is what it says.M.Bitton (talk)04:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both are WP:OR, IMO, because it's analysis of a source. Even saying "Route 1 intersects Route 2 in Nowhereville" is analysis of a source. "Reading" a map means analyzing the map. I would counter that there's no philosophical qualitative difference between this degree of analysis, and that which is done for the purpose of summarizing some prose source. (A quantitative difference, sure.)
I think it's clear that our disagreement is theextent to which we interpret our sources. I don't think that (correctly) reading a man is OR, because of my background in creating maps. We use symbology in very specific ways to convey facts to the reader (and I think it's worth noting that the accepted term for interpreting a map is 'reading'). If one is competent in reading a map (similar to the way one might be competent in reading a biology article), one won't find anything unduly interpretative about it. In other words, I think two editors who can read maps would always agree on what a given map says (assuming the map is well-drawn, of course.)
The map could be wrong, but even if you assume for the sake of argument that the map is an RS and totally accurate, just because two road lines on a map intersect on the map, does not mean that the roads themselves intersect in real life. An accurate map would, in fact, make that clear. A map which does not make that clear would not be an RS, IMO. For example, road maps generally differentiate between limited-access right-of-ways and other public right-of-ways by either using a different linetype to outline them (when the scale is small enough that the width of the ROW is material), or using a different line style to indicate them (in larger scales). So if one were to see a surface street intersect one with no indication of on- or off-ramps, one could be certain that there is no intersection there, but an under- or over-pass.
If a reliable source, like a scholar, reads a map and writes down what it says (Route 1 intersects Route 2, Route 1 is a dirt road, etc.), then we are relying on the scholar's ability to read maps, rather than relying on an editor's ability to read maps. I agree that would be ideal, but I would stipulate that's the same thing as a secondary sourceto the map itself. The map may be a primary or secondary source for the statement, depending on the statement and type of map. An as-built map, for example, would be drawn based on collected survey data, and thus be a secondary source, with the survey data being the primary. I would also note that we currently rely on editor's ability to understand complex prose and jargon extensively, and few editors take issue with that. In addition, I don't believe it's very difficult to learn to read a map. They teach Marines to do it, after all. (Contrary to popular belief, they don't use crayon-drawn maps for Marines. It tends to make them hungry.)
I don't trust that random people on the internet know how to read maps. Nor do I, but Ido trust WP editors to be able to engage with the sources, unless and until they demonstrate an inability to do so. WP editing has a strong streak of self-selection which tends to weed out the incompetent (except for ideologues in popular topics, of course).
Whether or not it's OR is very much a matter of opinion, though, it's about where we draw the line (see what I did there?). I do, and I'm happy to coordinate with you on future puns. Assuming, of course, that we won't upset anyone by misjudging the lay of the land with our humor.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good but it's contra the current consensus from the 2023 RFC andWP:ORMEDIA. It's ok to have beliefs that are contra our current consensus and guidelines, because we don't do thoughtcrime, but it's worth acknowledging that if someone does go around with aWP:DEADHORSE opinion on something settled contra that (sorry, Horse Eye,.... it's an expression) it can be disruptive if they put that in action or keep bringing it up in discussions. Better to abide by the consensus and if you want to try to change it start a new equally well-attended RFC.Andre🚐22:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not so much reading maps — yes, anyone can read a map, if a book on a war has a map of a battle, you should be allowed to say where the troops were etc. The issue iswhich maps we're interpreting. These highway articles are synthesising complete histories of these roads from maps that are arguably not independent, contemporaneous, and contain no critical analysis whatsoever. This is an extremely primary source, and basing large passages of articles on them is not good. Or to quote the closer of the last RfC:
There was significant concern that this addition would promote WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE...
This is exactly what's happened.WP:UNDUE is a good point, too — some of these highways arguably aren't even notable, and yet here they are at GA status, quoting Google maps as sources and analysing maps from the 1930s.
With all due respect, most of these highway are notable, perWP:GEOROAD. If your complaint is that there are just so many crap road articles, well, there just simply aren't enough regular road editors here to expand or even patrol every single one.Bneu2013 (talk)11:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primary source. If no third party sources mention that the M-65 crosses a branch of the Lake State Railway," and it is sourced to a map, then it is too much information for the article for the typical reader. For readers who are driving along the highway and want to know each landmark they will pass, they are better off looking at a map themselves.TFD (talk)03:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "used in the movieSuper Troopers", you mean that part of the movie was filmed on Route 117 (as stated byIMDB), right? If so, I'm not sure how that affects Wikipedia, as the movie is not mentioned in the article about the road, nor is the road mentioned in the article about the movie. But I would agree that large portions of the articleNew York State Route 117 should be deleted, specifically theNew York State Route 117#Route description section which is literally an attempt to present a map in prose. There are eight consecutive paragraphs cited only to the samemap, with text such as "Just inside the village limits, NY 117 meets the north end ofNY 128 at Park Avenue. Past Park Avenue, NY 117 continues north through Mount Kisco, changing names to Main Street ahead of the village's central business district. Here, the route enters a junction with the western terminus ofNY 172 (South Bedford Road) at the main entrance to Northern Westchester Hospital. The commercial surroundings continue north for another eight blocks to Jeff Feigel Square, where NY 117 connects to the east end ofNY 133. Main Street turns northwest onto NY 133 while NY 117 splits to the northeast along Bedford Road." Most of the rest of the article content appears to be fine, but not the "Route description" section. --Metropolitan90(talk)02:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, about what IMDB says. The road was a filming location for the movie, a fact which currently is not in Wikipedia, but can be found in the article history. Much of the article was written in an earlier era of Wikipedia before the current sourcing requirements. Then someone went in and added a source to it. However, because there's really no reason to challenge the article as being inaccurate, I think deleting it would be destructive and counter to the goal of improving Wikipedia and informing readers. That is a violation of our job as editors, to doWP:BEFORE to find sources for challenged statements, toWP:PRESERVE, and not toWP:POINT.Andre🚐03:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY states that 'A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.' I fail to see how a map could meet this definition. As for the article in question this sentence 'The River Road National Scenic Byway starts on M-65 at Rollways Road, and the highway generally follows the river as it passes by a former logging community which is commemorated by Lumberman's Monument' appears to be sourced to a map, and although I cannot view the map I somewhat doubt a map would specify 'former logging community' and state that said community is commemorated by a monument, although the map could have little comments or something, at which point those comments are likely secondary.Traumnovelle (talk)
As-built plans are prepared from survey data, and do indeed involve thought and reflection on that primary data, and are one step removed from the site being surveyed (by the survey data itself). Most of the maps under discussion would be either as-built plans, or maps derived from as-built plans, which are removed by an extra step and subject to even more thought and reflection.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reason is currently listed as "generally reliable" on the list of perennial sources based on these three discussion:123 None of these is a closed RfC. In the second discussion, a majority of editors considered Reason to be generally reliable, but RfCs aren't decided by majority vote.
The list entry states that Reason is "generally reliable for news and facts" while also stating that the magazine "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". I don't think this is particularly helpful - how are we supposed to separate supposed news and facts from opinion in a magazine that doesn't primarily publish news articles? To name an example,here's the 2015 article that led me to check what the consensus about Reason. It makes statements like "But California, New York, and New Jerseyalways rank near the bottom of these lists as intrusive, red tape-bound hellholes". I suppose that's not a fact, but opinion.
It also states this: "Florida is the freest (or least unfree, depending on how you look at it) state in the United States? So says North Carolina's John Locke Foundation in itsFirst in Freedom Index, which drew data from a range of sources and found that the state where alligators help keep the yowling, roaming kitty population under control is also notable for officials who generally stay out of your way." Florida officials staying out of your way is again opinion, but the Index claiming this is probably a fact/news. The problem here is that once we have to start disseminating what subclause in a given piece is fact and which one is opinion, we doing original research.
This article is of course from 2015, so I checked out their three most recent article as of the making of this post:123 Samples from these articles, in order:
"But just because a policy is popular doesn't mean it's good. CAFE standards have long outlived whatever usefulness they might arguably have once had."
"On its face, the second strike was a war crime. "I can't imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water," former Air Force lawyer Michael Schmitt, a professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, told the Associated Press."
"She is the archetypal political figure utterly convinced she would be president of the U.S. if only the voters stopped listening to social media and instead received all their news and information from the traditional media's credentialed experts."
Should we state that CAFE standards are outdated or that the Trump government is committing war crimes based on these article? Probably not, though these could be included as opinions - but attributed opinions don't have to clear the same bar as facts anyway.
TLDR: Based on the three previous discussions, I question that there actually is consensus that Reason is generally reliable, especially considering that that claim is not based on a properly closed RfC. Even if there was, stating that a magazine that primarily publishes opinion pieces is "generally reliable for news and facts" strikes me as a pointless assessment if identifying said facts goes against Wikipedia policy because it would require discarding parts of an article as opinion while taking others as fact. Lastly, I don't see any situation where a piece of news warrants inclusion in an article while Reason is also the only source reporting on it, making it unlikely that "generally reliable for news" is ever going to be relevant.Cortador (talk)06:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding the issue here: do you take issue with the fact that they publish a number of opinion pieces that aren't explicitly labeled as such or that we might have to determine whether a statement within an article is a fact or an opinion?Katzrockso (talk)08:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that describing an outlet that publishes opinion pieces as "generally reliable for news and facts" is a useless way of describing a source, and I want to hear what other editors have the say regarding Reason.Cortador (talk)10:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RSP doesn't require a RFC for inclusion, seeWP:RSPCRITERIA, if you believe something on the RSP isn't summarised correctly you needWT:RSP. As to reliability the first, and most important, step in judging the reliability of a source is an editors own good judgement. Determining if something is opinion or a statement of fact is part of that, and certainly not OR. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dissecting a given source and diving it into fact an opinion only works if the source already has bounds e.g. if the issue of a newspaper has a labelled opinion column and also news articles that are not opinion pieces. Diving informationwithin a piece is OR, because it means coming to a different conclusion that the source did. If that wasn't the case, we would never label any source as unreliable, because there is probably always something in every source that is factual.Cortador (talk)10:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to separate fact from opinion for basic comprehension. You can comprehend a text without ever knowing whether any of it is factual.Cortador (talk)22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in Wikipedia's policies that says that a clear consensus doesn't count unless it is in the form of a "closed RfC". In fact, it is only one of ten ways of arriving at a consensus listed atWikipedia:Consensus, and isn't even the main method that we use. Also,Wikipedia:Requests for comment says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." (Empasis in original). The consensus was clear the last time we discussed this.WP:REASONMAGAZINE clearly reflects that consensus. It is OK to ask to revisit an existing consensus (I sometimes do that myself) but starting out with the argument that the existing consensus somehow doesn't exist when it clearly does is a nonstarter. --Guy Macon (talk)12:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was anything but clear.During the last discussion, two editors supported deprecation, three called it generally reliable, and three stated that additional considerations apply. That's not even a majority supporting general reliability. I don't know how you can arrive at the conclusion that the "consensus was clear".Cortador (talk)14:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one voter for deprecation was cbanned by wikipedia community, not meaning to discard that vote, but i weigh it less.i am curious about why we are saying its generally reliable, when it seems many are calling it an opinion piece that has additional considerations for dueness concerns.edit: turns out the summary describes it really well There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.i see nothing wrong based on that discussion. if we need to reweigh new evidence, please present.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are counting Spudlace, who did not !vote but commented "It's generally comparable to other sources that we use (with attribution). I wouldn't mind deprecation but I just don't see it happening." Not sure how to interpret that, which is why we only count actual !votes. --Guy Macon (talk)17:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. So that discussion actually had one CBANned editor in favor of deprecation, three in favor of general reliability and four stating 'other considerations', while providing a range of interpretations, several of which would be applied to a GREL source.
I'm no longer the biggest fan ofReason (it's been too hard libertarian for me, including many of the things libertarianism is often rightfully mocked for), but I'm not seeing any real argument for it being anything but a generally reliable source.
By my count (please double check at[31]) the !votes on the question I asked were:
Generally reliable for facts
Generally reliable (blocked user)
Generally unreliable for facts, opinions are likely to be WP:UNDUE
Generally not reliable
Generally reliable
Generally reliable
Generally reliable for facts
Apply extreme caution
Generally reliable
General unreliable
Generally reliable
Generally reliable
Generally reliable based on the evidence given above
Generally reliable but rather opinionated
Use with caution and may require attribution
That's 10 generally reliable, 3 generally unreliable, 2 use caution. Subtract one GR if you don't want to count the banned user, Add one GR if you want to count me (I didn't vote on my own question but of course I agree with the words I myself wrote).
The exact question I asked was was:
"There have been some recent discussions about whether Reason Magazine is a generally reliable for news, facts, and as an attributed source about itself for commentary, analysis, and opinions. I would like to float the following to see if there is consensus for it. Suggestions for wording changes are invited.
Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are generally reliable for news and facts. Reason has a self-described libertarian bias and much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves.
Is the above an accurate description?"
Interesting that zero respondents answered the actual "Is the above an accurate description?" question...
That is not the last discussion, which is what you originally referred to. Even then, if nobody confirmed that they agree with the statement (i.e. "reliable for news, facts"), that should not be in the summary then.Cortador (talk)17:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. If you want to add the two people who commented at[32] add one more for generally reliable and one for deprecation from a since-banned user (See[33].) --Guy Macon (talk)17:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here a great example of Reason doing good journalism (copied from an earlier discussion):
And yes, they also publish a boatload of opinion which we should never cite as fact.
Compare the following claims in various sources:
"The United States goes through over 500 million plastic straws every day, according to Eco-Cycle, a United States-based nonprofit recycling organization." SourceThe New York Times
"In the United States alone, 500 million plastic straws are used each day, according to campaigners." --Reuters
"We use 500 million plastic straws every day in the U.S. alone" --Time
"With Americans using 500 million straws a day, the National Geographic calls them 'one of the most insidious polluters' because of the harm they cause to sea life." --The Guardian
"Millions of straws are used once and then discarded in the United States each day, with some operations like the National Park Service saying some 500 million straws are discarded a day." --San Fransisco Chronicle
"Every day Americans use — and almost immediately discard — up to half a billion plastic beverage straws. At least, that’s the figure widely used by environmental activists to explain why people should embrace going straw-less. It’s not clear where that number came from, but it seems credible..." --Los Angeles Times
"Approximately 300-500 million plastic straws are used in the United States each day. " --Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (and they passed a law based on that number...)
"Every day, Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws" --CNN
"Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws every year, according to the National Park Service." --ABC News Los Angeles
"It is estimated that Americans use 500 million straws per day" --USA Today
"It is estimated that Americans use, and then dispose of, 500 million straws every day." --The Washington Post
"The National Park Service estimates 500 million straws are used by Americans each day." --Fox News
Now let's look at whatReason said about it:
"News outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San Francisco Chronicle—unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them ending up in waterways and oceans. The 500 million figure is often attributed to the National Park Service; it in turn got it from the recycling company Eco-Cycle. Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old. Eco-Cycle skews a bit more radical, with their "Be Straw Free" campaign --sponsored in part by reusable straw makers -- that urges the adoption of glass or steel straws. Because we all know how good steel smelting is for the environment."[34]
"The original bad-straw-stat sin was the claim that Americans use 500 million straws a day, a number that popped up in just about every news article, blog post, or government press release on the topic before Reason revealed that its source was a small phone survey by a nine-year-old... the kid who gave us that 500-million-straws-a-day figure told USA Today, 'Why I use this statistic is because it illustrates that we use too many straws. I think if it were another number, it still illustrates the fact that there is room for reduction. That's really my message.' "[35]
"The bigger issue is that claim that Americans consume 500 million straws a day. This stat, we know now, was produced by a 9-year-old boy; more reliable estimates put straw consumption at 175 million per day."[36]
Other news outlets have talked about the bogus 500 million figure, but only afterReason broke the story.
The National Park Service and Eco-Cycle both took down the pages after everyone started making fun of them, but at the time NPS clearly said that they got the number from Eco-Cycle, and Eco-Cycle linked to the 9-year-old's research. The news outlets simply didn't bother checking, and either gave the number as if it was an established fact or attributed the number to the Park service / Eco-Cycle as if those organizations came up with the number instead of getting them from the 9-year-old. Also, onlyReason tumbled on to the fact that Milo's Be Straw Free Campaign is sponsored by reusable straw makers.
The good news is that Wikipedia gets it right.[37][38]
One case doesn't prove anything - you can probably find a fatally accurate article in basically any source if you look hard enough.Cortador (talk)07:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear that this was one example. The fact remains that we have had multiple discussions on this and the latest count was 11 for generally reliable on factual claims, 3 for generally unreliable on factual claims, 2 for use caution, 1 for completely banning from Wikipedia. The consensus appears to be unanimous when it comes to opinions and editorials: Extremely biased towards Libertarianism and proud of it. I haven't seen any groundswell of changed opinions on either of those in this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk)12:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I would like to float the following to see if there is consensus for it. Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are generally reliable for news and facts. Reason has a self-described libertarian bias and much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves."
You can count the responses yourself at[39] and at[40] (which you yourself asked to be included in the total). Every editor who responded "Generally reliable" or "Generally unreliable" to the RfC did so as an answer to my question, which was worded"generally reliable for news and facts".
If you wish to continue making this claim, I suggest that you try to find a single person who responded to the RfC with "generally reliable" who meant something other than "generally reliable for news and facts". The consensus is clear. Generally reliable for news and facts. Extreme political bias. Statements of opinion must be attributed. Statements of opinion are only reliable sources on themselves. Your arguments for any other RfC conclusion are unsupported by the evidence. I am going to stop engaging with you on this now. This is going nowhere. --Guy Macon (talk)04:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of how generally reliable sources can get something wrong and still be called generally reliable. Reason did a great job in this investigation.
I was wondering whether the magazine tablet is reliable. I couldn't find anything discussing that in the list of perennial sources or the archives, though I could have missed something. I would guess it should generally be avoided when possible, it doesn't seem especially high quality. It was used in a source on the page One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, citing a book review written in Tablet. And there someone put the unreliable source? tag. So I was wondering if it could be used as a source for its own reviews. Sorry if I shouldn't have put this here!Ezra Fox🦊 •(talk)09:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now managed to find Tablet mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431. With the heading "Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician". It appears to mostly talk about the study in question, with limited mentions of Tablet's general reliability, but I thought I'd mention it. There's probably other mentions too but it's a slog to find them.Ezra Fox🦊 •(talk)09:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular book review is kinda amusing because the book never pretends to be objective or unbiased, and it blames the west more than Israel. One wonders if the review's author also believes that pro-Israel polemics shouldn't be published. I don't think tablet is a great source but for book reviews it may be usable. (t ·c)buIdhe15:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it just blatantly denies Israeli war crimes "Too bad it didn’t happen", engages in whataboutism, and then goes onto start equating antizionism with antisemitism[41]. For this reason, I'd say its not even reliable for book reviews since its (1) not reliable and (2) not a major source of information to the point that people will be like "hmm, i wonder what tablet says about this". Otherwise, it publishes[42],[43], things that are very likely sponsored without stating so. It is definitely not reliable for the Arab-Israeli conflict because its publications on those matters seem to just be OPEDS. I think all of its publications are OPEDS[44],[45],[46]. Its publications on sports don't seem to be anything groundbreaking that wouldn't be found in other, more reliable, sources[47],[48]. Its historical publications should be avoided on the basis of it engaging ingreat man theory and its historical publications not being from historians. For example, this article:[49], is written by Dan Zamansky who runs asubstack and is an "independent historian"? where he got his degree and where he works for is not mentioned.User:Easternsaharareview this22:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that piece is sponsored (the New York Times runs the exact same kind of piece, all the time??[50]) it reads like a completely normal Best Of list, running op-eds is not a strike against reliability especially for book reviews, which will all be mostly opinion regardless of who publishes them, if a review did not mix fact and opinion it would not be a review. It not being "major" you provide no evidence for and has no impact on reliability. The historian was educated at Oxford and King's College London[51], and I don't see how "engaging in great man theory" (if it does so) is automatically a strike against it. Don't really see a problem here, I think Tablet is alright, if biased. At worst you could restrict it from I/P, which I have no strong feelings on doing.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I agree basically their entire output is opinion, making this not a great source that I personally would avoid using. (t ·c)buIdhe16:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis we wouldn’t use any periodical focused on book reviews (which are opinions) in the Reception sections of articles on books, but only reviews in newspapers? That doesn’t seem right.BobFromBrockley (talk)03:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does “great man theory” equate to unreliability? Most of its history content[52] is obviously written by legitimate experts on the historical periods they’re writing on.BobFromBrockley (talk)03:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having been a subject of the conspiracy theory published by Tablet, in which they make the absurd claim that I'm part of a "Gang of 40", I'd say that their fact checking and accuracy is shithouse.TarnishedPathtalk02:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same article that Rindsberg has had published in about a dozen different outlets, searching for his articles in Tablet will bring it up. I've removed the initial hyperlink I gave, as it does try to out various editors. --Cdjp1 (talk)14:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses the term "coordinated" twice. In places it talks about group strategy, group tactic, wider efforts and labels us as a "ideological faction". In one place it states that I stepped into place on behalf of another editor. The implications are clear and the falsehoods deliberate.TarnishedPathtalk08:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"politically aligned editors"...is a pretty lossy compression, speaking as one of the gang of 40 entertainingly defamed by the cloud of fools that surround the topic area in the media and social media. It's true that "No claim was made there that TarnishedPath or any other editor was a part of some formal organization", although there was a nod towards Tech for Palestine. Unverified extraordinary claims were for things like being pro-Hamas, coordination, distribution of propaganda, the kind of devices someone might use if their objective was to target people with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, manipulate them into viewing Wikipedia as a battleground where the ends justify the means, profit from the attention economy while distracting people from the brutal reality of Gaza etc. It's a novel approach to responsible reporting. The campaign has been quite effective, I think. Now, it is much easier for partisan editors to justify all sorts of rule breaking behavior in the topic area and weaponize all sorts of systems for the greater good. I have toyed with the idea of randomly referring to editors who identify as pro-Israel as 'pro-genocide' in talk page discussions as a kind of tribute to Rindsberg's reporting style. But alas, satire is not a defense in Wikipedia.Sean.hoyland (talk)08:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think book reviews (especially in the Reception section of an article about a book) are judged by reliability, unless we’re using them as a source for facts (eg about the author); they’re judged by noteworthiness. Is there a reason, for example, to exclude this (negative) review on the basis of unreliability but include the preceding (positive) one byBrian Tanguay in theCalifornia Review of Books?BobFromBrockley (talk)03:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think it's probably both, but I agree noteworthiness is probably more important when it comes to book reviews. Especially when it comes to nonfiction books about hot button topics I would think reliability matters some though. In general I would want to know how influential this review is, compared to thatCalifornia review of books one. Like how many people will choose whether or not to read the book based on it. I am curious if there's any more general Wikipedia policy on thisEzra Fox🦊 •(talk)03:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mikics' review goes beyond analysis and opinion, and makes statements of fact. Per the part of the RS guideline you refer to "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact".TarnishedPathtalk10:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the reliability of Tablet because it contradicts some users' Antizionist views andthey just don't like it would play into a larger pattern of quietly and systemically delegitimizing independent Jewish news sources without explicitly saying so or providing adequate reason why.Scharb (talk)11:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement "Reducing the reliability of Tablet" makes the assumption that they were ever considered to be generally reliable by the community. Given the very limited previous discussion, your assumption is extremely misplaced.TarnishedPathtalk12:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tablet is not a fringe site or random magazine. It has a recognized history and editorial mission that just like any outlet produces a mixture of reporting and opinion pieces. However The above article may be a book review but it is written by a reputable academic (David Mikics) of English literature at a college in the United States. In addition the other article mentioned in this thread "Wiki Wars" is also not an opinion piece but a well researched investigative report. The journalist--Ashley Rindsberg is reporting on affairs directly related to Wikipedia and events on this platform, he even cites specific policy likeWP:BLUDGEON. The reference to the Gang of 40 is in regards to a real reported on story that has garnered significant coverage through the observation and analysis of RfC conversations that transpired on this platform. The issue in question with Tablet appears to me to be a personal dispute over facts regarding Rindsberg's reporting (per some on the thread) rather than being an issue about reliability.
In addition,Tablet has a well defined hierarchical system of editors like "editor in chief," "deputy editor," "managing editor" and so on. It also has contingency measures in place such as a "corrections policy" making it that much more reliable.Agnieszka653 (talk)20:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in question with Tablet appears to me to be a personal dispute over facts regarding Rindsberg's reporting (per some on the thread) rather than being an issue about reliability.
Rindsberg's piece pushes conspiracy theories and deliberate falsehoods. This speaks directly against Tablet having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, a key criterion of reliablity.TarnishedPathtalk23:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An ecp editor probs shouldnt have started this. in general the eic has good journal chops, there is a correction policy. Questions of bias always matter especially for a magazine with a clear political bias, but i see nothing wrong with using with attribution. Would need to see a clear place where theyve got it horridly wrong. as per TarnishedPath's criticism and the gang of 40 stuff, im sorry but everyone gets wikipedia horrendously wrong on all sides of any conflict. Agree rindsburg is single issue writer whose wikipedia criticism is crap polemic. There might be a case that additional considerations might apply for israel palestine but not sure tbh.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<- A non-extendedconfirmed account asks about the reliability of a source that reviewed 'One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This', a book whose title "is from a viral tweet that El Akkad sent in October 2023 referring to the Gaza genocide". hmm. GivenWP:ARBECR, I don't think it is meant to work like this. The editor should probably not be editing the article or asking about the reliability of the source. And the article should probably be templated to tell people that it is covered by ECR.Sean.hoyland (talk)03:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but Ezra Fox should step away as non-EC accounts are limited to making edit requests for ARBPIA related things, which rules out participation in consensus forming discussions like this.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lol that is harsh. You're correct thinking back on it that article probably is "related to the topic area" of Israel Gaza and as such I shouldn't have edited that article. I don't think asking about the broader reliability of Tablet, or the reliability of Tablet in relation to book reviews, does violate that policy however. That seems like rather a stretch. I do think that I broadly like Wikipedia, and editors are knowledgeable and happy to help newbies, but y'all are also very eager to sideline and demean newbies at a moment notice, and I just wish you'd be a little more compassionate. I don't mean to target you in particular, I mean this as a more general pattern.Ezra Fox🦊 •(talk)05:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apologies if it seemed harsh. It's nothing personal. Some people ask themselves what Jesus would do. I ask myself what a rules-based ethical psychopath devoid of compassion would do. The extended confirmed restrictions are there for many reasons. Whether they make things better or worse in the topic area overall is debatable. But it doesn't take very long for people to become extended confirmed if they want to contribute stuff here and there. So, I hope you continue to contribute and aren't put off.Sean.hoyland (talk)09:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the article (in a progressive outlet),AJS members interpreted the incident as a sign of shifting political norms within the association and throughout academia....Rather, it shows that the critique of Tablet, which was once viewed as coming from the left, is now mainstream even among liberals, who comprise more of AJS’s base...AJS’s decision to distance itself from Tablet comes at a time when the association’s political identity is up for debate.. The article says that its critics took issue with some of Tablet's editorial decisions, not its journalism.Longhornsg (talk)02:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where? The author inJewish Currents (a progressive outlet) takes issue with the framing of Bilek's piece (and disagrees with Bilek's politics), which one activist professor takes as "part of a broader campaign of stoking fear and violence." Nothing about Tablet publishing blatant falsehoods. Political disagreements.Longhornsg (talk)04:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki Wars artikcle states that I and other editors coordinated. That is statement of fact, which is lacking support. That's a deliberate falsehood. There is no political disagreement. This speaks directly to them not reporting accurately of engaging in fact-checking.TarnishedPathtalk04:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, theCurrents article does not mention this at all, which is what I was asking about. You've now brought up the same article and made the same argument as response to other editors 9 times on this page. This is textbookWP:BLUDGEONING. I'll be stepping away from this conversation to allow the voices of other editors to be heard, and I suggest you do as well.Longhornsg (talk)05:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Currents also gets money from a person linked to the Iranian regime--see here [[53]] and here is the libel case NIAC lost because it does in fact get money from Tehran: [[54]] Also Jennifer Bilek (the writer in question) actively denies Hamas atrocities on October 7th [[55]]Agnieszka653 (talk)05:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An essay by a person who chooses to cite the Daily Mail as a source of facts is not something I would consider to be reliable for anything beyond the author's beliefs. Additionally, you may have linked the wrong article, as it says nothing about Bilek denying anything related to 7 October. --Cdjp1 (talk)15:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is not accurate.
Extended content
the first article you linked does not say Najafi is "linked to the iranian regime".as i mentioned previously, his foundation also donates money to Johns Hopkins, the American Diabetes Association, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Atlantic Council; i assume you don't think we should disregard material published by all of these sources as well. actually, the article says NIAC lost the libel case because it "failed to show evidence of actual malice". additionally, the judge "made clear in his ruling that he wasn't taking a stand on whether the claims the author made about NIAC and Parsi were true."
First, your framing of this as "Political disagreements" from "a progressive outlet" from "one activist professor" is an unnecessarily pointed dismissal of the article based on no policy & is an active hinderance to this discussion.
The article they are referring to as promoting conspiracy theories includes statements like:
"With the introduction of SSI, the current incarnation of the LGBTQ+ network... is working closely with the techno-medical complex, big banks, international law firms, pharma giants, and corporate power to solidify the idea that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species—which contradicts reality and the fundamental premises not only of “traditional” religions but of the gay and lesbian civil rights movements and much of the feminist movement, for which sexual dimorphism and resulting gender differences are foundational premises."
&"While many Americans are still trying to understand why women are being erased in language and law, and why children are being taught they can choose their sex, the Pritzker cousins and others may be well on their way to engineering a new way to be human. But what could possibly explain the abrupt drive of wealthy elites to deconstruct who and what we are and to manipulate children’s sex characteristics in clinics now spanning the globe while claiming new rights for those being deconstructed?"
To argue that these statements aren't conspiratorial in nature & to dismiss them as simply "political disagreements" seems at the least, a confounding position, or at worst, disingenuous(As such, I'll simply assume that I don't understand your position).Butterscotch Beluga (talk)22:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think the article mostly shows some possibly extreme partisan bias. that doesn't disallow usage, but it does bring questions of dueness. covid-19 and intersection with medical info seems possibly suspect, and wouldn't be allowed per MEDRSUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t we just discuss Jewish Currents here? I thought we did, but can’t find it in the archive. Exactly like the Tablet, it’s an opinion magazine. It’s useful for opinions of left-wing Jews, much as the Tablet is for opinions of centrist and conservative Jews. Using one to trump the other makes no sense.BobFromBrockley (talk)21:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, I agree that publishing Bilek’s dangerous and bigoted conspiracy theories is a big stain on the magazine’s reputation. Not enough by itself to make it GUNREL but enough to give us pauseBobFromBrockley (talk)21:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, objections boil down to "some of their op-ed writers say wild stuff" or "I disagree with the outlet's politics." That'sWP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plenty of op-ed writers at our gold standard RSes publishoutlandishdrivel too. Being right-wing is not what decides reliability, just asAl Jazeera's anti-Zionism-infused editorial line orThe Nations left-wing politics do not affect their reliability. PerWP:RSBIASED,reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. AndWP:GREL means "generally reliable", not "perfect 100% of the time."
Tablet has aneditorial masthead with professional journalists (who, of course, have editorial biases), apublic corrections policy similar to theNew York Times, and an actual record of fixing mistakes. This is what we expect from a reliable source. It's done real journalism and is routinely cited by other reliable sources.
The criticism from malcontents at AJS was over its editorial line, not the factual nature of its content. SoWP:BIASED andWP:RSOPED apply, and we should always consider edge cases. But I'm not seeing solid evidence, e.g., from other reliable sources, that the news reporting has major accuracy problems. I see a lot of throwing spaghetti at the wall and political disagreements. This is the same standard we apply to sources across the political spectrum, be it Tablet, The Nation, or Al Jazeera.Longhornsg (talk)02:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly don't adhere to their corrections policy given that the deliberate falsehoods and conspiracy theories they have published about myself and other Wikipedia editors remain uncorrected.TarnishedPathtalk02:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is able to check my contribution history on this platform, run interaction tools, etc and find that Tablet's claims are unsupported. I.e., deliberate falsehoods and conspiracy theories.TarnishedPathtalk03:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that Wikipedia editors often collaborate with one another, and that two or more editors may have interests that are aligned is not a "conspiracy theory".Jweiss11 (talk)04:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above where I refer to them using the word "coordinated" and other wording along those lines. That is very different to stating that editors have collaborated and is a clear conspiracy theory.TarnishedPathtalk05:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that none of the editors in question have ever coordinated with each other? How do you distinguish between coordination and collaboration in this context? --Metropolitan90(talk)15:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that Tablet has made allegations of coordination, including against myself, and has failed to provide support for those allegations. I.e., they are pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories.TarnishedPathtalk22:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How reliable does a source have to be to be cited for an opinion from a book review, in the "Reception" section of a Wikipedia article about a book? The "Reception" section in such articles is aboutopinions that have been expressed about the book. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English professorDavid Mikics, writing inTablet, said that "[i]n a better world ... [b]ooks like El Akkad's ... would have been vetoed by major publishers for deliberate inaccuracies, and for completely lacking sources. ... El Akkad’s 185-page book, which blames Israel on every page, contains exactly one sentencecriticizing Hamas ...."[1]
It makes the statements of fact that the book:
contains deliberate inaccuricies,
is lacking in sources,
blames Israel on every page, and that it
contains exactly one sentence criticizing Hamas.
Compare that against what is in the article concerning Tanguay's review where there are no explicit statements of fact:
"Brian Tanguay in theCalifornia Review of Books calls it a "brave book" and a "scathing polemic exposing the moral shortcomings of the Western world order". He compares the book toJames Baldwin'sFire Next Time. Unlike El Akkad, Tanguay is skeptical that people would act when confronted with grave injustices.[2]Fintan O'Toole in theNew York Times Book Review called it "a distraught but eloquent cry against our tolerance for other people's calamities".[3]TarnishedPathtalk04:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm asking is what quotes from the Mikics reviewshould be used as statements of opinion without explicit statements of fact, not why the particular quote previously used should not be used. As an aside, the wikilink in the second sentence from that quote (in which "criticizing Hamas" was wikilinked to "Do you condemn Hamas?") was a link added byUser:Easternsahara inthis edit in which he also tagged the quote with[unreliable source?]. PerMOS:NOLINKQUOTE, that wikilink should not have been added. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metro, I ended up at the article as a consequence of this discussion. I'm not going to say what I would put there from Mikics as I really have no interest in reading the slop that constitutes Tablet after my experience of them lying about me and others. My position was that what was there shouldn't have been there, thatWP:RSEDITORIAL didn't allow its inclusion as "a RS on the opinion of the book reviewer" as was claimed by an editor above.
A quick perusal of the book shows that at least some of these claims are provably false. Israel isn't mentioned, let alone blamed, on "every page". Also, by my count there are at least four pages, probably more, that contain criticism of Hamas. (t ·c)buIdhe17:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point that the review shouldn’t be used for facts about the contents of the book. But (a) the review may still be due, and (b) probably most book reviews in opinionated outlets (Jewish Currents, Nation, Spectator, Jacobin, etc) would be similarly poor for facts.BobFromBrockley (talk)22:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I see the focus on Tablet having paroxysmal run-ins with Wikipedia editors, I'd like to focus on actually encountered Tablet "in the field" so to speak. Tablet magazine traffics in disinformation of theanti-Palestinian racist variety. This manifests in an explicitlyHerzogian conflation of Hamas with Palestinian anti-Zionism[4] and a "extremely regular increase in casualties over the period" mischaracterization used in a maximalist genocide denial attempt, precludedon Wikipedia via the Lancet:[5]
In the aforementioned study from The Lancet, the authors write, “The escalation of Israeli military ground operations and attacks on health-care facilities severely disrupted the latter’s ability to record deaths electronically. These challenges compelled the [Ministry of Health] to rely on less structured data collection modalities, particularly when hospitals were under siege or experiencing telecommunication blockades. This might have led to incomplete and geographically biased reporting, as seen in other conflict zones where prolonged warfare complicates casualty tracking.” These unambiguously fall intoGenocide Watch's tactics 1 and 4 ofThe Twelve Tactics of Israel’s Denial.[6] However, this article must be caveated that it is incredibly tone-deaf and feckless, while on one hand listing that one side has aplaybookfor genocide denial, and in the lede allowing forsubstantive equality by mischaracterizing ethnoreligious-nationalism and external-to-Palestine issues based mass-immigrationZionist aliyah as seemingly coopted byZionist paramilitaries or Israeli military forces in theNakbah, because perpetrators themselves seemingly must be somehow immune fromcycles of violence as long asthe scenario of the Holocaust is applied, while dismissing the substantive equality represented bycaptive negotiations, allowing for the defeat of Gaza's government, that has since embraced the dissolution of Israel, through destruction, but not the same for Israel. Instead, in this latest chapter of the conflict, a feckless call for across-the-boardprocedural equality is made, which assumes non-existent political and military capital to not only make a ceasefire (however illusory) without such negotiations, but to somehow right all the "incidental to Israel" wrongs. However, this can be remedied (albeit that Israel is listed as a worse criminal)as per:
Sociologist Rachel Busbridge argues that settler colonialism is "a coherent and legible frame" and "a far more accurate portrayal of the conflict than the picture of Palestinian criminality and Israeli victimhood that has conventionally been painted". She also argues that settler colonial analysis is limited, especially when it comes to the question of decolonization.
from what i've seen of the tablet, it's not a great source for Israel/Palestine and should be treated with caution, especially when it contradicts better sources. for example:
[56] this article dismisses allegations of sexual abuse of palestinian prisoners at Sde Teiman as "inversion". it also says that the leaked Sde Teiman video was "doctored" and does not depict sexual abuse. compare withTimes of Israel andBBC News who say that the video "allegedly" shows sexual abuse andNBC which notes claims the video was doctored are unproven
[57][58] these articles condone the pallywood conspiracy theory. first article includes claims about Saleh al-Jafarawi that are false according to sources likePBS andFrance24
[59][60][61][62][63][64] multiple articles between October 2023- April 2024 stating that babies were beheaded in the Oct 7 attacks. contrast this withTimes of Israel which has retracted the claim orNBC andReuters which reported that the claim was unverified in October 2023.
Generally reliable Last year, Tablet Magazine was brought to the Reliable sources Noticeboard and wasdiscussed. I did not see a link to this above.
Looking at itsWikipedia page, I can see it has a known-history, that it is independent, that it has a listed editorial staff, that it has no record of fabrications, and that it has won numerous awards. It also has a MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY.Guz13 (talk)21:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "OpenSecrets" / the Center for Responsive Politics reliable?
If it's used on over 1600 pages and there's no complaints about it since 2014,prima facie the problem isn't with the reliability of the source, but rather with veracity of the editor's claim that everything published with editorial oversight is "political propaganda". Fromhttps://www.opensecrets.org/about/editorial_policies:
"As an organization dedicated to promoting government transparency and accountability, OpenSecrets is itself committed to being transparent about our financial support. We maintain a "firewall" between our editorial practices and our funding. Our reporting is not influenced by any funder, partner or affiliated organization. Our news judgments are made exclusively in the interest of the public we serve.
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions."
It'sWP:GREL for both its database information and for its original reportage. It's an advocacy organization (albiet ostensibly nonpartisan), but one that produces solid, fact-based research and hires professional journalists on its staff. It's also frequently used by other reliable sources, which is a good sign. However, we should be sure to take note whether the source is OpenSecrets or a source is citing OpenSecrets data and proceed accordingly.[65][66][67][68]Longhornsg (talk)03:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it to be quite reliable as it is documenting who and what are donating to political campaigns and appears to be bipartisan. I hope it can continue to be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source since it's database focusing on political campaign contributions.Agnieszka653 (talk)20:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue above is misstated. OpenSecrets maintains a respected database that compiles Federal Election Commission reports. The dispute is over a section of their website calledOpenSecrets Original Reporting or OpenSecrets News[7], a series of bylined opinion articles that attack organizations and industries all across the political spectrum. Here are some recent headlines:
Trump moves against direct-to-consumer drug ads despite massive lobbying by pharmaceutical industry
Congressional profile: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Blitzing Washington: How the NFL and team owners spend millions to influence government
When OpenSecrets asserts that there is a firewall between their opinion pieces and donors, they are implying that the articles are not controlled by their governing board. Thus, these are not the opinions of OpenSecrets.
The Wikipedia article linked above had four quotes attributed to "OpenSecrets", but the references were to bylined articles inOpenSecrets Original Reporting. All had the same byline, to a self-described investigative journalist with no qualifications in journalism. For one of her pieces, from 2019[8], a search of Newspapers.com did not find a real newspaper that republished it.
I would suggest that OpenSecrets data and statistical compilations are WP:RS, but pieces on OpenSecrets Original Reporting should be identified as such and treated as blogs.Julian in LA (talk)04:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors above point out thatOpenSecrets publishes databases and news/analysis/reporting. Seeing that, I hope editors will offer an opinion on each (if you haven't already).
I think the databases are reliable, as for the most part they are compilations of campaign donations and the groups and individuals that publicly gave money to these politicians and so on. The reports generated from these databases are quite neutral in tone and generally contains only necessary information with no visible spin or superfluity. I would trust the database to look up political donations for either American political party for instance and not be concerned about ideological biases.Agnieszka653 (talk)02:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the news/analysis/reporting on OpenSecrets reliable?
The news/analysis/reporting isWP:GREL. At a glance, 30-40% of theover 1600 articles on Wikipedia that use OpenSecrets as a source link to OpenSecrets news/analysis pieces. I took a look in mainstream political media to see if they use OpenSecrets reporting/analysis as a source and quickly saw several examples where they do. So I think that OpenSecrets passes the test of multiple serious-minded people, both within Wikipedia and at the New York Times, etc., thinking that it's reliable.Novellasyes (talk)21:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
900 incorrect references are still 900 incorrect references, but I don't think they are the same as the ones in Arabella Advisors. Typical is the article onJeffrey Epstein, where Note 342 supports the quote:
From 1989 until 2003, Epstein donated more than $139,000 to US Democratic Party federal candidates and committees and over $18,000 to Republican Party candidates and groups.
It does not pick up any of the suggestive and opinionated language in its source. The opinion language in the paragraph is sourced to New York Magazine and Rolling Stone.
I know a lot of journalists in the mainstream media rely on their reports for investigative work including the New York Times and Washington Post, so I would consider them reliable.Agnieszka653 (talk)02:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News/analysis/reportingWP:GREL. Its editorial policies are [[69]] which include: "We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News: Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions." In regard toJulian in LA's comment, 3 of the 4 articles on the Arabella page have 2 authors; theone with a single author identifies her as Anna Massoglia who is the "OpenSecrets' Editorial and Investigations Manager. She is also responsible for OpenSecrets' dark money research and researches foreign influence as a part of Foreign Lobby Watch." So this is not some rogue "blog" without editorial standards. As for the Epstein article, the "News & Analysis" isn't the title of the page, it's merely how it is categorized on on the OS website. The title of the article is correctly shown in footnote 342 and there's no reason to add "News & Analysis" any more than one would add "Lifestyle" or "Business" to an NYT reference just because it happened to be in that part of the NYT website.BBQboffingrill me01:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no general rule for it unfortunately. Source aggregators basically have to be evaluated on a source-by-source basis from what the original source is.Alpha3031 (t •c)17:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSN is no better than Yahoo in the sources they aggregate. Both should probably just be avoided, but I unfortunately don't think we can fault them for what third-party websites they host.—Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss ·contribs)17:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the summary? The "generally reliable" label refers to Yahoo's original reporting, but Trailblazer101 is referring to theirsyndicated content. PerWP:YAHOONEWS:Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. The same applies to MSN.ArcticSeeress (talk)08:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a syndicated sort of thing google the title and hunt down the original. Shouldn't be hard. If not accessible/paywall on original, stuff it into archive.org and archive.today, may be there already, or can get past the paywall. If a local-to-MSN article, context matters, but I thought they still had proper editorial and such, so likely fine (in general). —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)18:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? My point is that MSN is still usable if the syndicated source is reliable, but I would only link to MSN as a last resort. — Newslingertalk02:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, for me, if there are errors with lots of criticism about their errorous AI-generated contents, it will be an unreliable, at least marginal reliable.
I am not very sure about your meaning of "usable", does it means that we can use them to get the original source, like other news aggregators?Saimmx (talk)05:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For original AI-generated and computer-generated content (to the extent that such content can be described as "original") that was not directly republished from another source, such as the"Microsoft Travel" column that was published on MSN by Microsoft, I completely agree with you. TheWP:RSML guideline classifies sources produced by machine learning, including LLM-generated content, as unreliable.The situation with MSN as a whole is more complex.MSN is one of the oldest web portals on the Internet, and for a long time, did not have the issues with its syndicated content that we are now seeing in the current LLM era. I mentioned three kinds of issuesin my first comment here:
The first is MSN publishing new computer-generated content from Microsoft, including that"Microsoft Travel" column. PerWP:RSML, the "Microsoft Travel" column and other computer-generated columns by Microsoft are unreliable. As MSN appears to be the only platform on which this content was published, this reflects negatively on MSN's reliability. However, only a very small portion of MSN's content is in this category.
The second is MSN syndicating low-quality content that was originally published elsewhere, as documented in reports byFuturism andCNN. Because MSN clearly labels the original publisher of this syndicated content, the content reflects negatively on the reliability of the original publisher. For example, thecryptid assertion"Fishermen Catch Mermaid Creature in Their Nets" shows the unreliability of the now-defunct conspiracy and astrology website Exemplore.com (which is on ourspam blacklist), theAI-generated obituary"Brandon Hunter useless at 42" shows the unreliability of thecontent farm websiteAutoGear.pt (Race Track), and another MSN-republished article "Prominent Irish broadcaster faces trial over alleged sexual misconduct" (whichincluded the photograph of an unrelated public figure) shows the unreliability of the now-defunct fake news websiteBNN Breaking. MSN does take a reputational hit when it repeatedly republishes these low-quality sources, but because the names of the sources are clearly labeled, they do not impact the reliability of MSN's syndicated articles from other higher-quality sources.
The third and final issue is MSN adding AI-generated "enhancements" to its syndicated content, such asa distasteful poll about a person's death that cast the original publisher of the article (who did not include a poll in its reporting)in a bad light. MSN added this particular poll to the comments section of the article, which does not impact the reliability of the article content itself, although it indicates that we should continue to monitor MSN's use of AI to ensure that MSN does not start tampering with the actual content of its syndicated articles.
By "usable", I mean that MSN can still be cited for its republications of content from sources that would be considered reliable if they were cited directly, if we are certain that MSN has not inappropriately modified the content. Due to MSN's problems, I would only use MSN if there were no way to directly cite the original source in a way that is accessible to the reader (i.e. the original source would have to bepaywalled,geo-blocked, defunct, or otherwise inaccessible; and there would have to be no accessiblearchived copy of the original source). — Newslingertalk04:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say without context, but it probably falls under the usual standard of "reliable, but very muchWP:BIASED, and therefore requires attribution that makes its biases clear." Is there a reason you think it might be something else? --Aquillion (talk)16:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Liam and I work in a comms capacity withThe Points Guy. I'm here to inquire about the possibility of getting TPG removed from Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which we appear to have beenadded to in December 2018.
I've been researching this blacklisting issue for some time in preparation for reaching out to Wikipedia. That's how I found this noticeboard. I was not aware until recently thatHealthline, another publication owned by Red Ventures,came here in June with a similar request. Editors rejected that appeal on the grounds that sources for biomedical topics have to meet a higher editorial standard than normal Wikipedia-approved news outlets. (That's my own characterization of the discussion. Please let me know if I'm getting something wrong.)
The Points Guy website obviously does not cover medical topics. We do, though, cover travel topics and at least one of our articles has beenindividually whitelisted because we were the only outlet to cover the story in question (about EVA Air). Relatedly, there was a Reliable sources2019 noticeboard discussion about similar instances, and editors seemed amenable at that time to allowing TPG citations on a case-by-case basis, namely for bylined, non-sponsored news about topics other than credit cards. (Again, that's my characterization of the discussion and until several months ago I had no knowledge of these noticeboards at all, so please double check that I'm accurately summarizing these conversations.)
To address a few concerns raised in the past: The TPG website *does* include sponsored content. (I can't link to our advertising policy page because of the blacklisting, but it's easy enough to find on our website.) Our news coverage, however, is editorially independent, written by bylined reporters (not "contributors"), and widely shared within the travel industry. We're very proud of our news team and TPG is often the first outlet to cover important airline news. Examples that I unfortunately can't link to:
"Delta cuts 2 domestic routes, 1 from Atlanta and another from Salt Lake City" | November 18, 2025
"San Francisco to get new nonstop service to Poland in 2026" | November 15, 2025
"Mass airport chaos: 32,000 flights delayed or canceled since Saturday as shutdown takes toll" | November 10, 2025
Given this context, the site-wide blacklisting seems misapplied, at least in my opinion.
This is a funky one. It was blacklisted in 2018 as "native advertising" and seems to have been spammed into several articles before that. Later (in 2019), TPG was seen as a (very borderline) reliable source ina RSN RfC. However, it was not removed from the spam blacklist despite two requests to do so (1 and2).TPG is clearly not exclusively sponsored content now, so at the very least the blacklisting should be lifted; I can't see how it meetsWP:SPBLIST #1 in 2025 ("does the site have any validity to the project?"). Technically, a request for a removal from the blacklist should be made atMediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, although separately I'd be curious to see this noticeboard's thoughts on its reliability.Ed[talk][OMT]19:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
t h e p o i n t s g u y . c o m website: "Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, andthis may impact how or where these products appear.
The two issues I see are:
First, we know that you can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because you are partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer. How do we know that you are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs? Looking at your recent article "I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours" you say some nice things about Delta.
Right in the middle of the article is this ad:
"Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners."
That ad leads me to, among others, the "Delta SkyMiles Reserve Business American Express Card". Even if Delta itself isn't your partner, they are obviously partners with American Express. (I am using the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way.) I strongly suspect that your positive comments about Delta pleased your partner American Express.
Second, let's assume for the sake of argument that your news articles are all squeaky clean. They are still residing on a website that is likely to promote a credit card rewards program because they pay you instead of because it is the best program. The website is also likely to ignore otherwise good deals from businesses that refuse to partner with you. Can we at Wikipedia in good conscience allowany links to such a website? --Guy Macon (talk)20:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. The Reliable sources page linked to above states that "[t]he reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Given that explanation, I would argue that for non-controversial news about airline routes (e.g. new route launches, old route resumptions, route frequency changes), airline passenger services (e.g. pre-flight check-in & ticketing, special boarding assistance), airline amenities (seats, meals, entertainment, Wi-Fi), and related airline and aviation industry news, The Points Guy should be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Other travel news sources already cite TPG for exactly this type of coverage. See exampleshere,here, andhere. I understand that TPG will never be considered a reliable source for, say, credit card rewards coverage and that's fine. I think the epistemic question of whether or not Wikipedia should link to websites that feature sponsored content is beyond the scope of my engagement here. That said, many major news outlets identified as reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian, all prominently use sponsored content to generate revenue.Liam at TPG (talk)23:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I just saw the excellent point about AI below, but want to finish my conversation about sponsored content before addressing AI.)
Sponsored content is also known asNative advertising. Turns out that Exposure Ninja (a web page all about how great sponsored content is -- for advertisers) wrote about The Guardian's sponsored content for the credit card company Visa[70], saying "The Guardian commonly runs sponsored content and has been doing so for many years. As publications go, it is one of the most transparent, featuring a (reasonably) prominent “paid for by” section next to the article. They also include who the article was paid for by. The Guardian clearly distinguishes between sponsored content, supported content, and content that is brought to readers by brands." See any differences from howThe Points Guy handles sponsored content? --Guy Macon (talk)02:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Points Guy (TPG) is owned and operated byRed Ventures(RSP entry). A2024 RfC found Red Ventures properties to begenerally unreliable because"Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" and"The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic." TPG was excluded from the RfC because it was already on the spam blacklist, but I see no reason to believe that TPG is somehow more reliable than other Red Ventures properties. Considering TPG'sconflict of interest due to its affiliate marketing contracts with the finanical products offered by the credit card, airline, hotel, and other travel companies that are the subject of just about all of TPG's content, as well as TPG's prior history of spam, I oppose removing TPG from the spam blacklist. — Newslingertalk02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. I had missed the Red Ventures part when I made a comment above. I do still think that we're inappropriately conflating the spam blacklist—a measure of last resort that "exists primarily to control widespread spamming and disruption of Wikimedia Foundation projects" and does not take into consideration "whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable"—with the reliable source policy. But, I also don't see a path forward to it being declared a reliable source without something spectacular happening.Ed[talk][OMT]02:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider TPG as much better than a press release, but I could weakly support moving it to the XLinkBot blocklist or similar to allow experienced users to use it in that context.JumpytooTalk06:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "at the very least the blacklisting should be lifted" but also that "inappropriately conflating" should have been a measure of last resort.Dirk Beetstra changed the guideline on27 September 2021 to say the list includes "... some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus." (This was a few days after I unsuccessfuly objected about blacklisting a non-spam site namedancient-origins.net.) That was bad. Worse is if blacklisting happens whenever a few people here accept (the earlier claim) "Site consists solely of sponsored content" and/or (the current argument) an RfC decided the owner's unreliable.Peter Gulutzan (talk)13:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Gulutzan this site was not blacklisted for shock effect, nor with a strong independent consensus. Your argument there has nothing to do with this, and this site has nothing to do with ancient-origins.net, nor are the reasons behind the blacklisting remotely related. I understand that you don’t like that a consensus is not aligning with your opinion, but there is no reason to rehash that at every occassion.Dirk BeetstraTC18:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently nominatedPennywise for FAC, and want to check on the reliability of a few sources I use in the article to see if they'reWP:HQRS. Below are the links to the sources as well as the claims I used them for in the article.
Российская газета (link) --English actor Will Poulter was originally cast as Pennywise in the 2017 film, with [Tim] Curry describing the role as a "wonderful part" and wishing Poulter the best of luck, but the latter dropped out of the production due to scheduling conflicts and the first film's original director Cary Fukunaga leaving the project.
film89 (link) --The most notable change [between the book and the miniseries] is that Its resting period is extended from twenty-seven to thirty years.
Wonderfully Weird & Horrifying (link) --Kristy Strouse called Curry's portrayal as "zany" yet disturbing, also noting the quality of the character's makeup, costumes, and practical effects.
Cinepunx (link) --[Director Andy] Muschietti often kept Pennywise hidden in shadows or out of the camera's focus; a critic observed that Pennywise was a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form is constantly unsettling and unpredictable. andOne analysis noted that Skarsgård's Pennywise was a "sadistic predator" who took pleasure from killing.
The Brenau Collaborative (link) --[Costume designer Jamie] Bryant said she wanted Pennywise to feel more organic, drawing on King's description of him wearing a silvery-gray clown suit.
Flickering Myth (link) --Skarsgård's Pennywise is more overtly creepy, less humorous, and stands out more. Muschietti said he wanted Pennywise to look older than a typical 20th-century clown, since the creature had existed for thousands of years. He felt that modern clowns looked "cheap" and were too tied to social events and circuses, saying he preferred the look of 19th-century clowns.
MovieWeb (link) -- Muschietti decided to use the 1800s and earlier as inspiration for Pennywise's design. Used in conjunction withComing Soon (link).
Pacific Standard (link) --[R]eviewer Katie Kilkenny of Pacific Standard felt that clowns "remain[ing] forever terrifying" was one of the key reasons for the 2017 film's success.
Back in the 80's/90's Time-Life put out multiple series of books on a variety of subjects (e.g. The Third Reich, Mysteries of the Unknown, etc, etc). I know Time is considered a RS....but I wasn't sure about this. In some cases the series of books are written by the "editors of Time-Life" in other cases (like the Third Reich books), they had academic consultants. Whatever set we are talking about the bibliography is quite extensive. So in any case, are these types of books acceptable RS? I would never give these more weight than more modern sources or academic sources....but just for more obscure things. (As this could be helpful.)Rja13ww33 (talk)18:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read their series on aviation. They are generally good and, as I recall, generally didn't go into an controversial claims. I would treat them as a good, general reference.Springee (talk)19:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that when they publish books about aviation, science, or the third reich, they are writing about things that actually exist. When they publish books about werewolves, vampires, levitation, or atlantis, they are writing about things that don't actually exist but which they nonetheless claim or strongly imply are real. --Guy Macon (talk)02:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I would say that (it would be OR if I did)....I will say they definitely present the POV of all the prominent skeptics over the years (e.g. Klass, Menzel, Sagan, etc) when it comes to UFOs. I don't recall if that is the case in some of the other books in that series.Rja13ww33 (talk)03:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR only applies to articles. Original research is allowed on talk pages and noticeboards. In particular original research on the nature of a particular source in relation to a particular claim in an article is most or what we do on the reliable sources noticeboard.
That being said, I don't have the books about the fringe topics in my possession and a quick web search did not turn up any online copy, so if anyone has the books, please let us know what they say about werewolves, vampires, levitation, atlantis, etc. Maybe my memory is wrong and they present a skeptical POV. --Guy Macon (talk)05:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you right now they present the skeptic's POV (at least on UFOs, as I said). I have only 4 volumes in that series though. And the UFO one was the only one I was considering using.Rja13ww33 (talk)19:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recall looking at some of their scientific books when I wore a younger man's clothes. They were "ok" so to speak but the word that came to mind was: shallow. But now they are like old newspapers and although they may not supportPhlogiston on other issues they may come close. I would avoid them.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)14:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(The non-controversial parts of) Angela Marcantonio, The Uralic language family: facts, myths and statistics
This book is universally acknowledged as a fringe book and strongly condemned by a large number of mainstream scholars (e.g. seehere, which makes the claim:Marcantonio - to put it bluntly - does not know what she is talking about.) However, there are some Wikipedia pages that use it as a reference for (what should be) uncontroversial information; I've been removing these references but I'd like community input into whether I was correct in doing so (e.g. inthis diff I removed a reference to it for uncontroversial information).Stockhausenfan (talk)22:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the removal per se, but in uncontroversial cases, it would be much better if you replaced the source with a more reliable one.Boynamedsue (talk)01:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would say you probably are wrong to do this. She appears to be an academic linguist, who would be expected to present the work of other scholars correctly. So while her own theories will likely be fringe in most articles, she is a reliable secondary source. Don't remove unless it is controversial (then the claim itself will be worth removing) or if you have a better sourceBoynamedsue (talk)01:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at some of your edits, and I wouldn't argue for a policy of blanket reversal, where another source is present there is no need to revert.
In terms of content, I agree with your removal of reference to Marcantonio in some places, but reject it in others. For example, her criticism of Alinei is fine to keep, important even. Whatever the problems with Marcantonio's work, andThe Uralic language family: facts, myths and statistics appears to be a terrible book, she is qualified to criticise Alinei and it is important we show how bad his work is. Whereas your removal of reference to her work in Ural-Altaic languages was absolutely correct.--Boynamedsue (talk)07:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There can be no doubt that the book on Uralic language family is highly controversial. Multiple book reviews seem to say so. But Sapienza is a reasonably good university in the humanities (no comment on science) and her being a professor there makes her a semi-respectable academic. So she can be used in non-controversial issues.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)14:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ciol.com is cited for this sentence in theHenry Stickmin draft:
The most complex game in the series,Completing the Mission, was released in 2020 as part ofThe Henry Stickmin Collection.[1]
APower Spike Games review was cited for two sentences in the Russian Wikipedia article aboutThe Henry Stickmin Collection:
Completing the Mission в 3 раза больше, чем Fleeing the Complex, и всего в нём 16 концовок и 164 провала.[2]
Machine translation:Completing the Mission is 3 times more thanFleeing the Complex, and there are 16 endings and 164 failures.
Харрисон Гоуленд из Power Spike Games считает, что результат соединения нескольких Flash-игр хорошо сохраняет их прежнюю эстетику, а также, что «юмор хорошо вписывается в тон игры, а новейшая часть остаётся верной стилю оригинала». Гоуленд отметил, что в The Henry Stickmin Collection есть множество отсылок на современную поп-культуру.[2]
Machine translation:Power Spike Games Harrison's division believes that the result of connecting several Flash games well preserves their previous aesthetics, and that "the humor fits well into the tone of the game, and the newest part remains the true style of the original." Gowell noted thatThe Henry Stickmin Collection has many references to modern pop culture.
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.
TheChartered Institute of Linguists, which is a UK professional body, would be reliable in some cases. However, the website you are citing is an organisation of the same name that appears to have no connection with the British organisation or to have any interest in linguistics. It's not reliable.Boynamedsue (talk)08:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking through to the CiOL website and seeing that when I expected the CIoL was a shock. As far as I can see CiOL doesn't stand for anything and is just "CiOL". --Cdjp1 (talk)12:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is an imposter, as it does not make the claim to be the notable CIOL. But it does not state what it actually is in itsabout us page, which says a lot and nothing in corporatese, although it seems to claim to have some kind of private training arm. It has 7000 followers on twitter, despite never having posted, and 300 on insta and its articles impressionistically suggest to me the use of LLMs. I would avoid using it. Its supposed subsidiary, "Cybermedia India", certainly has some existence, being a company based in Gurgaon.Boynamedsue (talk)09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to look at the revision history for theHenry Stickmin Collection article on Russian Wikipedia and found out that the misidentification of ciol.com as the Chartered Institute of Linguists goes all the way back to thevery first revision to that article, when it was the second source cited. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)12:09, 14 December 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 Wikiproject says "Scholarship in Mormon history has moved away from many of the book's interpretations... and it contains some factual inaccuracies that have been disproved in later works. Editors should defer to more recent sources".
The particular issue on the page listed above seems to be about a 1838 arrest warrant for Banking Fraud reported by Brodie. Some editors argue that we should never use Brodie as a source for anything. "Editors should defer to more recent sources" seems to be about Brodie saying one thing and a more recent source saying another, while the dispute on the page appears to be about Brodie saying something and all other sources either referring to Brodie or being silent.
To be clear, my position is not that we should never use Brodie as a source for anything—I have cited her work elsewhere in Wikipedia. My position, is that Brodie shouldnot be used to establish a specific factual detailabsent independent corroboration from modern, reliable sources.
The sources that refer back to Brodie were written before legal records were made accessible through digitalization and/or are non-academic. The most up-to-date scholarship—Vogel, Turner, the Joseph Smith Papers Project (JSPP)—is in complete disagreement with Brodie.
And I frankly believe there are more parsimonious explanations for Brodie's isolated claim than that all evidence of this warrant dissipated within the last 80 years: all docket entries, all affidavits, all documents, everything just gone, and we have to take her at her word. I believe that to be an untenable position.
I don’t have an opinion on Fawn Brodie, but as a retired lawyer, I find it completely plausible that all evidence of an 1838 warrant could have disappeared.John M Baker (talk)09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then modern scholarship must step in to explicitly state the warrant's existence and explain the evidence supporting that position despite the lost documentation. That has not happened.
A more parsimonious explanation: Brodie misinterpreted the primary sources available in the 1940s. The fact that she says a private citizen (Grandison Newell) "secured the warrant", when criminal actions can only be initiated by the State, strongly suggests she was confusing a civil suit, specifically a qui tam, with a state-issued criminal charge.Gottagitgud (talk)10:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. In earlier times it was common to have "private" prosecutions. It was the burden on the private party to bring the evidence of the crime before the magistrate. Public prosecutions either did not exist for most crimes or public prosecutors only prosecuted serious crimes against the government.Alanscottwalker (talk)01:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grandison Newell's Obsession is on page 170 of the PDF, page 159 of the original document.
I still don't have a good answer to the question of whether Brodie is reliable on claims that are not discussed in any other source.
A related question is this: If a claim in Brodie is corroborated by other sources, why not simply cite those sources and not mention Brodie? --Guy Macon (talk)23:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With Brodie,WP:AGE MATTERS. Scholarship has advanced so much since the 1945 publishing and the re-print in 1972. It was probably the most reliable source for decades after its release, but there has in recent decades been a flurry of excellent scholarship on the subject, and a huge amount of previously hidden documents now publicly available. Just think of all the information come to light since Brodie's book was published: Book of Abraham papyri were re-discovered, previously unknown First Vision accounts have been found, 1826 trial information was discovered, Council of Fifty minutes have been released to historians, Smith family magic/occult documents and physical objects (seer stone, mars dagger, etc.) have been publicized, etc. etc. etc. Even Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, released in 2005 is starting to show a bit of age. Anything in the Brodie book can be found in multiple recent scholarly books and papers.Epachamo (talk)01:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add -- just think how much we've learned about American New Religious Movements since 1945. If Hubbard could sincerely believe inXenu and Fard could sincerely believe inYakub, then of course Smith could sincerely believe in the Nephites.Feoffer (talk)13:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, if something like this crops up again: Brodie's book is so influential that there's invariably a reason when later authors deviate from her narrative. Understanding that reason is important to knowing what to pass on to readers.Feoffer (talk)14:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand and agree with what you are saying, but until that reason is understood, we should default to modern historians on any difference. They have the greater vantage point, and not every difference deserves a mention in an article.Epachamo (talk)17:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussedin 2009 and inin 2019, but no action taken, probably because given names are nonpolitical and otherwise non-sensitive area, with limited interest from Wikipedians.
The websiteis a hobby ofa non-expert. What is more important, the pageshave no refs for their wisdom. On the other hand, if they did have refs, we'd better off using these.
Yes it meets critreria: " or two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, "
I'm not quite sure how the process of adding websites to the perennial sources list works, but I strongly object adding behindthename.com as an unreliable source to this list.
First of all, I don't see a consensus for Behind The Name to be classified as an unreliable source in both of the two previous discussions linked above. The only gripe that users repeatedly pointed out is the fact that it is maintained by a single person and not a team of experts. But in both discussions from 2009 and 2019, it is also mentioned by various editors that the quality of the page is high and it should not just be dismissed outright.
Regarding the website itself: Behind The Name has been around for over 20 years, and is quite respected in anthroponymy as a reliable source. Large databases like that are usually not completely free of errors, but in general, the website provides reliable info about name pronunciations, origins and popularity. While Behind The Name does not cite sources on the name pages itself, it does disclose its major sourceshere. It also offers etymological information, which explain where name meanings originated from. In this, it differs from the vast majority of other websites about names (like babynames.com), that seem to just make stuff up without any explanation. Behind the Name has been cited in quite a few published books ([72]) and scholarly literature ([73]). And maybe most importantly, Behind The Name has built up a reputation good enough to be endorsed by a highly respected organization like theNew York Public Library (named as "reliable online dictionary"here). All of these facts point towards objecting the classification of Behind The Name as an unreliable source. --CaptainOlimar42 (talk)23:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we started talking about the reliability of the source itself I’ve movers this to RSN. Could you quote where the discussion says the source is high-quality? I only see people mentioning that it is poor. These citations do seem good, but “maintained by a single non-expert” (my paraphrasing, not yours) is the definition of an unreliable self-published source on Wikipedia.Aaron Liu (talk)01:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To give some examples, in the 2009 discussion, User Squidfryerchef mentioned that the name popularity source for the US comes from US census data, indicating trustworthiness. In the 2019 discussion, user Alsee stated "much of the info on the site appears to be responsibly compiled from census data and other solid sources". Maybe my wording with "high quality" was a bit too strong, but there certainly has not been unanimous support for classification as an unreliable source. Besides, the 2009 discussion is mostly about name popularity, where I agree that there are much better sources available than Behind The Name. I mostly use Behind The Name as a source of name meanings / etymology, where there is much less sources available.
About "maintained by a single non-expert", well, one could argue that spending 29 years on name research does kind of make Mike Campbell an expert at it, especially since according to his own words, he is maintaining Behind The Name full-time since 2016 ([74]). But besides that, there are multiple examples for websites that are maintained by "non-experts" (as in, not academically trained for the subject), that are still regarded as very good sources in Wikipedia, e.g.Flags of the World (website) (about vexillology) andRSSSF (about football results). While both sites are maintained by a group of editors, individual pages are often written and maintained by single editors (RSSSF example;FOTW example). Contributors to FOTW are flag enthusiasts with other day jobs ([75]), contributors ot RSSSF are also just football enthusiasts. These examples demonstrate that if the quality of the content is good and reliable, Wikipedia is able to use sources even when they were created by non-experts. I'd argue the same can be true for Behind The Name, especially since it also has been around for 25+ years, like FOTW and RSSSF, and has endorsements from trusted sources (various published books and the NYPL, see above). --CaptainOlimar42 (talk)11:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Usage by other sources is widely accepted as an argument given its guideline status of consensus. That we are used by many things doesn't me we can just do whatever we want. The principle of RelSources is that we rely on what sources say, and I think checking for usages in them to determine reliability is pretty intuitive.Aaron Liu (talk)21:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee goes on to sayOn the third hand, in most cases it appears this source is being used for the "meaning" behind names... which I think is rather dubious as encyclopedic content in the majority of cases. That the name popularity is reliable due to just being from the census 1. does not make the site trustworthy for the area in which it is most often cited: meanings 2. means we should just straight-up use the US Census data for this instead, as it already compiles tables of the most common names and has more trust as it is undertaken by scrutinized and background-checked statisticians.Being a long-term hobbyist does not make one an expert; it's being published themselves that does perWikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. See also Flags of the World (RSP entry).Aaron Liu (talk)21:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used the sources in some Huawei mobile phone related articles recently (such asHuawei Mate 80), but I don't know the source whether it is reliable, so can you help me assess the reliability of this source? Thank you.Peterxy（talk）12:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of Loop Magazine, indy100.com, www.untitledgroup.com.au, Bimbo's 365 Club, The Honey POP, and GINX TV
Green was born on May 10, 1999, inArizona. Green has three siblings, and is the 5th generation of his name in the family. Green started posting on YouTube under his name, releasing his first original song, "What Is A Dream". Green would continue releasing original and cover songs on SoundCloud and YouTube. In 2014, he released his firstextended play onSoundCloud, Celadon. In October 2014, Green started CG5, where he released remixes of popular songs and video game soundtracks. In 2015, he released his second extended play, Turning Gray. The name for the channel was chosen because he is the 5th generation Charlie Green in his family.[1]
Green started making music when he was 5-years old, using software from his father's computer.[2]
I previouslyopened a discussion on this source - however, with the benefit of hindsight it was a bad idea grouping three sources which were rather different together. Therefore, I'm starting this targeted discussion instead.
Is Flightradar24 tracking information reliable to verify the existence of an airline's route? For example - doesthis verify that Super Air Jet flies a regularly scheduled route from Balikpapan to Lombok? In my personal opinion, it's clearlyWP:SYNTH.Danners430tweaks made14:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, no, it is not WP:SYNTH. The site clearly shows that flight IU285 from Balikpapan to Lombok is operating normally, including details such as the ETA, STD, and other relevant information. There is no original research involved here.Cal1407 (talk)15:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So where on the page does it state there is a regularly scheduled and timetabled flight from Balikpapan to Lombok? Or are we coming to the conclusion based on the data presented?Danners430tweaks made15:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked whether the flight exists, and the reference clearly shows that it does, with flights operating on 10 and 13 December 2025. That should be sufficient to establish its existence.Cal1407 (talk)15:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm asking whether this source isWP:SYNTH.That should be sufficient to establish its existence. - that is the definition ofWP:SYNTH -Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. We are clearly making an assumption based on data presented by the site - nowhere on FlightRadar24 does itexplicitly state that the route is being flown regularly and scheduled.Danners430tweaks made15:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How am I combining material from multiple sources? I am using only a single source in this case. And how am I making an assumption? The source clearly shows that the route exists. If the concern is the reliability of FR24 itself, that would be a separate issue.Cal1407 (talk)15:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat again the second part of the statement above -Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Where does it explicitly state the route is being flown and is regularly scheduled? That is what is required, and as of yet you still haven't been able to answer.Danners430tweaks made15:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m genuinely confused. Where exactly am I combining different parts of the source to imply a conclusion? I am not doing so.
Are you disputing the fact that a Super Air Jet flight between Balikpapan and Lombok operated on 10 and 13 December 2025? The reference clearly shows that these flights took place.
No conclusion is being drawn here. The only statement being made is that the route exists, as evidenced by the presence of flight records. This is a straightforward factual observation, not original research or synthesis.Cal1407 (talk)15:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to where the confusion lies. I'll ask again - where in the source above does itexplicitly state that this is a route that is being regularly flown and is scheduled to continue?Danners430tweaks made15:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the route is directly shown by flight records from 10 and 13 December 2025, without any synthesis or additional conclusion.Cal1407 (talk)15:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will ask yet again, because it appears the point still isn't sinking in - where on the webpage that is linked above is there a statement - be in text or a map or similar - that this is a regularly scheduled route by this airline?
I genuinely feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here -If the flight did not exist, there would be no flight record to reference - that isWP:SYNTH, as plain as it gets - you are drawing a conclusion based on the data.The data is there, therefore the flight must be a regularly scheduled flight - that is a conclusion, not an explicit statement.Danners430tweaks made15:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not Reliable For Airline Routes - *The source itself is not aWP:SYNTH because that's something that Wikipedia users do with sources. It's unreliable for the purpose users want to use it for (stating which are and are not regularly-flown routes),because it explicitly says it is:" Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel.". It goes without saying that this source is primary and doesn't contribute towards notability.FOARP (talk)19:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the very first sentence of the disclaimer:"The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers." The first sentence alone indicates that FR24 functions as a secondary data source, contrary to what is often assumed.Cal1407 (talk)12:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply compiling primary information doesn't make a source secondary. For a source to be a secondary source, it must analyse, comment, not just process algorithmically. And I note you're skipping over the basic fact that it says it is unreliable and that not all the flights it lists as being served regularly are actually regular flights.FOARP (talk)14:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable to verify the existence of a given route on a given date, and the internet archive and similar mean that this will continue to be verifiable in the future. Almost all the other comments are assessing reliability for claims not made, which is not the purpose of this discussion.Thryduulf (talk)16:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"claims not made" - people most definitely are citing FR24 for airline routes regularly flown (not just once), and that is what this discussion is about. SeeKuala Lumpur International Airport (used for "seasonal charter" routes),Air Corsica (used for all routes, regular and otherwise),List of AirAsia Group destinations (used for two Thai AirAsia routes) (etc. etc.) If your position is that the source shouldn't be used for that, that's great, but this feels like claiming that no-one uses it as a source for routes regularly flown when it clearly is used for that.FOARP (talk)20:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now. My apologies—this is not personal, and I am sincerely trying to understand Wikipedia’s policies.In that case, if FR24 flight records are consideredWP:SYNTH, how should airport route maps likethis be treated? Would they also be considered WP:SYNTH? No additional conclusion is being drawn here; the map merely depicts the routes as presented by the source.Cal1407 (talk)16:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the bottom of that page -Disclaimer: The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers. The data is provided as is, there are no guarantees that the information is fully correct or up to date. Changes and errors may occur. Therefore Flightradar24 cannot be held liable either for the accuracy of the information or for ensuring that the information is up to date at all times. Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel. That doesn't sound particularly reliable to me - it may not beWP:SYNTH, but given the website themselves say they can't guarantee the accuracy of the data, I think that's an open and closed case.Danners430tweaks made16:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we can agree that this does not constitute WP:SYNTH. With that clarified, the remaining question is whether the source itself is reliable.
Additionally, the disclaimer clearly indicates that the source functions as a secondary source, unlike the earlier discussion where several editors argued that it was a primary source and therefore unusable.Cal1407 (talk)16:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That particular part of FlightRadar 24 is not Synth - however using tracking data is. I would strongly suggest we shouldn't use those route maps, given FR24 themselves make it clear they shouldn't be relied upon as accurate.Danners430tweaks made17:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimers are standard on websites, including reliable sources. They've been discussed before, and AFAIK the community has never accepted a website's disclaimer as evidence of unreliability.
YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” AND AN “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. MMS DOES NOT MAKE, AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS, ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, REGARDING THE SERVICES, INCLUDING (WITHOUT LIMITATION) IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, FREEDOM FROM COMPUTER VIRUS OR OTHER HARMFUL CODE, AND ANY WARRANTIES ARISING BY COURSE OF DEALING OR CUSTOM OF TRADE. MMS MAKESNO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY THAT ANY MATERIAL, CONTENT, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICE OFFERINGS DISPLAYED ON OR OFFERED THROUGH A SERVICE ARE ACCURATE, COMPLETE, APPROPRIATE, RELIABLE, TIMELY, OPERATIONAL, ERROR FREE, SECURE, SAFE, OR THAT THE SERVICES WILL FUNCTION WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS, DELAYS, OR IMPERFECTIONS. WE DO NOT CONTROL, AND ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR, CONTROLLING HOW OR WHEN OUR USERS USE THE SERVICES. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR AND ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO CONTROL THE ACTIONS OR INFORMATION (INCLUDING CONTENT) OF OUR USERS OR OTHER THIRD PARTIES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
5.2NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. NYT will not be liable to you or any other person as a result of a user’s interactions with other users. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information will be at your sole risk. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAWS, THE SERVICES AND ALL SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WHILE WE TRY OUR BEST TO ENSURE THAT THE SERVICES ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE, UP-TO-DATE AND CORRECT, NYT DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE.THERE MAY BE DELAYS, OMISSIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, AND INACCURACIES IN THE CONTENT OR OTHER MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES. YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE CONTENT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR, NOR DOES IT REPLACE, PROFESSIONAL LEGAL, FINANCIAL, TAX OR MEDICAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR HEALTH OR THE CONTENT ON THE SERVICES, YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT WITH A PHYSICIAN OR OTHER HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONAL. PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY SECURITY OR INVESTMENT, YOU ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH YOUR BROKER OR OTHER FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO VERIFY PRICING AND OTHER INFORMATION. WE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED UPON, OR THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM, THE CONTENT PROVIDED IN THE SITE, THE CONTENT, OR THE SERVICES. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SITE WILL BE CONSTRUED AS INVESTMENT ADVICE. WE ARE NOT A REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER OR INVESTMENT ADVISOR AND DO NOT GIVE INVESTMENT ADVICE OR RECOMMEND ONE PRODUCT OVER ANOTHER. YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.
But you'd never say that these were unreliable sources just because their lawyers stuck some similar text on the websites. These disclaimers don't tell you anything about whether the source is reliable.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AreWikipedia editors drawing the conclusion that the airline “regularly” flys a route based on data showing that it flew the route ontwo days in December? If so, that would definitely be an OR conclusion.Blueboar (talk)15:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar, it's being used inedits like this one. The result is a ===Passenger=== section with a table that says (in one row) the name of the airline and the the name of an airport, looking vaguely like this:
The word "regularly" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. At most, it might imply regular service (because it's not explicitly marked as being seasonal/occasional/one-time/historical), but it doesn't say anything like that.
Continuing with this example, the flight was started last March by parent companyLion Air. This is easily verified in Indonesian news sources (example,example). At some point, the parent company (Lion) switched these flights to their subsidiary (Super Air Jet).
But at some level we know that this company really does regularly fly between these two places, because if you go to Google and put"Super Air Jet" Balikpapan Lombok in the search box, the first thing that pops up is Google Flight information. There can't be any reasonable doubts about this information, so I think we're in theMother, May I? phase of sourcing, or maybe a game ofWP:FETCH: The facts are undisputed, and the only question is whether we have The Right™ Source behind it.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not synth specifically, butWP:OR. Looking at an automatically generated database of machine-interpreted signals and drawing conclusions on which airlines can be acceptable, but not for an encyclopedia. If the only place you can find this information is on Flightradar, it doesn't need to be in the article.JustARandomSquid (talk)16:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a Wikipedia editor is looking at flight data from a few days in December, and concluding that this means the route is “regularly scheduled”, that is most definitely OR.Blueboar (talk)16:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable The site itself isn't even the source of the data. It's scraping it from the airplane transponders. Meaning it's just someone's website that's taking that data from elsewhere. On that alone, it's unreliable. And that's before we get into the discussion of said data not being useful for anything on Wikipedia. As noted just above, it's 100%WP:OR to claim the existence of a regular scheduled airport flight because of transponder data showing a plane flew between two airports. We need an actual source that states that such a flight was created by the company and it also needs to be a reliable source.SilverserenC17:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Meta analysis would be taking data from somewhere else and analysing it, presumably there is analysis in metanalyses. I agree that it's not bad just because data is from somewhere else, but 1) the somewhere else needs to be reliable, and 2) Wikipedia can't analyse the data, as such analysis would be OR.Alanscottwalker (talk)19:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking data from somewhere else is fine. If the source doing the "taking" is reliable, then we don't care where they're taking it from (e.g., nobody says "Oh, thatNew York Times – they took some data from a source whose reliability is unknown, so that makes them be unreliable" or even "It looks like the Google flight box relies on this Cirium outfit for their data, which is flightstats.com – well, I don't know if they're reliable for that kind of data, so I just have no idea whether my friend/family member's flight is expected to land on time. I probably shouldn'trely on that source to decide when to pick them up from the airport"). I'm also doubtful that this use is a Wikipedia editor "analyzing the data".
Looking at the debate more broadly, I think we might be in a rule-following vs. practicality bind:
If you want to have accurate, up-to-date information in an article (per NOT, which says"In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information") more than you want to have Officially Reliable™ Sources cited, then the most efficient way for editors to be able to tell whether the information is up to date is attach a quick look-up mechanism for each flight/destination. That could be, e.g., specific airline flight numbers (NN1234) that could be checked at your favorite web search engine, or a link to one of these flight tracker websites.
If you want to have indisputably reliable citations more than you want to have accurate, up-to-date information in the Wikipedia article, then your best bet is probably newspaper articles from the area around the airport. However, a newspaper article is not going to help you determine whether the claim continues to be true (since it can only tell you what was true on the date of the source was published), so checking the article's accuracy requires more time and effort.
And, of course, there's always the possibility that the real divide is simply an intuitive idea of what "should" be in an encyclopedia article, and that editors who want to exclude the content based on their best editorial judgment about whether it's appropriate at all are using complaints about "reliability" as a way to put barriers up against the content: That source won't do, so you'll have toWP:FETCH me another. I say this in part because editors have expressed the view that this is unencyclopedic, but also because when I've provided formally reliable sources to support individual claims, they've been ignored. If the goal was just to have fancier sources, then I might expect the complainant to put the fancier source in the article, or say thanks, or otherwise acknowledge that their stated problem had been solved. Instead, I suspect that they're being received with the grinding of teeth: "There goes that WhatamIdoing again, proving that this information actually can be sourced to an independent reliable source. Now I'll never get that garbage out of this article!"WhatamIdoing (talk)20:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read it again if you will. The opening line (which I helped write) is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberatelytrying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful". It's possible for editors to be at odds, and to point out the reasons underlying their differences, without anybody "deliberatelytrying to hurt Wikipedia".
For example: In these discussions, I've provided several newspaper sources to support content about which airline flies between which airports. All newspaper articles are independent of the flights, and some of them are secondary sources, because they provide (e.g.) some analytical or evaluative information about how a new destination is likely to affect the local economy.
These are the kinds of sources you ask for (and you're welcome to copy them to relevant articles). But I wonder: can you see how these sources are not really useful for someone who wants to know whether the heralded new flight is still in operation today?WhatamIdoing (talk)06:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, if its shown that the data is unreliable, no we would probably not rely on the metanalysis in Wikipedia, no matter where it is published. We would likely ignore it or dispute it in text (and await its retraction or correction). And the rest of your comment tries to ignore or minimize the issue of Wikipedia analysing the data as original research, so the rest is a strawman, beside the point, or bad faith.Alanscottwalker (talk)20:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We might useWikipedia:Editorial discretion to omit it, but editors don't really have any business deciding that the data used by a reliable source (which, of course, this website might or might not be) is actually unreliable.
The rest of my comment is trying to highlight the difficulty editors encounter. If you're an editor who is trying to keep these lists up to date, then you need a source that quickly (because there are a lot of them) and easily shows you whether everything's correct today. An "automatically check this whole list" button might be your preference, but if you can't have that, then clicking to a flight tracking website for every airline and every destination will work. A handful (or sometimes a lot) of browser tabs later, you can be sure that the article's okay today – or that it's not, and you know which one to fix.
But if you'renot one of those editors, you might well look at this and think these are unreliable sources. Maybe they're not as bad as a comment in Reddit or some influencer tweeting that they flew from X to Y today, but it's just zis guy, you know? We need newspaper articles with editors and publishers and reputations for fact checking and accuracy, not some random air geek's hobby site that automatically copies official data sources. However, those sources are pretty much useless for determining whether the information is still true today. The first transatlantic passenger flight was in 1939. Anewspaper article announcing its success is not useful for telling you whether it's still possible to fly from New York to Southampton viaPan Am today (answer: no).WhatamIdoing (talk)06:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which means we return to the basic fact that something being the only source for something doesn't make it a reliable source. If something can't be sourced reliably, then it just has no place on WP. I'm sorry if adding this information to WP is a hobby for some.
Not useable Ignoring anything about reliability of the data aside, FlightRadar maximum retention time for paid plans is 3 years so after that point the content would failWP:V/WP:PUBLISHED. And the public feed which could be archived only goes back a few days which isn't usable for anything as others have mentioned.JumpytooTalk19:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to say what's true and verifiable right now, then why would it matter if past data isn't available? The Wikipedia articles aren't saying "Lion Air started flying from Lompok to Balikpapan on 4 July 2024". It's just the name of the airline and the name of the destination airport, without any dates or any other information.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WhatamIdoing that I'm not sure that the use of these sources within articles is actually trying to substantiate that any particular airline route is a "regularly scheduled route". Editors might make this claim in edit summaries or talk pages, but those are not subject toWP:OR and aren't particularly relevant here. I agree with editors that say it isWP:SYNTH / oftenWP:OR to conclude from this source that a route is "regularly scheduled" or "regularly flown". But again, these claims are not being made in the article text, and if they are, this is resolvable.
I don't see any substantive issue with how the source is being used, otherwise. It is completely reliable for sourcing whether a route is currently/recently chartered, which is how I have seen it used.Katzrockso (talk)06:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the scope of this discussion, but I also see many, many instances of the transponder data from it being used to write what is essentially OR about air disasters.FOARP (talk)15:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FlightRadar's data can be considered reliable, but it is not suitable for citing the existence of regularly scheduled commercial flights. As I said in the previous discussion,[i]f FlightRadar24 shows a particular airline and flight number as having flown from airport A to airport B on a particular date, or being scheduled for a particular date, we have no reason to doubt the data point. But can we conclude from that data point that there is a regularly scheduled commercial flight between those airports? Can we conclude that the flight is marketed by the airline that operated the aircraft (as opposed to being operated on a wet lease or similar basis on behalf of some other airline)? Can we conclude from the absence of a data point that a previously scheduled flight has been suspended or terminated? All of those would beWP:SYNTH. At best, it could be an acceptable source if for some reason you needed to cite that a particular flight took place on a particular date – and even then, an archived copy would need to be available for verifiability.Rosbif73 (talk)08:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether cwbchicago.com is a reliable source, and if yes then if it is a reliable source for a BLP. Context: under "personal life" in an article about a politicianToni Preckwinkle, a paragraph that says her adult son was found not guilty of assault, but implies something about political connection. CWBChicago describes itself as:
CWBChicago was created in 2013 by five residents of Wrigleyville and Boystown who had grown disheartened with inaccurate information that was being provided at local Community Policing (CAPS) meetings. Our coverage area has expanded since then to cover Lincoln Park, River North, The Loop, Uptown, and other North Side Areas. But our mission remains unchanged: To provide original public safety reporting with better context and greater detail than mainstream media outlets.
This does not strike me as a reliable, mainstream news source at least in part because of their description. I'm wondering how others feel. It isn't used extensively on Wikipedia, but I see it on three other BLPs[76]. -The literary leader of the age✉15:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Brandon’s Bodies" seems to be hit-piece arguing thatBrandon Johnson is somehow personally responsible for murders in neighborhoods that were previously served by the (incredibly unreliable)ShotSpotter system. Source is clearlyGUNREL.CamAnders (talk)03:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: For after June 2025 only (note: my understanding was that no major personnel changes happened until July 2025, i.e. a bit after the Valnet acquisition, but I'm fine with this RFC date being June as I think the number of articles affected over the difference of a couple of weeks is fairly small and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis). With regards to better sourcing -- most original coverage from Military.com previously tended to be also covered by other military/natsec outlets (though some of those have also taken quality hits lately). I'm not too worried about finding other sources.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!21:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: Reading the linked piece, it seems to focus primarily on labor issues at military.com (layoff, union-busting, etc). While these could definitely have the effect of reducing the source's reliability, there's no real evidence that it actually has done so (at least yet). The primary concern presented in the article is that military.com will stop publishing important journalism, not that the journalism it does publish will be unreliable. That being said, the new owner's statement:Forget the ‘newsroom’ concept—we are a simple and honest editorial operation is enough to limit it's use to attributed opinion.CamAnders (talk)03:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Military.com writers guild, there is ample evidence this has already happened."Meanwhile, Valnet, the new Canadian ownership, has begun to publish articles by freelancers who have little-to-no journalism experience.""The articles make clear Military.com is moving away from hard news." The site is now selling advertising viapromotional affiliate links, which of course directly affects the quality of content.100% of the pre-acquisition staff have left the site, at which timethey ceased doing original reporting. The site was reported as beingeffectively dead.According to TheWrap“Valnet doesn’t care about exclusivity or quality,” said an insider familiar with digital publishing. “They arbitrage web traffic. They chase keywords in the same way day traders chase stocks. It’s quick gains over actual content. Their strategy treats digital content like a commodity. They flood the market with stories optimized for clicks rather than insight or originality.” This is what Wikipedia refers to as aWP:QUESTIONABLE source:Such sources include content farms, websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. So I'd dispute that there's no evidence that the site's reliability is in question. It sounds like a textbook unreliable, questionable source.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!07:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely agree that it's a questionable source, I just felt that fell under Option 2 rather than GUNREL. Happy to defer to editors with more experience on this board.CamAnders (talk)14:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - I'm apprehensive to go full deprecation, and based on how most of the Valnet acquisitions that we have listed at Perennial Sources are currently rated as MREL, it seems sentiment is that Valnet owned outletsmay be usable, though personally, based on their prioritisation of profit (see "clicks") over reporting, the reliability of any declarations must be in question as they could be taking a page from the tabloid world in choice of story, framing, and verification. --Cdjp1 (talk)11:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this just going to be what kills the wiki longterm? Our trusted sources increasingly become less and less reliable, forcing us to abandon them one by one? WaPo and LA Times are bought and become billionaire propaganda, CBS becomes an extension of TurningPoint, NYT reports Palestinians have brains closer to rats than humans, BBC reports that the average girl is raped by eight trans women a year, slowly one by one all of these sources abandon their pedigrees for accuracy and become propaganda machines until we have nothing we can actually trust?Snokalok (talk)21:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those funding might turn against all other viewpoints. Ever since the formation of the second Trump administration, most but not all major American media could not be trusted.Ahri Boy (talk)01:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there has been some positive changes over the past decade in academic publishing (increasing and better quality open access, journals based in non-'Western' countries increasing in quality and repute), the everpresent structures of ideology and political systems still hold much of the strings around research and the profit driven publishers are still dominant. --Cdjp1 (talk)11:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be no. Not that the scenario you're describing isn't possible or even likely; but I (perhaps optimistically, perhaps naively) would expect that along with a changing media landscape our policies and guidelines regarding reliability and sourcing will evolve with them.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think i was wrong, actually, though for another reason. looking back at the RFC proposal, I now see there was a link to a previous discussion and context. I didn't see Altenmann had placed a link, the blue text wasn't the regular diff link (like this [1])Will disagree on principle, RFCBEFORE seems required to RSP proposals.RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions. that warning is on this page.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCBEFORE isn't about prior discussions. Please actually go look at it. RFCBEFORE begins by saying things like"If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways" and"If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC", and then has a bullet list whose meaning is "You know, you could tryWikipedia:Peer review instead. Or have you thought about getting aWikipedia:Third opinion? Or the Teahouse! You could try the Teahouse!"
There is a literal page notice that opens up when you try to start a new discussion on this noticeboard. It says you need a discussion before you start an rfc. I dont know where that notice is encoded or when it became a thing, but that has been on this noticeboard for a while.
actually the language on opening up a new topic appears a bit stronger than i expected. Im not familiar with page notices, but if there is a discussion to change it please ping me, im interested to learn
i did not vote badrfc. I voted snow close. Its snowing unless someone elucidates a clear reason otherwise
originally didnt see the link from OP and thought someone put this discussion up without any context or info. In practice, i was wrong, but any rfc that shows up with no context in theory is annoying to editor.
many editors can say rfcbefore isnt met and i and others will continue to reserve the right to say guidance wasnt followed. What the impact of it happens next is up to closer, who weighs consensus and how community interpreted guidelines
you ofc have every right to complain when we yell rfcbefore, and we have every right to continue to call it out anyways
If someone votes BADRFC, and then cites RFCBEFORE, perhaps they are not saying that there exists policy that automatically dismisses the RFC. They are perhaps voting that the consensus you get out of the RFC is that they want additional info gathering and time to discuss it done before an RFC solidifies the convo. A closer has every right to dismiss such votes, or weight them appropriately.and again, I voted snow close 4 here.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Altenmann's characterizations are backed by what we find athttps://www.behindthename.com/info/contact :This website is maintained by Mike Campbell and Tara Campbell. It is based in Victoria, BC, Canada. We can be contacted at mike@behindthename.com, but we regret that we cannot answer all of our email. If you have a question about names, please ask it on one of the message boards. If you would like to submit an addition or correction, please see the submit-a-name page. For advertising information, please contact chris@admetricspro.com and indicate you are interested in advertising on behindthename.com.
In another thread (above on this page), it's pointed out thatBehind The Name has built up a reputation good enough to be endorsed by a highly respected organization like the New York Public Library (named as "reliable online dictionary"here). I'm afraid that falls short of what we'd need to see in order to treat a self-published, profit-making site (which is what behindthename is) as an RS:
The full statement (by a librarian at NYPL) is this:A name dictionary is the best resource, though it is a good idea to compare entries in more than one dictionary as they may differ in methodology and scholarship. A reliable online dictionary is BehindtheName.com. In context that's a qualified endorsement.
A useful parallel is ancestry.com, which Perennial Sources lists as "generally unreliable". Certainly a librarian will eagerly refer a patron to ancestry.com for any number of purposes -- purposes different from what we do here as Wikipedia editors. Same goes for behindthename.
Anything useful in behindthename ought to be available somewhere else -- a scholarly somewhere else. But unfortunately behindthename doesn't reveal its sources (which is another bad sign), so there's no way to look behind it's bare assertions. For all these reasons, I'm afraid it falls in the "deprecated" category. It's hard to imagine any way an article could use it.EEng21:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is a humongous list, half of which is personal communications. I specifically wrote about"name pages". Andhere is a disclaimer: "Submitted names are contributed by users of this website. The accuracy of these name definitions cannot be guaranteed". So, what is the "real" source for, e.g.,Amari or evenNicholas? The pages do not say this. But even they were citing, e.g. "Cottle, Basil. Dictionary of Surnames. Penguin, 1978.", then we'd rather cite Cottle as well (after double-check), rather than a hearsay. --Altenmann>talk00:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important whether it is useful, what is relevant is that they didn't make it up. For instance, the following is a quote from a source listed in the biography,Amari is one of several boys names ending in -mari that have recently become popular in the African - American community. What probably originated from them is the pronunciation, a list of related names, and, less likely, the hypothesis of its Arabic origin. Why do you propose to deprecate it when similar to itWP:ANCESTRY,WP:FOTW, andWP:IMDB are justWP:GUNREL?Kelob2678 (talk)08:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is no more or less reliable than published baby name books and dictionaries, which also don't generally cite their sources for every single name entry. Name meanings and histories have for the most part been done by hobbyists, not scholars, and most of the dictionaries are repeating the best guess of the previous hobbyist. Behindthename.com regularily updates its entries with new information and only adds names to the official database after vetting by the editors. It best represents the consensus of English name meanings and origins. You'd be restricted to The Oxford Dictionary of Names and Naming or onomastic research papers as allowable sources to raise the bar above behindthename.com. Plus Dr. Cleveland Evans regularily contributes to the site, a past President of the American Name Society.GoatnamedWilliam (talk)10:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that restricting sources to an Oxford branded dictionary and scholarly papers would be just fine with the participants in this RFC. In fact, if you could make a list of sources or scholarly journals on a page somewhere, that would be helpful.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list of journals is short as onomastics is not a big area of study. The impact would be large with many names not having been studied individually and wikipedia would be restricting itself to one source in many cases. And with no real improvement in accuracy either. The current list of sources has "The Romance of Names" by Weekley, which is entertaining but not scholarly.GoatnamedWilliam (talk)20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A librarian would direct a patron to ancestry.com for its extensive primary sources and documents, not for its genealogical relationships in the user generated trees.Katzrockso (talk)14:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding surnames origin, in all pages I've seen ancestry.com snatches its info fromDictionary of American Family Namesand says so, therefore whwrwver I use ancestly.com, I format the ref like this:"Petersen", ancestry.com, citingDictionary of American Family Names, — i.e., indicating both thereal source of wisdom, for faithful attribution, and the online page, for convenience. We could have done the same with behindthenames if it were using the same policy of decent referencing. --Altenmann>talk19:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hort Notes [I am assuming Hort is short for horticultural], foundhere, is a monthly newsletter published by the UMass Extension Landscape, Nursery and Urban Forestry Program at University of Massachusetts Amherst. It is described as "A monthly e-newsletter from UMass Extension for landscapers, arborists, and other Green Industry professionals."
AtTalk:Glyphosate#"Consensus", it has been suggested to use a 2017 newsletter[77] to support the claim "The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity".
Further information about the author of the short entry in the newsletter (Randy Prostak) can be found at the talk pagehere.
Two questions:
1) Is this a reliable source for claims in general about horticultural issues? 2) Is this a sufficiently high quality (MEDRS) source to support claims about consensus perWP:RS/AC?Katzrockso (talk)05:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find the qualifications of the author, and all I could find is that he is a "Extension Weed Specialist" according to the UMass Amherst College of Natural Sciences.[78] I could not even find mention of the Extension on theUMass Amherst Wikipedia page; It is only briefly mentioned onCampus of.... I could not find any evidence that he even has a Bachelor's degree--even on his LinkedIn page. --David Tornheim (talk)10:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a blog, or a news outlet? How reliable do you think? Judging from their "Our authors" page, it really seems like the latter, with a team of editorial staff and authors; but previous discussion points out that it was, at the year of 2020, a single-person site.SuperGrey (talk)06:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays the distinction between blogs and news outlets are blurred. If the owner declares themselves as a reporter snd the blog is predominnsnly news, then it is a news outlet. If a website is single-person, then the classification what kind of website it is, is moot. Now, isDylan Malyasov a recognized, respected reporter? In think not, outherwise we should have his wikibio.--Altenmann>talk07:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a cartographer, borders, roads, cities, all need to be cited like any other source. When looking for map layers to include, we tend to turn to the government agencies as authoritative sources on those things. Census data is generally considered to be reliable data, for example. When discussing a country likeWestern Sahara, if we choose to include it on a map or not is going to be dependent on the source we are using for borders. If I was making a map of roads for Wikipedia, there isn't a better source for roads then the agency in charge of maintaining those roads. Failing this, not most, but almost all the maps on Wikipedia need to be removed as either original research or for over use of primary sources.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)05:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red Ventures (RSP entry). A2024 RfC found Red Ventures properties to begenerally unreliable because"Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" and"The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic." TPG was excluded from the RfC because it was already on the spam blacklist, but I see no reason to believe that TPG is somehow more reliable than other Red Ventures properties. Considering TPG'sconflict of interest due to its affiliate marketing contracts with the finanical products offered by the credit card, airline, hotel, and other travel companies that are the subject of just about all of TPG's content, as well as TPG's prior history of spam, I oppose removing TPG from the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
